Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/January

The section says it's disputed whether ME glowen comes from OE glowan because OSX has gloian. That does sound rather wrong. Does anyone have any idea what it's supposed to say there or shall I just delete that part? Korn (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it. Leasnam (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there really a meaning 'coward'? Are dogs associated with cowardice? Is the ux really different from the general insult? Korn (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is, especially when meant as "dog (with its tail between its legs)" Leasnam (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Searching for "you dog" "you coward" finds quite a lot, e.g. (2012, Wyatt, Lady Mechatronic on the Cannibal Island) “You dog,” snarled Bardon. “If you are a man, release me and face me in combat.” Okay, that could still be the generic insult, but it is used a lot near accusations of cowardice. Equinox ◑ 04:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"A catchphrase used on the television game show "The Price is Right," inviting a member of the audience to come to Contestant's Row to play the game." I was going to delete this, but should it be changed somehow, if used more generally in parody of the TV line? Equinox ◑ 06:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have heard it used in parody years ago. Is the show still going? I don't watch TV any more. DonnanZ (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add the past participle repu (which is, incidentally, the only form still in use, though as an adjective only). How am I supposed to do that? And paître has the same problem. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a template wiz, so I can't really help here, but as a stop-gap solution I've added repu and pu under "Related terms". OK? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Benwing2: sorry to bother you again, do you think you could help? --Barytonesis (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis, Florian Blaschke I added pu as past participle in Module:fr-verb, but that also adds past historic pusse, etc. and compound tenses with pu, which may not apply. If pu is only an adjective, maybe it shouldn't be listed as past participle. Benwing2 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In the media I constantly hear the word "cowardly" used to disparage criminals and criminal acts that may be many bad things but do not seem the least bit "cowardly", in fact often the exact opposite. For example, someone punches someone in the face or blows up some people. How is that "cowardly"? Is this a new meaning of the word that has developed, or just a misuse? Mihia (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would guess that it refers to the fact that they resort to violence to solve their problems, as opposed to resolving them within the law / societal norms. DTLHS (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a new meaning, it's just a different understanding of what constitutes cowardliness from yours. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's considered cowardly to attack somebody unexpectedly without giving them a chance for a fair fight. Equinox ◑ 19:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I also have found it hard to swallow the application of cowardly to, say, a suicide bomber or gunman risking or giving their life for their cause. Just as I find it hard to accept the use of hero to, say, someone giving CPR to a person. Both are instances of semantic bleaching. At what point should we recognize that semantic bleaching has rendered a strong word weak. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing new under the sun:

• Why on earth do the newspapers, in describing a dynamite outrage or any other political assassination, call it a "dastardly outrage" or a cowardly outrage? It is perfectly evident that it is not dastardly in the least. It is perfectly evident that it is about as cowardly as the Christians going to the lions. The man who does it exposes himself to the chance of being torn in pieces by two thousand people. What the thing is, is not cowardly, but profoundly and detestably wicked. The man who does it is very infamous and very brave. But, again, the explanations is that our modern Press would rather appeal to physical arrogance, or to anything, rather than to appeal to right and wrong.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton, All Things Considered, 1915. --Droigheann (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

See here This work is now available online and has over 500 years of slang "Totaling 10.3 million words and over 53,000 entries, the collection provides the definitions of 100,000 words and over 413,000 citations." This seems like a great reference to link to with a R template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

this was deleted. it should be restored. the term "text stop" is used to refer to some rest areas, used to encourage people to pull in there to text and not text while driving. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22text+stop%22#q=%22text+stop%22+%22highway%22&tbm=bks&start=0 99.101.56.68 12:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• No such usage in the first few pages of that Google search. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/24/4767060/new-york-cuomo-unveils-text-stops-to-combat-distracted-driving "text stop" is used at some rest areas. 99.101.56.68 13:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@99.101.56.68: These terms are sometimes called "hot words"--where they have the potential to really become a part of the language but they may just fizzle out. It's a fine line sometimes between slang, "hot words", neologisms, nonce words, etc. We need more attestations across different sources and time. Do you have more? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

i've been trying to redirect one million to million and my edit has been disallowed as being "harmful". it should be redirected to million similar to how one hundred, one billion and one trillion redirect to hundred, billion and trillion. one thousand should not be redirect to thousand as it has another use. 99.101.56.68 13:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why you felt the redirections were needed in the first place? IMHO, they're all redundant and should be deleted. I'll propopse them for deletion and open a discussion in WT:RFD. Feel free to participate. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the definitions here is "The term applied by Greeks to the head of a community of Jews in the diaspora." But what terms the Greeks use seems completely irrelevant to the English language. What does this term mean in English? —CodeCat 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's a historical term (which it appears to be), that is everything but irrelevant. Crom daba (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The term still refers to something in English, otherwise it's not a term in English and we shouldn't list it as a definition. What terms the Greeks used is not relevant for whether this meaning exists in English, as this is not a term the Greeks used. The Greeks spoke Greek, not English. —CodeCat 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm RFVing it (minus the Greek bit). Equinox ◑ 15:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The first definition looks sufficient to me. Also, (1) is רֹאשׁ גָּלוּת an actual Biblical phrase, and (2) are we sure that the Greek comes from the Hebrew, rather than from Aramaic ריש גלותא? JulieKahan (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the Hebrew; I just took it off Wikipedia. The answers to both your questions are "I don't know", so feel free to remove it or change it as necessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there sufficient attestations of the first definition; parchment or paper (particularly for the latter)? Tharthan (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

These are clearly different forms of the same, so how should this be handled? —CodeCat 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• The -ible seems to be the alternative form of the -able. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've made it an alternative spelling. —CodeCat 15:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain that the 'dingy' meaning belongs to the entry's current state etymology which says: "From Old French eschiu (“shy, timid”), from Frankish *sciuh (“shy, timid, fearful”), from Proto-Germanic *skeuhaz (“shy, frightened”)..." Besides common sense the information at skif#Etymology asserts me that this word's lineage is closer to Old High German. Any suggestions? I suppose WT:BOLD should apply if without input from other fellow Wiktionarians in some reasonable time period. I'm asking because I'm not that versed in Italian, but like always I'm keen to improve our project. Cheers everyone, --biblbroks_{дискашн} 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Per the etymology given at skiff, the term was loaned via Lombardic, which I'd already come to suspect on my own. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the entry needs to be split into 2 etymologies Leasnam (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently incorrigible is often used in a softened, positive or only mildly reprobative, sense: "having character flaws or quirks that do not make one unlikeable or even make one downright likeable". Is this connotation or use worth mentioning?

This kind of mitigation is admittedly seen frequently in terms that used to have a strongly negative, critical tone, such as rascal or naughty, probably as a result of changing morals and opinions about parenting. A word such as rascal was, apparently, initially applied mainly to adults and adolescents, then children (initially as little rascal), and applying it to an adult (where little is now implied) is now felt to be meant in a cute, amusing and harmless way and does not cause offence anymore, as it is not perceived as a serious criticism. Essentially what we have here is an instance of melioration. I suspect the melioration actually happened in the little rascal stage, which was initially a serious complaint about children, but cultural changes and increased lenience then caused children's antics to be seen as rather amusing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Our entry lacks what is now, IMO, the most common sense, the one you have identified. It may seem like a connotation only to some linguists. It seems like a denotation to me. Some of the other senses seem archaic or obsolete. Are some redundant? Should they be grouped? DCDuring TALK 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted, and interesting. A quote suggestion as an example for this soft use of incorrigible could be in the graphic novel “Scott Pilgrim and the Infinite Sadness” by Bryan Lee O’Malley (a piece of dialogue also adapted in film):

Envy (affectionately): “You are incorrigible.”
Todd: “I don’t know the meaning of the word.”
Narrator: “He really doesn’t.”

Perhaps even self-referential in a dictionary. Have a good night. Nclm (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The definition of mythopoetic does not give what I had thought was the usual meaning, "giving rise to myths". However, I notice that the synonym mythopoeic (no "t") does have that definition. I double checked a couple other dictionaries and I'm pretty sure the definition of mythopoetic should be updated. However, I'm new to wiktionary and am cautious to start willynilly. (I don't even know what order the definitions go: most common usage first or age of first known use?) Would someone with more experience please investigate and make the change, if it is warranted. Thanks! Hackerb9 (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hackerb9 Just so you know, there is no policy on whether oldest or most common definitions should go first, or if they should simply be in the order that they were added. There have been a few attempts to reach a consensus on this, but without success. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Could someone add the British English pronunciation? It differs vastly from its American counterpart. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the British pronunciation generally omits the "e", and adds a glottal stop (preglottalises the t): /ˈlɪˀtɹɘsi/

How does it differ? The one on the page is how I say it. Equinox ◑ 00:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the difference the above user means, but I do find intervocalic /t/ problematic in American transcriptions. That should be /d/ in my (possibly mistaken) opinion. Of course, it's a general thing. Kolmiel (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to "template" this one: it's already plural ("his twig and berries are"), but has a further plural, "twigs and berries", for more than one man's genitals. Equinox ◑ 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO: twigs and berries. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The oldest reference on the page is 1984, but I heard it in an episode of The Goon Show from September 28, 1954, 'The Whistling Spy Enigma':

Hee-Hee. Look at Old Eccles. He has blown all his toothy pegs out of his mouth. Hee-Hee. What a funny! Hee-Hee

What proof do I need to put this as an etymology? Apparently my grandmother used to say it to my mother and she would have been listening around the same time, so I suspect it's another word similar to lurgy. — This unsigned comment was added by DoctorLore (talk • contribs).

@DoctorLore: You can cite audio/visual media--citations don't have to be print or Web. Are you wondering how to use a template to cite it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Well, if it would just be a source then yeah I'd like the template but I was more wondering if the massive age difference plus anecdote would be enough to qualify it as an etymology like in lurgy rather than just a source/footnote? All the pages I've found about the etymology of the word link back here or just have the same information with no credit. DoctorLore (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@DoctorLore: In the case of "lurgy", there is another source which says this is the first usage. Do you have any sources which make this claim? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard the word used back as far as the 1950s. The OED has a usage from 1840. Feel free to add further usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

p.s. I have changed it to a plural of the singular. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This should be two broken into two separate definitions, right? "Except for" is not the same as "if it were not for". ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=“women+anarchists”&num=100

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=“women+communists”&num=100

I can’t tell if this is truly adjectival or simply a noun used as such. It sounds unusual to modern ears, though. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 10:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to me. It may sound a bit dated, but it's still possible to say. Compare women warriors. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Romanophile: To answer your question properly, the fact that the singular has woman warrior but the plural women warriors indicates that women is not an adjective, but a noun adjunct. Adjectives in English are not inflected at all.

A digression: Blond(e) and brunet(te) may seem like exceptions from the rule I've just posited, but the fact that people struggle with the gender distinction imported from French (I find that people usually simply write blonde, because the term is much more frequently used for women, and same with brunette), which doesn't even make sense in English (if a woman has blonde hair, does a man have blond hair, but why should the adjective agree with the sex of the – possibly not at all mentioned – possessor instead of with the noun hair as in French, which has no grammatical gender in English, and what if the sex of the possessor is not known, to say nothing of nonbinary gender identities?) indicates that the rule is effectively still in force (and likely would even if blond and blonde were not pronounced identically), and blonde should only be used as a noun.

That said, I'm puzzled by the tendency in Wikipedia to analyse (what looks like) noun adjuncts as adjectives. Is there a general syntactic test available? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If it can't be modified by an adverb, it's probably an attributive noun: *very women warriors, *more women warriors (i.e. warriors, not more ), etc. And they have to be truly ungrammatical, not just difficult to understand; contrast those examples with the true adjective female. It's hard to understand what very female warriors and warriors might mean, since "female" is usually interpreted as something binary rather than gradated, but they're still grammatical. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that proves my point. I can't come up with any examples right now, but I definitely seem to remember cases where bog-standard nouns (like woman) were (suggested to be) analysed as adjectives (on Wiktionary or Wikipedia outside article space) just because they can be used attributively, as I recall great confusion on my part about this, and the fact that Romanophile even considered this analysis in this case does seem to support my observation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I can think of a different test in this case, namely whether the word can be used predicatively: This warrior is female vs. *This warrior is woman. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And shouldn't the question have been "Are women an adjective?" SemperBlotto (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You'd say "is babies a word?", not "are babies a word?", unless you were very confused about the nature of things... Equinox ◑ 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't these be determiners, rather than pronouns or adjectives? Equinox ◑ 14:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but: Why? They're pronouns followed by a particle or case ending (whatever your definition is). How does that make them anything else than pronouns? Are man's or people's adjectives then? Kolmiel (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't any possessive a determiner?

What do dictionaries that have such terms call them?

If some dictionaries call them determiners and some call them pronouns or adjectives, then we might want to have both. I doubt that we can claim consistency as one of Wiktionary's strong points. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do we even have these entries, if we agreed to disallow words suffixed with the possessive -'s? —CodeCat 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think one's is very similar in usage to possessive determiners of the kind his, her, its, so it might be worth of an exception. I don't know. But I do agree concerning somebody's and someone's; they don't seem be special at all. Kolmiel (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think these were considered special exceptions.

Collins COBUILD includes one's and calls it a possessive determiner. Longmans DCE does not include it. OED probably includes it, but I do not have convenient access. Neither ComprehensiveGEL nor CambridgeGEL mention one's specifically, but do count the determinative use of all possessives as first among the structures involving possessives. One's does not readily take part in some of the other constructions.

I think we don't have separate entries for any genitives other than these. Accordingly, we might call these determiners because the determinative function is their main one. DCDuring TALK 02:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Possessives For what it's worth, I think we should have possessives. Just make something like {{en-possessive|dog}} which would produce something like (plural ] possessive form of ] at dog's. These are all valid words. But barring that, one's and his are definitely not simple standard constructions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've never quite understood why we have banned possessives, but not plurals (not that I'm suggesting removing plurals from Wiktionary; I think it's quite useful to keep them). Entries for them could be used to document such usages as Jesus' vs. Jesus's, or boss' vs. boss's, making entries for them potentially no less useful than those for plurals. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

But aren't possessives totally predictable (i.e. you add 's, but if it ends in s you have the option of merely adding the apostrophe)? Plurals are far less predictable: stadia, cacti, amakosi... Equinox ◑ 15:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: Almost always (minus pronoun-based "his", "your", etc.) But since this isn't print, it's not like it hurts to have a more complete list of all words. And since they are so predictable, they could be made by a bot. We could even have them made by one with admin rights who can lock the pages in case you are afraid of them being some breeding ground for nonsense. Seems like an idea which is impractical in print (of course, quadrupling the size of a dictionary needlessly is a bad idea) but one that is completely doable digitally. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case we might do better to have an automatic software extension that creates them "on demand" (i.e. dynamically, without an actual database record) where the noun exists. Creating actual page entries for them in the database seems a bit silly. Equinox ◑ 16:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of the reason we decided against allowing entries for possessives in 's is that the 's can be added not only to the noun that's doing the possessing; it can be added to literally any word that can be final in a noun phrase. Consider The King of Ireland's Son, where it's actually king, not Ireland, that's in the possessive (he's the son of the king, not the son of Ireland), or the boy I was talking to's mother (very common in speech if avoided in writing). Examples like these prove that 's is really a word (a clitic) in its own right, not just as case ending the genitive -s of German and the Scandinavian languages is. So it would just as much be a violation of rules against SOP constructions to have entries for possessive 's forms as it is to have entries for any word followed by the 's that's a contraction of is/has (The boy I was talking to's interested in chess; The boy I was talking to's played cello for three years). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the -s of Scandinavian behaves similar to the English clitic. —CodeCat 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The King of Ireland's son is "Kongen af Irlands søn" in Danish. Kolmiel (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good way of looking at it, thanks Angr. Arguably, something similar could be done with plurals though. For example: We don't need two Star Treks...I'm not sure why they decided to reboot it, where the plural applies to the whole title, not just the second word. This could conceivably occur with any title, in which a whole phrase would be essentially pluralized (and could end in any part of speech). Not exactly the same thing, but nonetheless similar. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Star Trek" is not a good example, is it? This would seem to be a spaced compound word: star trek = a trek along the stars. So it would be entirely regular to pluralize the defining component "trek" in order to pluralize the whole compound. -- But if you take another title like "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" or whatever, then yes, there would be a certain similarity with what Angr mentioned. Kolmiel (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I found the entry to the word "Similaridad" in Spanish, which is an incorrect translation/calque of "similarity", even though is commonly used. I don't know how to edit this to show that the correct translation is "similitud" or "semejanza".

Can you find any Spanish language authorities that specifically discourage usage of similaridad? If so, a label proscribed or sometimes proscribed may be added to the entry as needed. — Kleio (t · c) 22:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not in the RAE. It could be marked as nonstandard. I think it would easily pass an RFV. DTLHS (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This word is proscribed by the Diccionario de dudas and Hacia una gramática del español del Río de la Plata, which says it is used in “some technical language”. Indeed, the Google Books hits show that it is most often technical and scientific-looking works that use it; for this reason, I feel it’s better to use proscribed rather than nonstandard. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to improve it a little. It is becoming less used as time goes by. It's not real Spanish, and it only came about because of translating mistakes from English. Most -ity words can be translated by changing -ity to -idad, and that's what was done, but it was incorrect. I don't think it's really nonstandard today, but it should be discouraged in favor of similitud. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Does this word mean anything else in the non-Mandarin 'lects? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I've added to the entry (mostly based on 漢語方言大詞典 and 漢語大詞典). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In the entry for "to abscond", none of the quotations/examples under either sense marked as "reflexive" show the word used reflexively. Should new, accurate examples be found, or should the "reflexive" tag be removed? Dylanvt (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The definition of shitpost (as a verb) is essentially a "worthless" post on an Internet discussion board.

I think this is correct and encompasses all uses of the word. But I am wondering if this would be worth splitting into two definitions. Because there are two different types of "worthless post."

For example, there is the Reddit post on /r/GetMotivated or such, that posts some trite overused and un-nuanced quote as an image and somebody will respond with the one-word commend "Shitpost." and get a ton of upvotes. The connotation here is that a sincere effort was made but that effort was in fact shitty.

Then there is the concept of deliberately "shitposting" which means something like, "in good nature to make a snarky comment or to mildly troll with a very short comment."

Both of these uses of the word fall under the current definition of "worthless" but I would argue that they are actually different things, and different uses of the word, and perhaps deserve different definitions. Mbarbier (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the "deliberately shitposting" definition you mention (which I'm also vaguely familiar with, though mainly deriving it from context) actually similar to the original sense of "trolling (for newbies)", which was more like an insider joke in the group where you would (typically) pretend to be a newbie and post a stereotypical newbie question (or statement), and this way provoke real newbies? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, wikdictionaty; where's the word 'submissive' in your extensive list of sub words?

It's not in the prefix list because it wasn't formed in English as "sub-" + "missive". Equinox ◑ 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Wondering if do covers this meaning of the word. I'm not sure I can find it there. More examples: I don't "do" mornings. (I'm not a morning person, I can't stand them, I don't function well in the morning etc.) He doesn't "do" nice. (It doesn't suit him to be nice. It's not his natural personality.) I don't "do" boyfriends.

Always requires special emphasis on the word "do". Airelivre (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The closest sense is #12 "To perform the tasks or actions associated with (something)", but that doesn't seem to cover the informality of this usage. I think it might deserve a separate sense. Equinox ◑ 14:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Airelivre -- the classic example of "do" in this meaning was "I don't do windows" (i.e. a maid saying that she doesn't clean windows as part of her duties), which was kind of a catchphrase or standing joke in the 1960s... AnonMoos (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semantically definition 12 is OK IMO. But one distinctive characteristic of the use of do under review is that do is followed by an adjective. As many adjectives could appear after do, it seems silly to add noun definitions for each of them. Thus we might need a separate definition or subsense, possibly under 12, with a substitutable definition that in effect nominalizes the following adjective. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The word "speechify" bothers me a bit.

1) While I can find references to it in nearly every online dictionary, it simply doesn't feel like a proper word. 2) I can find some references to the word in use dating to "The Coryston Family" a novel published in 1913 and written by Mary Augusta Ward. The references I can find use the words in the context of speech by characters, not by the author to literate. 3) The word feels to have the legitimacy of making something up like "Discombobulatify". Maybe something Doofinschmertz would name one of his devices. It's certainly something Sarah Palin would use.

I'm not an expert in the English language, and I have to admit I would very much like to better understand whether this word would classify as slang and if not, then why not.

Additionally, I'm extremely interested in better understanding the origin of the word. I don't know how best to research this. I would imagine the word rears its ugly head occasionally from people trying "to be cute" or from people lacking the ability to express their thoughts intelligently. Therefore, I suspect the word probably has references dating quite far back.

- Does the use of a word in a novel published in a "Reader's Digest" style magazine justify the legitimacy of the word? - Is this word slang? Should it be? - Is there a way to research the origin of this word better? - When was it first added to the dictionary? - Does the word have to be used in the context of politics or can it be a presentation by a 2nd grade teacher?

Thank you to anyone reading.

P.S. - I far better enjoyed the page for this work on Wiktionary than I did in the other dictionaries I checked. All dictionaries felt as though "they were winging it" but at least Wiktionary winged it with effort.

What exactly does a "proper word" feel like ? Usage (by real human beings) dictates whether Wiktionary considers a term a word, not dictionaries necessarily. Languages are always evolving. Slang is definitely part of that process. Leasnam (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

As usual our definitions don't do the term justice. It usually conveys a denigration of the person doing the speechifying and of the output of the speechifying. In contrast very few people would use speechifying to characterize Nelson Mandela's delivery of his 1964 three-hour long I Am Prepared to Die speech. Our definition would not exclude that possibility. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Would simply labelling it "pejorative or humorous" solve the problem, or is that a misuse of the way we usually use pejorative? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No. The word carries a connotation of pomposity and hot air- speaking for the purpose of making a speech, not for actually saying anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The IPA seems really, really dubious. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. - -sche (discuss) 02:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there seem to be several problems here, and there are several places where the etymology might be relevant. Greek arktos of course primarily means "bear", and only indirectly is the name of the constellation, so the entry for "ἄρκτος" seems to me somewhat misleading. Arktos is thought by some linguists to be cognate with Latin Ursa, but not by others; those who think so may derive "arctic" from arktos, while others derive it from the Proto-Indo-European root *Rtko that appears in Sanskrit rksas, "North": in which case the Greek for bear comes from the constellation, and not the other way around. (Becker, Carl J. (2004). A Modern Theory of Language Evolution. iUniverse. pp. 228–229. →ISBN The matter does not appear to be settled. Since Wiktionary does not seem to use either citations or entry discussion pages, it's not obvious how to document anything subtle or controversial. Perhaps there are linguists here who could clarify the etymologies for some of these terms. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Sanskrit word, too, means "bear". Compare *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reposting my response from my talk page:

I do not see any uncertainty in this issue, after looking up the Sanskrit word you mention. As you say, the Greek word ἄρκτος (árktos) is cognate with Latin ursus and Sanskrit ऋक्ष (ṛkṣa), derived from Proto-Indo-European *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. But according to the entries on the Sanskrit and Latin words, the words only have the meaning "bear", not "north". The meaning "north" only arose in the Greek word, presumably because of the constellation. I guess Sanskrit must call the constellation Ursa Major something other than "bear". According to the Translations table in the entry for the noun north, the Sanskrit word for "north" is उत्तर (uttara) (though there's no entry on that word yet).

— Eru·tuon 18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I think we need to make this page "Translingual" - this acronym is used in many Cyrillic-based languages. This is the first Translingual page I'd like to make. Can someone please make it Translingual for me? I'm not quite sure how to put things in a Translingual page, and how to break things between the Translingual entry and the separate language entries. LAter on, I will use it as a model.Borovi4ok (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that someone create the Italian entry for the expression . Only English it there! Besides this expression being used in several countries and with that same meaning, it should surely have an entry in Italian, its natural language.

Rapidim (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's probably sum of parts in Italian. Note - the Italian Wiktionary does not have an entry for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If it has the same meaning in reference to pasta, I'm not sure that could be considered SoP. At least, I certainly wouldn't know from "to the tooth" that it referred to a specific consistency of pasta. —CodeCat 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Likewise. Looking at the English definition, I wonder if in Italian it is a shortening of a longer phrase: "firm to the tooth" (or "firm to the bite" if dente also means "bite"). — Eru·tuon 06:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• The French Wiktionary entry has an Italian definition with an (unreferenced) Etymology section added by fr:Utilisateur:Aelmvn. I can't quite understand it. --Kakurady (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was listening to an interview with a British reporter (Paul Wood, BBC) and he said the following when talking about the Trump dossier which has been in the news lately:

"This may be a classic example of provokácija (провокация?) ... a provocation which Russian intelligence services have been doing all the way back to Czarist times."

I was not familiar with this word. First of all, did I find the right word? Secondly, has anyone heard this used in an English context before? - TheDaveRoss 21:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

See Google books:provokatsiya. Crom daba (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right word. The case that you citing appears to be a one-off foreignism. Hope this helps. Borovi4ok (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

provokatsiya seems well attested in English, adding it would be a good idea. Crom daba (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks guys. I will add it when I have a moment, assuming no one beats me to it. - TheDaveRoss 17:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've heard "provokatsiya" used ironically a few times in the English speaking news with the meaning "provocation" in reference to overuse of the word in the Russian media and blogs. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a sense in the context of sociology we are missing here? Compare imagology. DTLHS (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Imagology is also known as image studies, so the term is derived from image in the sense of reputation or perception (compare sense 4). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have long often noticed that Dutch wereld sounds more like /ˈʋi.rəlt/ or even /ˈʋiː.rəlt/ as opposed to /ˈʋeːrəlt/, especially in casual speech. Anyone who is a native Dutch speaker, can you confirm this ? Leasnam (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Spectrograms or bust. Crom daba (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I’ve been told that /eː/ is in Netherlands Dutch. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

In this case at least it is, /ˈʋɪ:.rəlt/ or even /ˈʋɪ:.rɔlt/ is how I and others I know tend to pronounce this word (Hollandic). But I think it is as CodeCat said, only in this position (before an r); in lezen for example it doesn't do that, but in leren it does. — Kleio (t · c) 17:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's an allophone. Long mid-vowels are raised to near-close before /r/. —CodeCat 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Should the allophonic pronunciation be shown ? Leasnam (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It could, but it's not always the same for every speaker. —CodeCat 15:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. What then would be the best way to show it ? Would we add a tag or other such (I don't quite remember ever seeing labels like this); or just place it beside the current pronunciation ? Leasnam (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

On Dutch wiktionary this showing of allophonic pronunciations seems to have led to a lot of inconsistency, ambiguity, and in some cases inaccuracy. This does not concern the matter discussed hereabove so much as the pronunciation of g, ch, r, as well as the diphthongization/monophthongization of ee, oo, eu, ei, ij, eu, ou. Also in German, I've always been in favour of giving regional pronunciations only when they are phonemically different. This is already complicated enough. Everything beyond is likely to lead to a mess. But that's just MHO.Kolmiel (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Like clockwork I must point out that there is no non-regional pronunciation of German. Korn (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That's true, of course. I've never denied that. (Actually it's something I always tell my wife, who is from Hannover.) But I mean differences from the standard you find in Duden and other dictionaries, which is well established and recognized, if slightly imprecise.... let's not get into this. Kolmiel (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, no, I didn't mean to start a discussion. Just helps to say it now and then since most active foreigners here don't have the overview you and I have. I'm not opposed to listing both Dutch variants. Raising of eːr to ɪːr seems to be common everywhere and in all registers. People might wonder, we can help 'em. Korn (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there an actual distinction between the first two senses? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The first one looks like a ~市 instead of ~州 to me. --Kakurady (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

rfv-pronunciation, especially for Cantonese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly wrong, if it's 5-5-5, then the pronunciation listed at 五 (5) is "ng" (Cantonese) and not "wu" (Mandarin); but it is an alt form for crying slang, so it should be originating from Mandarin, and would need a gloss and qualifiers, since it doesn't make sense unless it's Mainlander slang, as it wouldn't be for those who don't use Mandarin. It should be entered as "Mandarin" instead of "Chinese", since it isn't really anything except Mandarin. Other dialects would need etymology and explanations on why this make sense -- 65.94.168.229 05:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Bear as an adjective seems dubious to me. It seems to be based on the analysis of bear market as an adjective-noun phrase, and not a compound written as two words. The OED appears to consider it a compound: it does not label bear n.¹ as n. and adj.. Bear as adjective seems to originate from the Random House Dictionary at Dictionary.com.

I don't have a great grammatical sense of this meaning of the word bear, but it sounds ungrammatical if I try to use it in a predicate: *The market is bear right now, *Events are turning the market bear. The entry acknowledges that the term is not comparable (*more bear, *bearer, ...), but that doesn't exclude it from being an adjective.

Anyone have any thoughts? — Eru·tuon 22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think bearish is the adjective used to describe something akin to a bear market. Bear sounds strange to me as well. Leasnam (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Put "often attributive" on the financial noun sense of bear instead? Equinox ◑ 04:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I like that idea Leasnam (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see it as an adjective but as an attributive noun. Mihia (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

talk:wikipedia seems to indicate that this should be created as an alternate form entry. The page is edit protected -- 65.94.168.229 04:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Created a barebones entry. — Eru·tuon 05:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My mother (Jewish, born mid-century, lived in New York City) calls the use of an immersion blender "to /ʒʊʒ/" (and the blender a "/ʒʊʒ/-er"). I always thought that was her idiosyncrasy until today, when I heard someone else (also Jewish, born mid-'90s, lived in Montreal), whom I'll call X, use "/ʒʊʒ/" for the action of stirring a pot. We got into a brief discussion about /ʒʊʒ/, and someone else wondered whether it's a Jewish (perhaps Hebrew- or Yiddish-influenced) word, to which X replied that she'd once heard a non-Jewish Briton use it with the same meaning. While of course it's onomatopoeic and could appear in individuals' lexicons completely independently, I wonder whether there's more to it than that. Anyone know (or have any ideas)?​—msh210℠ (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Could it be related to zhuzh? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible (though I guess unlikely for the North Americans), and thanks for the link. But it seems very unlikely to be zhuzh ("To tweak, finesse or improve (something); to make more appealing or exciting. Usually with (deprecated template usage) up"), as it's used with such a specific meaning (blending/stirring food).​—msh210℠ (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've heard Americans use zhuzh/zhoosh in the sense of "spice up, make fancy" too, although it's possible I've only heard it from gay Americans, who probably got it from Polari. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A possibility: The Brit said zhuzh and X thought he/she was saying X's /ʒʊʒ/.​—msh210℠ (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would connect it to Russian жужжа́ть (žužžátʹ, “to buzz, hum”), through Yiddish, referring to the sound of the blender. In Yiddish, there seem to have been several variants of this word, including זשוזשן (zhuzhn). --WikiTiki89 16:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! זשוזשן itself gets no hits on bgc (or indeed Google's Web search), and I don't know enough Yiddish to be able to conjugate it for searching for forms. Why do you say it exists?​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@msh210: I guess the spelling זשוזשען (zhuzhen) is more common, which gets a good amount of hits. Anyway, I'd think this word would be much more common in the spoken language than the written language. --WikiTiki89 16:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have added the food mixing sense (to "zhoosh", where "zhuzh" directs). "zhuzh", "zhoozh" and "zhoosh" are all used. Mihia (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Mihia: Did you find citations that these all three of those spellings are used with this meaning? --WikiTiki89 22:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

In Google results, yes. Mihia (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mihia: Can you link to them? --WikiTiki89 16:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is one example for each:

Throw it all in a blender and zhoosh it until it’s creamy smooth.

Just zhoozh that lot up together in the blender and serve with ice and a curly straw.

Mix well with a fork or zhuzh with a hand blender if you have one.

Mihia (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I did notice in passing that /ʒʊʒ/ is given as a pronunciation of "zhoosh" (along with /ʒʊʃ/). I question whether this is correct. Mihia (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I recently tried to get w:galvonic corrosion deleted on Wikipedia as an implausible redirect. However, so many examples of this have now been shown to me (including books, universities, government departments, and believe it or not, the proceedings of an international congress on corrosion) that I am starting to believe that not only is it plausible but it might actually be a proper word. Any thoughts? SpinningSpark 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I would still call it a (common) misspelling of galvanic. DTLHS (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Could this word mean something along the lines of "to make out, to draw out the phonematic system of a language; to analyse which phones should be counted as phonemes in a given language"? --Barytonesis (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It could. I see exactly three uses of "phonematize" on Google books, so it's very rare. DTLHS (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The usual word is phonemicize; likewise the adjective is usually phonemic, not phonematic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this term also used outside of zoology, and does it refer to a computer mouse too? —CodeCat 00:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Judging by w:bg:Мишка_(хардуер), yes. Crom daba (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

These are defined as alternative spellings of each other, while also having a definition. —CodeCat 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable in Buddhism could make some improvements to this entry I just made. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The first point in the usage notes says "Usually pronounced letter by letter, not as rip." However, in sentences like "I've got two exams on the same day, RIP", it's often pronounced as rip. I think there should another sense as well. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a distinct slang sense that is pronounced /ɹɪp/. In fact, I just added that to my "words to add" list yesterday. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I can also attest to this. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

As can I. —JohnC5 00:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the responses here, we only have representation from North America. Is this used outside of North America by any chance? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I have never heard it in the UK. Mihia (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Neither have I. Equinox ◑ 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Noun change:

The problem with these tertiary definitions of 'whore' is that they confuse what a 'whoremonger' is. In the Bible, a 'whore'/'harlot' (Wiktionary agrees a harlot is a female prostitute) appears to be a female prostitute, unless about certain cities. The final definition of the noun 'whore' on Wiktionary is very off, a 'mistress or WIFE'?! Why would someone's wife necessarily be a whore? The quote from Shakespeare might be about a mistress, I'm no Shakespeare scholar, but it makes no sense to think all wives are whores. A whoremonger is one who has sex with prostitutes, female physical whores. The wiktionary entry about 'whoremonger' is basically right, though it is not just a British term, but is very much also American: (Britain, vulgar) A frequent customer of whores. Notice the word 'customer'. That implies 'whores' are 'prostitutes'; a 'prostitute'- a female who has sex with males for money or similar compensation. A pity whore, loot whore, an attention whore, etc isn't really a whore. The reason for the word 'whore' in those terms is that they are like prostitutes with many sources of pity, loot, and attention. For the same reason, a sand dollar isn't a dollar/currency, it's a sea urchin/sea creature. A sea monkey isn't a monkey/primate, it's a shrimp/crustacean. A dust bunny isn't a bunny/rabbit, it's dust.

Verb change:

I believe the verb 'whore' should be modified to include to have sex outside of marriage (to fornicate or to commit adultery). The verb isn't just about sex with a prostitute, similar to how 'the verb' is in Hebrew and Greek in the Bible. Evidence is seen in Webster's 1828, and 1913 dictionary. In Webster's 1913 dictionary are the words for the verb 'whore': 1. To have unlawful sexual intercourse; to practice lewdness.

Similar words: Whoreson/Hurensohn

I suggest 'whoreson' is possibly from a verb, 'whore'/'hore'/'horen' (see horcop/whoreson in Middle English), to commit fornication/adultery. The verb would then be used as an adjective. Why do I think this is the case? 'Whore' traditionally meant 'prostitute', and in the Bible 'whore'/'harlot' means female prostitute (the entry 'harlot' here agrees, a harlot is a 'female prostitute'), and the entry itself here says literally 'son of a prostitute'. However, a bastard is not necessarily a son of a prostitute, but rather a female who had sex outside of marriage. This etymology of 'whoreson' isn't necessarily right, but it makes more sense to believe 'whore' in this case came from a verb, not from the noun 'whore'. It is also possible that horcop/whoreson came from the noun 'hore' meaning 'moral foulness'/'corruption'/'sin'. This is actually the suggestion here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED21181 . It is also possible horcop/whoreson came from the noun 'hor' meaning adultery/fornication. In German, Hurensohn is a synonym for whoreson in English, and 'huren' sounds quite similar to the Middle English verb 'horen' which means to commit adultery/fornication.

The only fully satisfactory way to check the validity of definitions is to examine citations. In the case of the "wife or mistress" sense (or senses) of whore, we have to try to find usages in older English texts as the definition is considered obsolete. The citation from Shakespeare does not unambiguously support that definition, IMO. It would also be useful to consult entries in older dictionaries, such as “whore”, in The Century Dictionary , New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. and the OED. I have not yet found a dictionary that includes such a definition, though I have yet to consult the OED. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

OED doesn't have it either, and I can't find it anywhere else. I've removed the definition, and moved the citation to the definition prostitute. Someone's wife can be aimed at when referring to someone's whore, but then it is simply a dysphemism meant to insult. Many vulgarities can be used as dysphemisms of other words, but those uses rarely deserve a mention, just like euphemistic uses of certain words rarely merit inclusion. — Kleio (t · c) 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Are these actually productive adjectives? Where would they be used other than hall of fame / hall of shame? DTLHS (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There's walk of shame and walk of fame, too, but otherwise I don't know any examples either. I don't see why those two would merit entries though, seems SOP to me (it's just of + ). — Kleio (t · c) 19:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean there are more of them like "wall of fame/shame". But I think this can be handled at ] and ] themselves. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We have discussed with User:TAKASUGI Shinji some extended meanings of the Korean 어떻게 (eotteoke, “how”) at User_talk:Atitarev#어떻게. In my opinion, the term covers more than just "how" (and "what", added later) in various formal situations. Dictionaries don't cover these senses but real life examples show the term is used broadly. I'd like them to be added. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved from User_talk:Atitarev#어떻게:

I’m afraid I don’t understand your edit well. Could you explain it? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. My edit was inspired by a recent video I watched where 어떻게 was used to mean various questions. I can't find the exact moment now. Since you know Korean better than me, do you know cases where 어떻게 is used in the polite speech to replace various question words, also "what". If you strongly disagree, feel free to revert my edit. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have just added an expression, which is probably what you learned. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji Thanks. The example from my Chinese-Korean video was 송호 씨는 가족이 어떻게 되요? (how many or how is made up??) Other examples from the web where 어떻게 has different meanings: 이 컴퓨터는 가격이 어떻게 되지요?, 아버님은 연세가 어떻게 되세요? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They are all the same. 어떻게 되다 means “what is …?” or “what about …?” — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji I disagree. They seem like expanded meanings of 어떻게. In "이 컴퓨터는 가격이 어떻게 되지요?" it's "how much". 어떻게 = 얼마나. In "아버님은 연세가 어떻게 되세요?" it's "how old". "연세가 어떻게" = "몇살". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

어떻게 되다 is a set phrase. You can’t use other verbs. “연세가 어떻게 되세요?” is “what is his age?” — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji (Moved the topic) Yes, it seems that these meanings are used with the verb 되다 (doeda). How should we handle this, add a new entry for 어떻게 되다 (eotteoke doeda), expand 어떻게 (eotteoke) or 되다 (doeda)? I think it can and should still be handled by the Wiktionary. @Wyang, KoreanQuoter, Eirikr - are you intersted in this topic? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I quite like the format at the moment - having a separate sense (어떻게 되다) for that. I'm not sure it on its own would merit an entry. We can redirect it to 어떻게. Wyang (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this equivalent to a director, a playwright, or some combination of the two? Or something entirely different? DTLHS (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've added a definition that seems to fit the usage. But I could be wrong. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the term reception center used in the US for non-human items such as waste? If not, it can be included at reception centre. DonnanZ (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Neither the definition nor the example of the idiomatic sense are very useful. Is it synonymous with on hold? --Barytonesis (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I believe so. Expanded a little according to my understanding. If anyone wants to dig up real citations that would be even better. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Got some cites, interesting phrase. — Kleio (t · c) 21:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Barytonesis (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This is currently given with a single diphthong "oe", but is this accurate? —CodeCat 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's attested as both a two-syllable and a three syllable-word, so it should probably have both /ˈkoe̯piː/ and /koˈeːpiː/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there an idiom resembling this? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember seeing it before. I just googled "looked at it with" "fresh" and immediately found relevant hits. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the most common phrasing is "with a fresh pair of eyes". --WikiTiki89 20:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a fresh pair of eyes: A fresh pair of eyes can provide new perspectives and ways of thinking that offer alternatives to how you plan to tackle a situation. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Google N-Gram results: with fresh eyes is nearly 3 times as common lately as with a fresh eye. GNG won't do searches for n-grams with more than 5 tokens, but with a fresh pair of looks about a fifth as common as with a fresh eye.

But the expression does not need with. For example one could need any of the fresh eye NPs. In any event I see that none of the professional lexicographers at the OneLook references, which include books of idioms have found it inclusion-worthy. DCDuring TALK 02:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit of a rant here. To all the experts in IPA and phonetics: I wonder how you guys do to be able to come up with very narrow transcriptions of natural spoken language. How did you train your ear to be very acute and perceptive of slight variations, and how did you develop an awareness of sounds to the point of being able to transcribe anything, regardless of the language/message?

My problem is the following:

• as a speaker of French, I feel I would be in no position to make a narrow transcription of it, because I'm biased in two respects:
  • I understand what is being said, so I cannot be completely detached of the message being conveyed/got across, and don't really hear it "with fresh ears";
  • I can write/read it, so I already associate the sounds with certain letters/spellings, which are rather phonemic in nature (isn't any writing system of any individual language, for that matter?). This is almost like a bad habit I would have to unlearn, isn't it? The spelling outlines the gross features, but I'm sure I overlook certain details of my own speech, which I am not even aware of and thus don't notice (let's say the unvoicing of when next to an unvoiced consonant: I've always heard a single sound in the pair prison~brisons, for example).
• on the other hand, take Mandarin, which I don't speak a word of: I simply cannot parse/make out any individual sound, because my ear is not attuned at all to these kinds of sound.

And if there are any musicians here (@Angr, am I right?): funnily, it makes me think of ear training and interval recognition somehow. It takes time to learn to recognise an interval without being influenced by the context in which it is played... I mean, take something as simple as the major third between the tonic and the mediant in any major chord: it doesn't leave the same impression as the major third between the mediant and the dominant of a minor chord, and if you aren't trained, you might be too "context-dependant" and not recognise that it's the same interval. I'm still at that stage, actually!

I feel like the more languages you know, the better, because many sounds, many phonetic traits/details will have been "relevantized" to you, and they won't only be theoretical matters; and you will apply your aptitude to distinguish certain features which are relevant in a certain language, to another language where they don't matter.

I wonder to what extent writing is an impediment to getting good at this. It would be interesting to me to have the occasion to learn a language without resorting at all to writing... I wonder how differently I would conceive it. Now, let's imagine I had to devise my own system to write it; wouldn't I naturally come up with a phonemic system rather than a narrowly phonetic one? because the brain is designed in such a way as to recognise patterns, rather than getting bogged down in the details?

Then again, wouldn't I be biased by the fact that I already know how to write another language, and wouldn't I try to fit this language to the writing system I already know, even if it poorly suited it? --Barytonesis (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I might be able to give you some insight. A lot of it just has to do with reading up on and learning about the IPA. The greater your awareness of different sounds and how tongue position affects their quality, the better able you will be to recognize and differentiate between them. For instance, I would never have noticed that the R in tree is voiceless, had I not read it. After reading up on partial voicing, I was further able to recognize that the R was partly voiced because of the following vowels. For some sounds, you might really have to train your ear to hear the difference, especially for sounds that aren't found in your first language. I find that learning how those sounds are produced, and practising saying them makes it easier for me to then recognize them when I hear them. I've also found that my ability to differentiate between and identify different sounds is gradually diminishing, due to lack of review, so it is definitely a learned skill for most people. I imagine it also helps to have exposure to a large variety of different sounds from a young age. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to Wiktionary entries, I'm generally opposed to narrow transcriptions anyway, because they tend to conceal more than they reveal by making it impossible to see the forest for all the damn trees. But when I do use a narrow transcription elsewhere (when I used to be a phonologist for a living and writing papers), I generally relied more on published phonetic descriptions and (when I could get hold of them) spectrograms than on my own ear. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The "Nominal forms" part of the inflection table is borked. Can anyone fix it? Because I certainly can't. (I think it's broken because no infinitive I form was provided? But the point about this verb is that such a form doesn't exist for it – it is defective.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried using {{fi-conj-selvitä}} (pretending for the moment that an infinitive I exists), which appears to be a newer template, but it has no documentation and isn't exactly intuitive, which proves the point I made over in the grease pit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hekaheka might be able to help. —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky: there's an option of defining constant "inf1_longa", which is substituted for "inf1+kseen" on this line. See Template:fi-conj. Another trick is that the conjugation of "kutiaa" is only defined for part of the forms in the conjugation table. For other forms, forms of "kutista" are substituted. That's why "fi-conj-selvitä" -template does not produce a proper table. I added an explanation over the table. Hope it makes sense now.. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine now! Thank you! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This should be moved to eine Nummer zu groß, that is without the "für jemanden" ("for someone"). Thanks a lot. Kolmiel (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it possible for you to move it yourself? The new title is unoccupied. I agree, though, especially considering that it is usually used with dative, not für (das ist mir eine Nummer zu groß, originally referring to clothing). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to move stuff. I could create the new entry and have the old one deleted. Is that the way things are usually moved? Anyway, it's what I'll do. Kolmiel (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kolmiel: Most content can be moved (other than categories) using the "Move" tab at the top of the page or pressing Shift+Alt+M. See mw:Help:Moving_a_page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

+ possibly other spellings(?), abbreviations of "usual". Some Google hits, especially for "the uzhe/yoozh"; do these merit entries? Mihia (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember Equinox posting a similar question here. AFAICR, the discussion bore no fruit. But clearly, if they can be cited, they warrant an entry. Tag 'em as informal or colloquial or slang, and Bob's your uncle. --Quadcont (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Good memory! I tracked down the previous discussion: Wiktionary:Tea room/2013/September#The_yoozh.3F. The existence of the Uzh river (also a redlink), and of "us" and "use" as common words, makes searching for those likely spellings hard. I found two citations of Citations:uzh. I tried the collocations "per uzh", "as uzh", "the uzh". - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion moved to RFV here. Mihia (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The second of the audio files

sounds to me like /iˈpɪtəmɪ/ (treating the medial flapped stop as an allophone of /t/), rather than /ɪˈpɪt.ə.mi/. Can we verify this pronunciation?Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Typo is given as a synonym and the example sentence treats it that way, too. I'm sure this use is very common. But isn't there also a distinction, i.e. that a typo is when a typist or a typesetter makes a mistake, and a misprint is when the printing machine disfigures a letter or adds a dot where it shouldn't be? Kolmiel (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's a distinction made outside very specific fields at best (typesetter's jargon?). In non-specialist usage, a misprint is simply an error found in a printed product, like a newspaper or book. I wouldn't call a typo or spelling mistake I made myself (as a non-professional writer of non-edited texts) a misprint (nor when found in anything in electronic form), but especially considering that to print can also mean "to write clearly, non-cursively", that usage wouldn't surprise me one bit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

English nook developed from a sense of corner, angle. A nock could be viewed as essentially a tiny nook. Are these words related? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a question better asked at Etymology scriptorium. Anyway, the etymology at nook does suggest Old English hnocc as origin, which looks more like straightforwardly the ancestral form of nock. Etymonline also suggests that the two words are related. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. Should I move this post?

(FWIW, the descriptions of the Tea room and the Etymology scriptorium leave it rather unclear which is the better venue for questions like this...)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Is mollemoke an obsolete form of mollymawk, or should they be kept separate? "Mollymawk" seems to refer to albatrosses exclusively, and "mollemoke" to petrels. Are there two different etymologies? DTLHS (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mollemoke is not much used. The Webster's 1913 definition is much copied, not just by us. Century 1911 has "same as mallemuck. OED? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

""“mallemuck”, in The Century Dictionary , New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. looks helpful. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was adding a translation for the Catalan usage example of ¡ !, and "ditxós" was not to be found on the Wiktionary (English or Catalan), and Google Translator didn't know it. So I googled for it, and found glosbe saying it means "damned". However, the context of the usage example (along with the context of the song over here and the fact it's listed as synonym of pròsper on the Catalan Wiktionary) suggest it means "lucky" or "blissful", which is rather different. So what does it mean? Where does it come from? Can someone create an entry for it?

MGorrone (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@MGorrone: DIEC has nothing for the term and wikt:ca:ditxós doesn't exist but the fact that it is linked wikt:ca:pròsper as a synonym is helpful. Also, instances of the word at w:ca: seem to be consistent with the happy/fortunate meaning. This Catlan–Spanish dictionary lists "dichoso", which means lucky as well as damned. Sorry if that's not conclusive but it seems like that is probably the correct definition. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Btw Bing translates ditxós to "most happy". Since "dichoso" comes from "dicha | luck", I tried looking for "ditxa" as a matching Catalan word. Bing doesn't know it, but Google gives "perfect joy!", and this gives dicha->ditxa and dichoso->ditxós (is it the same as you linked above @Koavf:?). So I guess all that is left to do now is to wait for someone to confirm this, someone who speaks Catalan. MGorrone (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vriullop: sorry to bother you but I read elsewhere in the TR that you speak Catalan so could you confirm my translation of the above-mentioned usage example and the meaning of ditxós? MGorrone (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I'm happy to help. I've created ditxós and I think it answers all questions. It was in use in 19th century but currently it is informal or dated, but well understood as a Spanish borrowing. It is not included in most dictionaries. --Vriullop (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

These two computing phrases, one from Chinese and one from Japanese, definitely look related (there's a lot of sharing words in the zh/ja STEM lexicon); where would be a good section in their entries to add links to each other? --Kakurady (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• The relationship isn't entirely clear, so I am hesitant to add these as cognates when they may be independent coinages / calques. I've added them to each other's pages using {{also}} at the top of the page. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I think this is what I'm looking for. --Kakurady (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done гнусавить

гнусавый голос often indicates that person is sick in Russian.

Is there a noun or adjective in English similar to гнусавый?

Dictionaries suggest these, but I'm not sure about English usage:

• nasal
• adenoidal

What word is the best to use in casual conversations? d1g (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Two words pop to mind: stuffy, sniffly — Stuffy would apply to a nose, sniffly to a person. — Eru·tuon 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I should say: I don't know what word гнусавый (gnusavyj) derives from, but these ideas were based on the word nasal, which has to do with the nose. So if the Russian word is about the common cold and a runny nose, those are good words. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "гнусавый голос" is about voice during common cold and runny nose, ОРВИ is the most common causation.

There are other factors, complex scenarios can be fixed by surgeon; simplest by логопед (example) d1g (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sick in what way? Why doesn't sick or sickly work?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we have an entry for this? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, IMO. Also see “have designs on”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless it's SOP with sense 4 of design, which actually shows this collocation in one of its quotes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't usually second guess the lemmings. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The example sentence for this term - "風邪を引く" - uses the kanji meaning "pull" for the word "ひく" - to catch, in this context. A quick Google search of the phrase in all hiragana brings up "風邪をひく" much more frequently, and the Genki 1 textbook prefers this too, although said book does render other terms in hiragana that are often written in kanji. The top answer on this page likewise suggests that the kanji rendering is, at least nowadays, uncommon, but I don't feel that I have solid enough evidence, with my limited Japanese, to make the judgement call myself. Can anyone confirm or deny that the word should be written in hiragana? --Ichigoichigo (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it since the kana spelling has twice as many Google Books results. —suzukaze (t・c) 20:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ichigoichigo: The lemma form of ひく (hiku) is 引く. Moreover, monolingual JA dictionaries that contain an entry for kaze o hiku use the rendering 風邪を引く (kaze o hiku), as viewable here at Weblio or here at Kotobank. So for lexicographical entry purposes, 風邪を引く is the correct form.

As also noted in this Chiebukuro thread, there are several kanji that could be applied to the term ひく, but only 引く is appropriate in relation to 風邪 (kaze, “a cold, an illness”). For instance, 挽く (hiku, “to saw, to cut something with a saw”) is clearly the wrong kanji, and likewise, 碾く (hiku, “to grind, as coffee or flour”) is also clearly the incorrect sense.

The 引く entry could certainly benefit from expansion, in which case a usage note would be appropriate to inform the reader that the 風邪を引く expression is often spelled with ひく in hiragana.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious about the syntactical characteristics of وَجَبَ (wajaba). My impression is that one of the senses, “to be necessary”, is impersonal: it always occurs in the third person singular masculine and never has a subject, or in another analysis perhaps the subject is a clause introduced by أَنْ (ʔan). But I'm not at all sure about this; Wehr doesn't give more than two examples. Both examples can be analyzed as impersonal, but it's conceivable that other uses are personal. The second sense, “to be one's duty”, could also be impersonal. Does anyone know more about this? — Eru·tuon 18:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference, here are Wehr's examples:

• وَجَبَ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ

  wajaba ʿalay-hi ʾan

  it is his duty to ..., he is in duty bound to ..., he has to ..., he must ...

• كَمَا يَجِبُ

  kamā yajibu

  as it should be, as it must be, comme il faut

— Eru·tuon 00:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The verb can be personal and impersonal, and it isn't always singular masculine. You can say, for example: يجب إعدام هذا الرجل (Yajibu ’i‘dāmu hāḏā r-rajul., “This man must be executed.”, literally “This man's execution is necessary”). And with a feminine noun: لا تجب الصلاة على الأطفال (Lā tajibu ṣ-ṣalātu ‘alā l-’aṭfāl., “Children are not required to perform the obligatory prayer.”, literally “The prayer is not necessary on the children”). When it's impersonal, it is always masculine. And I think that the subject is, as you proposed, the following subclause. Kolmiel (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kolmiel:, @Erutuon Furthermore, وَجَبَ is translated in the مضارع "it is... he has..", is it similar to ليس? What can be added about the tense in its impersonal meaning? --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums I don't know what they mean by "it is..." or "he has ...". They would have to be some context. Generally, the verb expresses an obligation, as above. As far as tense is concerned, I'm not aware of anything notable. Perfect is perfect and imperfect is imperfect. Kolmiel (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello.

I was writing a message and was looking for a way I had in mind to say “You can at least mention that you know about the matter of…”, or “You can at least tell that you have in mind the fact that…». I couldn’t remember the expression anyway, so I sent a message with one of these longer forms (and it was in French anyway, so it would have been quite useless to remember it, and it’s also probably the reason why I couldn’t get hold of it).

I found it afterwards: “accredit the fact” (“You can at least accredit the fact that…”). I went to read the accredit entry, but nothing matches really. There’re still 79,300 results on Google.

Is it wrong? Was I thinking about another expression from which “accredit the fact” is deformed? Can someone put some light on this? Thanks!

Nclm (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't sense 2 ("To put or bring into credit; to invest with credit or authority; to sanction") the appropriate meaning of accredit for your purposes? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant acknowledge rather than accredit? Equinox ◑ 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, acknowledge is closer to what I had in mind (and shorter since “the fact” isn’t needed). Thanks! Nclm (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Accredit the fact" is very uncommon, judging from Google Books (10 hits for all inflections). I'm also not sure how common the sense of accredit that Angr identifies is in current English. I wouldn't have been sure what you meant by accrediting a fact, except perhaps from context. DCDuring TALK 13:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Some instances of "accredit the fact" might be errors for "credit the fact". Mihia (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't look right to me. Wyang (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nor to me. I've never heard sheep pronounced with a "t" sound, and I don't see how Scots would be any different. It was added as part of one of User:Embryomystic's typical everything-at once edits: when you make dozens of several different kinds of changes all up and down a complex entry, it's too easy to overlook details Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ay, it was obviously unintentionally copied from tuip somehow. Anyway, Metaknowledge set it right. --Droigheann (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how I managed to do that. I've added the actual pronunciation now; significantly simpler and less controversial. Thanks for catching the error, folks. embryomystic (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I need the help of those who are better at Googling than I am, in order to identify the dzaye fruit. None of the native speakers I know have been aware of any English name for it, but one non-native speaker calls it the "elephant-orange". I would like to find the scientific name of the tree from which it comes for our entry, but neither the native name nor the supposed English name have produced anything! Nearly all the hits on Google are of a popular proverb which mentions this mysterious fruit. @Chuck Entz —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you find this page? It narrows it down a little bit: "same family as passion fruit or granadilla". Equinox ◑ 11:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I found but a single scholarly article that says it's Strychnos spinosa (w:Strychnos spinosa). DCDuring TALK 14:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DCDuring, I do believe that looks right! I'll show the photos of it to a native speaker to confirm. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In French (possibly only in Belgian French, I don't know), we often speak of a paki ("Est-ce que vous savez s'il y a un paki dans le coin ?"), because this kind of shop tends to be owned/managed by Pakistani people. Do you have a similar word in English, that would refer to the supposed origin of the owners? And we also speak of night shop (again, possibly only in Belgian French), but you don't have such a word in English, do you? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice that we don't have categories for pseudo-anglicisms. Would Category:Pseudo-anglicisms in French be suitable? --Barytonesis (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Beware that "Paki" in English is an offensive racial slur. Mihia (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Paki shop" is a familiar collocation in British English but it sounds racist and will not make a good impression! I also doubt it's commonly/ever used for shops not actually operated by Pakistanis. Equinox ◑ 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: To build upon what User:Mihia said above, "Paki" is offensive only the United Kingdom (and possibly other places which have a strong cultural affiliation with the UK) but not in (e.g.) the United States, where the term is not used at all. For what it's worth, as an American, there are definitely stereotypes of South Asians owning convenience stores, gas stations, hotels, and a few other businesses but I can happily report that I am pleasantly surprised that I don't know of any ethnic-based terms for these types of businesses. The only slang term that I can recall for a convenience store is a "c-store". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Here in the US, I've quite often heard the terms bodaga (or bodago) and hindu mart used to refer to these stores. Leasnam (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's spelled bodega. And I think I've heard Korean market in the States, but maybe only when the owners are actually Koreans. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just want to point out the coincidence of the word packie (“liquor store”). --WikiTiki89 19:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• As another speaker born and raised in the US, I've never heard of any ethnic labels referring to convenience stores. I have heard use of slev as a contraction of Seven-Eleven, but that's the only slangy term I know of for convenience store. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nor have I. I have sometimes heard these shops called bodegas or corner stores or occasionally delis (a misuse of this term), but often simply referred to by their brand (7-11, Circle K, Wawa, etc.). Benwing2 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW the entry on corner store claims it's a Canadianism, which I don't believe. Benwing2 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The only general informal term I've heard is minimart- not exactly slang... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a job for DARE. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I read on the Wikipedia article that this word "appears to date at least back to 1972, when Edith Folb documented its use by urban black teenagers." This seems like relevant lexicographic information to me. Two questions spring to mind:

• what's the habit around here? Do we generally try to find the earliest occurrences of words, especially of slangy ones?
• is there any kind of tool to help us in this quest? (@DCDuring?) --Barytonesis (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

If there isn't an actual quotation, you can put this information in the etymology with a reference. If you're looking for quotations Google Books is useful, in which case the quotation can go under the relevant definition. We also have {{defdate}}. DTLHS (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Another good resource is Google Scholar, especially for technical terms but also for academic literature about slang terms. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The main 'tool' is Google Books which allows searching in a date range. For slang you can restrict the search to fiction ("subject:fiction"). Also slang dictionaries often have a citations and/or a date assigned. It's not in DARE vol 1, (1985), but might be in the recently published catch-up volume or online. I not familiar with AAVE dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The 1972 reference is here http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066758.pdf . Will add cite. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel like we're missing a sense here of a large group of people saying the same thing in the same rhythm, e.g. an angry mob chanting "Down with so-and-so", or a stadium of soccer fans chanting "Block that kick!". Both of our current senses of the verb refer to singing, but this kind of chanting isn't singing at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have added a sense. Feel free to improve. Equinox ◑ 04:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

As the definition notes, sometimes this term includes humans, and sometimes it does not. Is it appropriate to split that into two senses, along the lines of animal? (Note that none of the senses at great ape are "scientific" senses per se like the first sense at animal is; biology has largely abandoned the use of great ape except for popular writing.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of citations. Can we find instances of usage such as "man and other great apes"? DCDuring TALK 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Given that, what's your answer to my question? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Our definition makes it sound as if the term is very closely associated with specific scientific terms. Maybe it is, but to me the scientific terms seem less stable than the core (typical) membership included in the groups. Perhaps we could be intentionally vague about the exact relationship to the current "correct" taxonomic definition of Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini, etc. Putting the linkage to taxonomic names in a usage note might be handy. Even that note should probably not lead with the taxa IMO.

I am also skeptical about having the list of morphological characters.

Most other dictionaries have a single definition excluding humans, some include humans. I think it would be useful to pointedly make the distinction between the two uses by having two definitions, one with humans, one without.

If you want, I'll take a run at it, but not today. DCDuring TALK 03:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would. I agree that the characters ought to go and that a usage note would help. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring, a reminder. (Of course, if you don't do it, I suppose I'll get to it eventually myself.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)