Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/October

The US pronunciation is given as /ˈʃeɪŋ.haɪ/, /ˌʃeɪŋˈhaɪ/. I don't believe this; for me at least there's clearly a difference between the vowels in pang and penguin, and the former is not /eɪ/. Maybe /æɪ/ but not /eɪ/. What do others think? Benwing2 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

In Western AmE /æ/ rises to or similar before a velar nasal. Hillcrest98 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm from Tucson AZ and I don't have such a thing in my speech. Raising to /eɪ/ would imply that ang and eng merge, which I don't believe to be General American (in my speech at least, pang peng(uin) ping have three different vowels). Benwing2 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I personally pronounce pang always as and penguin either the same way or rarely as . Note that I pronounce pan always as and pen always as . --WikiTiki89 18:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In the sense of "willing, ready", are these synonyms, or is there some subtle difference? By the way, what are the usual prepositions? "to" (+ infinitive or gerund?), "with", "for"? --Fsojic (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hard to say. I personally think "up for" suggests more keenness than "down for". ("Up to" doesn't mean "willing, ready" but "engaged in", e.g. being up to one's old tricks again.) "Down with" means something like "in agreement with; on the same side as" (?): it's a bit slangy. I don't think "up with" means anything. Equinox ◑ 12:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Origins tell a lot about words and word usage, especially when those usages become clipped or shortened and eventually opaque. I'm pretty confident that down in this sense originates from "put me/my name down for that" in the same sense as "sign me up for that", expressing volition. hope this was of any help Leasnam (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice explanation! --Fsojic (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Where I live, up and down have slightly different connotations, with down implying eagerness and up simply indicating readiness (contrary to Equinox's analysis, interestingly). For example, one can say I'm down! to say that one wants to do something, but not I'm up! One might say Who's down to go see a movie? as well as Who's up for seeing a movie? but not Who's up for seeing a movie? There is virtually no difference between the first and the second, though I find the first much more natural. On the other hand, Are you (feeling) up to see a movie? is less a question about the eagerness or enthusiasm of the person being asked than it is of simple willingness, or physical or emotional well-being. One can be up for a challenge, meaning being ready for it, but not down for a challenge unless one is actually eager for one. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Does it exist? The feminine equivalent of womanizer --Fsojic (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Very rarely used as a humorous nonce word; otherwise mentioned in books as a word that doesn't exist: . Equinox ◑ 14:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ms. Quentin seems to disagree with you.__Gamren (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Should we have an entry for henway? It gets upwards of 1,700 Google Books hits. Many of those are for fictional names, but the phrase "a henway" gets over 800 hits. bd2412 T 20:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Part of a joke (mention a henway; "what's a henway?"; the person tells you what a hen weighs). I first encountered this form of joke with "piecost" ("about 50p in the chip shop"). In a way it reminds me of the recent discussion about "I scream for ice-cream": puns deliberately and self-consciously mess with language, and it seems odd to include them as part of the language, even if known from one specific joke. Equinox ◑ 20:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Another recently popular one is "updog", leading to "what's up, dog?" Equinox ◑ 20:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Typically puns mess with language by misusing existing words, senses, or homonyms (my favorite example is from Rocky and Bullwinkle: "for a powerful magnate, he's not very attractive"). It is rare for them to rely on the creation of new words, but when they do, what has been created is still a word. bd2412 T 21:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

But these are all mentions. The whole point of the joke is that this doesn't mean anything- it's just a specific sequence of sounds set in a fake context in order to elicit a specific response. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a very small class of language objects that a reader would interpret as words. I am wondering whether this phenomenon exists in other languages. To the extent that they are citable, I don't think that their inclusion would harm the dictionary. In fact, I think that they are perfectly cromulent. bd2412 T 22:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the part of speech of the sound "hen weigh"/"henway", or "pie cost"/"piecost"? Equinox ◑ 22:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd think that usage compels one to say henway, piecost, and updog are used as nouns. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, it really does work the other way too. A US presidential candidate was asked "What he would do about Aleppo?" To which he replied, "What's a leppo?" DCDuring TALK 22:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that they are used as nouns. "Updog" also appears to be used as a noun in this example: Phillip Carpenter, Shreds of Humanity: An Action-adventure Sci-fi Novel (2006), page 181: "Man, I smell like updog.” “What's updog?” “Nothin' dog, what's up with you?—haw, haw." These would hardly be the only nonsense words that make it into the dictionary. Consider blarg, shpadoinkle, blabbity. bd2412 T 22:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Are we going to have separate punchline senses? "What's a Grecian urn? Not a lot these days, I bet." "Good evening, ladies and germs" "Surely you're not serious? Yes I am, and stop calling me Shirley", and any number of phrases with obscure terms to which someone might reply "that sounds painful". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That's beyond the scope of the discussion of lexemes that do not otherwise exist in the dictionary. Note that no one is proposing to add entries for hen weigh, pie cost, or up dog, either. bd2412 T 00:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

In any event, we are supposed to have lists of homophones, eg, way-weigh. We could use these entries to introduce some folks to the word homophone, which should have at least one definition comprehensible by normal humans. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Updog is an informal yoga term for upward dog. May be two words or require a hyphen. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

With a fairly rudimentary search, I have found one source for "updog" (and "downdog") in the yoga sense. I have also found a few sources, although not durably archived ones, that use henway to name the type of joke where you get someone to ask what something is based on the misuse of a homonym, coined or not, as a noun. For example, TVTropes has a page that says "A henway is a type of joke where the first person in a conversation uses a term in a way that leads the other person to respond with "what's <term>?"; they also include snoo and nunya, not mentioned above. bd2412 T 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Greek word γη does not mean "world, planet" as its primary definition. This word is more encompassed by κοσμος. The definitions would more properly be:

1. Land, country 2. Earth, soil 3. Land as sighted by sailors.

You could put world and people as #s 4 and 5 but it properly never really means that, however, many students of the bible still hold to this definition and will likely still think it should be there, but I maintain that it never refers to the globe. γη does not really mean "people of earth" either, perhaps it can be intended that way, but is more of poetic license by the writer and not formally a definition for the word in my opinion. — This unsigned comment was added by Gaijinmaru (talk • contribs) at 04:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

You need to remember that we only call Modern Greek "Greek", and that we treat Ancient Greek (including Biblical Greek) as a separate language. γη is a Modern Greek entry, and reflects Modern Greek awareness of modern science as well as influence from other modern languages. γῆ, on the other hand (note the accent), is an Ancient Greek entry, and is much closer to what you suggest. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes total sense. You are right that one looks good in that regard. Thanks for the time.

@CodeCat, Angr Words with Proto-Germanic */nd/ become OHG /nt/ as expected, but somehow /nd/ gets restored in Modern German (Ende, Hand, handeln, wandern, etc.). Yet this doesn't happen in unter or hinter. Is this an actual case of nd -> nt -> nd, or is this dialect mixing coming from Low German dialects? If the former case, what's going on with Winter (OHG wintar)? Interestingly, MHG does have winder as an alternant. Maybe there's a combination of nt -> nd and dialect mixing? If so, there would have to be mixing both from the north (Winter) and the south (unter, hinter). Whatever is going on, it might be worth mentioning in the etymology of some of these words. Benwing2 (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a sporadic phenomenon dating at least to Middle High German, here's a relevant passage.

Crom daba (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is (apart from the abbreviated form that I just added) the only entry for the "beg someone's pardon" expression. However, since forms such as "He begged my pardon" are possible, I feel that the lemma should be beg someone's pardon. Anyone disagree? Mihia (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon is a performative utterance, while he begs a pardon or I begged a pardon are not. They are not the same. That said, we don’t have I apologize and we explain nothing about it. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't totally understand your point. I am not suggesting that "beg a pardon" should be the entry (that is not idiomatic), but that "beg someone's pardon" should be the entry. Mihia (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I wanted to say I beg your pardon is a performative utterance while I beg his pardon is not. And there is a big difference in frequency: . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the importance, to be honest. Obviously "I beg your pardon" means something different, or is used in a different context, from "He begged my pardon" or "I beg his pardon", or whatever, but the same is true of any expression or even any verb which can have different people involved as subjects or objects. It doesn't mean that we need separate entries for different pronoun insertions. Mihia (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

We're missing at least one, and maybe several, biological senses of factor. It seems to be used to mean a protein responsible for the coagulation of blood, but I don't know enough about biology to write a cogent definition myself, nor do I know whether it also has other biological meanings. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Factor (disambiguation) on Wikipedia.Wikipedia has clues, but I'm not sure whether the articles are written in such a way as to make it easy to determine whether there is or is not a common element to the various "factors". Apparently almost all of them are proteins. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

<pharmacology> "Any of several substances or activities that are necessary to produce a result, for example a coagulation factor."

Often, use of the term factor indicates that the chemical nature of the substance or its mechanism of action is unknown, as in endocrinology, where factors are renamed as hormones when their chemical nature is determined. (from the Dictionary of Cell and Molecular Biology) DCDuring TALK 21:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a few lists of factors here\ from various Medical dictionaries including Dorland's, Mosby's, and Saunders. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This can be used as a greeting in Indian English, right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Not according to a waiter in my local curry house. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  I heard an Indian use it the other day as a greeting but I'm not sure if it would be considered English or an Indian language. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

According to this source, the kanji is likely coined in Japan as an alternative relation to the another kanji 鮸, a kind of fish. Could anyone clarify this? Dingo1234555 (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The "Kokuji Character Dictionary" quotes the "Encyclopedia of Various Knowledge About Interesting Fish" as claiming this is a kokuji with the meaning of 鮸(にべ) (nibe). Perhaps it arose as a corruption of 鮸?

—suzukaze (t・c) 05:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This kanji makes sense that this is a kokuji for the term "electricity", based from their compound 電気. Any clarifications? Dingo1234555 (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The current entry says that "second last" is dated, but I use it all the time. Is this a Canadian thing? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder, because second last is the only way I would express that idea in speech, and I'm a far cry from being an older speaker too. (I'm Canadian too, by the way.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In the UK we say (deprecated template usage) second to last. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In Éire I heard only last but one. See penultimate#Usage notes for US and UK (not mentioning CND, and without reference). Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Google Ngram Viewer: . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

How many folks outside academia use penultimate in speech? I have added some other common expressions that are synonyms of penultimate to another n-gram. The version I would favor has been in decline since my youth. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't say if it's exclusive to Canada, but I can definitely say it's still regularly used in Canada. Here are some examples:

• Second-last gas station to close in downtown Vancouver
• Nova Scotia ranks second last in small business vision report
• This was a great way to spend our second last day together!

— justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Definitely not dated. Common use in Australia at least. Removing the dated tag and Usage notes for now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing the Wikipedia item on "puck," the 4th definition involving hurling, I wanted to modify "hurling" to "Irish hurling," to distinguish it from the Cornish game, and add a mention of "camogie," the women's version of hurling. However, I am unfamiliar with the syntax of the internal linkage being used. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I edited puck in Wiktionary adding camogie, but I guess that the links are automated by some module and catch only hurling, not camogie. If you think the Irish and Cornish game are worth to have different entries, I suggest you to create them and document, then you can add it into the definition or propose their inclusion as different labels. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• See Module:labels/data. DCDuring TALK 09:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

all of these were defined as a synonym of piece of shit, but i think they should have actual definitions, not just defined as a synonym of piece of shit. for one, they are not synonyms for piece of shit in the literal meaning, so calling them such in the definitions is inaccurate. i gave them actual definitions and someone reverted me.

The literal meanings are SOP (Sum of Parts) and would be reverted. These entries can only stand if they have a non-literal meaning, which they do, as a synonym of POS (piece of shit) Leasnam (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I find it a bit distasteful to define a "clean" form using a "vulgar" form, though. Equinox ◑ 16:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I get it, but in many cases these are euphemisms for the vulgar form, aren't they ? Leasnam (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

But that's etymological information, not definitional information. Is there a better word for "definitional"? --WikiTiki89 18:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

But they're not synonyms, not perfect synonyms. No-one's saying to use the literal meanings, just tweak the definitions. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

yeah, they're not synonyms for piece of shit in all cases. you wouldn't refer to a turd as a piece of trash, piece of garbage or piece of junk. they should get actual definitions (not just synonym of), and maybe list synonyms at the bottom.

It's nice to have one good clear meaning in a single entry, and link it from others (it saves on duplicating text, and having to keep it synchronised everywhere whenever it changes): we could just add a gloss to the existing entries, e.g. "synonym of piece of shit (worthless object)". Equinox ◑ 20:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

See also: Pantheist, pan-theist, pan theist, Pan-theist and Pan-Theist. D'you ever get the feeling that people are a bit too alt-form-happy? I find it hard to believe that a "pan theist" isn't some sort of skillet-worshipper. Equinox ◑ 21:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the first one is German, I wouldn't touch it. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Caller I.D. is a similar case. Equinox ◑ 20:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

And look-a-like. Equinox ◑ 15:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If the forms exist in CFI-worthy attestations, we include them. The problem here generally arises from the tendency of people to use terms like these with many variations, not in our rules. bd2412 T 17:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Worth an entry? Fsojic (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fsojic Moved from talk page. What do you think it means? DTLHS (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a biblical metaphor for teaching/doctine for mature believers Leasnam (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1999, Martin H. Manser, Natasha B. Fleming, Kate Hughes, I Never Knew that was in the Bible!‎, page 427:

  STRONG MEAT If something is "strong meat," it is thought not to be suitable for people who are easily distressed or upset.
  The expression derives from Hebrews 5:12 (kjv): "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God: and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."

Although it is mostly used in a religious context, judging from Google Books, it was/is? sometimes used outside that context, probably in allusion to the epistle. It would be nice to know whether it is simply a calque from the epistle or was used in English before the first translations of the Bible into English in an SoP way. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Greek phrase literally means "solid food". I have no idea where the KJV translator got "strong", since that sense of the word is only used where "solid" means "sturdy", not "as opposed to liquid". "Meat", of course, is from the old general sense that it had before it became specialized to displace "flesh". Chuck Entz (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems entry-worthy as a "dead" metaphor, having achieved full rigor mortis by inclusion in the KJV. "Solid food", hardly seems like an adequate definition if one credits the cite above (as I would). DCDuring TALK 11:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep. And it's not liqueur chocolates, as "strong drink" might lead one to expect :) Equinox ◑ 12:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Other versions: OJB: having need of cholov and not solid okhel.; ES: alimento sólido, comida sólida; FR: nourriture solide; IT: cibi solidi, cibo solido; DE: fester Nahrung

Now commonly used:

'Fantasy leagues have a complicated structure in which "owners" constantly tinker with their active lineups to garner the most points from each week's games. Much time is spent in purchasing and activating players for the next week's games. Here is the definition of chalk given at Daily Fantasy Sports 101's "Daily Fantasy Sports Glossary: Making Sense Of The Language Of The Game" page:

' "Chalk – Refers to the favorites or the picks that everyone has on their line-up. If a player is ‘chalky’ that means he has a high ownership percentage So chalkiest refers to the most widely owned and activated player (at a particular position) during a particular week.

' "The term chalky may well have come from sports gambling. Google search results indicate that a "chalk play" is a sports gambling bet on a favorite to win or cover the point spread—it's the opposite of a "dog play." The bigger the favorite you're betting on, the "heavier the chalk"—or the "chalkier" the bet is.'

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/277902/what-does-the-term-chalkiest-mean-in-the-context-of-fantasy-football

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Are these correct? Should they in fact be "n-holed", rather than beginning with a hyphen? Equinox ◑ 19:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• .. and shouldn't 1-handle be i-handle in the second definition? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A 1-holed solid torus has a 1-handle, and an n-holed solid torus has n 1-handles. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it acceptable and/or at all common to put spaces in this kind of initialism when there are already dots? The proposed plurals look particularly weird: one a. u., two a. u.s? Equinox ◑ 11:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Initialisms with a period don’t take an -s of plural… Am I right? Spacing after periods seems to be dated (ex. ). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever seen abbreviations with both periods and spaces. However, sometimes spaces and be used with a middle dot ... and it can be used for abbreviations as well as regular words:   T · E · A   R · O · O · M   —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

From what I have seen, Shinji is correct on both counts. Equinox ◑ 15:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't 仫佬 also refer to the Mulao language, not just the people? — This unsigned comment was added by Supevan (talk • contribs).

Wouldn't the language have to be called 仫佬語? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

In the work Flatland I came across a use of the word retirement (actually in the plural) that is a bit different than its standard usages.

• When I was in Spaceland I heard that your sailors have very similar experiences while they traverse your seas and discern some distant island or coast lying on the horizon. The far-off land may have bays, forelands, angles in and out to any number and extent; yet at a distance you see none of these (unless indeed your sun shines bright upon them revealing the projections and retirements by means of light and shade), nothing but a grey unbroken line upon the water.

Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimension The use of this word seems to be referring to places where the shore recedes from view, like a bay, cove, inlet, etc. while the definitions given in the retirement entry don't seem to cover this. #4, an obsolete meaning for a "place of seclusion," would seem to come the closest but it seems to have the nuance of a room or villa set aside for the purpose of relaxation or escape---which is not referring to an intrinsic quality of the landscape, unlike the usage in Flatland. I didn't know if it was appropriate to add a #5 with this usage, or if I need to find other uses of "retirement(s)" with this sense to verify this wasn't just an idiosyncratic usage by Edwin Abbott Abbott.

2601:480:4101:B790:B88D:C477:2442:D385

• The OED has "A receding part; a recess. Obs." and "A secluded or private place; a retreat. Also in extended use. Now rare.". SemperBlotto (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the comment has a point and the OED doesn't really include it. With a few more sources I would add it. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 10:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way I can reduce this definition to its essence and not be so inappropriately specific? (I feel like "characterized by extreme edginess" would work, but "edgy" (sense 7) used in this way seems to be a recent internet innovation.) —suzukaze (t・c) 04:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps sophomoric could work, but what's wrong with translating internet slang with internet slang? We just need to note in edgy that it is usually pejorative. Crom daba (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dang, sophomoric matches great. Your logic for using edgy is also good. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There's also eighth grader syndrome if you want. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, as a direct translation of 中二病 I feel like it isn't very helpful in this case. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

How can this be a noun? Is it even English? Equinox ◑ 19:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

And I don't see how this could be translated like this. --Fsojic (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been listening to Gabrielle Aplin and I wonder, isn't there more than SoP when she sings panic cord, as it is in panic room? Have a happy Tuesday. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm being really lazy but can you quote the whole line? Beware cord/chord. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The line is "Maybe I pulled the panic cord". Perhaps she was thinking of the ripcord on a parachute, or the emergency brake cord on a train. I'm unaware of anything regularly called a "panic cord". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a pull-cord that calls the emergency services — or something. I searched for "the panic cord" on Google Books and only got about 10 hits (mostly duplicates), but: "Mr. Collins pulled the panic cord. All our rooms have little panic cords, really bead chains. If somebody feels ill or falls down and can't get up, all he has to do is get to the nearest cord and pull it and we send somebody up to see what's wrong."; and "Marion at number eight had had another fall and pulled the panic cord in her bathroom". Equinox ◑ 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking for a word for man that starts with G. It's not gent and not galoot. I can't think of any other words it might be. I know it's a British usage, and it's most probably a short word. I feel like I've heard it somewhere but I just can't place it. If it doesn't exist, what other uncommon words for man are there? Thank you.

guy? geezer? gaffer? Equinox ◑ 00:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

governor/gov? Or if it's old British usage, I'd say goom/guma. —JohnC5 00:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Also gome, groom Leasnam (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

git! Equinox ◑ 00:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this for a crossword? How many letters? I don't have anything 'better' than what the three others have already said. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

garcon 150.135.210.47 16:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

G-man :P —CodeCat 17:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Category:en:People&from=G. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if we don't help OP, or he/she never comes back, I think we have done some really good work here. Backslaps all round. Equinox ◑ 21:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you also proud of the category members in Category:en:People? I've moved half a dozen entries to Category:en:Demonyms and suspect we could do a lot more removal. I'd be amazed if we couldn't triple membership in the category. The growth in the number of categories is exceeded by the growth of undermaintained categories. DCDuring TALK 10:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Defined as a phrase with a first-person singular definition and categorized in Category:English nouns with no noun section. I'm not quite sure what to do with the first definition as it also has Category:English imperatives but there is no verb (it is implicit) and even the second definition I'm fairly sure that's a noun but it could do with review also.

NB {{rft}} is producing a Lua error. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Since when are m and t mandatory parameters? DCDuring TALK 17:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not consistent with how we present similar commands, such as at ease. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

should this get an entry? it is at times used instead of years old, typically to avoid saying "old". he is 85 years young.

Yep. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the japanese in these articles should all be linked together in some way, but am not sure what way, or even if this is correct at all.

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%E6%8E%B4%E3%82%80#Japanese https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%E6%8E%B4#Japanese https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%E6%91%91#Japanese

Worth an entry? Fsojic (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

With what meaning? Is it an NP or a predicate? DCDuring TALK 10:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

People can trade glances, insults, snide remarks, blows, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is just trade + barb sense 2: 'a hurtful or disparaging remark'. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• I assumed it was something like a trade tariff! Renard Migrant (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Are we missing a meaning here? I've read this: "The government had changed the rules to say that overseas students had to be in the country for three years before he or she could qualify for grants. Priced out of the education system, he decided to earn some money before returning to India." This is readily understandable (and obviously closer to the meaning of "price out of the market") Fsojic (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. IMO we are missing the more common meaning(s). I would convert ] to a redirect and move the definition and usex from there to ]. making the necessary adjustments. We may need two new defs. at ], one for an object of exchange, another for a buyer. There may even be usage with sellers as object. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep it's real and we lack it. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:sum of parts for the deletion discussion. No, I find no linguistic meaning, and I think the definition for a linguistic meaning is inappropriate. I see this being used in the sense of the sum of anything's parts, though. The discussion seems to disregard that sense, and the entry was deleted. Searches: groups and this and this. I see a lot of "the whole is greater than the sum of parts" suggesting that sum of parts, in its practical meaning rather than its Wiktionaric meaning, may actually be an alternative form of sum of its parts. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the current definition of sum of its parts ("A concept in holism. Related to the idea that the total effectiveness of a group of things each interacting with one another is different or greater than their effectiveness when acting in isolation from one another.") is really bad. We need to make a much more concise and substitutable definition. --WikiTiki89 16:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A Vietnamese term

Dictionaries (online and published) say it also means "bra", ""brassiere". A native speaker User:Fumiko_Take disagrees. Do dictionaries tell the truth? Any more takers, @Wyang? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It means “bib; breastplate; Vietnamese bra, bodice, yem”. “Western bra” seems to be a carry-over meaning that is rarely intended by yếm alone. Wyang (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yếm refers only to the traditional Vietnamese garment. I'd like to know specifically what dictionaries you're referring to. Beware that even well-known ones such as The Complete Costume Dictionary could give the wrong impression if one's not carefully aware of what it says; in fact, someone thought yếm dãi "bib" was the same as yếm and used The Complete Costume Dictionary as a reference source on Wikipedia. ばかFumiko￥^talk 17:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take Thanks. The two online dictionaries are and . They both show "cái nịt vú and "cái yếm" (misleadingly with classifiers). Published: Tuttle English-Vietnamese dictionary has "yếm" defined as "bra (brassiere)" . --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

One thing I know for sure after all this time learning a foreign language is that, you basically should throw away bilingual dictionaries featuring Vietnamese; if they're not from a trusted publisher like, say, Oxford Press or Hachette, they're nothing more than trash. Those two online dictionaries are essentially identical. I looked up salamander on both, and sure enough, I've got "con rồng lửa". F*cking "fire-breathing dragon". Dragons are usually described with reptilian features, and yet they just have to refer to a f*cking amphibian (be it mythological or not) as a "fire-breathing dragon". It'd be tolerable if the closest one can use to translate the word yếm into English is "brassiere" (you know, there's a reason why the English Wikipedia never attempted to "translate" the word yếm: "closest" isn't adequate to be perfectly understood); sure, sometimes, you just need something blunt and rough, not the academically correct definition, because you're not that kind of obsessive geek; but defining brassiere as yếm is stupid: as far as I know, no one call a bra yếm, and that does not help Vietnamese learners of the English language one bit. Yếm can be used in compounds (in other word, its derivatives, not itself) for garments that resemble it; but bras aren't one of those garments (it does not look like an yếm one bit). And mind you that, since the word yếm is monosyllabic, and the Vietnamese spelling is also monosyllabic, it'd potentially take forever to find an actual use of it as a synonym of xu-chiêng and the like. Vietnamese bilingual dictionaries sicken me; they make Vietnamese English-language learners dumber because they eliminate the opportunities of actually learning and understanding the English words; they, at best, are only useful for foreign tourists who just want to learn some Vietnamese-derived pidgin, without taking much care of really know what the words mean. ばかFumiko￥^talk 13:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Another example of how sh*tty Vietnamese bilingual dictionaries are a. It barely scratches the surface of such a complex concept as "slick". ばかFumiko￥^talk 10:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be labeled "adjective"? This reminds me of another conversation (@Wikitiki89) --Fsojic (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be more comfortable with saying that a prepositional phrase is adjectival, rather than saying it literally is "an adjective". Mihia (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Prepositional phrase is accurate and also economical should there be adverbial usage. DCDuring TALK 20:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Mihia (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I should have pinged you and @Droigheann as well, btw. Sorry about that, @DCDuring. --Fsojic (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to ping me for anything on the main discussion pages. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone who knows a bit about linguistics take a look at the linguistics definition given here? It seems very much at odds with the explanation given on Wikipedia which does not mention anything about translation at all. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems it exists: "Compare the sense of the term "lacuna" (also referred to as a semantic void or lexical gap), as traditionally used in Translation Studies. This is usually understood as the absence in the target language of a (non-shifted) equivalent of some word or expression in the source language."

So we're missing the Wikipedia definition. --Fsojic (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the alpha in this Ancient Greek word long or short? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think by Osthoff's law it has to be short. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I figured the answer would come from a PIE analysis. Thanks, Aɴɢʀ. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

From a PIE POV, in both etymologies the -αρ- comes from a syllabic r̥ in the zero grades kr̥p-/kʷr̥p-, and syllabic r̥ always gives short -ᾰρ-. My first answer was purely synchronic: because of Osthoff's law, long ᾱ can't appear before ρ in the same syllable, so the vowel in καρπός must be short. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aɴɢʀ: Understood. I'm just not familiar with any of these laws. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

pud, Etymology 1, sense 2). Penis. Should this be a different Etymology ? For one, the pronunciation doesn't really relate in any way to pudding (let alone the meaning...). I always took pud to be a dissimilated form of spud. Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I just saw Online Etymology Dictionary's entry, and I am still unsure. There is a big gap between 1719 to 1939. Is this legit ? Leasnam (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I always assumed it was short for pudding (and pronounced that way), but never really thought about it. Where did you find your pron? It's not in Chambers. Personally I've only heard it as pull one's pud (i.e. masturbate). Equinox ◑ 18:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I've only seen it in writing (usually online) and just assumed it was the u in cup. But now that you mention it, I think I've heard "pull my pud" and the u's match between pull and pud Leasnam (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll take it Leasnam (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Argh, sorry, when I said "it's not in Chambers" I meant the entire sense of pud=penis, not just your pronunciation. So reopen if you want! Equinox ◑ 18:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Appreesh, but I'm good for now. I'll research a little more and if I find something different, like the other pronunciation, I'll reopen. Thanks :) ! Leasnam (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

They're defined as "to load"(ŝarĝi), and "to load, burden" (ŝargi) and what little else there is doesn't seem to make the difference clear. The 2010 Esperanto-English dictionary says "ŝargi" means to prepare for use, which would imply that the ŝargi definition is just wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This is categorised as a 3-syllable word, but the IPA has only 2. —CodeCat 17:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Syllable division in the pronunciation of Portuguese words is often distinct from orthographic syllable division. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

{{hyphenation}} considers them equivalent, though. It was originally implemented in {{syllable categorization}} by User:Daniel Carrero, a native Portuguese speaker, and the code has been moved to Module:hyphenation since. —CodeCat 17:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

In Portuguese, syllables are traditionally counted through hyphenation, and hyphenation is governed by predictable grammar rules developed by prescriptive authorities. According to these rules, "Aarão" really has 3 (orthographic) syllables, because you always separate "aa" into two syllables. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes about as much sense as saying English large has two syllables. —CodeCat 17:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

In Portuguese, largo means large and really has 2 syllables, because of the rule stating that two consonants with separate sounds in the middle of the word like "-rg-" go into separate syllables always. I wouldn't mind having separate categories like Category:Portuguese 3-syllable words (phonetic) and Category:Portuguese 3-syllable words (hyphenation). Maybe we can think of better names. I'm thinking this might work for English. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, in my experience that name is really pronounced as /a.a.ˈɾɐ̃w̃/, but people saying /a.ˈɾɐ̃w̃/ sounds plausible nonetheless. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The audio file for this character in Mandarin Chinese sounds a lot like zhi in third tone instead of first tone, am I wrong? — This unsigned comment was added by Supevan (talk • contribs) at 20:21, 17 October 2016.

Supevan (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it sounds like tone 3 too. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is incorrect. Replaced now. Wyang (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Could someone check what I wrote? @Renard Migrant, this edit was wrong, even though I agree that translating an interjection with a verb was weird. --Fsojic (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, "well done" is the {{&lit}} sense which fr:bien fait has as a full entry. I think it probably appeared on one of my cleanup lists and therefore it was done rushedly (is that even a word?) but it wasn't a wrong edit because the sense exists. fr:bien fait calls it an adverb which makes more sense to me than interjection. How to word it, yeah, that's harder. I'd go with serves one right, add a citation, and move everything else to usage notes. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The translation "well done" was added at the same time as a bunch of other translations by a user who is, as far as I can remember, not particularly trustworthy. But regardless of his trustworthiness, this translation is just wrong (bien joué would be a better translation of well done). As for the lexical category, I'd say there are two: "bien fait !" used absolutely really does look like an interjection; in "c'est bien fait pour toi" ("serves you right"), not so much indeed... Actually, tant mieux (and tant pis, and dommage) works (almost) exactly the same way, I think. "tant mieux !"; "c'est tant mieux"; "tant mieux pour toi !" (cf. good for you, bully for you, which are also labeled as "interjections"). I don't like so much to say "c'est tant mieux pour toi"; it exists, but it seems a tiny bit less grammatical to me than "c'est bien fait pour toi". "dommage !"; "c'est dommage". --Fsojic (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless you're disputing that bien means well or that fait means done, I don't see how "bien fait" doesn't mean "well done" in certain contexts. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This one ought to do it; « tout ce qui a été fait par ses ordres a été bien fait ». Renard Migrant (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course it means "well done" in certain contexts (basically, the same cases as for the English adjective well done; bien fait doesn't have a specific meaning in cooking, though), and it means that in the example you just provided; but my point still stands: you can't translate the English interjection "well done!" by "bien fait !", it doesn't make any sense. --Fsojic (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So when you said "this translation is just wrong" what you actually meant was "Of course it means "well done" in certain contexts". Well I'm glad you cleared that up. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have always noticed that I pronounce the words of and from (when stressed) with a different phonemic than the love and rum. This phoneme is more rounded than /ʌ/ and only occurs only in a few words (of, from, and maybe a few more that I can't remember at the moment). This phoneme is also different from my /ɒ/ (as in com) and from /ʊ/ (as in my pronunciation of room). Does anyone else have this or is this just me? Is it a widespread phenomenon? Is it perhaps unique the Northeastern US or to New England? --WikiTiki89 21:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of that. For me, the stressed pronunciations of of and from rhyme perfectly with love and rum, while in British English (to the best of my knowledge) they rhyme with sov and Tom. I notice that sov and the British pronunciation of stressed of are the only words in Rhymes:English/ɒv. What vowel do you have in the stressed pronunciation of was? That's another one that tends to have the LOT vowel in British English and the STRUT vowel in American English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

In was I have a regular /ʌ/ (as in does and buzz). --WikiTiki89 22:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

My English follows the British model you described. —CodeCat 23:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the things that signals to me that an actor is British. Even if they are great at the general phonology, they sometimes use the wrong vowel phoneme when emphasizing these little function words: for instance, Gregory House. I have heard some Americans use the lot vowel in was, though. I wonder if it's a dialectal thing. — Eru·tuon 02:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add the meaning this word has in linguistics, but I don't know how to phrase it. --Fsojic (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What is it, roughly? I've only heard it as a factor in foreign-language learning, but that's just... well, normal motivation. Equinox ◑ 22:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox: mmh... It might not be the best example but... bridegroom comes from Old English brȳdguma; however, the second part of that word, guma wasn't understood by English speakers anymore; it had lost its "motivation" (meaning, more or less), it wasn't "motivated" anymore. So they replaced it with something more "telling/eloquent/evocative" instead, that is groom. Btw, I found this: "In the context of Sausserean linguistics, the notion of linguistic motivation usually opposes the notion of arbitrariness that is deemed to characterize linguistic signs". --Fsojic (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Created a ton of very strange male and female names, like Icy. Are any/all of them real? Equinox ◑ 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I know/knew a Mckenzie, Mckenna, Greyson, Emelia, Talon (or maybe he spelled it Talen), Ivanna, Kenley, Shayla, Jordy (she was a girl though), and Yahya, and have seen Everly, Lyla, Adelyn, Rhett (as in Rhett and Link), Finnegan, Macie, Juniper, Deacon, Saylor, Rohan, and Anakin, so they're not all bogus. There are a lot of other names that I'm familiar with, but not in that exact spelling. I wouldn't be surprised if they were all valid, but many are obviously hip/trendy names and variations of names (things like Camron should probably link to their main form if they are in fact valid). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been spot-checking some of the ones I didn't recognize, and they all check out, although most were rather rare. What concerns me more is the sheer volume: in one 4-hour stretch they did 193 entries, or about 75 seconds per entry, on the average, and about 400 for the day. While it's theoretically possible to do that without a bot, it certainly looks suspicious. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

They would only have had to copy-paste, though, so the actual creation of each entry could easily have taken as little as 5-10 seconds. I wouldn't be surprised if they were just using a name list, though. I doubt they spent much time verifying the names. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Mostly insults. Are we supposed to gloss these where they appear on thesaurus pages? Equinox ◑ 00:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be a misrepresentation not to mark them as such. I've tried my hand at it, and also added a bunch of regional terms for white people. Feel free to improve/expand it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Could we add white trash? --Fsojic (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference in meaning between these verbs, in the sense of "to pass, to give"? I'm asking because I'm looking for a good translation of the French phrase "Pourrais-tu me passer le sel ?". "Could you hand over the salt?", "Could you hand the salt?", "Could you pass me the salt?" --Fsojic (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Could you hand over the salt?" would imply that someone had stolen the salt and you were compelling them to give it back to you by force. "Could you hand the salt?" isn't grammatical since "hand" is transitive- it would have to be "hand me". DTLHS (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean that "hand" is doubly transitive and requires both a direct object and an indirect object. --WikiTiki89 14:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Simple past tense and past participle of wind, OK, but which verb? The first (IPA^(key): /ˈwɪnd/) I suppose, given the twelfth meaning of the noun? Same for the sense "out of breath"? Same for "long-winded" (I suppose so, given the pronunciation IPA^(key): /ˌlɒŋˈwɪndɪd/ I've just found on Macmillan)? --Fsojic (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, both of these are pronounced /ˈwɪndɪd/ and relate to the noun wind (/wɪnd/, “movement of air”), not to the verb wind (/waɪnd/, “to turn”). --WikiTiki89 14:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess I got confused by the meaning "to coil, to entwist", which made me think of convoluted, which could be seen as a synonym for long-winded (or maybe not?). --Fsojic (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Long-winded just means long and tedious, while convoluted means confusing and hard to follow. --WikiTiki89 14:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If you'd prefer to link to a verb, wind#Etymology 1 has the following definition:

(transitive) To cause (someone) to become breathless, often by a blow to the abdomen.

The boxer was winded during round two.

OT: I'd prefer a more plausible usex:

By round two the older boxer was already winded.

I'm not sure that the underlined text should be part of the definition.

Though long-winded is obviously derived from wind#Etymology 1, it is not clear whether the source is the noun or the verb. No current sense of wind among our definitions or MWOnline's (noun or verb) is a good fit with the more common meaning of long-winded.

I think it's a participle formed from the noun used as a verb. The idea is that the speaker is endowed with a prodigious amount of wind- as in breath- so that they never seem to run out of it, but just keep going on and on, forever. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, though get wind of could be and is often considered an idiom, some dictionaries have a definition we lack, eg, wind (“slight information especially about something secret; intimation”) from MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Generally "X-Yed" means "having an X Y", e.g. "blue-eyed" means "having blue eyes". "Long-winded" figuratively means "having a long wind" or taking a lot of breath. Equinox ◑ 02:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's etymology 3 of -ed. It's actually separate from the past participle ending. —CodeCat 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Also known as bahuvrihi. I read somewhere that such compounds aren't formed very readily in Modern English, but actually that's not quite true, since the -ed suffix is productive and if you attach it to a compound stem, the result has a bahuvrihi meaning. — Eru·tuon 02:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts as bahuvrihi since there is a meaning-adding suffix involved. —CodeCat 13:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: Yeah, I'm not sure either, though arguably the only meaning that -ed adds is the syntactic category "adjective"... — Eru·tuon 17:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bahuvrihi compounds are nouns, though. The main thing about them is that none of the parts of the compound is the head of the phrase which refers to anything. The word "bahuvrihi" itself meant "much rice", but it didn't refer to rice. It referred to a person who is described by having much rice. "Long-winded" doesn't refer to anything that has a long wind. It's just an adjective. Also, the fact that -ed by itself can also refer to possessing something (bearded) confirms that the suffix is an essential part of the meaning and not just some kind of POS switch. —CodeCat 17:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aren't the second and seventh definitions identical? Btw, would it be a good idea to have a category for all the adjectives suffixed in -ly (as cowardly, likely, weekly, lovely, etc.)? --Fsojic (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And what do you guys think of the adverbs cowardlily, likelily, lovelily, etc. (complete list)? --Fsojic (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd RfV all that you mentioned. I haven't looked a the whole list. Also, poetry isn't a great source of citations that show meaning. Apart from the lexicography, I'd never use them, might not notice them if someone did use them, and would be annoyed by them if I did notice them. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Good site, though, for identifying occurrences of letter sequences in words. Our software doesn't make it easy to identify them online, though dump analysis can provide lists. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Worth an entry? --Fsojic (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Worth inclusion in a usage example at ] or ], because it is a common collocation. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

On a similar note, no. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Relatedly, we don't have a definition of note#Noun that corresponds to the usage in the phrase under discussion. MWOnline has: "something (as an emotion or disposition) like a note in tone or resonance" <a note of sadness> <end on a high note> DCDuring TALK 22:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's the sense. It's like a written note, just not written. A note of sadness is a different sense and probably is musical at least in reference. Note as in 'a small amount of information' (just not written). Renard Migrant (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you'd use the preposition "on" for a physical written note, would you? "On the note I just gave you, get some butter"? Equinox ◑ 00:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

In the same vein, MWOnline has vein ("a line of thought or action"). DCDuring TALK 01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The musical metaphor strikes a chord with me.

Dictionary.com (RHU) has two candidates:

"a mark, quality, or indication of something, especially as a submerged but ubiquitous element: <There was just a note of bitterness in his films.>

"a signal, announcement, or intimation: <a note of warning in her voice>

I think the first of RHU's is close, though I don't like the "especially" phrase.

The phrase and its siblings are used to introduce something that is related to/similar to/like the topic, but in a different way than might be expected. One could, however, say "On a different note....". This would seem to me to be used to introduce a discordant, but topical element. "One the same note" seems to me to introduce a reinforcing commentary, data, or narration. In all of these note seems to refer to something other than the topic, something more evaluative, emotional, personal, or perhaps political. Does that fit in anyone else's idiolect? DCDuring TALK 01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

At 0:47, this seems very slangy to me. --Fsojic (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's just "healthy" as short for "That's healthy for your relationship"; but we do seem to be missing a more metaphorical sense of healthy as "beneficial". I wouldn't call it slang, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. "healthy for your relationship/a healthy relationship (...for your girlfriend )", but I too would say "beneficial"/"sound", maybe "solid"/"strong" might also be implied Leasnam (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that the /ˈd(j)uːʃi/ pronunciation of duchy was removed as "unreferenceable." And while I agree it's not easy to find a reference in a mainstream dictionary (I checked), it's also the only way I heard the word duchy pronounced when I was growing up. It's how my mom always said the word, and she was a native English speaker. It was the /ˈdʌtʃi/ pronunciation I found odd when I first encountered it as an adult. Paradoxically, I heard the word duchy as /ˈduːʃi/ from history studies before I ever encountered the homophone douchy. Now, I can't provide a reference of where /ˈd(j)uːʃi/ comes from for this word, but it would seem very strange not to list it as an alternate pronunciation. I propose that the pronunciation /ˈd(j)uːʃi/ mainly arises in contexts where the word duchy is an obscure term encounter in history books rather than a relevant household word. It is, at least, a good faith non-standard pronunciation, just like /ˌmɛtəˈθiːsɪs/ instead of the more standard /mɪˈtæθɪsɪs/ for metathesis. - Gilgamesh~enwiki (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The first time I heard this word, my friend pronounced it like ducky. I'm not trying to say that that's an established pronunciation, but merely giving an example that most people nowadays aren't familiar with the pronunciation of this word. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there are an arbitrary number of good-faith mispronunciations of obscure words that people see only in writing, and I think it's a bad idea to include them unless they are relatively common; including them gives the wrong impression that someone could just use them and expect to be understood. IMO rare alternative pronunciations should only be included if they can be verified from another dictionary. Benwing2 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The usage note explicitly says that this neologism is not part of normal Swedish. That sounds like it doesn't belong in the Swedish pronoun table, where it's listed. Korn (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

For this, and many fruits and vegetables, the plant sense is often given first and the fruit/vegetable sense after. I assume this is either due to influence from Wikipedia or the botanical community. We've often debated whether etymology or frequency should have priority, but in most of these cases both etymology and frequency would suggest putting the fruit/vegetable sense first and the plant sense after. --WikiTiki89 15:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think the definitions will need to be reworded? Is it OK if “the fruit of the watermelon plant ” comes before the definition of watermelon plant? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It would usually (almost always?) be better for the food sense for plants to precede the plant sense. I don't think something similar applies very often to food from non-plant sources.

In principle, they should be reworded, the idea being that the definitions in an entry should be readable in sequence without requiring backtracking. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, I think each sense should be worded to be comprehensible independently of other senses, unless that would make it too wordy. --WikiTiki89 17:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Amen! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is the first entry labeled as "English", while the second is Latin? --Fsojic (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Because "ad nauseam" is used in English all the time, but "ad libitum" is only ever seen in English in the contraction ad lib. If you use "ad nauseum" in English, you will be understood. If you say "ad libitum", then most anglophones will stare at you blankly until you clarify as "ad lib".

That said, ad nauseam needs a Latin section.

--Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 21:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Does strongman or strong-man have a technical meaning in the context of a traditional fox-hunt that our entry doesn't cover? (And neither does Wikipedia.) I just wondered about the sentence "The fox is kept at bay in it's lair by blocking or guarding all the exits the team can find, while the strong-man digs the fox out with mattock and shovel" here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Angr, Renard Migrant This word looks wrong to me, could someone fix it? It formerly was defined both for French and Old French, and I deleted the French defn because it looked quite wrong. Benwing2 (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure why you pinged me; Old French is outside my area of expertise. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The French was a bot error. Where to start? http://micmap.org/dicfro/next/dictionnaire-godefroy/266/5/mesaisi gives a single masculine plural hit for 'mesaisis' from circa 1180( FEW gives only this as well, column 2 lines 4-5). It seems to be a mix of mesaise, noun and mesaisié which of course doesn't have an acute in the e in the original manuscripts as they didn't exist yet. If I were still an admin I'd happily speedy it now. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Whaleyland as the creator of the entry in case he can shed some light on it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the ping. Since I added the word a year ago, I cannot determine precisely where I saw it, but it is definitely from Les Grandes Chroniques de France (Jules Viard, tomes VII-IX), Les Chroniques des règnes de Jean II et de Charles V (Roland Delechenal, tomes I-III), Histoire de Charles VI, roy de France, par Jean Juvenal des Ursins (in Nouvelle collection des mémoires pour servir a l'histoire de France, tome 2 ), or Chronique de Charles VII roi de France par Jean Chartier (Vallet de Viriville, tomes I-III). It is unlikely to be from that last source as I do not think I was using that until this year. Unfortunately I do not have anything more precise than that, but I can tell you that I copied the word directly from the transcription, so the spelling should be accurate. The word falls in the transition period from Old to Middle French. Whaleyland (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm yes google books:mesaisie gets plenty of hits. They seem to be for mesaisi and at least once for mesaisié without the final acute. I'm certainly not seeing anything for a noun, though the original entry for mesaisie mixed noun, adjective, Old French and French. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So IMO we shouldn't have mesaisie separate from mesaisié; if we want an entry for the former, it should soft-redirect to the latter probably (with a separate non-lemma entry for mesaisie feminine of mesaisi, if we care about that). Benwing2 (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I personally would prefer a redirect of some sort so that it crawls on Google better. I use Wiktionary almost daily (I've finally reverted to making my own dictionary in Google Sheets just because I don't have time to enter all the new words onto Wiktionary itself) and Google searches better when the word has its own page rather than is just buried on another page. If I see this word used as a noun again, I'll note it here. Sorry I don't know the specific place where I saw it, though – I wish I had the time to add context sentences for all of the words I find but the spare time is just not there. Whaleyland (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Turn it into a regular feminine form and use {{also}}. WT:AFRO (best shortcut name ever) does cover it; "The acute accent is only used on the letter e, and only on the last letter, or second to last letter when the final letter is an s. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

On Google Books there is a 1370 citation that keeps popping up: "Et regarda sa gent qui moult et mesaisie." ('et' (and) is clearly an error for 'est' (is)). Renard Migrant (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a noun, really, is it? Misuse of noun-plural parameter. Equinox ◑ 10:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not a noun. --WikiTiki89 14:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a noun just deest and desunt both agree in number with the referrent. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What should we change it to? It reminds me of pinxit and sculpsit, except that those can be found as nouns (which is how we define them) — though they aren't always. Equinox ◑ 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Are we sure it's English and not multilingual? I see a lot of Google Books hits in other languages. As for part of speech: in Latin, it's the third-person singular present form of a verb, with desunt being the third-person-plural present form. It does remind me of an interjection, though, in that it's really grammatically independent of its context and might be interpreted as a complete sentence. In other ways it resembles an adjective, since it always is used to give information about a noun/proper noun. Whatever it is, it's definitely not a noun, especially not a countable one- if it were, "three desunt" would make sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just found a similar issue at other's (given as a noun): others' is not its plural. Equinox ◑ 15:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do we have other's at all? I thought we had a convention against having entries for words with the 's clitic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No idea, it seems to have no merit at all that I can discern. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete form of drog, which we don't have in English. Could someone explain the citation? Equinox ◑ 15:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A typo for dredging? DTLHS (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The OED has "drudge" and "druge" alternative spellings for "dredge" from the 16th-17th centuries. DTLHS (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

After posting this, I saw drogue, which might be the one. Equinox ◑ 22:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Noun. The given citation could very easily be a typo for drudgery (I have confirmed it's not a scanno). Is it legit? Equinox ◑ 15:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A bit odd. I found only one Google hit for "he foot-tripped me", and practically all of the (not very numerous) results in Google Books are about walking trips, i.e. journeys on foot. Equinox ◑ 14:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Never heard of it, FWIW. Mihia (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Worth an entry? --Fsojic (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say probably not, since it is just one of numerous possible "body of ..." phrases that should be covered by a definition at "body". I notice that body of work has an entry, but arguably its meaning is slightly less obvious from its parts. Mihia (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, there are lots of these, like "body of law" and "body of correspondence" (i.e. letters exchanged). Equinox ◑ 21:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify if this term is an alternative spelling of the obsolete Japanese reading mizugane (kun'yomi reading of 水銀). Dingo1234555 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Dingo1234555: It's unclear to me what you're asking. I had a go at the entry; does that address your concerns? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  (There wasn't a noun section when this statement was posted. —suzukaze (t・c) 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC))

I guess adding City of (possibly preceded by the) in front of a city's name is acceptable, if rarely used, right? I (an American) am used to seeing it to refer specifically to a city's government, so I guess I could use the reassurance of seeing a definition or usage note added to City that states that people sometimes informally upgrade, if you will, a city's name this way. (I hope I'm making sense.) --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not specific to city, though. It seems to be usable with anything below the national level. It's more formal, so it may be used more for governments, but I have no problem saying I'm a resident of the city of Los Angeles, the county of Los Angeles, and the state of California. I might also say the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of California- but one isn't the resident of a government, however you capitalize it. There are also geographical terms that can be used this way, too: the continent of North America, for instance. It doesn't seem to work with countries, and with geographical names that include their type in the name, such as the San Fernando Valley or the Pacific Plate, and there are probably other exceptions. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In New York State, for example, City of precedes the informal name of each city to make the "official name" of each city, eg, City of Albany. Legal documents use the official name at least once. In addition there may be a need to distinguish the City of Albany from coterminous governmental entities such as the City School District of Albany because they have different powers under New York State Law. In some cases, eg, Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Mamaroneck, the Village lies within the Town and has distinct powers, including of taxation.

One can also contrast the coterminous entities such as Queens County and the Borough of Queens, the first being principally of historic interest.

I suspect that something similar applies in other states, the City of, Town of, Village of, State of/Commonwealth of. One can find usage of County of, but principally in older documents. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm in New York City myself, and I'm not sure the distinction between the borough and the county is principally historic. If I'm not mistaken, legal documents still refer to the county rather than the borough. I know for certain that a notary public's stamp states (for example) Richmond County and not Borough of Staten Island. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, your answer reminded me of a clickbait link I saw not long ago on a Greek website that read, Η πόλη της Ελλάδος , and the linked article was inspired by the official name of Greece, New York. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Chuck Entz. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"To hang on the rope after falling off a climb." This is given as a noun. Should it be a verb, or does it need rephrasing as a noun sense? Equinox ◑ 11:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

As other dictionaries (as contrasted with glossaries) don't cover this, we could really use citations. WP's climbing glossary has a more general definition, also worded as a verb: "While lead climbing or on top rope, to hang on the rope or a piece of protection for a rest." One can find uses of hangdogging. I didn't have much luck with hangdogs, hangdogged, but found some use of to hangdog, apparently in the climbing sense. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that the entry "search me" exists! I'd love for someone to add an audio pronunciation. A non-native speaker learning this expression just by reading it would get it totally wrong without being exposed to the rising and then lowering pitch that I would guess is used universally.

In fact, it occurs to me that this is a rare(?) case in which pitch changes meaning in the English language. When this concept comes up while someone is teaching Chinese, there's often an implication that this never happens in English. If you say "Search me" with a flat intonation, you literally are asking someone to hunt for something in and around your person. If you use the rising and then lowering pitch, you are saying "I don’t know."

By the way, I think the audio pronunciation that accompanies the entry "na na na na na na" is absolutely perfect! DanwWiki (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The template {{rfap}} can be used to request an audio pronunciation. I added it to the entry. — Eru·tuon 16:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I would also like an etymology for this phrase. bd2412 T 15:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious. "If you search me, you won't find any evidence suggesting that I know anything about this." As for tone, tone can punctuate (by showing uncertainty, sarcasm, confidence, questioning, etc.) a sentence or even individual words (see this commercial), but it doesn't really "change" the meaning. As opposed to Chinese, where two words differentiated by tone can have completely unrelated meanings. --WikiTiki89 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think the key differentiator is probably stress rather than tone. If I say "search ME" in a completely flat tone, it still sounds to me like the "I don't know" meaning. Mihia (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia disambiguation page for "tribune" includes, "a member of the Tribunate, a deliberative assembly during the latter stages of the French Revolution." Oh, and somebody might add a Wiktionary entry for "Tribunate." ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that would be Tribune. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And we already have (deprecated template usage) tribunate. SemperBlotto (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Does a song have to have voice or lyrics to be a song? OED and Wiktionary definitions say so, but we do say things like instrumental songs, right? Or if you heard someone playing music on the radio, you might say what song is that? even if you didn't hear any voices in it. I'm really confused right about now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the second definition of song says "By extension, any musical composition", so no, a song doesn't have to have words. — Eru·tuon 05:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see that now. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Among musicians, it's considered bad form (it sounds amateurish) to call an instrumental piece a "song" rather than a "piece"; nevertheless Mendelssohn wrote Songs Without Words for piano alone. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What about pop music without lyrics? Calling them a 'piece' sounds either misleading or pretentious (to me, I mean). Like electronic music, Röyksopp - Eple from 2001, is that a song or a piece? I'd call it a song all day, all night. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think for pop music, people tend to use instrumental as a noun. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're correct, but just 'song' also. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. I really should have written "Among classical musicians" above. I don't hang out with pop musicians. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I call pop songs without lyrics "tracks". Equinox ◑ 18:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the real suffix is -ōrius, which is simply added to the supine stem (which ends in -s or -t from case to case). @ObsequiousNewt, @JohnC5, @I'm so meta even this acronym --Fsojic (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be common practice to do this, really. I think -or has this as well. Not sure how much sense it makes. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 17:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Being amateur lexicographers, with only a dictionary with which to change or record the world, we think we have only the lexicon (really only headwords) to use to document what are essentially rules, of morphology, grammar, etc. This looks like an instance of this tendency. The content, such as it is, would easily fit under Usage notes at -orius. To help those who misdivide the morphological components, we could keep -torius and -sorius as redirects to -orius. By the same token, we could have redirects from morphological stems to lemma forms. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fsojic: Do you have examples of adjectives formed with this suffix that do not end in -tōrius or -sōrius? What is your position vis-à-vis -tor, -sor, and -or? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The suffix is -tōrius. The change to -sōrius is automatic when suffixed to a stem-final d or t, as it is with all other suffixes beginning with -t- as well. See -tus for example. —CodeCat 22:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't there also an idiomatic meaning in this? Example quotes: Man 1: "Well don't you wanna come to my house and maybe have sex?" Man 2: "I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't steer that way..." Meaning that he's straight. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The number of Google hits for "I don't steer that way" (about 5 or 6 excluding duplicates) doesn't suggest to me that this is a common idiomatic expression. I would put it down as a somewhat figurative or specialised use of a regular sense of "steer", along the lines of "swing that way" or "bend that way", probably not meriting its own definition. Mihia (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the Wiktionary definition:

Nonstandard spellings that indicate a standard pronunciation, deliberately used by an author to indicate that the speaker uses a nonstandard or dialectal speech.

However, the great majority of entries at https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:English_eye_dialect do not indicate a standard pronunciation. In fact, the whole point of the spelling is usually the exact opposite, to indicate a non-standard pronunciation. Either the above definition is wrong or the term is incorrectly used throughout Wiktionary. Mihia (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before: see this discussion. I would favour a cleanup of the category, but... --Fsojic (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The above definition is right. The template {{eye dialect of}} is widely misused in Wiktionary. I clean it up wherever I notice it, but there's still a lot of work to do. If a spelling denotes a nonstandard pronunciation, {{nonstandard form of}} should be used instead. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to go through the transclusions of the template {{eye dialect of}} with AWB and replace them with another template, but there seems to be disagreement over which template they should be replaced with. @DCDuring, in the discussion linked above, proposed using {{pronunciation spelling of}}, but @Angr proposes using {{nonstandard form of}}. — Eru·tuon 17:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I like "pronunciation spelling" because it is more specific, but has significant membership. That this is not necessarily a relevant type of non-standard spelling in many languages other than English should not be a consideration. I have no objection to a "pronunciation spellings" category being a subcategory of non-standard spellings, though it might be better to link the categories with "See also"s. DCDuring TALK 17:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with "pronunciation spelling". We should distinguish these somehow from other types of non-standard spelling that do not exist just to convey a speech style. Equinox ◑ 18:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want all instances of {{eye dialect of}} replaced; sometimes it is used correctly (e.g. anybuddy). Nor are pronunciation spellings always nonstandard; sometimes (e.g. plow) they become standard, sometimes (e.g. lite) they take on a semantic life of their own, and sometimes (e.g. thru, tho) they remain informal but are not really proscribed. I wouldn't call any of the last four examples eye dialect, though, because they aren't used to suggest a lack of education or sophistication on the part of the person whose mouth they are put in, the way true eye dialect like sez is. The things that should be marked {{nonstandard form of}} are the times where a nonstandard spelling reflects a nonstandard pronunciation, like anyfink. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Angr: Bad wording on my part; I should have said replace some instances. — Eru·tuon 21:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Btw, the Wikipedia article makes a distinction between "pronunciation spelling" and "pronunciation respelling". --Fsojic (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the WP article should be taken too seriously. Though it has references, it does not have footnotes supporting any specific assertions.

I prefer that we stick to definitions used in general-purpose dictionaries for pronunciation spelling, which suggest that the term hardly needs a definition:

AHD: "A spelling that is supposed to represent a pronunciation more closely than a traditional spelling, as lite for light, or wanna for want to.

RHU: "a spelling intended to match a certain pronunciation more closely than the traditional spelling does, as gonna for going to, kinda for kind of (meaning “rather”), git for get , or lite for light.

Compare the definitions for eye dialect:

AHD: The use of nonstandard spellings, such as enuff for enough or wuz for was, to indicate that the speaker is uneducated or using colloquial, dialectal, or nonstandard speech.

RHU: the literary use of misspellings that are intended to convey a speaker's lack of education or use of humorously dialectal pronunciations but that are actually no more than respellings of standard pronunciations, as wimmin for “women,” wuz for “was,” and peepul for “people.”.

MWOnline doesn't bother with spelling pronunciation but has for eye dialect:

The use of nonstandard spellings, such as enuff for enough or wuz for was, to indicate that the speaker is uneducated or using colloquial, dialectal, or nonstandard speech.

The RHU definition of eye dialect captures the idea that pronunciation spellings are a major source of the literary phenomenon eye dialect. DCDuring TALK 03:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I for one would not be sorry to see the "eye dialect" label done away with entirely. I think it is a niche term that few people will be familiar with. Mihia (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  I wonder what we could find by analyzing a sample of the items in Category:English eye dialect, say 20 entries. Are they attested? How common? Any additional material? Is the pronunciation suggested by the spelling a contemporary standard pronunciation? DCDuring TALK 04:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Mihia: There was one discussion recently about a word that was legitimate eye-dialect. I see no reason to do away with the label entirely, but I guess we should purge it of all incorrect uses, even if that happens to be all of its current uses. --WikiTiki89 16:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the most usual version na na na na na (or na na-na na na)? Mihia (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard that, only the version in the entry. You can add yours if it can be cited. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mihia. --WikiTiki89 00:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've often heard them both in succession, first 5 na's then 6. —CodeCat 17:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've heard that, with the first "na" having a much longer vowel than in the version with 6 na's. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In the light of the above comments about the meaning of "eye dialect", could I please solicit further opinions about whether beg parding should properly be labelled "eye dialect" as it presently is? Mihia (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Since beg pardon is not standardly pronounced /bɛɡ ˈpɑɹdɪŋ/, no. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless beg parding is intended to be pronounced beg pardin’. --WikiTiki89 18:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

In which case, beg parding can be considered a hypercorrection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess it all depends on the intent of the person using this spelling. --WikiTiki89 20:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it is intended to be pronounced beg pardin’. Mihia (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we have citations? Otherwise how can we know? --WikiTiki89 20:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think if it was intended to be pronounced beg pardin’ then it would be written, um, beg pardin’. Mihia (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

According to De Vaan (under liqueō), there is a verb līquī that means "to become liquid, to dissolve". This is a separate root from linquō, which has līquī as the perfect. I don't know what form De Vaan is actually citing, whether it's the 1st singular or the infinitive. Does anyone know more about this verb, and can they add an entry for it? —CodeCat 00:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: L&S list līquor which has the infinitives līquī and also līquier. I've added it at līquor. —JohnC5 03:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The audio files of these entries apparently need to be changed to Canadian: despot, Zulu, Pinoy, decagon, spume, Namibia, taco, Mindanao, nodi, Evan, noose. Also there may be problems with the IPA not being marked as being a Canadian accent. See User talk:Rezfan83. DTLHS (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Just like to add these are canadian pronunciations. The file names are en-ca-decagon, en-ca-noose, en-ca-pinoy/etc. You can find a number of these words on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Canadian_English_pronunciation Many of these files are on different wikitionary pages for different languages for US Pronunciations. I've come across some of these en-ca files used as US pronunciations on French, German, Korean and Polish wikitionary pages as well. My apologies for not bringing this here first. It's late and I'm really tired. Sorry about that. Rezfan83 (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

How common is it to refer to coriander seeds (dried fruits of coriander) just by coriander (sense 2) today? Isn’t it dated? Google Images shows that it refers most commonly to coriander leaves. Google Ngram shows it may be a recent trend to eat coriander leaves (cilantro). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I would generally call the seeds coriander and the leaves cilantro. I'm in the US; perhaps it would be different in other areas. — Eru·tuon 04:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In the US, no one refers to anything but the seeds as coriander. It's not that long ago that eating coriander leaves was unheard of here, and cilantro was just some exotic funny-tasting herb that was introduced from Mexico as Mexican cuisine became more popular. Even today I would hazard a guess that a substantial number of those familiar with both cilantro and coriander seeds have no idea that they're from the same plant. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. The situation might be different in the UK. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The bags I have (from Rajah and TRS, both British-Indian companies) say variously "whole dhania / coriander", "whole dhania / coriander seeds", "dhaniya / ground coriander" and "dhania powder / coriander powder". So even in the UK, coriander seeds can be - but aren't always - called "coriander" when the context is clear. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Kai Ryssdal of NPR's Marketplace show uses the phrase "the whole smash" frequently to mean "everything" (equivalent to the whole shebang). It also seems that the phrase was used in the movie Apollo 13 with a similar meaning -- "Jim Lovell: Are you saying you want the whole smash? Closing down the react valves for fuel cells shutdown? Shutting down the fuel cells, did I hear you right?"

Is anyone else familiar with this phrase? Is it a sense of smash which we are missing, or is it whole smash or the whole smash? - TheDaveRoss 15:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's idiomatic. I've added it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The translation in the Ancient Greek entry is "Paraskevi"; but what exactly is meant by that? Is it a common English transcription? --Fsojic (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that there should be an Ancient Greek entry at all. --Fsojic (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It should probably be defined as "Friday" or "day of preparation for the Sabbath". --WikiTiki89 15:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't this word occur in the New Testament? If so, there should definitenly be an Ancient Greek entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It does, but my question is: is παρασκευή or Παρασκευή the right entry for this sense? --Fsojic (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the LSJ, and the three citations to the NT all had the word in lowercase. — Eru·tuon 17:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone created the uppercase entry. The word is always lowercase. — Eru·tuon 17:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

παρασκευή (paraskeuḗ) at least seems to answer the question of what the meaning is. No, transliterations shouldn't ever be given as definitions. Of course if there is an English word Paraskevi then it's fine to define Παρασκευή (Paraskeuḗ) this way, if that's what it means. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess someone assumed that the transliteration of the Modern Greek word could be used in English. Paraskevi isn't listed in the OED, but Parasceve is. — Eru·tuon 19:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I think the context label Judaism is misleading. The Greek word and English Parasceve words seem to only be used by Christians. --WikiTiki89 19:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

They may be used in or derived from usage in the New Testament, but they refer to Friday, the day before the Jewish Sabbath, not Saturday, the day before the Christian Sabbath (Sunday). — Eru·tuon 19:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not what a context label implies. It should say something like "(Christianity) Friday, the day of preparation before the Jewish Sabbath". Also, the definition at παρασκευή (paraskeuḗ) mentions Passover, while I really see no connection here to Passover. Is that a mistake? --WikiTiki89 20:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I found a use of the term in Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 16.163 with no reference to the Passover, so it's not exclusively used in Christian writings or necessarily connected with the Passover. — Eru·tuon 20:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I was intending the Christianity tag more for English Parasceve. --WikiTiki89 21:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with sense number 2 : "A female or male homosexual". What i contest is "female". --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I forgot : enjoy your tea. --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The only citation on the page uses it for a lesbian.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If the female sense is very rare compared to usage for males it might be worth splitting it off and putting a {{lb|en|rare}} tag on it, for clarity. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Merci bien Renard Migrant, 'did just that. --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sodomy used to mean generally ‘unnatural intercourse’, so it seems reasonable that a ‘sodomite’, depending on the period and the speaker, could be any number of different types of people. Ƿidsiþ 09:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't all these terms carry a negative connotation? I mean, is a "mishmash" simply "a collection containing a variety of miscellaneous things" without any judgment from the speaker using that word? --Fsojic (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Would it have been grammatical if I had written "Don't all of these terms "? Our current definition of all of makes me doubt myself. --Fsojic (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"All of these terms" is also correct. This is all + of and not all of. It works just like "some of", "none of", "few of", etc. Without the "of", "all" works differently from the rest ("all" needs to be followed by a determined, which may be the null determiner if the noun is plural or uncountable, while "some" and "few" are themselves determiners and you can't have more than one determiner in a noun phrase). --WikiTiki89 21:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation about all of. Should we maybe add "Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see all,‎ of." to the entry? Btw, which is the better formatting, between the one used for the first sense at put on and the one used for the first sense at fall out? Now to the last part: is "determined" a typo for "determiner"? If not I don't follow. --Fsojic (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't detect any negative connotation per se Leasnam (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not negative, but it sort of suggests disorganized. This should be conveyed through the definition, I think. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/-sche

(if the cited DW article had (as claimed) used and defended the term Zigeuner, it could be cited as support for the usage note's last sentence - but the article doesn't seem to use Zigeuner, or even claim that 'gypsy' is unifying; cf edits to Gypsy)

That's because the article is originally in German, and texts using words for my people that aren't derived from Aegyptus - Zigeuner, Tsingani, Zingari, etc - are translated by substituting 'Gypsy' in their place because it's as close as you can get, at least capturing the exonym-status and the criminal/romantic associations/dichotomy. You can argue those associations disqualify the use of the word, but being 'Welsh,' another exonym, was exclusively associated with inferiority and backwardness for quite a long time, and still can be.

I linked to the translated article since I just joined, I'm still figuring things out, it's an English wiki, and I assumed that anyone editing this page, since it is a German word, would realise the above knowing that we've only ever been called Zigeuner in Germany.

And I wasn't citing the whole article, I was citing Markus Reinhardt, the Sinto quoted in the article:

"Wir wollen Zigeuner genannt werden, das ist das normale deutsche Wort für uns."

"Was ist mit den anderen Stämmen, die da einfach weggelassen werden?"

He specifically says it's a word that is inclusive of all Romani, hence unifying. He says 'we' indicating he's speaking the opinion of their community.

And I don't want to do this, but I'm Romani, half my family was called Zigeuner since forever and freely use the word, and the other half were called 'gurbet,' strange and foreign and not belonging there, and our clan name that unites us is Gurbeti. I don't think it's moral for people outside of a community to demonise words there's documented evidence that the culture in question rely on.

Frankly, your editing of the page plays very fast and loose with generalisations:

""Zigeuner", an imprecise exonym for several groups,"

You don't provide evidence it's been consistently used for several groups, you provide one dubious source as evidence it's been used for a movement, not a consolidated tribe or clan, once, in specific time period, and not in the present era where we have Sinti using it as an ethnic term. Celtic, Welsh, Carribean, Egyptian and many other modern terms groups use to refer to themselves have been used to refer to anyone strange in the past.

And you present this in a negative tone as part of a negative tirade. The ability to use Gypsy and Zigeuner for other groups like us from similar backgrounds is amazing for us. Each Romani group is wildly different as it is, so these words have always been imprecise exonyms for several groups even when just referring to us.

"is a word loaded with mostly negative or sometimes Romantic connotations."

So is Arab. So is Iranian. Groups can gain bad reps sometimes. So is every exonym that groups continue to use today. Every group has had a term they rely on become associated with something negative.

No, going back even a hundred years, pre-Nazi racialisation era it has been a word used to refer to the Romani of Germany as an ethnic group. Zigeunersprache is a word I have encountered in nearly every dictionary on our language, and it certainly hasn't

It has been used to designate ethnic groups like the Roma and cultural movements like the Bohemian movement of nonconformist artists.

You're only source for this is one book written by a non-Rom quoting another non-Rom who is curiously the sole citation on the German Wikipedia page making the same claim about 'Zigeuner' as well, the citation written in the exact same way. I could not find all 30 pages in question, but I found her central thesis:

„Die zentrale Erweiterung, die der ‚Zigeuner‘-Diskurs seit 1900 nicht zuletzt durch Künstler-Diskurse erfahren hatte, bestand in der Verknüpfung von ‚zigeunerischer‘ Lebens- und Denkweise, ‚moralischem Schwachsinn‘ (bei Ritter dann ‚getarntem Schwachsinn‘), Ichsucht sowie der Drohkulisse einer zunächst ‚kulturellen‘, spä- ter ‚rassischen‘ ‚Entartung‘ und degenerativen gesellschaftlichen Bedrohung und der Zusammenfassung dieses Konglomerats unter dem Schlagwort ‚asozial‘“ (S. 229).

Where she specifically uses the word 'zigeunerischer' in the lower case, a distinctively different word-usage and orthography than Zigeuner. Arabesque is a commonly used word as well.

This very ivory tower critical theory narrative seems to be that 'Zigeuner' was a nebulous by-word prior to Nazi racialisation. I can link to about ten dictionaries from Germany to France to Italy to Turkey written in the 1800s that refute that, that use ZIgeunersprache as a consistent word synonymous with Romani Tshjib, Romani language, and never once meaning 'language of bohemian artistes.' You may be able to find zigeunerlischer thrown around but I can find 'welch' thrown around and I guess Wales and its derivatives will become slurs.

Critical theory is anathema to neutrality, a central tenant of editing.

The Central Council of German Sinti and Roma rejects the use of "Zigeuner" as a designation for the Roma, regarding it as racist and as having been discredited by the Nazis' use of it. Nonetheless, some Romani individuals may continue to describe themselves as "Zigeuner".

This was the only factual section of the usage notes, and that's why I kept it. A balanced account presents both sides equally so long as one side is not irredeemably sociopathic, and minimising and discrediting the voices of actual Romani who know the weight of these words intimately is not a good policy.

I don't want to get into an editing war and massive discussion, but I'm pretty weary of watching the language and 'discourse' surrounding my culture and ethnicity be dictated to me by social theorists who don't even consult us, and meanwhile I try my best to be neutral and not whip out a couple centuries of familial lived experience. This crusade of trying to purge the world of exonyms because of 'Diskurse-Analysis' would have to include robbing me of my Gurbeti clan name, stemming from an insulting etymology in the Middle East, and then would have to involve stripping the Ghorbati of Afghanistan of a name they use, on to the Carribeans whose name comes from an Anglicisation that led to 'cannibal,' and of course the Welsh, and so on.

Frankly, I think it constitutes a fetishisation of our small, largely voiceless population who generally don't have the privilege to get into vocabulary policing. There is no reason to focus on us and not any of the groups above I mentioned with exonyms; we are just as strong and standing on our two feet as they are whether you choose to see it or not.

Dzungalo77 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The usage notes in the entry mirror the ones in de.Wikt's entry de:Zigeuner, the first sentence being a simple observation of the etymology and the four definitions which are right above the usage note: the etymology documents how the term originated (as an exonym) and two of the definitions document the term's use to refer to various ethnic groups (I assume the senses meet the minimal attestation requirements), one covers use derived from stereotypes of Romanis as thieves (racist), and the other covers use derived from stereotypes of happy bohemians (Romantic). I think it's there to explain why the people who disuse the term disuse it; I suppose it could be condensed and moved into the current third sentence. The second sentence, "It has...", is basically redundant to definition four and could be removed. The last sentence of the usage note could use the German version of the DW article as a reference; I had a hard time finding references for it but I let it be in the article without any satisfactory reference because I do know some people who self-identify as Zigeuner. (And when they self-identify that way, it makes some non-Rom Germans uncomfortable in a way similar to how certain African Americans' use of "nigger" makes white Americans uncomfortable, but that is neither here nor there.) - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the article to drop the first two sentences of the usage note which are largely redundant to the etymology and definitions, and to add the German DW article, which is quite different in content from the English article, and actually references the usage note's last sentence. - -sche (discuss) 16:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the entry, this is an abbreviation added at the end of a list of ingredients to indicate the last ingredient should be added in whatever quantity is needed to make up the required amount of the mixture. I rearranged the entry to fit our format, but I'm not sure if the entry was right:

1. I see this in Google books as mostly quant. suff., so should it be moved to that spelling? Or do we have other conventions about how to handle abbreviations with periods?
2. Is this English, Latin or Translingual? It's an abbreviation of a Latin phrase, and it can be found in running text in other languages.
3. What's the part of speech? The entry originally had Contraction, which is obvious nonsense- it's an abbreviation, not a contraction. I settled on Adverb, since there's an implicit verb in recipes and similar lists, something like "the ingredients are", or "add", or "this mixture contains", but I'm not that confident that I'm right.
4. Is the original definition correct? It was more a paragraph describing how the term has been used in the medical profession than a definition (it came to my attention because an IP removed some cruft), so I made it into a real definition with a usage note, but I don't see how it's different from the full phrase, quantum sufficit, which is simply defined as "A sufficient quantity". That entry would be be SOP as Latin, but it has the same identity issues I raised above for the abbreviation.

I looked at a couple of other entries to see how we deal with such things, but they have similar issues (PRN also had a bad translation in the etymology, and its full form, pro re nata, is a redirect to it). I get the impression that a lot of medical-abbreviation entries were created back when standards were a lot looser, and that they've been ignored since. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is also supposed to be an adverb, but the definition is for a noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Defined as "great oaf", which is (a) non-idiomatic, (b) apparently SOP. What is the actual definition? Benwing2 (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm I was going to see that grand isn't used as an intensifier, in fact fr:grand#Adjectif has 20 senses none of which covers this. However, google books:"un grand tricheur" and google books:"un grand menteur" show that it is actually used this way. The French Wiktionary which is much more inclusive than we are doesn't have it, though I'm not sure that can be classed as 'evidence'. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO that entry needs not exist ; note that the French Wikt does not have it : dadais is enough. What grand dadais means is "big/tall" (depending on context) "oaf". dadais should be paired with oaf, i think that i'll do just that. --Jerome Potts (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

But if the entry is to be kept, i like that "lumbering oaf" example in oaf. --Jerome Potts (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

SOP is not a good reason to delete, if the term belongs to the vocabulary. But I think this is not SOP: dadais is almost never used alone, the actual term is rather grand dadais, used as a set phrase, not built by the brain from grand and dadais. This opinion is supported by https://lemondedufrancais.com/2013/08/06/lexpression-du-jour-un-grand-dadais/ The French Wiktionary doesn't have it, but it's very incomplete: it's probable that about 75 % of the French vocabulary is still missing, as there are about 1.200.000 terms in French, according to the Trésor général des langues et parlers français (in 1988, 28 years ago!). Lmaltier (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

SoP is a reason to delete an entry. You've confused 'I don't like this rule' with 'this is not a rule'. You don't have to agree with a rule to stick to it. Your interpretation of 'set phrase' is very loose anyway. I could argue that 'green grass' is a set phrase if I wanted to, because 'set phrase' means whatever you want it to. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You forget the 1st rule of CFI: As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”.. This is the rule I consider (I understand word as element of the vocabulary, not in the typographic sense). Lmaltier (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

And what constitutes an "element of the vocabulary"? We already include any non-SOP terms that are more than one word long. Are you perhaps misunderstanding the way we define "sum of parts"? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no definition for 'element of the vocabulary', it's like asking someone which is better, blue or red. It's nothing to do with evidence it's just a feeling. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to post about this, but this entry looks like a mistaken spelling based on the English form inflection. The real Latin form is inflexiō, with an x like īnflexus, the perfect participle of īnflectō. — Eru·tuon 20:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Forwarded it to RFV. Hillcrest98 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a derivation from the stem flect- rather than flex-. Try Google Books on all the declined forms.

Huh, so it is used, just in more modern Latin works, which explains why it's not in Lewis and Short. It's properly speaking badly formed, since the -tio suffix should change to -sio after t (inflect-tio → inflec-sio → inflexio), but that doesn't mean it's unworthy of inclusion. — Eru·tuon 02:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the problem then? Make it an alternative form of the more correct inflexio, and add whatever notes on style and usage you think appropriate. Kolmiel (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the original tag was in 2009. may I suggest de-tagging. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the tag. It was listed and discussed at Wiktionary:Tea room/2009/June#purgatoric, but the tag wasn't removed when the discussion was archived. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, since the issue discussed there was never resolved, I've also started Wiktionary:Requests for verification#purgatoric. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

From my reading, I’ve learnt that the construction you all probably originated within African‐American communities before spreading to the general population.

Are there any good candidates for the origins of this word? Having no knowledge of western African languages, I can’t decide for myself. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 23:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's rather unlikely. The reason the construction exists in the first place is because English makes no number distinction in the 2nd person pronoun. —CodeCat 23:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the coining of y'all essentially backfills the void left when formerly-plural you was repurposed as the everyday second-person pronoun, which also flattened the previous formal/informal distinction between you and thou. Interestingly, it seems that y'all is also used to indicate a certain distance or deference when addressing a single referrent, much as you used to do. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's true that y'all fills a necessary gap, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that it started out as a calque of a creole (e.g. Gullah) or West African construction. Nevertheless, w:Gullah language#Origins says that Gullah for y'all is oonuh and is a loanword of African origin. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Considering "you all", "we all", and "they all" are all grammatically correct and used commonly everywhere (or almost everywhere?) in the English speaking world, I find the calque suggestion to be a bit of a solution in search of a problem. --WikiTiki89 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but "you all" parallel to "we all" and "they all" has different connotations from "y'all", which is a simple plural without the emphasis on globality that "we all" and "they all" have. If you do want to emphasize globality that way with "y'all", it's possible to say "y'all all" in the South (or simply "you all" without contraction). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

So in summary, simply 'no' seems to answer the original question. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That's because it has evolved since then, and through processes that are by no means unusual. At no point is a calque explanation necessary. --WikiTiki89 16:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmaltier, Renard Migrant, Jerome Charles Potts, 2WR1 This term is defined as "small narratives, esp. first-person". This is weird both because it seems SOP and because it's plural when it probably should be singular. Is petit récit a reasonable lemma? Benwing2 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Poubelle. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Delete. --Fsojic (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It can be used, but it's difficult to consider it as a set phrase. And the French word for short story is nouvelle. Lmaltier (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I would usually translate it as "short fiction", although that's not quite right since petits récits can also be nonfictional. Ƿidsiþ 09:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmaltier, Widsith, since you seem familiar with the term, could you possibly find a few quotes of it, and place them either in petits récits, since the singular form does not yet exist, or in its discussion page, or here? This way, perhaps we can evaluate whether there is more to it than petit + récit. Thanks in advance? --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, google "petits récits". I'm not familiar with petits récits, except as petit + récit. As I don't think the page is justifiable (because I feel it's not an element of the French vocabulary), it's difficult for me to select them. However, it might be used, sometimes, as a trendy synonym of nouvelle, but it's difficult to be sure. Lmaltier (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)