Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/June

In spite of the name, this is increasingly used in the UK to refer to home-delivered food as well as food taken off the premises. Is this worth a usage note? Davidtmoore (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Can't this also mean just a general preference of something in some idiolects or dialects? For example "I have a fetish for tea." meaning "I have a preference/favoring for tea." PseudoSkull (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Only through hyperbole, AFAIK. If someone were to tell me they had a fetish for tea, my immediate mental image would be of them pouring tealeaves down their pants or something. Similarly, "I have a fetish for Dr Who" doesn't mean they're a fan, or even simply a very strong fan; it means they get their sexual partner(s) to dress up as a Dalek or something. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 04:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you could probably find cites that support some bleached definition as PSkull suggests, but I'd like to see the cites rather than jsut assume they exist. DCDuring (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Some speakers use it for non-sexual "obsession" in a derogatory/hyperbolic way, like attacking a "fetish for deficit reduction" (used in The Guardian on May 7, 2015). I don't know if it can be used as neutrally as "fetish for tea". - -sche (discuss) 16:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

So "covfefe" does not have an entry yet, and that is quite incredible considering it's widespread usage. It has an article on our sister project Wikipedia. — This unsigned comment was added by Covfefe user (talk • contribs) at 05:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC).

See WT:CFI and come back in a year. DTLHS (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe by then there will be a definition, and we will know whether it is a noun, a verb, or an expletive. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 05:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It might meet the criteria for hot words. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I doubt you could come up with a definition or part of speech. DTLHS (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's like some of the other famous typos like pwn that inherit the PoS of the word for which they are a typo. We could add it as a hotword, so that it gets reviewed and deleted if it has completely died out in a year. DCDuring (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What is "covfefe" a typo for? Unless we want to have a definition like "why you don't tweet at midnight if you're jetlagged". I'm with Merriam-Webster on this one --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 22:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I assumed from context that it was a typo for coverage. — Eru·tuon 23:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Me too. I thought it was kinda obvious. It is the kind of typo that I sometimes make in my dotage late at night. I usually correct it in preview or after "publishing", as the Donald did. There are somewhat fewer observers noting my typos than note his. DCDuring (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump misspelling a word doesn't automatically mean that it's a common misspelling. We should still wait a year to see if any additional meanings develop. DTLHS (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right. The word would need legs (usage), like ]. There isn't much (any?) use, despite the tsunami of mentions. It might turn out to be like santorum or nucular. DCDuring (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If Wikimedia is the center of all knowledge, then it is during this hot words cool off period that people will want to know what comics are joking about (and they have used it extensively, even after the novelty. It deprives a user of current relevant information during the time of peak pertinence to not acknowledge it. Spawn777 (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What does "start (in the passive sense)" mean? I found it in a meaning of Hungarian "indul".

Hi, in the definition of 'steep' the adjective near-vertical shows up hyphenated. Yet, such a form doesn't appear in Wiktionary itself, nor does a productive form 'near-', at least with the meaning 'almost', which is to be expected as it doesn't either on google, so the inconsistency is to be fixed. Incidentally, I think there should be an automatic checker to flag terms appearing in entries that are not acceptable, and so they can be checked manually. --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's like "partly-melted ice" or "nine-year-old child". Hyphens just work that way. It doesn't mean we need hyphenated entries, any more than we need one for "Dog" just because "dog" gets capitalised at start of sentence. Equinox ◑ 14:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The internal logic of a lexicographic resource must be taken into account, so any superfluous complexity should be avoided --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Meaning ? DCDuring (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This kind of hyphenation is a standard feature of English. We do not need separate entries like "near-" for all of the huge number of possibilities. Mihia (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

In the example "partly-melted ice", the hyphen is superfluous; adverbs automatically modify the word following them, be they adjectives, verbs, or other adverbs. "Well-known" is another example of this superfluous, but common usage.189.228.102.92 08:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it still it is a useful entry even if it may not be "stand-alone"—prefixes and suffixes are not stand-alone either, but we include those. and in Korean, a language in which spaces are used, particles are attached to the words. —suzukaze (t・c) 14:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The entry for the written-together form (e.g. you betcha) is at -cha; however, the usage note there says it is sometimes written as a separate word (e.g. you bet cha). If that's attestable, then it definitely needs to be listed at cha. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

the word "approvableness" means - The state or quality of being approvable

When is approvableness used as a state of being approvable? And when is it used as a quality of being appprovable?

For the Polish word nam, it says that the pronunciation is . But why is this? If I follow the rules in the Polish orthography Wikipedia page, the pronunciation seems to be /nam/ ... it mentions nothing about /ã/, so is there another rule not mentioned in the article, or what? Kinos0634 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be a narrow phonetic transcription, not a phonemic one. If you add in /nam/ and change the other one to it should be ok. —CodeCat 23:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

1. (crosswords) Horizontally.

   I got stuck on 4 across.

This is listed under "adverb". Do you agree that "across" is an adverb here? Mihia (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Isn't it adjectival? "I got stuck on 4 horizontally" sounds as though the getting stuck was done horizontally. Equinox ◑ 20:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's short for "going across". --WikiTiki89 20:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It's modifying 4, so I would say it's either an adjective, or a contracted adjectival phrase as Wikitiki suggests. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that the definition in question is defined using another adverb, rather than a prepositional phrase, as the other three definitions are. Across is itself etymologically a prepositional phrase. Definition 1 seems to be pretty close to the crossword usage.

Some other dictionaries have an adjective definition like "being in a crossed or transverse position" with crosswise a synonym.

I don't think this would meet our tests for an adjective, unless we view it as being different semantically. DCDuring (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

We have the crossword meaning of (deprecated template usage) down as a noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think noun is a worthy candidate. Consider: "I don't know the answer to 4 across" Leasnam (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

We also have a plural at acrosses Leasnam (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

And, more tellingly, we could cite the plural, though the many scannos involving cross make it a bit tedious. There are instances in Google Books of puzzle clues referring to the solutions of other clues: Bygone hangout for 64-acrosses. DCDuring (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"4 across" is an NP, but what is the head noun? It could be the 4. ("Done the quiz? I haven't solved 6 and 7 yet.") Equinox ◑ 11:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Only found in compound verbs and as the past participle clinatus. I don't want to see the entry deleted but it cannot stand as is. --Barytonesis (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Best solution I can see would be to move it to Reconstruction:, like *nuo, another Classical verb that must have existed and has a good etymology but isn't attested. KarikaSlayer (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if we can say for sure that it must have existed in Latin. All we know is that it existed at some time in Latin's history. —CodeCat 14:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If you take the past participle clinatus to be an inflected form, then this is attested via an inflected form. That's an if, of course. Furthermore, one attesting sentence is at Talk:clino#Latin, attestation, posted by me; but I do not know Latin. If this should be removed from the mainspace, you would need RFV for that, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: as I mentioned on the talk page, I unfortunately wouldn't rely on the attesting sentence you added: it comes from an old edition of Lucretius, and modern editions replace it with inclinare. As for your other remark, I don't know yet, but other dictionaries definitely insist on the fact that it is found in the past participle only; L&S even makes "clinatus" the lemma. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

An example sentence bracketed into separate chunks is a good visual way of showing the extend to which syntactic relations spread. English examples abound, but for example to show why in the phrase عن عدمِ قبولِ الشركةِ رفْعَ أُجُورِهِمْ the noun رفْعَ is in the accusative, and not affected neither by the preposition عن or by عدم, I'm hesitating about how to proceed in a right-to-left language. Could you add your proposals? --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the source of that sentence? It doesn't seem right to me. I think any sentence needs to have either a verb or a nominative or both (except when it starts with إنَّ (ʔinna) or أَنَّ (ʔanna)). Kolmiel (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kolmiel: It's translated as 'about the company’s refusal to raise their wages', taken from Arabic: An Essential Grammar by Faruk Abu-Chacra, pag. 179. I am really interested in dividing it using brackets, as some English grammars do --Backinstadiums (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums Adding brackets to Arabic or other right-to-left languages is tricky but the physical order of symbols is the same.

هو ماش في الشارع. ― He's walking in the street.

هُوَ مَاشٍ فِي الشَارِعِ. ― huwa māšin fī š-šāriʕi. ― He's walking in the street.

هُوَ مَاشٍ فِي الشَارِعِ. ― huwa māšin fī š-šāriʕi. ― He's walking in the street. Please note how the last word is linked. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums Okay. So it's not a sentence. Kolmiel (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@kolmiel fixed, in linguistic technical terms it's a phrase. Yet what I mean by bracketing is dividing it up according to the different syntactic governing spreading of case. --Backinstadiums (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please remove (This entry is a translation hub.) from the page. A single word is nowhere non-idiomatic.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. No idea why that was there. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I heard this pronounced something like /səˈuːdɪ/ or /sɑːˈuːdɪ/ just now. Is that common at all? (It was a British political analyst who may have had some knowledge of Arabic. The Arabic is /sʊˈʕuːdi/.) Kolmiel (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This can be plural or uncountable, but not singular ("*an electronics"). How to express this with en-noun? Equinox ◑ 16:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What about {{head|en|noun|plural or uncountable}}? DTLHS (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Or you could split the senses into two Noun sections with their own headword templates. DTLHS (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it uncountable but used {{lb|en|with either a singular or a plural verb}}? Or it could be split, as DTLHS says; compare what statistics does. - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a disagreement over the inclusion, in the etymology of trompe l'oeil, of the "translation" of l’ into English t’. I think that the mention of t’ is odd and out of place. I believe that it is not useful or relevant to the etymology note and should be removed. Another editor, @I'm so meta even this acronym, wants to retain it. Please give your opinion in order that this dispute may be resolved. Thank you. Mihia (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it isn't really comparable because t' is dialectal, so I agree it should be removed. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not only that. but it means nothing in isolation like that- I'm sure it would require wikilinking to explain to most people why there's an intrusive "t" there. Besides, definite articles in French only partly overlap in usage with their English counterparts, and elision of vowels has a completely different connotation: in modern French, it's boringly standard and ubiquitous, but in modern English it's a rare pseudo-poetic affectation. On the other hand, it might be fun to watch @I'm so meta even this acronym try the same thing with "qu'est-ce que c'est que ça?". Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

What about th- (as in th'apple, etc.), which we coincidentally do not show a Modern English entry for ? Leasnam (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Chuck (and the rest of you) that it is inappropriate to have "t'"/"th'" in the etymology section of French (or English-borrowed-from-French) entries that use "l'". "L'" corresponds to "the" (or sometimes nothing at all), not normally the poetic "t'"/"th'". - -sche (discuss) 16:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the replies. I see that another editor has now deleted it. Mihia (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A monosyllabic word for "rat meat which has not been air-dried", I'm impressed! (Is that definition correct?) But then what's the word for "rat meat which has been air-dried"? - -sche (discuss) 16:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to know ... I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly prefer my rat meat air-dried. Mihia (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Wyang, do either of you know — firstly whether the definition "rat meat which has not been air-dried" is correct, and whether it's archaic, historical, or still current, and secondly what the word for rat meat which has been air-dried is? - -sche (discuss) 18:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@-sche: It's pretty much obsolete AFAICT. Hanyu Da Zidian cites Zhanguoce, which says it's used by the Zhou (周) people. It was used in the book to show a confusion caused by different vocabulary between the Zhou people and the Zheng (鄭) people. I've got no idea what the word for rat meat that has been air-dried would be. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@-sche: Yes, it's obsolete at least. 朴 (OC *pʰroːɡ, “rat meat which has not been air-dried”) was homophonic with 璞 (OC *pʰroːɡ, “uncut jade; unpolished jade”) in Old Chinese, and I think the former may have been derived from the latter etymologically. Zhanguoce has the following tale on this:

應侯曰：「鄭人謂玉未理者璞，周人謂鼠未臘者朴。周懷朴過鄭賈曰：『欲買朴乎？』鄭賈曰：『欲之。』出其朴，視之，乃鼠也。因謝不取。今平原君自以賢，顯名於天下，然降其主父沙丘而臣之。天下之王尚猶尊之，是天下之王不如鄭賈之智也，眩於名，不知其實也。」

---

应侯曰：「郑人谓玉未理者璞，周人谓鼠未腊者朴。周怀朴过郑贾曰：『欲买朴乎？』郑贾曰：『欲之。』出其朴，视之，乃鼠也。因谢不取。今平原君自以贤，显名于天下，然降其主父沙丘而臣之。天下之王尚犹尊之，是天下之王不如郑贾之智也，眩于名，不知其实也。」

From: Zhanguo Ce, circa 5^th – 3^rd centuries BCE

Yìng hóu yuē: “Zhèng rén wèi yù wèi lǐ zhě pú, Zhōu rén wèi shǔ wèi là zhě pǔ. Zhōu huái pǔ guò Zhèng gǔ yuē: ‘Yù mǎi pǔ hū?’ Zhèng gǔ yuē: ‘Yù zhī.’ Chū qí pǔ, shì zhī, nǎi shǔ yě. Yīn xiè bù qǔ. Jīn Píngyuán jūn zì yǐ xián, xiǎnmíng yú tiānxià, rán jiàng qí zhǔ fù Shāqiū ér chén zhī. Tiānxià zhī wáng shàng yóu zūn zhī, shì tiānxià zhī wáng bùrú zhèng gǔ zhī zhì yě, xuàn yú míng, bùzhī qí shí yě.”

The Marquis of Ying said: “The men of Zheng call a piece of jade which has not been cut and polished pʰroːɡ. The men of Zhou call a rat which has not been dried up pʰroːɡ. A man of Zhou with an undried rat in his bosom passed a merchant of Zheng and said: ‘Do you want to buy a pʰroːɡ?’ The merchant of Zheng said: ‘I do.’ He took out his and showed it to him. It was a rat. And so he declined to take it.
Now the Prince of Pingyuan has a distinguished reputation throughout the world as a man of worth and ability. But he degraded his ruler's father at Shaqiu and treated him as a subject. And yet and kings throughout the world have less understanding than the merchant of Zheng. They are dazzled by a name and do not know what he really is.”

I don't know the name for dried rat meat is either. Wyang (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang, I suspect 朴, 璞 and 樸 (unprocessed wood) are essentially the same word that have a core meaning of "something unprocessed". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung I definitely agree. Wyang (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I highly doubt that that definition is correct. Can you maybe find a citation? If that definition is correct, it's probably archaic. Even if that definition is correct, I have absolutely no idea about the word for "rat meat that has been air-dried". Sorry. Johnny Shiz (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: There is a quotation right up there. It's pretty clear if you understand classical Chinese (周人謂鼠未臘者朴). It's also in Kangxi Dictionary, Hanyu Da Zidian, Hanyu Da Cidian and Wang Li's Gu Hanyu Zidian. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The gloss of "fél" in the etymology of Hungarian "felel" is given as “fellow human being”, but in the entry for "fél" itself, only meanings for 'fear', 'half', and 'post' appear. Is the gloss at "felel" accurate, and if so, how can this be reflected at "fél"?

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Thread:User_talk:CodeCat/1a16_edit

of

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/بسم_الله_الرحمن_الرحيم

specifically

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=بسم_الله_الرحمن_الرحيم&action=history

1a16 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

1a16 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

made an addition post-revert > https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=بسم_الله_الرحمن_الرحيم&action=history

1a16 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

1a16 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The entry says:

The only attested forms of the verb are ϝεχέτω (wekhétō, third-person singular present active imperative) and ἔϝεξε (éwexe, third-person singular aorist active indicative).

So then shouldn't the lemma be at ϝέχω (wékhō)? --WikiTiki89 19:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it should. (Or perhaps there should only be entries for the attested forms, or the unattested lemma form should be in the Reconstruction namespace?) Our having it on the digamma-less version of the word follows the LSJ's custom of placing entries at the Koine Greek spelling of the word, which in this case is not attested, but created by removing the digamma (as the digamma had disappeared long before the Koine period). — Eru·tuon 19:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the reconstruction namespace, since it is attested. If we put it at the lemma ϝέχω (wékhō), we can explicitly say that the lemma form is not attested. We should probably create individual entries for the attested forms regardless. --WikiTiki89 19:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so attested means that having forms that are attested, not that the lemma itself is necessarily attested. — Eru·tuon 20:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have concrete rules about it, but that's what I personally feel makes more sense. --WikiTiki89 20:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I moved the entry to ϝέχω (wékhō). Also, the LSJ entry seems to be saying it is attested in Pamphylia and Cyprus, and so I labeled it as Arcadocypriot. --WikiTiki89 21:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

RFV pronunciation: /tɛksɪd/. I think this would more likely be pronounced as /tɛkst/. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that it is an alternative form of texted I'd agree with you. But to ensure that it is understood as a past tense, I can fully see how it's pronounced as indicated Leasnam (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have it backwards. It's non-standard and presumably derived from text, since t sounds like -ed. So why would it not sound like text? Equinox ◑ 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see now. texed would be pronounced like "text" as if it were tex (= "text") + -ed. Then the second e would not be pronounced...do what ? Leasnam (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If this is from a dialect where consonant clusters are phonetically simplified, the word is still phonologically the same and so the ending is still pronounced with a vowel. In other words: text is /tɛkst/ > and texted is /tɛkstɪd/ > . --WikiTiki89 15:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

But isn't it equally possible for the -ed to attach after text "lost" its /t/, i.e. text /tɛks/ + /-d/ → ? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's also possible, but it's an entirely different scenario. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting discussion here. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess that is evidence of the vowel-less pronunciation. But other than that, I don't think this blogger really knows what he's talking about. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, "this blogger" is David Crystal. Equinox ◑ 18:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh... Well what I really meant to say is that I disagree with him about the reason he gives in this case, not that he doesn't know anything about linguistics. --WikiTiki89 19:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes with three dings. Indicates that the person you are talking to has hit on the correct answer or explanation. Usually sarcastic, suggesting that the person took a while to get there. What is the origin of this phrase (and should we have an entry)? Equinox ◑ 19:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably TV game shows or quiz shows... AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In styca, does it seem correct that it came from Latin, which came from Old English? I edited the etymology templates but didn't change that information. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Websters says "LL., fr. AS. stic, styc, stycge," which are Northumbrian variants (attested as stycas (plural)) for stycc (“piece; bit”). Apparently it was borrowed into Mediaeval Anglo-Latin from OE, then made its way from there into Modern English as a historical term Leasnam (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In Japan's entertainment industry, "idol groups" form with the express intent of becoming popular (w:Japanese idol). This seems to be based on but rather different from sense 2, which seems to describe organic popularity. ja.wp notes that their image is also supposed to be "personal and close to you". —suzukaze (t・c) 11:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a word? I can find "a nause" on Google Groups (a hundred or so hits), fairly consistently used to mean "a pain, a nuisance". Could be slang from nauseating? Equinox ◑ 13:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Finnish wiktionary claims that the Indonesian word is a possible translation of one of the meanings of the Finnish one (relatives, kin) and also of the Finnish word heimo (tribe). Can this be true? If true, this is so surprising that it would need a note. --Espoo (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Do any of the other language wikis say that? Johnny Shiz (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What does this even mean? Here's the context: Teenager 1: "Nice car! Should we borrow it?" Teenager 2: "Nah, that's stealing." Teenager 1: "Come on, I'll ask for permission later." How do you even ask for permission later anyway? Was he just being a smartass, or? PseudoSkull (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the idea that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission (and justifying yourself by calling it asking for permission instead of asking for forgiveness). I don't think we need entries for these phrases you linked though. --WikiTiki89 17:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't either, but perhaps "retroactively" should be added as a sense of later? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think that's necessary either. --WikiTiki89 18:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing special here. You can get retroactive permission after doing something, e.g. using someone's music in your video. Permission doesn't have to come first. Equinox ◑ 18:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

But in that case, the permission is to release the video, not to make it, so it's not really retroactive. --WikiTiki89 18:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Equinox But how can you even ask for permission after you do the thing you were going to ask permission for, especially in the car stealing case. Break into the car and drive it. Later meet up with the person and say "Hey, can I borrow your car? Oh, wait, I just did!" PseudoSkull (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You're not asking "can I borrow your car?". You're asking "do you grant me the right to borrow it?". Doing the borrowing is an act; it doesn't involve permission; you may or may not have permission, when you do it. The permission can be acquired later. It's separate from the act of doing what you want permission for. As I said above: it has often happened, in the real world that someone has used a music track without permission, and even sold the resulting product, and only acquired permission to do so afterwards. Equinox ◑ 07:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You might conceivably be interested in deontic logic, which sometimes overlaps certain bits of grammar. Equinox ◑ 07:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Equinox User:Wikitiki89 Oh, so you're saying one could borrow the car, and then say "Is it okay that I borrowed your car?" Also, the point I was trying to make was that taking a car without permission first almost always constitutes theft to my knowledge, especially if you use a crowbar to break in, like in the cringey video where I got the quotes. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

For one thing one could be performing the common pragmatic language function of deception. One could be speaking in such a way as to lead the hearer to believe that the action for which one was seeking permission had not already occurred. DCDuring (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's a good idea to add an IPA sense at ( ) explaining, say, why the pronunciation of terminator (/ˈtɜː(ɹ)m.ɪn.eɪ.tə(ɹ)/) currently has a few parentheses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just sense 3. However, in this particular case, the first "(ɹ)" shouldn't be there at all if the pronunciation is labeled RP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A (Can we verify⁽⁺⁾ this pronunciation?) request has been made by user:Fumiko Take to provide a citation for the listed 慣用音 (kan'yōon) reading, はい. I don't know about 唐音 (tōon), but it perfectly fits the definition of kan'yōon (common but possibly corrupted Chinese readings), also it is basically a transliteraton of the modern Mandarin, so I'm not sure why this was in question. My understanding may be a bit off here, but often Chinese names of people and places are read in Japanese with a more standard Chinese sounding pronunciation of the characters, and can't all of those non-standard pronunciations be considered kan'yōon, if they are common? Here are a few citation for admins to review for attestation: (found these on a google books search searching "慣用音 上海(シャンハイ)"):

• NHKことばのハンドブック NHK放送文化研究所 日本放送出版協会, 2005, Page 131.
• 中国近世財政史の研究 京都大学学術出版会, 2004, Page 572.
• 漢文解釋要法 硏究社, 1934. Page 20.

馬太阿房 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@馬太阿房 I asked because I couldn't find definitive sources for the claim about that toon or kanyoon. The reason it was included was apparently "the Japanese Wiktionary said so". Working on wikis, one should know better than to cite another wiki. ばかFumiko￥^talk 02:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take It was me who gave you that reason when you had originally removed the reading and I guess I should have known better as you say. Without a rfv, I guess I felt I didn't have to do much research, so thanks for posting the rfv to ask for help researching this which is better than assuming a reading is not valid as listed and removing it. 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

1. (transitive) To look at.

   He viewed the painting and praised the artist for his masterpiece.

2. (transitive) To show.

   To view the desktop, click the small desktop icon on the bottom of your screen.

I question whether these senses are distinct, or at least whether they are distinct in the way claimed. Fundamentally the second one seems to mean "look at" too, though there may be a small nuance of difference. Anyway, any thoughts? Mihia (talk)

Perhaps the second usex is intended to mean "show" or "display" rather than to look at the desktop ? Perhaps the example needs work. Leasnam (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, clearly it is intended to mean that, in the mind of whoever wrote the example, but the question is whether it actually does. My contention is that "view" does not mean "show" at all, either in this example or any other. Mihia (talk)

I would agree with you. I'm trying to think of ways that view can ever mean "to present for viewing"/"show" but I cannot think of any... Leasnam (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking around at various dictionaries as well I couldn't find anyone else defining view this way. I think it should be removed. Leasnam (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted it. Mihia (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there an adjective (along the lines of Trumpian, Thatcherian, etc.) for Fidel Castro? I couldn't find much evidence for "Castroan" or "Castronian" in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Castroist DTLHS (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a small number (43) of b.g.c hits for Castrovian. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a noun phrase rather than an adjective. I could be wrong, though. There are no usage examples, unfortunately. I tried switching part of speech in this edit, but was not sure how to program the declension table, since the phrase isn't an idafa or a noun–adjective phrase, which are the only types recognized by {{ar-decl-noun}}. Not sure what type of phrase it actually is. — Eru·tuon 07:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a somewhat peculiar Arabic construction in which the adjective takes its agreement with the follwing noun (ذكر) while the agreement with the antecendent is in the personal suffix. For example, الرجل المار ذكره and المرأة المار ذكرها. (Maybe you already know that?!) I don't what it really is either, but adjective seems closer than noun phrase to me. Syntactically at least it's adjectival. Kolmiel (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I am aware that adjectives take the definite article. Based on your description and the example you give, I wonder if it is a relative clause instead: الرَّجُلُ ٱلْمَارُّ ذِكْرُهُ (ar-rajulu l-mārru ḏikruhu) then having the meaning "the man a previous mention of him". However, if so, a relative pronoun اَلَّذِي (allaḏī) would be expected since الرَّجُلُ (ar-rajulu) is definite. And the word order does not make sense in that analysis either. — Eru·tuon 00:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the construction does replace a relative clause; you're right about that. الرجل المار ذكره is literally "the-man the-passing his-mentioning", which could also be expressed as الرجل الذي مر ذكره, i.e. "the-man who it-passed his-mentioning". It's a peculiar use of the participle which cannot be mirrored in English. Kolmiel (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It said that French attendre is a false friend of English "attend", but I believe it is a false cognate, since they are not etymologically related. Am I right? --Kinos0634 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Seemingly not because they are both said to be from Latin attendere. Kolmiel (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they are related, so they are in fact false friends and not false cognates. — Eru·tuon 00:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, but I see what you are referring to. The first meaning of attend is derived from Old English and is not cognate to the French word, but the second meaning is derived from Latin and is cognate. (This should be reversed: the word derived from Old English is very rare and should be placed last.) — Eru·tuon 00:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I have changed it back to "false friend". --Kinos0634 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone familiar with the use of this term comment on what it means? Based on the etymology, I would expect it to mean something like "a drag queen or trans woman", but the current definition implies it refers to transsexual men instead, and a Google Image search turns up not only pictures that appear to depict drag queens and trans women, but also manly men, and Mark Zuckerberg... so does the definition include drag queens, trans women, and trans men? - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a pretty broad queerphobic slur for any man or MAAB trans* person who is perceived to be effeminate somehow, especially cross-dressers, MTF trans women etc., but it's also used against gay or bi guys for example (even super masc ones). — Kleio (t · c) 02:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The tone notation at oh yeah doesn't seem right. I don't think the individual parts of the diphthong should be split like that. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about IPA tone notation, but for me the vowel pronunciation is a lot closer to than . As conventionalized (broad) "IPA for English", /ɛə/ is supposed to mean the vowels in the British pronunciation of "there" etc., which doesn't much resemble the vowels of the word "yeah"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

For me it's just /jæ/, often elongated to . --WikiTiki89 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

For me (BrE), the vowel sound in "yeah" is indeed the same as that in "there", i.e. /ɛə/. Mihia (talk)

Same for me. Equinox ◑ 11:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

What modality would you attach to one should be so lucky of the ones in should? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "Will be likely to", sarcastically? The same sequence of words can also be non-sarcastic, like when the Irish Times wrote of the drink called an "Irish Car Bomb" that "It is appropriate that a concoction so unfortunately named should be so likely to induce immediate vomiting." But is that "will be likely to"? Hmm...

And our senses 1 and 2 are not clearly distinct, and "What do I think? What should I do?" is arguably more sense 2 than sense 1. I may see if I can improve the entry later. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please check the etymology of surseance, it looks weird to me. I changed the templates but didn't change the information. The etymology is basically:

"Old French, from Old French and French surseior"

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Leasnam (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thought this was interesting. Some of the terms may even meet CFI. DTLHS (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

On the universe page, it says that Universe is an alternative form. However, nothing on the latter page suggests that it's an alternative form of the former. Instead, it says that universe is a hyponym. —CodeCat 19:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

life has a meaning of "lifeforms" in a collective sense, like the well known phrase "it's life, but not as we know it". The first sense in our entry seems to only refer to the abstract idea of life, not concrete lifeforms. Is this a missing sense? —CodeCat 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes; maybe the collective could be inserted as sense 2. And it seems odd to have "Many lives were lost" as a subsense of sense 1; maybe it would be better placed as a subsense of the sense you describe, or as sense 3. I'll make these edits. There also seems to be a bit of overlap between the "personal existence" senses and sense 1, especially in their quotations. - -sche (discuss) 20:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There's more translations than senses in the entry. Is the "person" translation table superfluous? —CodeCat 20:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the contradictory explanation of the 'generic' subclass of the definite article treated in the pag. 112, section 1.12.3.1 of the Modern Written Arabic: A Comprehensive Grammar

"it denotes a generic meaning مائدة من النحاس المحفور a table of engraved brass’, which could as well be rendered ‘an engraved brass table’, contrasting with other possible materials. Indefinite phrases also occur in a similar sense, عوارض غليظة من خشب ‘rough joists of wood’, but here the intention is not generic but rather ‘made of some kind of wood’ with no particular contrast with any other possible material."​

Therefore, I'd really appreciated it if somebody could make sense of it, highlight the relevant elements to the issue (mass noun, preposition من, indication of material sth. is made of, plurality, etc.), offer clearer examples and if possible a good grammar article on the subject. --Backinstadiums (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Backinstadiums -- This doesn't seem to be confined to only after من -- "A New Arabic Grammar of the Written Language" by Haywood and Nahmad gives الذهب والفضة معدنان "Gold and silver are two metals". Also, wiktionary may not be the place for "grammar articles" (as opposed to usage notes)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Could always make an appendix: Appendix:Arabic definite article. — Eru·tuon 05:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

ذهب 'gold' seems to tend to appear prefixed with الـ --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Backinstadiums -- what do you mean by suffixed? AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

fixed, I meant prefixed --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Like many other languages, including Romance, Arabic commonly uses a "generic" definite article with metals and other material names. I don't think there's anything special in this regard about the word ذهب. It is true that the article may sometimes be missing, but I don't know whether there is a strong semantical difference between them. (Maybe there is.) If someone were to compare a number of standard grammars and find out, that would be appreciated, of course. Personally this has never seemed a major problem to me. Kolmiel (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In Japanese, is Japan considered part of the "the West" (西方) as it is in Chinese? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In Japanese, for the political sense of "the West" is 西洋(せいよう) (seiyō) is normally used, not 西方(せいほう) (seihō) / 西方(さいほう) (saihō). Like in Chinese, the cultural sense of the West is limited to Europe, America, Australia but the political may include Japan (and South Korea). The concepts are blurring. The Japanese Wikipedia article on "西洋" only mentions the cultural senses and talks about the West excluding Japan. The inclusion of Japan is individual, in European languages and in Japanese. The speaker/writer often says "the West, including Japan", simply because Japan is not in the West and doesn't belong to the Western culture. They may not mention Japan specifically but can still mean it. Even if Japan has been westernised, "the West" (西洋) is used to contrast Japan and the West. BTW, although the Japanese society is considered very westernised, it's still very different from the West. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In Chinese, the word 肥肉 - "fatty meat" - can be used as a metaphor to refer something coveted by many. Is there a similar word in English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Can "water" be considered a "beverage"? I've looked up a range of references and they all seem to contradict each other. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that all beverages contain water but that water itself isn't a beverage. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, water is often considered a beverage: google books:"beverages such as water", google books:"beverages like water". The current definition, which says "usually excluding water", is as strong a claim in that direction as seems tenable, and IMO could be softened to "sometimes excluding water". - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Can in the first place also mean first/firstly? E.g. when listing points in a body paragraph? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "Saxon" language in the etymology of talian#Old English? The entry says it's a cognate of "Saxon talen". I used the code "und" (Undetermined) for it in the absence of a better code. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing Upper Saxon, as the descendent of Old Saxon in Saxony. talen --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 08:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that, because Upper Saxon is a Central German dialect that should have undergone the High German consonant shift of /t/ to /ts/. It's more likely to be the Low Saxon dialect of Low German (WP's West Low German), which we can label nds since it's spoken in both Germany and the Netherlands. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This actually refers to several different things, as demonstrated by the Wikipedia disambiguation page. —CodeCat 12:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, apparently growing up maybe used as an adverbial, one step further deleting while (while in Paris, while washing the car, etc.). What d'you think? --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This can be used for other phrases, like Working the night shift, I was paid $1 more per hour. Leasnam (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A standard English grammatical construction. See absolute (grammar), first subsense. The example given there is now often called a sentence adverb. DCDuring (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In this sense it's an inchoative verb, so the semantics of this sense would be different; there's a lot of academic publications about it. --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that. Could you explain? DCDuring (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Does this actually refer to Denmark the European country, or to the entire Danish Realm? The current sense seems to contradict itself a bit, in that it says it's the official name of Denmark (i.e. the country in Europe) but then says that it includes Greenland, which isn't part of Denmark. Apparently there has been some discussion about this on w:Talk:Denmark too. —CodeCat 16:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that one will be able to find both senses in use in English, i.e. sometimes it will refer only to the country of Denmark (Jutland and the adjacent islands), and sometimes it will refer to the entire realm (continental-ish Denmark + Faroe Islands + Greenland). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this should be a discussion in another forum. (Feel free to move it if so.) I have the following quotation, and I'm trying to figure out the proper entry to put it under. Should it go on a page for wrench in the works? We already have a page for throw a spanner in the works, and in my prior experience, the idiom usually had throw as part of it, but in this example it doesn't. Thanks.

• 1989, H. T. Willetts (translator), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (author), August 1914, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, →ISBN, page 72:

  Such a big staff, with ludicrously little to do, inevitably began interfering with arrangements made by the army commanders. Its actual efforts at coordination were from the start so many wrenches in the works.

Germyb (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Verbal noun غُرُوب (ḡurūb) instead of the current غُرَاب (ḡurāb)? Wyang (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right, fixed. --WikiTiki89 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Should the section at غُرَاب (ḡurāb) be removed too? Wyang (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it should be moved to غُرُوب (ḡurūb). --WikiTiki89 12:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved. Please check. Wyang (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I know that forensic biology is an entry here, but what about forensic linguistics or forensic meteorology? I'm sure there are many other similar terms of substudies of forensics. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

These badly match the senses that are in the entry. It's not clear whether "country in east Asia" refers to the PRC or something else. The second translation table has no corresponding sense. And does the third translation table go with the first sense? —CodeCat 21:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the third sense the same as the first sense. As a state/government, the current Republic of China is the same as the one that existed in the 1940s and before, the difference is only that it now governs less territory than before. I'm not sure in what way the second sense is distinct either, since when do we distinguish states from their governments? We don't have a separate government sense at United Kingdom for example. Personally, I would just redefine it all as "The official name of Taiwan.". —CodeCat 21:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Redefining it all to "the official name of Taiwan" would spark a lot of controversy. It could be misleading since Taiwan may or may not refer to the other parts governed by the ROC, i.e. Penghu, Kinmen and Magong. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Also see Republic of China (1912–49). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

At Taiwan we define it as a state, and say that its official name is Republic of China. Wikipedia's w:Taiwan does the same. So it doesn't seem controversial to do this. "Taiwan" is the common name, "Republic of China" the official name. We also speak of the Taiwanese government in normal use, even if it refers to more than just that one island. We just need to make clear that Republic of China refers to the state that is commonly called Taiwan. —CodeCat 22:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, but Taiwan doesn't seem to be used for the historical sense. It's only used for ROC after the government moved to Taipei. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that just means that Taiwan and ROC didn't become synonyms until later; "Taiwan" gained a new meaning in the last half century or so. That's not so unusual, "mouse" didn't originally refer to a computer device either. But in principle we document current English, the language as it is today. And in today's English, "Taiwan" does have that meaning. We could use {{defdate}} to indicate the point in time when the new sense emerged. We should probably also indicate that formerly, "Republic of China" was a synonym of "China" instead. —CodeCat 23:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan, being the name of the island of the coast of China, only became an informal name for the ROC after 1949 when the Kuomintang lost the Civil War and fled off the mainland. And, if I'm not mistaken, for at least a while after losing the war much of the non-communist world still recognized the Kuomintang as the official government of mainland China and it controlled China's UN Security Council veto. So, perhaps until 1971 (when the UN recognized the PRC as the sole China) China could refer to the ROC as well. Please do correct me @Justinrleung if I'm wrong, since you know more about this than me. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 23:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the UN recognition changed the actual meaning of the word "China". It could still refer to both of those, probably depending on the viewpoints of the user. Presumably, even today, "China" is still rarely used to refer to the ROC. —CodeCat 23:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It probably didn't change the meaning, but it's probably an indicator of a shift in meaning as more countries recognized the PRC as China. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of overlap here. The "government" sense in particular does not seem merited AFAICT; as CodeCat says, we don't have separate "government" senses for the UK, etc. it seems better to say it is a state, which claims territory XYZ, but controls only territory X. And if senses 1 and 3 are meant to be distinct, the distinction (in when the referent states existed) should be clarified... but if it is merely that the territory controlled by one state has changed, that does not seem to merit separate senses, or else do we need a lot of different senses of United States of America, one for each time a new state was added? - -sche (discuss) 22:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be a separate sense for the government. The situation here is slightly different from the US; as pointed out before, the ROC used to be known simply as "China" when it actually governed mainland China, but now, it mainly refers to what is commonly known as "Taiwan". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope I will be able to describe the issue appropriately, as I am not a native speaker: The definition (adj.) says

1. distinct
2. articulated, jointed.

But the problem here is, that distinct has again both meanings:

1. clear
2. separated

"Separated" seems to have the opposite meaning of of "jointed", but "jointed" is also the opposite of "being one single piece". And this is actually where the meaning of "articulatus" as clear is coming from, being clear by separating its parts (especially in speaking, see articulate and the pair of articulative and articulated).

Therefore I would suggest to change the definition of "articulatus" to:

1. distinct, clear, understandable
2. articulated, jointed.

--Michael Scheffenacker (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Clicking on the link to the French dictionary referenced in the entry and looking at the entry for articulo, I don't see "clear, understandable" as valid definitions. How's your French? DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

My Langenscheidt Dictionary "Schulwörterbuch Latein" (german) says:

articulatus <a, um> Adj., Adv. <articulate> deutlich, verständlich

"deutlich", "verständlich" means pretty much "clear" and "understandable". Unfortunately I do not have my "Stowasser" at hand, otherwise I could provide some additional etymological information. --Michael Scheffenacker (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• L&S: articulatus and articulo ({{R:L&S|articulatus}} and {{R:L&S|articulo}}). It has "and in gram. " without a translation.
• Georges: articulatus
• Pons: articulo
• Gaffiot: articulatus and articulo (p. 166, 3rd column) ({{R:Gaffiot|articulatus|articulatus|p=166}} and {{R:Gaffiot|articulo|articulo|p=166}}).

There should be one meaning like articulated, jointed, having joints and one like articulated, uttered distinctly, distinct, clear.
New Latin could have a 3rd meaning: in grammar: used with the definite article (cp. German artikuliert, Romanian articulat). -80.133.109.90 15:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone opposing this proposal? --Michael Scheffenacker (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. In any event, it would at the very least be a good-faith edit, by a now-registered user. I doubt that any patroller would roll it back (unless you caught them in a particularly bad mood). DCDuring (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the meaning of "the Variety -er" in the etymology of terper? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's one of the senses of -er; Ctrl+F the phrase "the Variety -er" on -er. This looks like a place we could add a senseid so terper could link straight to the relevant sense (though the gloss may still be useful). - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

AFAICT that would enable a specific {{suffixsee}} too. DCDuring (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Should the id be "Variety" (doesn't match label)? Then it's "entertainment". DCDuring (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Who do I have to, um, apply to in order to get Category:English words suffixed with -er (Variety) not to have an error? I didn't see anything in any documentation. Is there a need to ask permission? DCDuring (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Some parameter is needed, but I don't know and don't care; you can just use {{auto cat}} for most of the common category names and it'll handle the parameters for you. — Eru·tuon 04:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I found that out by imitation. From what page would a user like me find that out? Given my experience (not just this one) we could have much simplified documentation: "Imitate", "Look for documentation", "Guess", "If all else fails,"Ask at Info Desk", "Ask at Grease Pit". That would make a pretty good template to answer queries like mine. DCDuring (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The documentation page Template:suffixcat/documentation should have this information. It didn't, so I updated it.

It occurs to me a number of things should be done. Information about category boilerplate templates (of which {{suffixcat}} is an example) should be at Help:Category. It would also be helpful to have little blurbs, created by a template, on (some of) the category boilerplate template documentation pages instructing people to use {{auto cat}} instead of wasting time figuring out the parameters. Perhaps also a blurb on the category pages, telling people what template to use to create similar categories. What would be useful, but hard, would be to explain on the suffix category page how to add terms to the category. (You have to add a correctly numbered |idN= parameter to the {{affix}} or {{suffix}} template.) — Eru·tuon 05:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Imitation is still the best simple technique and one which requires virtually no Wiktionary-specific knowledge. I wonder whether encouraging (reminding in my case) users to use the simple sequence above wouldn't handle many inquiries from newer users or older users faced with changed rules, template names and parameters, etc. Directing users to some kind of short master list of documentation categories and pages might be a part of the template suggested above. I will take a run at it, perhaps on the morrow. DCDuring (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Category created and populated with 17 entries (1 new), etymologies split where necessary, other minor changes in some of the entries. DCDuring (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

All templates should have basic documentation... Equinox ◑ 09:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

But they don't, being variously superseded, nonexistent, incomplete, and/or wrong. It is apparently fun to have consolidated uniformitarian modules which are "self-documenting" (imperfectly at that) only to technocrat users. It is apparently not fun to have templates that can be understood and modified by more normal users, possibly because empowered users are harder to control. DCDuring (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should create some page like WT:Requests for documentation (WT:RFDOC) to deal with separate requests? We have Category:Templates and modules needing documentation but it contains 3,432 pages and I'm not sure where to start -- and apparently it contains only templates and modules with nonexistent documentation, not those with superseded, incomplete and/or wrong documentations. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Not very many people could fulfil those requests: non-programmers can't, and programmers other than one who wrote the template might have to waste a lot of time. And, judging by current situation, people don't usually want to document their stuff, so they would just ignore such a category. I don't suppose we can reasonably enforce documentation as a required part of coding (though I certainly see that a lot in my job) but perhaps we could try to encourage a less selfish attitude, bearing in mind that anything one person writes will probably be used and maintained by others. (There's also the issue of docs becoming inaccurate over time, unless everyone who makes a change takes the care to update them.) Equinox ◑ 22:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If WT:Requests for documentation (WT:RFDOC) existed, I could try and fulfill a few requests. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Humph, I don't mind adding information to documentation pages. I've done a fair amount of it already. — Eru·tuon 02:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I was embarrassed to find that the simple template {{taxlink}} was dramatically underdocumented. That must be why hardly anyone else is using it! DCDuring (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

e.g. "for example" is entered as an adverb (and categorised in "English conjunctive adverbs"), but grammatically is clearly a PP because of its head (and is also categorised in "English prepositional phrases"). How can this kind of contradiction be resolved? Having both adverb and PP sections won't help because (I think) any possible use of the phrase could fit equally well in either. Equinox ◑ 09:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a prepositional phrase, but I can't think of a potentially idiomatic usage that is adjectival. DCDuring (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

One solution (which I don't particularly like) would be to introduce a new part of speech: "Adverbial prepositional phrase". Heh. — Eru·tuon 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a word adprep; not sure if it applies here. Equinox ◑ 18:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

All prepositional phrases are adverbial. I think of adverbs as "pro-prepositions": just as pronouns stand in for noun phrases, and pro-verbs stand in for verb phrases, adverbs stand in for prepositional phrases. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What about "man in the Moon"? That's an adjectival prepositional phrase. — Eru·tuon 20:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What's adjectival about it? It's giving the location of the man: the man there. —CodeCat 20:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat: In the east coast, is east an adverb? DCDuring (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a modifier in a compound. Compare Dutch oostkust. —CodeCat 22:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat: What does Dutch have to do with it? DCDuring (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That it's modifying a noun. But perhaps you're right and adverbs can modify nouns, despite what we are taught as children. — Eru·tuon 21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Adjectives precede nouns, this doesn't. This is more like a subordinate clause, who is in the Moon. Adverbs can act as complements to a copula, but that doesn't make them adjectives. —CodeCat 21:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You have heard of postpositive adjectives, haven't you? And in a usage like "The train was on time" clearly on time is adjectival.

The point of having "Prepositional phrase" is to eliminate the need for duplication of much of the material in an entry in adjective and adverb sections. DCDuring (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Prepositional phrases can be adjectival or adverbial. One option is to spell this out in the section headings. Another option is to combine both under the heading "Prepositonal phrase". Mihia (talk)

According to this page, programed is an acceptable alternative for programmed.
According to this page, programing is not an acceptable alternative for programming.
The pages program and programme only mention the spellings with two m's for these forms of the verbs.

Is this relative inconsistency justified? --Anareth (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary, which is known for its prescriptivism and is not inclined to list misspellings, lists programed and programing as acceptable alternative spellings. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please check what's the meaning of "D." (perhaps "Dutch"?) in tiff#Etymology 2. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It is Dutch. Webster 1913 relic. I see Leasnam has cleaned up. Equinox ◑ 03:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

In time and tide wait for no man#Etymology, is the "Germanic" meant to be "Proto-Germanic"? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed to fix the second of the two links. Thanks for fixing it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you call words in English that refer to big concepts which also have real-world manifestations, like "society", "economy", "government", "industry", "law", etc.? Is there a term that compasses all of these? They're not concrete nouns, but they seem to have functions that go beyond the many abstract nouns we have in English like "truth", "danger", etc. I reckon there must be a term for these types of nouns but I can't find it. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The stems of these verbs end in d or t.
Is the imperative singular "-e (du)" correct and complete? Is it only "-e (du)" and never "- (du)"? E.g., is it only "rate (du)" and never "rat (du)"?

• de.Wikt has both forms for the strong verbs braten, laden, raten and only -e for the weak verbs baden, warten - but is not reliable
• www.canoo.net/inflection/TERM:V:haben?lookup=caseSensitive has both forms for braten, laden, raten, baden, warten - but is not reliable
• The strong or irregular verb laden also has "lad (du)" in the entry.

Going by attestation:

• "wart (du)" does exist (e.g. from google books: "wart du Kerl", "Na, wart du Schlingel", "Wart du nur, bis du in die Fabrik kommst").
• "brat (du)" is mentioned in several 18th and 19th century grammars and dictionaries, and does occur in texts (e.g. "Brat du mir ein Wurst" (17th century, with "ein" instead of "eine" or an old or regional "der Wurst" instead of "die Wurst"), "Brat du nur fort und nasch mir nicht vom Rumpfstück!", "Brat du nur fort und halt dich fern vom Hüftstück!", "Nimm es, brat du ihn, ").
• "lad (du)" should exist too (e.g. "Also lad du sie doch einfach ein", "Ach, Krischan, lad du den Trödel da auf 'n Wagen")
• Dunno about "bad (du)" (there is also "das Bad") and "rat (du)" (there is also "der Rat"), but very likely both should exist too.

Additional note:

• It could be that for strong verbs the imperative form "- (du)" without e is more correct or at least once was more correct, while for weak verbs the form "-e (du)" with e is more correct or at least once was more correct. In MHG according to Wright's MHG primer it's only strong "-" (e.g. "nim") and weak "-e" (e.g. "nenne"), and a 18th or 19th century dictionary even had "brat du (nicht brate)" (for the strong verb). In some ways this could fit to the 2nd person singular imperfect indicative ending -st or -est added to the imperfect stem. In the 19th century it's already imperative -e for strong verbs in dictionaries, and the dictionary with "brat du (nicht brate)" could be from the 18 century, so maybe there was some kind of change around 1800 (the time of Adelung).
  Nowadays both forms should exist and be "correct" as seen in canoo and sometimes at duden (e.g. www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/braten and www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/warten).
• Some verbs should have only "-e (du)" and not "- (du)", e.g. "atme (du)" and "rechne (du)" and no *"atm (du)" and "rechn (du)".

-84.161.2.192 12:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Verbs in -d/-t should have both imperatives (with and without -e) just like normal verbs. There may be a stronger tendency to keep the -e in these stems than there is otherwise; a few forms may even be rare (like arbeit!). But that doesn't mean that any of these e-less forms are unused, nor that they are incorrect. The distinction between strong and weak verbs, which the DWB defends, is obsolete in my opinion (apart from those with e/i-Wechsel, of course). The only verbs that always take -e are those whose stems end in a consonant + -m/-n. Kolmiel (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

/ˈklɑːʃ/. Not 'British' in general, which is /ˈklæʃ/, it might be a regional British thing but I've never heard of it. In fact I can't think of any word ending in -ash that's prononced /ɑːʃ/. 2.30.100.64 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Never heard of /ˈklɑːʃ/ in BrE. Mihia (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been added by an en-3 contributor . Fixed. --Droigheann (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

They were probably confusing it with 'class' /ˈklɑːs/. 41.114.211.212 18:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There it says "2. (philosophy) Exhibiting characteristics of both feminine and masculine. Both denotational synonym and connotational antonym of androgynous."

I cannot find anything about the connotation of androgynous or gynandrous in any of the articles. Can someone explain and add to it? Steelpanspieler (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

At ] we correctly list both "Possessing qualities of both sexes" and "Pertaining to a feature or characteristic that is not definitively of either sex". Apparently the editor of ] considers the former to be its 'denotation' and the latter to be its 'connotation': gynandrous apparently only means "Possessing qualities of both sexes", and does not mean "Gender-neutral". (Well, we're missing something at ], because an "androgynous sweater" isn't a "feature or characteristic", but is still using it in the "gender-neutral" sense.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I know these aren't real words - yet. Perhaps one day they'll reach a common usage. Before I start using them I wanted to see if they were well formed or if there were ways to improve on them for reasons I hadn't considered.

• conspiratophiles
• corporatofacists

Thanks for your feedback. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If the first one means "people who buy into conspiracy theories", then I think it's reasonably transparent.

If the second one means "corporate fascists", then the compound is actually one syllable longer than the phrase. :-P   (Also, you're missing an <s> in the 'fascist' part.)

—Ruakh_TALK 00:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

They sound like snarl words. Do we need more of those? Equinox ◑ 12:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There's already a word conspirophile that gets some use on the internet since the early 90s and it's shorter than your conspiratophile that is hardly in use. It looks like it's (barely) citable. This looks like the funniest cite:

• 1993 September 25, Chris Burian, "crime with computers?", alt.conspiracy/alt.society.civil-liberty .

  Being a conspirophile, I do see a connection between recent BBS porn busts, encryption busts, and even "anarchy" text-file busts. I also see them connected with Waco, S-8, and suggestions that the National Guard be used for border patrol.

Also, fascist is normally spelt with an s before the c, so corporatofascists. This is also used on the internet (since 2006), but mainly on blogs and Reddit and it doesn't get close to satisfying CFI yet. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey gang, THANKS! These were the perfect answers. I am ashamed I misspelled fascists. It was underlined because it was a word mashup and I didn't re-check, especially because I thought it was neato that they were both "c"-words the same length (with one misspelled). I know it adds a syllable, but it kinda matches. The reason I came here was because I learned that the non-word "pedophilocracy" would technically be a more correct term than the rare "pedophocracy". That's why I wonder if "conspirophile" is actually better than "conspiratophile", or just extant earlier? Also, perhaps instead of using "corporatofascists", what do you think of "corporatotalitarians"? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I consider myself a conspirophile. I was banned from Wikipedia for 1 year for being "another polite truther". I like looking at all sides of things, good, bad, corporate, independent, crazy, and sane - then making my own mind up. And not just about geopolitical matters. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we add conspirophile? By "we" I mean someone else. I like words but I don't feel comfortable adding words. As a conspirophile, I'd really appreciate it. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! From a conspirophile. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again. Since there are categories for people and hobbies (ie, for conspirophile), it seems there should also be at least a category for employment, career, job, gig, etc. Whether conspirophile belongs there is another thing, but certainly investigative journalism, newshound, reporter, etc do. I just thought I'd bring that to your collective attention as I tried to add it but was overwhelmed with confusion. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JasonCarswell -- "corporatofascist" contains the ancient Greek compound linking vowel -o-, yet the elements which are joined on each side are Latin, not Greek, so the coinage could be considered inelegant for that reason. "Conspir(at)ophile" combines a Greek root with a Latin root, and so would be disapproved of by some purists, but the battle against such hybrid coinages in English was pretty much lost about 75 years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Usage note: "Non-specific sense is often used to cast doubt on the legitimacy or stated goals of the subject." Does anyone have any idea what this means? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It refers to sense 2, noting that it has derogatory, discrediting connotations when it is used for an organisation or internal body. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hamas is often said to have a "politburo" in news stories. I've wondered what the corresponding Arabic word is... AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(Applies to Mandarin) Sense #6 and usage notes are quite naive. It makes sense for people who have no idea about the grammar and don't want to know but it's not a professional description of the usage in this case. I think sense #6 should be deleted altogether and usage notes should describe in what cases it's appropriate to "很" before an adjective in predicate clauses. @Wyang, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung Anyone wishes to rewrite? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It definitely does not mean "to be". I agree with you. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense at all- 很 isn't a verb, and it's not linking anything. It's strictly modifying the adjective, and whether you consider the adjective to be a stative verb or an adjective like we have in English, the language simply doesn't need a linking verb in such constructions. Given that 很 isn't always present, it's worse than useless- it's misleading and confusing. There's nothing usable in sense 6 or the usage note, so I've removed them- it's better to start from scratch than to try rewriting complete nonsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Wyang (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this meets CFI, though you can find it in a few user-submitted listings on sites like Etsy that sell clothing. Could it be a misspelling of some other word? Equinox ◑ 14:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Got it. It's paillette. Equinox ◑ 15:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The entry for "alot" is a perfect example of why "wiki" is not a credible source (wikipedia et al.). "alot" is not a word. There is NO disagreement about that. NONE. Now, you can say it is used commonly in informal communication, sure. But to imply that there is any disagreement among credible sources as to whether "alot" is correct English is complete and utter nonsense. The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has never and will never say "alot" in any official communication of Her Majesty's Government. But yes, this is exactly why no decent University allows their students to use Wikipedia et al. as a source. The crowd is wrong, here. 97.93.28.22 03:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, alot is very definitely a word, and nothing you said has anything to do with that fact. It's also, of course, not correct English, and no one should use it anywhere that correctness is important- that's what nonstandard means. On top of that, it's condemned by quite a few authoritative sources- in other words it's proscribed. Not only have we given it those labels, we've also provided quotes stating that it's not proper English. Some have speculated that it may someday be considered correct, given the normal way that language changes, but that's just theoretical musing by experts. The mere existence of an entry doesn't mean we're recommending the term- it just means that we're providing information on something that people are likely to run into and want to know about. To be blunt, your failure to understand does not constitute error on our part. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I broadly agree, but I believe, as I may have mentioned before, that "nonstandard" and "proscribed" are unnecessary technical euphemisms that may be overlooked or not understood by some users of the dictionary. I would prefer the labels to say in plainer language that a word is incorrect (according to people whose opinions matter), so that readers who do not go on to read the usage blurb are not left in any doubt. Mihia (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "considered incorrect" would be better as a compromise label. I think "nonstandard" is fairly transparent though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would support "considered incorrect". Mihia (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We have a way to say a spelling is incorrect; that's a "misspelling". It's on the edge here; Google Books only brings up self-published works, but it's clear it's being intentionally used in cases. I'd also say that it's impossible to be all things to all people, and we are an unabridged dictionary and are going to be a more serious dictionary then the simplified versions that are going to blur the distinction between "incorrect", and "nonstandard" or "proscribed".--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

(I couldn't understand your post at first, but I believe it is just a typo and "then" should read "than".) There is no distinction. To maintain the pretence that dictionaries are not prescriptive, technical euphemisms are used in place of plain language that ordinary readers can understand. Mihia (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you claiming that a dictionary must be prescriptive? That's just silly; it's easy to make a small dictionary ("cat: kato, hat: ĉapelo, in: interne de, the: la") out of a small corpus (in this example, the title of The Cat in the Hat) explaining how words are used in that corpus, with absolutely no judgment of correctness. That the English corpus is a trillion words of text written over centuries doesn't change the fundamental idea. A descriptive dictionary covering e.g. Huckleberry Finn must explain how "ain't" differs from "isn't", and why an author would use the first. A fully prescriptive dictionary would not include both pretence and pretense without clearly labeling the first as incorrect (or the second, if it were incorrect in its prescriptions.) Ordinary readers can understand "nonstandard" and "proscribed", and if they have any trouble with the latter, I believe Wikimedia offers a dictionary they can look it up in. While we're talking about ordinary readers, we do them no favors by condemning their speech and pretending that correct language is defined by the posh instead of by how a language is used and understood in real life.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-prescriptive dictionaries are useless to users. Every error and bad usage would be represented equally with no distinction. Dictionaries all pretend not to be prescriptive, but in reality they all are, and a very good thing too. Mihia (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

i.e. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Of course, if you want to discuss what it means to be a prescriptive dictionary with other people, it helps to use the words with the meaning that other people do, and lexicographers who claim to be making descriptive dictionaries don't claim that every error and bad usage are represented equally with no distinction.

If Wiktionary is prescriptive, then why shouldn't we have alot with no distinction? If you have a reason, then a descriptive dictionary can surely describe that reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• @97.93.28.22: Please read our Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Slang, non-standard and rare words all are permissable...if at least three citations spanning a year or more in books or reliably archived websites exist. I believe, as Chuck does, that three citations for the word exist. Purplebackpack89 04:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

See w:Webster's Third New International Dictionary. You're fifty years behind the times in lexicography and blaming it on "wiki".--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a new definition for "alot": 1) literally a lot 2) a lot of a lots 3) lots of lots. :) ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/homericum says only that "homericum" the nominative neuter singular of homericus. That's correct, but it is also the masculine and neuter singular accusative and the neuter singular vocative. -- 18:30, 22 June 2017 216.96.199.141

Not too sure why that's even a separate entry... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

diff. -80.133.109.90 15:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Latin forms all have separate entries. Otherwise they are hard to find. Having them separate is very very useful for learners.

At lagniappe, as I write this, the label says "(Louisiana, Mississippi, Trinidad and Tobago, uncommon)", but Wikipedia at "lagniappe" says, "Although this is an old custom, it is still widely practiced in Louisiana." Thus the label should be fixed to show that "uncommon" applies only, perhaps, to Trinidad and Tobago usage (is that what was meant?). Quercus solaris (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No one else cared, apparently, but I updated the label from "uncommon" to "uncommon in some locales". Quercus solaris (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hy, What this problem is to me here? It says "no language code specified"? What is wrong? Some time says replace g with g.... Ilyas Marwat (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You made a typing mistake. I fixed up the entry for you. —CodeCat 00:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

soon#Adjective:

Soon after the arrival of Mrs. Campbell, dinner was announced…

In the previous sentence, is not soon an adverb?

overnight#Adjective, sense 2:

Don't expect results overnight.

In the previous sentence, I can imagine that overnight is a postpositive adjective, but that interpretation seems funny to me. Would it not be more natural to see overnight as an adverb here? --Anareth (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. In the first one, the edit summary for the addition of the additive mentioned "soonest date" as an example, but the current quote was added by someone who was adding quotes to anything that couldn't get out of the way fast enough. In the second one, everything was originally under Adjective, and the usage example was moved to the wrong POS when that was fixed by @DCDuring, with a definition that didn't really match. I simply removed the quote on the first one, but the second needs more thought as to restructuring the definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see my name in the history of ] before today. What did I do?

I'd like to see at least usage examples, preferably citations, for soon#Adjective. DCDuring (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OED says "soon, adj. Taking place, coming about, happening, etc., soon or quickly; early, speedy. Frequently U.S. dial. in phr. a soon start (in the morning)." I added a sense for early and three quotes to go with it it. --Droigheann (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I switched the usage example for the second definition of overnight#Adjective to "Don't expect overnight delivery". The prior usex was for the adverb. DCDuring (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Years ago I was told that "all the way from one point to another" was conveyed by "(from) A to B" in BrE and by "(from) A through B" in AmE, but now I've come across two unrelated occurrences (in BrE) of "A through to B", which expression I don't recollect having noticed before - " is March through to July" (a BBC TV programme) and " covers mild irritation through to burning anger and resentment" (a book about Buddhism). Would through to merit an entry as a preposition or would you native speakers perceive it as an SoP? --Droigheann (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the source for the usage note? Is more recent information available? Ngram Viewer suggests about 25% of uses of "free (rein|reign)" were of "free reign" as of 2008. (Restricting the search to American English leaves things virtually unchanged.) - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The figures come from here (also see here), but the corpus described therein isn't specified to be exclusively American. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it says it's the "Oxford English Corpus". I'm not sure what kinds of things this corpus contains. Neither the Oxford English Corpus nor the Google Books corpus are probably accurate representations of English as a whole anyway. --WikiTiki89 20:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

w:Oxford English Corpus --Droigheann (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blatant error, and should be flagged as such lest we do our readers a disservice. Mihia (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought our entry might disclose to me whether this expression is only used in connexion with employment, or whether it can also be used when a GP refers a person to a specialist. Sadly, it didn't. --Droigheann (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

In Australia the latter is usually known as a "referral". ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Same in Canada. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And apparently in Britain too . Thanks! --Droigheann (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

For anyone interested, it is known as a 轉診信 in Chinese. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

How was "aveir veḍüṭ" pronounced? 93.139.118.75 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My guess is /aˈvei̯r veˈðyθ/. Given that ei eventually became oi, the diphthong may also be something more centralised like /ɵi̯/. —CodeCat 18:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The first e is like /ə/ ... /vəˈðeir/ —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we be sure of that, even for this archaic kind of Old French? —CodeCat 20:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Worth an entry? --Barytonesis (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think so. It's used as an interjection nowadays rather than always being part of a sentence. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It also occurs frequently as sound good?. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel like it's just ] + ]. It's common to delete subject pronouns in colloquial phrases like this. People say "Looks good" and "Looking good!" as quasi-interjections too (and didn't a character in the first Matrix movie say, "Smell good, don't they?"), but that doesn't mean we need entries for them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Also often "sounds good to me" or "sound good to you?". Equinox ◑ 11:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Treating it as SoP is sounding good to me. "Looks good", "feels good" are used the same way. DCDuring (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like an excellent idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's SOP, we're missing a corresponding sense at sound. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the same everyday sense as "he sounds like an unpleasant man, from your anecdotes" or "going up the mountain sounds risky". Equinox ◑ 22:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree; it's sense 2 of the verb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sense 2 says "To convey an impression by one's sound", which is not the definition that I'm using when I text or email someone "sounds good". There's a broader meaning that we're not capturing with that definition. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You may have found a gap. (Please fix if you can see how!) It isn't an argument for this entry, though. Equinox ◑ 10:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think all of the main intransitive sense verbs (look, sound, feel, taste, smell) have figurative use, abundant for most (not taste?). In w:Neuro-linguistic programming each of the senses forms part of a representational system. For our purposes there are figurative uses for many sense terms, notably along evaluative lines. I think our coverage of these is very incomplete. DCDuring (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Can FR âme mean "core, kernel"? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 08:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sobreira: I guess it could. Is there a sentence in particular that's prompting you to ask that? --Barytonesis (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Клясть is classified as irregular, but I think it might be class 14b since it fits the -ять -> -ну, -нёшь, -нут endings. Does anyone know if there's something irregular about the verb that would keep it from being class 14b? клясть Russian verb classification

"Sa grant honor a grant dolor est tornee" (her great honor has turned into great sadness). What are the two symbols, firstly over the n of 'gnt' (we could simply say this is gn̈t which is merely a Unicode approximation) and the word for 'est'. Some sort of Tironian note? 2.30.98.172 (Renard Migrant not logged in. Why has my request for permanent block been turned down?)

Click for much larger image. 2.30.98.172 11:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

My friend (a manuscript expert) says they're "typical abbreviation marks – symbol above grant showing loss of <ra>" and the est symbol "you can transcribe either as 'est' in italics to show it's an expansion, or as the divide symbol". On the est thing, see more here: http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/Medieval/Cappelli/CPLLI408.HTM. Ƿidsiþ 11:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Something is very wrong with this. —Pengo (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the category. If anyone wants to recreate it, I guess the right name would be Category:Navajo basic nouns (or Category:Navajo basic terms).

The category contained 4 members: dláád, shash, sóól, sǫʼ. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what should be so very wrong with this. Navajo (like all Athabaskan languages) has only a small number of basic nouns. I have not tried to count them, nor have I seen mention elsewhere of a number, but I would say that the total is well under a thousand. These basic nouns are all (or mostly all) monosyllabic, and they form one of the oldest strata in the language. They show clear relationship with the basic nouns in all the other Athabaskan languages. The basic nouns are a fixed set. I think it would be very interesting to have a list of all the basic nouns. We have a good many of the nouns already listed on Wiktionary, but most did not appear in this category. For example, tó, béésh, bił, bįįh, biil, bis, cha, chaaʼ, chąąʼ, chin, chííh, chííl, chizh, chǫǫh, chʼah, chʼał, chʼó, chʼosh, daan, dééh, dééł, dił, diz, dih, dleesh, dloh, dlǫ́ǫ́ʼ, dzééh, dził, dláád, ééʼ, gad, gah, gish, hai, hał, hééł, hił, his, hosh, ił, jooł, jeeh, jish, jį́, jóósh, ké, kin, kǫʼ, kʼaaʼ, kʼé, kʼaiʼ, kʼish, kʼįįʼ, kʼos, łeezh, łeʼ, łid, łį́į́ʼ, łoh, łóód, łóóʼ, niʼ, nił, shash, sóól, sǫʼ, and so on. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Could those more knowledgeable about Latin check over this entry? I'm not sure about the declension class specifically. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 14:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

With the nominative ending in -us it could be second (like e.g. Antonius) or fourth declension (like e.g. senatus). By the citation and by the translation at attalus.org or the mentioned source in the entry, "The author of this liberation was Sandrocottus, ....", the citation should have a nominative in it. Without another citation proving the declension, I think second declension is more likely. A suggestion: diff. -80.133.109.90 15:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast. I am not very knowledgeable about Latin, so I won't change anything just yet. I think Plutarch uses the name Androcottus, perhaps that will shed some light? A variant Sandracottus exists as well, see . —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Plutarch and Strabo wrote in Greek. Their texts could show that Σανδρόκοττος (Sandrókottos) belongs to the Greek second declension (e.g. Smyth with ἄνθρωπος), and not to the Greek third declension (e.g. Smyth with δέος). That wouldn't attest or properly proof the Latin declension, but it would make clear that the genitive should indeed be Sandrocotti (i.e. -ī), the dative and ablative Sandrocotto (i.e. -ō) and the accusative Sandrocottum.
Arrian (IA 1, IA 2) has Greek Σανδρακόττῳ (Sandrakóttōi) with translation "... he met Sandracottus ..." and Σανδράκοττον (Sandrákotton) with "... to Sandracottus the Indians ...". I'm not sure about the accent, but I guess the Greek nominative for this is Σανδράκοττος (Sandrákottos). Similary Greek Σανδρόκοττος (Sandrókottos) should belong to the Greek second declension, and Latin Sandrocottus to the Latin second declension.
Google Books has some results for Sandrocotto, including (New) Latin texts (e.g. "cum Sandrocotto Indiae Rege") and German texts with Latin inflection (e.g. "Sandrocottus ... des Sandrocotti ... diesem Sandrocotto ... zum Sandrocotto"). So there should be no doubt that the Latin Sandrocottus indeed belongs to the second declension.
New diff: diff. -80.133.109.90 16:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Just saw a political ad with "Ehe fur alle". The "ehe" page makes no mention of it, but "die Ehe" is "marriage", apparently -- see https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/in_die_Ehe_bringen . Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ignore -- my error -- failed to see also Ehe

It's Ehe für alle (“marriage for all, for everyone”) (and yet, children are probably excluded from this). -80.133.109.90 21:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As are people who don't want to get married, and people who are already married. Of course it means marriage for everyone who wants to get married and is old enough to legally do so, and isn't currently already married to someone else. But that's too wordy for a hashtaggable slogan. I suspect the slogan started out as an allusion to einer für alle, alle für einen. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't know about that. I suspect it started to as an allusion to the idea that some people are legally barred from being married. (Those poor victims.) Also, it's strange how this whole thing is international news. It was also the first thing I heard on Dutch radio news this morning. But nevermind. Kolmiel (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

People who don't want to get married aren't really excluded as they can marry if they would want to. Indeed, people who are married probably are excluded too.
"... für alle" is a common phrase, e.g. "Bildung für alle", "Nahrung für alle", "Teilhabe für alle", "Freibier für alle" gets google hits too. -80.133.109.90 01:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Bildung für alle", e.g., means that everybody should get fair access to education, which isn't yet the case. Access to marriage has been fair. What they did is to change the definition of what marriage is. It's their right to do so; but the slogan is misleading. Kolmiel (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"access to marriage has been fair" 🙄 LOL, that's like the old line jocularly attributed to the Russians, especially in the Soviet era: "in America, they make a big deal of the fact that you have freedom of speech, you can even stand in the capital and criticize the President of the United States! Well, in Russia, the situation is equal, you have the same freedom of speech: you can stand in the capital and criticize the President of the United States!" - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not that strange? Legalisation of marriage for same-sex couples usually becomes international news, also for much smaller (less populous) countries like Ireland and Uruguay. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And for lack of. Worth entries? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think so, most dictionaries have them both --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not most, but some: “for want of”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., “for lack of”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)