Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/November

The 5th meaning of 跑車 'race car' reads "car race"; is it o.k.? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is it not ok? Wyang (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang:The 1st meaning is race car, a type of car, and the fifth a car race, a type of race. --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we create an entry for victim mentality, and add a pejorative sense to victim ("someone who is prone to feelings of helplessness")? --Barytonesis (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think so, though adding the new sense to victim might just make victim mentality a sum of its parts. —Globins (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Could somebody (who has any idea about Lojban) give this user some help with formatting etc.? See e.g. bacrynandu. Equinox ◑ 19:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

what did I do that you don't like? Jawitkien (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jawitkien: hello, and welcome. Please look at this edit, and pay attention to what I've changed. --Barytonesis (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention. I am mostly regularizing entries. I rarely get to add a new one. Jawitkien (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Just bumped into 晶晶 and noticed the "Derived terms" section only reads "Lua error: not enough memory". What should we do about it? What is the problem? MGorrone (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There was nothing actually there so I've removed it. DTLHS (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Apparently some of them are here 晶

The page XBoxes should exist. Here is 3 books that have the word "XBoxes": . --75.71.229.53 22:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I think most others will too. —Globins (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted by @Equinox in 2016 with the comment that misspellings should not have plural forms (the correct spelling is Xboxes). Is that our policy? Kiwima (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there no such word in English? If yes, would permutation be a synonym? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are supportable senses in music and law. DTLHS (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I added the English word with supporting cites. Kiwima (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In what way are these adjectives?? Equinox ◑ 02:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No way that justifies an adjective PoS, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Other dictionaries agree they are adverbs, or call them phrases. I have edited the entries accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit sceptical: "he ate a whole pizza to the face"? (no Google hits except for our entry). I've put "slang" on it because it has to be, but where is this used, and is it real? Equinox ◑ 05:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not just RfV it? DCDuring (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with take something to the face and the related take something to the head, but these mean something slightly different (i.e. consume the something). These would definitely be considered as slang Leasnam (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This has a definite second-language/calque feel to it- @Wikitiki89 might have picked it up from local usage among first- or second-generation immigrant communities. As for rfv: that combination of words gets millions of Google Books hits- I'm not really sure how you would filter out all the false positives. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Late to the party, but nope, definitely not from immigrants. It's what we used to say in high school. Maybe it was just local slang. --WikiTiki89 15:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

See WT:RFVE#to the face. DCDuring (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Chuck, you're right. This is obviously an accidental creation of a non-English-speaker. The person originally posing the question would have done both us and themself a service by asking the simple question "What is the first language of the person who wrote this?" I'm sure the (probably amusing) etymology would be immediately clear to anyone speaking the original language.

My guess would be that in the original language there was a phrase involving the glyph or morpheme "face," but rough and ready. Sight unseen I would be willing to bet a small amount at reasonable odds on "He stuck a pizza down his pie-hole." And/or "He gotta whole damn pizza into his gob," "He stuffed a whole furshlugginer pizza down 'is gullet," etc.

For the moment I think it would be incorrect to call this "slang." It's just not an English phrase. It's a goof. An editor should have caught it before it got into print. It's mistranslation of something or other, done by an incompetent speaker of English. Competent begins down the road a little, where you learn how to say "I don't know."

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I let a message here about the word conver but since it is recommended to let a message here as well, so here it is. Pamputt (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it a typo for cover? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Who knows? I have no idea. Yeah, you're right. DonnanZ (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"A pipe connecting the drain to the gutter." I assume this means a roof gutter downpipe or downspout, but what about other forms of drainpipe, e.g. from a bath or kitchen sink, or are they always known as waste pipes? DonnanZ (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Here in the UK, a "drainpipe" is a pipe from a roof gutter down the side of a building. I have never the word used to mean a waste pipe from a bath, sink or similar. I couldn't say about other English-speaking parts of the world. Mihia (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, as far as I understand the word, it's specific to draining water away from a building, not from an appliance etc. Ƿidsiþ 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It can be any of these things. I have added the additional meanings, complete with supporting citations. Kiwima (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The term "pop socket" (variations: "popsocket", "PopSocket", "Pop Socket", etc.) appears in Google searches of years 2013 through 2017. Etymologically, the term may have originated from the name of a company that produces cell phone accessory objects call "pop sockets" (typically circular solid objects that have adhesive to stick to a cell phone to make the cell phone stand up at an angle). According to Wiktionay policy entries need to have existed for a year or more: else, their page is deleted. This term has existed for around 5 years. However, It may not be notable enough for a page. --Spunionztastic (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

We're a descriptive dictionary, so usage is the only source of notability here. In this case, pretty much all the English usage in durably-archived sources found by Google Books and Google Groups seems to be the combination of various things known by the acronym POP and the programming or electronic-hardware senses of socket, with some odds and ends of random occurrence of "pop"/"POP" and "socket(s)" next to each other. There are a couple of German references to the cellphone product and a spam-type commercial message posted to a couple of non-Usenet Google Groups, but those don't count. Some people have had luck finding things in newspapers that are durably archived, but this doesn't look that promising. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

could an administrator create father tongue please. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:A48E:853C:8987:9F21 22:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Place for the request: WT:Requested entries (English)#F. -80.133.107.254 06:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have created the entry. Kiwima (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I created the page "love the sinner, hate the sin" but need help on improvements. I felt that citations are unnecessary unless I'm told otherwise; the phrase has been often used. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems SoP (ie, sum-of-parts, not an idiom, therefore not includable) as a verb. But it is often found as a kind of proverb, which would allow for inclusion IMO. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I completely reworded it. I don't think your definition was completely neutral-POV (e.g. "what they consider a sin"), and it didn't capture the sense of the word as a Christian would use it. My definition may be slightly wordy, so you are welcome to improve upon it, but be wary of implying anything that isn't actually part of the meaning of the phrase as it's used. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

As Cartagena is being traduced, most people go for the name "New Carthago", as eg. New York, New Jersey, etc., meaning a copy of a city in the colonisator's country. The history of Cartagena - Spain might be quite similar as being the "New" edition of an existing name in the country of origin. The name "Cartagena" does refer to Carthago as the main base of Cartagenian identity. The term "gena" though does not refer to what we call "new"." "Gena" refers to "gender" with all its origines and derivatives as "genus", "generous", "gens" (French),"gentes" Spanish),"general","Genesis" (Meaning Birth). "Gender" was used to indicate "sex" in <15th century England. "Gender" means "blood related", can be a man, a woman, a son, a daughter, a nephew, etc. ... and sometimes a whole Nation was identified by the same "Gender". As "Gender" can be translated into "Family", the name "Cartagena does not mean "New Carthago" but "from Carthagian gender - Carthagian family", as Romans called "Cartagena". All peoples around the Mediterranean some 2200 years ago identified themselve as member of the gender Julii as Julius Ceasar, or the gender Gracchi as Tiberius Grachus, or the gender Skipii as Skipio Africanus, etc. ... Your position in Roman Society was all dependant of the fame or infame your family collected during the past history. Member of the Julii family, the Grachi family, the Skipii famili, and ergo, the Cartagenian familie which gave its name to "CARTAGENA" instead of "NEW CARTHAGO"

The author = Patrick Vermeulen - Belgium, thanks you for your interest.

• Thanks for the info. As every I always heard is Cartagena from Cartago nova, do you have sources for yours? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 11:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• According to Alfonso Grandal Lopes, Introducción histórica y lingüística a la toponimia de Cartagena y su campo, the derivation is as follows: Latin Cartagine(m) > Cartágene > Arabic Qartayanna with the influence of yanna (“paradise”) > Qartayenna > Cartagena ~ Cartagenia. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, not "chiefly US". What do you think? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not, IMO. Wyang (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Rare in UK in my experience. Restaurants etc. just call them drinks. Equinox ◑ 17:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It's common in Canada as well, so so far, it'd be chiefly Canada, US, Australia. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I've made some changes. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It certainly is used in the UK, but it's more formal term than "drink". Collins (]) makes no distinction in its the British and American definitions. For that reason, I don't believe it needs any regional label at all for this sense, and so I have removed it. — Paul G (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely used differently in the US. I mean, the word obviously exists in the UK, but it's not something your waitress is likely to say to you. How we codify that in usage labels, I don't know. Ƿidsiþ 13:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone say it out loud. Equinox ◑ 00:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

In the noted example "Hey man, there's a beverage here," the word is inflected to indicate importance. -Booksnarky (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It's also more formal in Canada, and I don't think I've ever heard a waiter ask someone if they wanted a beverage. It's more common to hear "What would you like to drink?" or something similar. It's very common to see "beverages" on a menu, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that, in US ordinary speech at least, "Would you like a drink?", "I need a drink.", etc, usually refer to an alcoholic beverage, usually one stronger than beer or wine. ("Would you like something to drink?" does not have the same limitation.) I think beverage is intended to be a hypernym that includes alcoholic and non-alcoholic liquids. "Liquor and other beverages" doesn't get very many hits at Google books, many fewer than "juice", "soda", "soft drink", "beer", "milk", "tea", and "cocktail". Beverage strikes me as a word used mostly in print. When a friend used to ask "Would you like a refreshing beverage?" it seemed he intended to sound like a server at some hospitality establishment, not a normal human. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

We already have dog's dinner, but I don't think it covers adequately the meaning of the above expression. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it refers to the modern district. The name 番禺 was used for different jurisdictions in its history. The modern designation as a district is a relatively new one (since 2000). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The first sense is just a list of synonyms. A better definition please? DTLHS (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've had a go at it. Feel free to improve. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I came to mortar because I wanted to find out why the "mixture of lime" and "indirect fire weapon" are both called "mortar". This page completely fails to do so, only providing the etymology for the context-less word itself.

While I can guess why the weapon got to be called "mortar", what has this to do with building bricks and grinding ingredients?

In short, what is the etymology for the concept of "mixture of lime"? CapnZapp (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• All senses come from the same French word (deprecated template usage) mortier. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

'Left' and 'right' are notoriously difficult to define, as first you have to define the observer and what they observe. The wiktionary definitions both invoke the compass to get it across. (I think this is why some people have difficulty remembering which is which... for some people it's intrinsic to the observer, for others it's just an arbitrary abstract concept).

Anyway, I think definition 1 of clockwise is ok, you're allowed to use the concepts of 'right', 'left' and 'clock', and rest on the metaphor like the whole word does, without using words like 'axis' or 'perpendicular'. I'll still rewrite it tho cos it seems a bit clunky.

However, I've read definition 2 five times:

2. (of movement) Positioned as such when facing the side of a circular structure or configuration, objects moving within the structure approach from the right-hand side, and depart toward the left-hand side.

I feel like there is at the very least a missing "that" which should be inserted for the hard of thinking (i.e. me). But... what does meaning 2 mean and how is it different from the first definition? I imagined the notional structure as being outside the observer, not vice versa (which as far as I can tell reverses the definition). And how can something positioned in reference to a circular structure be itself 'clockwise' or 'counter-/anticlockwise'? Because the definition is talking about motion after all.

I feel like I'm missing something really basic :( Moogsi (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, weird. "(of movement) Positioned..." sounds like a bad start. Equinox ◑ 01:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah "positioned of movement" should be the first clue. I wondered if there was some special meaning... Moogsi (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have edited clockwise adv. Please criticize Moogsi (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed references to movement because I don't think this is essentially motional but rather spatial e.g. "The hours of a sundial are arranged anticlockwise" Moogsi (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The author of entry for verb "respondeo" claims that The passive voice is limited to third-person singular forms. However there exists in wiktionary an entry "respondeor". This contradicts what is said of "respondeo". Pierrecmichaud (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the Latin entry whole, it was created by a bot. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 04:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There are other spurious forms: respondebar, respondebor, etc. These might be attested, but it's definitely non-classical/proscribed. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis, I do know that respondebor would have been in the later years of Old Latin, as the original lemma for the second-person singular imperfect indicative would have been respondebos. Respondebar, on the other hand, doesn't add up, because the rhotacism would not have implied for the supposed form it would be in.96.231.152.137 15:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. --Barytonesis (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this dissymmetry true (at least could be in PT/GL/ES)?:

• meco: Prep. archaic, literary DEF (1)
• teco: Prep. archaic, literary DEF (1)
• seco: Prep. archaic. literary DEF (2)
• nosco: Pron. HEAD poetic, archaic (4 by extension)
• vosco: Adv. HEAD poetic, archaic (1)

Notice the different placement of the marks (before DEF inition; or TCX after HEAD) with no relation to the number of senses (1-4) whatsoever. And the diff POS. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sobreira, it is very likely that this was caused by the rather unique evolving of the Latin language and the Italic branch of languages in general. Although Classical Latin was mostly derived from Proto-Italic (as well as languages like Venetian, Oscan, and Umbrian), a large part of it came from Ancient Greek and Proto-Hellenistic roots.

The Latin language, over time, shifted from Old Latin to Classical Latin, and then Classical Latin to Vulgar Latin, further cementing itself in its Hellenistic roots. Italian, however, largely went unchanged for a very long time, as Latin went from Vulgar Latin to Late Latin. However, when the rise of Roman Catholicism came about, and the language of liturgy remained Latin despite being centered in an Italian speaking capital city, the Ecclesiastical Latin that formed as a result was highly irregular and had inconsistent pronunciation, as it was frequently split between the harder sounds Latin had become known for and the softer sounds that were signature of Italic languages.

As such, a fair amount of Latin slowly entered the Italian language, but the issue that created was clear: Italian is a very specifically stressed (and often very regular) language, whereas Latin was at least moderately (or fully, depending on era) unstressed and was highly irregular due to a very tumultuous history. Latin also did not have accents on any letters, which Italian had in droves. In short, the reason for these differences relates to the awkward cohesion of these two oft-intertwined and tangled tongues.96.231.152.137 15:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Definition makes no sense at all. How can all races be superior? Superior to what, if not other races? What does "anti-racist with anti-Semitism" mean? Equinox ◑ 15:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "superior" should be changed to "equal". I think the end part refers to this belief as being non-racist, and especially having no anti-semitic affiliations Leasnam (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

More importantly, there doesn't seem to be any usage for it. All I can find is references to w:William Reich and one or two references to German imperialism. There's one quote from the Clinton administration in the US, apparently referring to w:Robert Reich. A quick look through the hits for "Reichist" show pretty much only German, not English. It looks to me like the folks at Wikipedia couldn't figure this out, so they transwikied it here instead of just deleting it. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, right, I assumed the reich was the third reich or something, not a surname. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 23:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It is, in the case of the references to German imperialism- but that wouldn't be capitalized in English, and I don't think they're the same as the challenged sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey all. Do we have a word in English meaning to make the dog chase the rabbit, in hunting? Spanish's got one - engalgar - WF

• The nearest that we have is let the dog see the rabbit. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

How does "prepared" mean "willing"? I don't understand this definition. DTLHS (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The definition is correct. In most cases 'prepared' means 'willing'. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a literal sense: "factually/pragmatically prepared" (good to go, ready), as opposed to "mentally/emotionally prepared" (willing). I've added two synonyms, does that help? Also, compare readiness, which means both "preparedness" and "willingness". --Barytonesis (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I also think we need a definition for prepared as in "I am more prepared for this test than the last one." and "I am better prepared to take this test.". DCDuring (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No entry for this that I can see. Oxford online has "used to request just treatment or assert that a situation is just". DonnanZ (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• No response, entry created. DonnanZ (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a Korean Mass timetable distinguishing 주일미사, 토요미사, 평일미사. Wiktionary lets me translate them as Weekday Mass, Saturday Mass, Weekday Mass. Err, what? Surely one of those Weekday Masses is actually a Sunday Mass? Google suggests 주일 means weekend/week/weekday/holiday/Sunday, and translates 주일미사 to Sunday mass. Moreover, the etymology is 週日, which means Sunday basically everywhere, and can mean Weekday in Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. So what does 주일 mean? Sunday or Weekday? Or maybe both are possible but it's Sunday in 주일미사? MGorrone (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no answer to your question, but I do wonder why Mass is 밋사 (mitsa) in the first term and 미사 (misa) in the other two. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: because on a Romaja keyboard that is Missa and Misa and, well, typo :). Accidental double s. Fixed now. MGorrone (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• @MGorrone: FWIW, 週日 (shūjitsu) in Japanese means wither “week days → number of days in a week: seven days”, or “weekday”, generally meaning every day except Saturday and Sunday. Also, Google Translate (and, so far as I've seen, any MT platform at all) is often unreliably inaccurate. I do note that our Korean 주일 (ju'il) entry displays a notable lack of Sunday-ness.

That said, the 주일 entry on Naver shows two derivations -- one from 週日, meaning “weekday; week”, and one from 主日, meaning “Lord's day → Sunday”. So apparently in Korean, 주일 (ju'il) can confusingly mean either “Sunday” or “weekday (excluding Sunday)”. In the context of your text, I suspect 주일 is meant with the 主日 derivation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@MGorrone Eirikr pretty much got it correct, though I'm not aware of it meaning “weekday”. I've expanded the entry. Please take a look. Wyang (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: I recall reading that hangul spellings don't indicate long vowels, even though they apparently exist as a phonemic element in Korean terms. By way of comparison, JA does have a length distinction between these two terms, as 週日 (shūjitsu) with a long /uː/, and 主日 (shujitsu) with a short /u/. On the 주일 (ju'il) page, should there be any difference in pronunciation for the 週日 and 主日 derivations? Or is there no vowel-length distinction between these two in Korean?

Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr This is a funny one, because Korean merges 週日 and 主日 and makes them completely homophonous (length included), while Japanese keeps the pronunciations apart, even though Japanese on average merges more Sino-xenic readings than Korean. I remember this table from a few years back that illustrated this general tendency quite vividly.

With these two words:

Character	Middle Chinese	Mandarin	Cantonese	Sino-Japanese (Kan’on)	Sino-Korean	Sino-Vietnamese
週	/꜀t͡ɕɨu/	/ʈ͡ʂou˥˥/	/t͡sau˥˥/	/siu/ > /sjuː/	/t͡ɕu/	/cu˧˧/
主	/꜂t͡ɕɨo/	/ʈ͡ʂu˨˩˦/	/t͡ɕy˧˥/	/sju/	/t͡ɕu/	/cu˧˩/

The Japanese long/short vowel difference reflects the different rhymes in MC, whereas a difference in vowel length in Korean (although there is none here) is usually the consequence of different tones in MC. Wyang (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The inflected forms "weggeweeste" en "weggeweests" simply do not exist, anymore than "geweeste" exists. The latter is always the strong "gewezen" and means "former", ex-"

Jcwf (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. It sounds as though all you had to do was to remove the table, which I've now done. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I heard this in a few Youtube videos by The Grand Poobear (a streamer) and perhaps one by ryukahr (another streamer), and I was wondering if it's just him (or them two) or it's more widespread, and if we could possibly find attestation for this. I only remember one Poobear quotation: «What the dick enemy was that?!». Urban Dictionary seems to support that it's not just two people (I assume only two people wouldn't create an entry with that many sections?). Other sources? MGorrone (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if more people use this, my guess is that it's too new of a phrase for there to be any attestations. —Globins (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Defined as "a personification of want" and "a personification of ignorance". Can you not do this with any abstract concept by giving it a capital? I'm reminded of an old ad for breakfast cereal, "Hunger strikes!", where Hunger was a little dancing monster that had to be locked up till lunchtime. Equinox ◑ 19:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why these have their own entries. As far as I know, there's no widely agreed-upon personification of either of these concepts like the personifications of death or time. —Globins (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure about these. You can do this with any abstract concept, and it was a common literary device, in classical antiquity and the renaissance particularly, to do so. So I'm sure you could find some citations for both, but there is no extra information in the definition other than 'personification of X'. The only other concept I have a strong image for is Envy, and that's only because of Shakespeare's 'green-eyed monster'. All others I can think of are borrowed from antiquity and have definite forms (Justice, Victory, etc.) I think these definitions can be removed. Moogsi (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The etymology reads "Clipping of clitoris". I feel it's a rather unfortunate choice of words... --Barytonesis (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

clipping is the technical term; see our third definition. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I'm aware of that; I was just underlining the fact that "clipping of clitoris" is dangerously close to "clipping of clitoris". I've replaced "clipping" with "apocope". --Barytonesis (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: But it isn't apocope. Apocope is the deletion of the final vowel (plus any consonants that may follow it). The apocope of clitoris would be *clitor. It may sound unfortunate in this circumstance, but it is a clipping, like it or not. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: Oh, I see. I thought apocopes and aphaereses were subtypes of clippings. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well they are, but those terms are more specific than clipping, and since clitoris removes more than the word-final V(C) sequence, it's not apocope. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: I think our definition at apocope needs reviewing. Also, there are plenty of terms in CAT:French apocopic forms that don't satisfy the criteria you've provided. Do you confirm, so that I can begin cleaning it up?

Another thing: I feel like the process of "clipping" has a more conscious aspect to it, while apocopes and aphaereses are purely phonetic/unconscious phenomena. Am I mistaken? If not, isn't it misleading to say that apocopes and aphaereses are simply "subtypes" of clippings? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: you're right, our definition could probably be tightened up a bit. And there are definitely things in CAT:French apocopic forms that aren't apocope. I wouldn't like to speculate on the psychological status of people forming clippings, though. In Italian, for example, apocope is common in poetry for metrical reasons, which seems pretty conscious to me. 09:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: I think CAT:French apocopic forms is now cleaned up (unsure about occase and gaspi though, and the fact that fr:Catégorie:Apocopes en français is full of "apocopes" in a loose sense bothers me).

I've also made some modifications to apocope, but your expert hand would be welcome. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The wording is a little unfortunate, maybe "short form of" would be better. DonnanZ (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I assumed it was a simple abbreviation. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It is, kind of, but "abbreviation" implies a form like clit. or clit’ whereas "clipping", although a bit jargony, doesn't. Ƿidsiþ 13:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This was deleted as it is unidiomatic in the sense of "talking via a telephone", but there is an older sense of being connected to the telephone system by having a telephone in one's house. This dates back to the time when many people did not have phones at home, and so people wanting to keep in touch would ask each other "Are you on the phone?"

This sense seems idiomatic to me. Thoughts? — Paul G (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

All the citations I found on Google Books for on the phone before 1929 were of the unidiomatic sense. I didn't try News. DCDuring (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Same is true of e.g. "on the Internet" ("they live out in the woods and aren't on the Internet yet" vs. "he's been on the Internet all night"). Equinox ◑ 16:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And you can also say that a building etc. is "on" mains power. I think it's a normal sense of "on" and if we don't have it covered by "on" then we should. Equinox ◑ 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.

There's no way this suffix is unproductive. —Globins (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep – widespread use. Just search Google Books for "termination", "deletion", or "justification". Concerns about the label should be raised elsewhere, maybe at the tea room. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  What will looking for "termination", "deletion" or "justification" in Google Books prove? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  That the suffix exists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  I know it exists, I just think the label "unproductive" is a mislabeling. —Globins (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Accordingly, I've moved this discussion to the tea room. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't this just an "alternative form of" (deprecated template usage) -ation? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Etymologically, it's the other way around: Latin -atio is a metanalysis of -tio when appended to first conjugation verbs. I don't know how it's felt in English, though. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  I'd consider it an alternative form in English. -tion vs -ation just depends on whichever one works with the word ending. —Globins (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Globins: to go back to your original question: is it truly productive? It might feel that way synchronically, but diachronically the only true suffixation I see is gumption; all the rest are borrowings from Latin or French or whatever. --Trousse à queues (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  How about discombobulation? I think it might be best to remove the unproductive label and add a Usage Notes section that says that it's a variant of -ation that's only used when the word being suffixed already ends in -ate. —Globins (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Globins: discombobulation seems to use -ation, though. Please let's not remove the "unproductive" label too lightly. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  @Globins, Per utramque cavernam: It is an empirical matter whether historically discombobulate preceded discombobulation (diachronic etymology) or vice versa. But morphologically discombobulation < discombobulate + -ion, not discombobula + -tion. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• To answer the question of whether this suffix per se is productive, I would say no. I can think of some ways it is counterproductive (e.g. the back-formed noun sense of invite replacing invitation - although this is also an instance of initial-stress-derived nouns being very much productive in English). I do think -ify and so -ification are productive, so that may cause some confustion. Moogsi (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Moogsi: Yes, I think this is called back-formation (or disfixation?). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

    It is an empirical matter how often -tion has been productive and how recently, but it is a more conceptual one whether it is actually -tion, rather than -ion or -a/e/i/o/ution is the appropriate suffix in a given case, though empirical research may help.

• The entry ] is rife with error. Most of the terms in the derived terms category are not from -tion, but rather from -ion applied to a verb, the stem of which ends in t. And often the diachronic derivation is from Latin, either directly or via French.

I would think we would want to properly distinguish suffixation by -ion, tion, and ation. Accordingly, I have added an RfC for ] to correct the linked-from etymologies and alo the usage examples. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In going through Category:English words suffixed with -tion I haven't found a single one with a derivation isn't better viewed as from another suffix, almost always -ion. User:Speednat contributed many of the -tion etymologies, AFAICT. DCDuring (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring: "Most of the terms in the derived terms category are not from -tion, but rather from -ion applied to a verb, the stem of which ends in t": I'm not sure if you're speaking on a synchronic or diachronic level, but diachronically that's not true; the Latin suffix is -tiō and not -iō (see my message to Word dewd). Plus a lot of English verbs cannot come directly from any of the stems of a Latin verb, or to a French verb, and are actually back-formations (ratiocinate from ratiocination), or conversions (legitimate (verb) from legitimate (adjective)). So diachronically, ratiocination isn't ratiocinate + -ion, it's the other way around.

I think this is going to be a difficult field to clear up, for several reasons:

• The huge number of words concerned;
• The propensity of English to convert and back-form;
• The fact that rebracketings already occurred in Latin;
• Our lack of infrastructure. We currently make no distinction between synchronic and diachronic categories;
• The natural wear-and-tear and "opacification" of words.

And even if we had a two-tier system of categories (synchronic-diachronic), I don't know where volition would fit. It's obviously very tempting to put it in a category, but as you noted, there's no corresponding stem in English.

If we want to do it properly, it's going to take time. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I went through the -tion category and moved most to -ion. The remaining ones seemed hard. I also went through the -ation category and found a few that didn't belong there.

For the synchronic derivations we use wording like "equivalent to perorate + -ion". Such wording implies that a current language use trying to understand a term might break it down and come to a definition that way. There is nothing that says that we can't have more than one such 'equivalence', ie, per- + oration or even peror + -ation, if that made semantic sense. (However, I object to derivations like perorate + -ation/-tion.)

I think I have handled most of the easy cases, hopefully not mishandling too many of them. DCDuring (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• How could one consider volition as being derived from the affix -tion or, for that matter, from -ion? There is no English word like voli, volit, volite. The "equivalent to" way of including morphology into our essentially historical etymologies doesn't seem to work in this case. DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In cases where the suffix is pre-joined to a term that was borrowed or even inherited, and for which no selfstanding part exists for the root as an English term, I normally do not show the "equivalent to" verbiage. Instead though, I do add a ] on the page so it can be grouped along with the other like-suffixed terms. Leasnam (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Leasnam: In the case of volition, I see nothing compelling about -tion rather than -ion or even -ition. what do you think? DCDuring (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with you, but I still think that one readily recognises that the -tion on volition is somehow one and the same as the suffix. Leasnam (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Reading this article about written laughter, I'm not sure about the meaning of “realtalk” in this part:

Take hahaha, which we’ll call basic laughter. It’s actually anything but basic, with the ability to shorten (haha), , or replace with an “e” (hehe) — though, realtalk, The New Yorker may have called hehehe a “younger person’s e-laugh,” but ask any actual young person today and his or her response is likely to be “ew.”

Does it simply mean “seriously”, as proposed in the 4th definition on Urban Dictionary? (realtalk - To be serious about something, Being serious about a conversation and/or topic.) Or are there more nuances in it?

Thanks - Cos (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh... was my question at the wrong place? badly asked? uninteresting? or nobody knows? I thought I took the effort of asking it the best way that I could, but I'd be happy to learn if I should have done it differently; or maybe I just had bad luck. 😕 (I mean, all the questions around mine seem to have gotten at least a reaction...) - Cos (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't answer because I don't know. Sorry if you felt ignored! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cos, as far as my searching found, that article and the Urban dictionary reference are the only two attestations of the term "realtalk" that I could find. Given that there is not even a Wiktionary page, and the lack of a third attestation present, I struggle to see how this is an issue pertinent to Wiktionary itself. The problem is that the article itself is rather unclear as to its adherence to attested forms of words.96.231.152.137 15:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A long time later, thank you both for your replies. I remember I was surprised by the lack of response because I imagined it would be relatively obvious for a native speaker, but you made me realize that was not the case.

I do think there could be a Wiktionary entry for this, probably at real talk, with "realtalk" mentioned as an occasional contraction; however I'm not completely sure about it, so I think I'm going to leave it at that for the time being.

Cos (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the plural of tinda (the squash)? Tindas is ok? Fructibus (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

tindas is attested. DTLHS (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems right to me (I know my way around Indian English). It's also uncountable. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora Do you mean uncountable, or that "tinda" can also be a plural? ("I have many tinda"). DTLHS (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@DTLHS: The first. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 18:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thesaurus:పండు in Category:Thesaurus:Food and drink ? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 10:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sobreira: I don't know any Telugu, but what's wrong with it? It's just a list of fruits in the hyponyms section. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

We should really categorise by language if we're going to create foreign thesaurus entries (which we shouldn't, imo). It's bound to get messy otherwise. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I hackily made CAT:Hindi Wikisaurus a while back. I don't see any reason not to make foreign language thesauri, we already use {{syn}} and {{ant}} etc. for FL entries. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, that's a first step. I'm hesitant about the naming scheme: should it be

• "TH:language/term" (Thesaurus:Hindi/water)
• "TH:term/language" (Thesaurus:coglione/Italian)
• "TH:langcode:term" (Thesaurus:pt:autêntico)
• "TH:language:term" (Thesaurus:Polish:złoczyńca)?

The second one doesn't make much sense so we can probably scrape that one. And I know there are opposants to language code. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/August § Disambiguate Wikisaurus .28thesaurus.29 entries by language. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That was actually my point, Telugu in English.

• About existence of FL Wikisaurus I later read this. Consider also the existence of v.gr. Category:Portuguese_snowclones.
• About name for category, consider also this. I saw other wikts: es:Wikcionario:child/Tesauro/en; fr:Thésaurus:avion/italien. I didn't find anything else. I would follow one of this models for template exchange compatibility and in case in the future we can implement them in wikidata. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(I have moved three pages back where they were before, including Thesaurus:coglione. Their being moved is not necessary to illustrate alternative locations; let's avoid any moves that create more mess in the actual thesaurus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC))

Re: "there are opposants to language code": Sure, and some oppose full names; see Wiktionary:Votes/2017-07/Rename categories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Sobreira: What are you trying to achieve? Do you want to create new thesaurus entries and have difficulty figuring out how? Or do you just want to remove Thesaurus:పండు from Category:Thesaurus:Food and drink? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As for a change of format of names of thesaurus entries, that really is not a topic for Tea room. --Dan Polansky (talk)

@Dan Polansky, no offense intended, but my pretensions are not the matter. I mean, there are some entries in existence and use nor coherent neither stablished and by doing both would solve (re)naming, subcategorising and creating. If you think the change should be treated somewhere else, please and of course, tell me where. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 10:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sobreira: You'll probably be interested in this. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The naming of non-English Thesaurus entries has so far been fairly consistent with Thesaurus:పండు, that is, use the language's own headword. Recently, some people who had shown almost no interest in contributing content to the Thesaurus thought they would be good in managing the Thesaurus and making structural changes to it, and they created a couple of non-English entries not consistent with previous practice.

The venue for discussing structural changes is WT:Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"some people who had shown almost no interest in contributing content to the Thesaurus thought they would be good in managing the Thesaurus and making structural changes to it": those people... *sigh*. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I have removed the category from Thesaurus:పండు so the category only shows English thesaurus items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Entry in question: reactionary. Currently our pronunciation reads /ɹɪˈækʃən(ə)ɹi/, but I'm pretty sure I've heard the pronunciation /ɹɪˈækʃəˌnɛɹi/ (or something along those lines) before, or at least I've personally been reading it that way all this time. Now while I tend to have a reasonably good feel for the language I'm no native speaker, so I'm wondering if any native English speakers can help clear this up? Are there multiple pronunciations? — Kleio (t · c) 17:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are. As with many words ending in -ary, there is a British pronunciation in /(ə)ɹi/ and an American pronunciation in /ˌɛɹi/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Thought I was just imagining things. — Kleio (t · c) 17:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the origin of the "(great) master" sense for 子 ? Out of curiosity. --POKéTalker (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Poketalker Probably via “child; offspring” > “person; man; woman” > honorific title for people. It being used as a respectful title was already attested in the oracle bone script. The royal family of the Shang dynasty had the ancestral name 子, which may be related to the word being extended for this use. Wyang (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Why should we analyze this as a suffix and not just genesis? DTLHS (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Not listed as a suffix in Oxford Online, although -meister is, surprisingly enough. This is possibly a candidate for RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because it is treated as the noun counterpart of -genic. Extremely common in medicine though; can be attached to any common pathway endpoint or disease entity and still be considered proper: asthmogenesis, carcinomogenesis, pheomelanogenesis, glucocorticosteroidogenesis, depressogenesis, fibrillinogenesis, glycerologenesis, atherothrombogenesis, melanomagenesis, etc. are all attested. Wyang (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

But they seem to mean the genesis of something. Usually the first part of a compound is derived from another word. DonnanZ (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in the OED. Ƿidsiþ 15:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Widsith: Can you give us the description in the OED? Concrete proof is obviously needed in the entry. DonnanZ (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"Forming nouns with the sense ‘origin or development (of the thing or a kind specified by the first element)’" Ƿidsiþ 16:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'm not sure how to add a ref for the OED, I'm not "up to speed" on that one. DonnanZ (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The past is gnōh by B&T, but it is gnōg at Old Engli.sh. Don't know which it is... Anglish4699 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably both. Word-final g and h are more or less in free variation in Old English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, however only gnōh is attested for the singular. I have updated the conjugation arguments. Leasnam (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What does it mean? Collins says "awkward and time-consuming", fitting with "faff about", but the two examples I found at Citations:faffy seem maybe more like "silly". The English Dialect Dictionary has "gusty, apt to blow about" which is probably a separate, older sense, possibly citable (EDD has one cite of "varry faffy"). - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I would agree with Collins, but to be honest the meaning strikes me as mostly contextual. That is, if someone was struggling to fill in an information form or something, and said "This is so faffy," it would make perfect sense, but seeing the word in isolation looks pretty weird. Ƿidsiþ 15:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Same. fiddly is a synonym. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I've tried to make an entry. I heard it being used of a hot dog, which seemed weird to me—and since it was being said to the owner of the restaurant, unexpectedly rude, which is why I wondered what the word meant. But I guess the speaker thought the restaurant's way of preparing hot dogs was too complicated/fancy. (In fairness, it kinda was.) - -sche (discuss) 07:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm shocked that Equinox or WF haven't made an entry for this word before! I've heard it loads. Anyway, I don't consider it slang or rare, so removed them tags --Spreaderofwords (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Look at noun sense 1 of faff (involved process with little perceived benefit). 'Faff about/around' is equivalent to "mess around" or "muck about" in that you don't produce anything. You can extend this to 'faffy' from both related senses. Also agree that this is current in BrE (in the north at least, maybe all over) Moogsi (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  Yes but I think the more normal way to say this in England would be "This is a bit of a faff", rather than "This is a bit faffy". Ƿidsiþ 10:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So, I recently noticed that the page for Nelklein, the German word for cloves, does not, in fact, have a Wiktionary page. It is related to Nelke, and should be present as a related word. However, the main focus of my query here is why there is no mention of Näglein in the etymology section for the Nelke or the would-be Nelklein page(s). Nelklein is the direct descendent of Näglein, an archaic form of the word for cloves. Näglein is attested in the liedtext of Brahm's Lullaby and Merck's 1884 Warenlexikon, so I think it should be at least mentioned in the page for Nelke.96.231.152.137 15:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@96.231.152.137: It's spelled Nelke, plural Nelken. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Duden has no entry for Nelklein, only Nelke. Looking at the etymology, though, it seems to have originated as a diminutive, so I woud guess it's possible that Nelklein exists as a variant that used -lein instead of -chen and avoided the assimilation/contraction. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz:It is very likely that Nelklein is a diminutive variant, and whilst Duden does not have an entry for Nelklein, it DOES have an entry for Näglein, which appears to be descended itself from the Middle High German word Negellīn.96.231.152.137 18:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Definition unclear: where is the notion of "evolution" in that? And what type of evolution are we talking about anyway? Biological evolution? (hint: yes). Besides, a sense should be readded to emergent, since "evolution" is by no means the only word to which "emergent" can be applied in that sense. Cf. "emergent property". --2A02:2788:A4:F44:94A2:2D8F:AC26:6C64 16:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I have added a sense to emergent and will send it to RFD. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Will you please consider refining the definition for votator to: votator: - a brand name (trademark) for a machine that cools and kneads liquid margarine etc., preparatory to packaging

Thank you very much for your attention and consideration.

No. There is no such thing as a "Proper Adjective" and the word isn't even an adjective. Furthermore there is ample evidence of genericization over the last 30 years. DTLHS (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

proper adjective "An adjective, typically capitalized, derived from a proper noun." per Oxford (US) online. Similar definitions can be found in other dictionaries and in language teaching materials. Examples given in other sources are adjectives like American (< America). It is not a very useful classification for us. It seems to be self-evident, at least visually, whether an adjective is a proper one and there are no implications of its being one. I suppose it might have value for persons without sight so that they knew to capitalize the first letter in writing. DCDuring (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The intent is to not genericize the currently existing trademark registration. If we show current use and registration certificates n various countries around the world, can the definition be amended to "a brand name (trademark) for a machine that cools and kneads liquid margarine etc., preparatory to packaging"? We would greatly appreciate your consideration. 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

We should be able to at least mention the truth of the matter that the word VOTATOR is a registered trademark in the US and various other countries regardless of whether you believe it is a generic term. Please amend the definition as follows - a registered trademark for a brand of machine that cools and kneads liquid margarine etc., preparatory to packaging. This is not a misleading or false statement. If you require registration certificates, I am happy to supply them. Skim1024 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

What's it to you? Are you a legal representative of the Girdler company? DTLHS (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary's approach to (not) indicating trademarked terms is documented at Wiktionary:Trademarks, having been hammered out at Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2011/October#Trademarks. - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Does that deserve an entry? --Barytonesis (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

MWOnline thinks “in someone's debt”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. is entryworthy. We didn't, but now do have in someone's debt. DCDuring (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

in someone's debt should probably be created because it could be construed as meaning the opposite if you're not familiar with the phrase. —Globins (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to DCDuring for creating the entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not with be at least. Equinox ◑ 18:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

So I was watching the Angry Video Game Nerd movie. The Nerd said something along the lines of "I don't want a girlfriend." The Nerd thought the girl he was working with had a crush on him or some crap like that. He said something along the lines of "I don't want a girlfriend." when talking to his friend.

His friend said "But she's not a girl. She's a gamer."

WHAT???

Okay disregard the fact that what he said could be considered sexist. I know what he was suggesting. He was saying that "well she's a gamer just like you and therefore she's not intending to date you" I think. Well, I've never heard someone saying "she's not a GIRL" as a metaphor for "she's not intending to date you"! What is this type of word usage called? And can any of those parts of "not a girl" merit a Wiktionary entry for this meaning? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Metonymy. He used the word “girl” for the concept closely associated with the name of a sex: The participation in the sexual market. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 01:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the implication isn't what you said, but rather "girls are not generally gamers, so she isn't a typical girl". Compare "he's not a cop, he's a cool guy" (for someone who does actually work as a policeman). Equinox ◑ 01:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Another, longer way of saying this kind of thing: "She not a girl girl; she's a gamer girl."

I've usually interpreted this kind of thing as "Don't think of her as a girl; think of her as a gamer." DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's like the classic example: "I am single because I never speak to girls" / "Sure, what about your sister?" / "She's not a girl" --Spreaderofwords (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely want to get with Wonderfool's sister. Equinox ◑ 22:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The given definition doesn't seem to square with Wikipedia's article very well. I see it as partisan. Equinox ◑ 07:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• I had a go at rewriting this. Ƿidsiþ 07:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is IMO an improvement. Thanks for your effort! Equinox ◑ 01:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Just bumped into wt:id:bahasa Belanda and saw a couple Lua errors. Apparently the codes bs and sr are not recognized by the translations template. I tried bos and srp, and same thing. I temporarily substituted bs with hr (Bosnian with Croatian) and sr with sh (Serbian with Serbo-Croatian), but I don't know if this is appropriate. Surely better than leaving "Lua error" in place of a translation if you ask me. Writing here coz my Indo is plain sheet (worse than my Wiki, and seeing the big fail in the above attempt to link to id.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/bahasa_Belanda with an interwiki link makes this comparison effective I guess :) ), and coz I don't know what their Tea Room (if they have one) is called. What do we do about that problem? Leave the changes I made, or make the template recognize bs and sr? Or are there different codes for bs and sr recognized by that template, and which if so? MGorrone (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn't really something we can solve. Indonesian Wiktionary is entirely separate from English Wiktionary, so they have to write and manage their own templates/modules. —Rua (mew) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(Working link: id:bahasa Belanda --Dan Polansky (talk))

@Dan Polansky: any idea where I could write about this to get this problem solved? Is there a Tea Room on Indo Wikt? MGorrone (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This link seems to yield recent changes outside of the mainspace, but I am not sure. id:Wiktionary:Warung_kopi seems it could be the Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

wordreference gives "out of the ark" as a translation of French ringard. Is that a thing? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think it means very old-fashioned ((deprecated template usage) antediluvian).SemperBlotto (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing you already know this, but it's a reference to Noah's ark, as something that repopulated the planet long ago. Equinox ◑ 01:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We have a handful of terms like floppy that were used by white Rhodesians, and are still used by them and their descendants in the Rhodesian diaspora, chiefly in South Africa and the UK. I've been labelling them as Zimbabwe, but that's not quite accurate, given that when Zimbabwe replaced Rhodesia, they were no longer used there. Should we have a Category:Rhodesian English to cover this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably yes. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Etymology: From Malay pandan.
• Current definition: The screw pine, Pandanus utilis.

Is the definition correct, or should it be Pandanus amaryllifolius (Wikipedia) instead?

Wikipedia: Pandanus utilis is native to Madagascar, Mauritius, and the Seychelles, whereas Pandanus amaryllifolius is native to South and Southeast Asia.

Wyang (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That's more of a problem with the definition at screw pine, which is almost universally used as a term for the entire genus, and sometimes for related genera. In the context of use for flavor and fragrance, it would be Pandanus amaryllifolius. In the context of use for weaving mats and in Polynesian culture, it would be Pandanus tectorius, and in the context of use as an ornamental/house plant, Pandanus utilis. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the change to screw pine. Should the definition of pandanus be modified too, perhaps to read something like: “Any of the palm-like plants in the genus Pandanus; screw pine.”? Wyang (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

If Pandanaceae on Wikispecies.Wikispecies is to be believed, any tree in the family Pandanaceae is a screw pine. DCDuring (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to RFD this, as it is redundant with Category:English similes, which is far more complete. The creator of the page himself (User:Paul G) said it was a temporary solution.

I'm loath to do that as long as they are red links in there, but I'm not convinced by the results I'm getting on Google books so I don't dare to create anything. To native speakers: which ones do you vouch for? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with most of them, but I think the real question is whether they're too SOP to list here or not. Since many of them are common, fixed phrases, that itself might make them worth having. "As phony as a three-dollar bill" doesn't take a lot of brain power to decipher, but it is/was a common expression. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

bent as a nine-bob note. If it's absolutely a set phrase, IMO we should have it. You could say "as bent as a seventeen yen note" but nobody does. Equinox ◑ 01:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy for this page to go, but I think any attested similes for which there are red links ought to be created first so that we don't lose any valid content. — Paul G (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't we need a home for SoP similes? DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Do you mean you'd prefer having (idiomatic) SOP similes in an Appendix than in the main space? Do you have examples?

Then I think most of them would have to go there; the point of a simile is that it sort of makes sense. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally think most similes don't belong in a dictionary at our stage of development. But some agree with Andrew Sheedy that "the real question is whether they're too SOP to list here or not". I take that to mean that similes are subject to case-by-case review. DCDuring (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Sorry, I'm still unclear as to what you mean exactly. By "at our stage of development", do you mean we're not yet ready to treat them in a satisfactory manner? Or that we don't need them anymore?

I've written this on my userpage: "I wonder what the point of entries such as phony as a three-dollar bill is. It's easy to decode, so why would someone look it up in a dictionary when (s)he encounters it? It's hard/non-trivial to encode (why this, and not phony as a four-dollar bill?), but how will a dictionary entry help anyone to use it if (s)he doesn't know it yet?".

Maybe you have the same kind of misgivings? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Some folks, not me, argue that this dictionary can be practically used for encoding. They may be thinking of machines; I'm thinking of people.

As to stage of development, I am referring to inferior quality of our entries, both English and other languages (which often use uncommon, archaic, dated, and obsolete English words or English words with numerous senses (without making it clear which they refer to. At some later stage we may be able to build on good basic dictionary entries for words and non-tranparent idioms. We can then cover more transparent expressions, subtler usge nuances etc. DCDuring (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Can this also be a poker term as Wikipedia suggests? Can someone familiar with it add the relevant sense? Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Added now. Wyang (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday, I went to my country's National Library and found a book about the Temiar language and decided to put the Swadesh List of the language here. The book was published on 1961, way back before the formation of Malaysia and before the Malay spelling reform. This language is a spoken language which does not have it's own writing system. The book that I found was a documentation of the language and its people. Then, I encounter an online book of the language which is a Temiar-Malay dictionary published in 2014. The dictionary is just a draft and not a full documentation of the language. These two dictionaries had different spellings and that made me wonder if I should use the newer one instead of the old one. Here's the link for both of it: old (there's no full online archive of the book) or this, and new. --Malaysiaboy (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

What we do in cases like this is select a standard orthography for the language to use on Wiktionary. Ideally, that standard will be the one that is most used today when speakers actually write their language, or one that is promoted by a governmental institute and therefore is likely to see the most use in the future. The orthography that is chosen and its equivalents in other orthographies should be placed on an About page, like Wiktionary:About Temiar. Entries in orthographies other than the one chosen as a standard can still be on Wiktionary, but simply as alternative spellings pointing to a main entry in the standard orthography. If you want to see examples or need help with this, feel free to ask me. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I have to do more research on this then. Thank you! --Malaysiaboy (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's Japanese, but it's appearing as an English surname and given name, which I very much doubt. I'm not sure how to give it Japanese labels instead. DonnanZ (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it. —Globins 19:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought of that while I was soaking in the bath. Cheers. DonnanZ (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)'

Could someone please add the non-pathology (figurative) sense? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

How can a-maying be added to wiktionary? It's a form of the word "maying" -- celebrating May. It is used by Milton in his poem "L'Allegro". Issacbaird (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that Milton isn't simply referring to collecting flowers, but in any case, we did lack that verb sense, which I have now added at the very bottom of may. Note that the a- part is separable, and therefore the whole of a-maying shouldn't be added. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"separable"? Do you mean 'It's spelled with a hyphen'? Or is it really separable as relating to separable prefixes and separable verbs (compare for example German abfahren and er fährt ab in which ab is separable)?
Anyway, in both cases it should be a matter of opinion (~> WT:RFD) whether or not an entry a-maying could be created. As for 'spelled with a hyphen' there are also several hypenated terms in Category:English words prefixed with non-, Category:English words prefixed with de-, shaped#Derived terms. And for the other case there is for example abfahren. -80.133.104.152 01:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the deal with these early citations from the 1940s? According to zine the word wasn't coined until 1965. DTLHS (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

zine and its coinage (in or around 1965?) has nothing to do with with fmz and its coinage (in or around the 1940s?). -80.133.104.152 04:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The quote in fmz supposedly from 1943 uses the word "zine". DTLHS (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. The given link, efanzines.com/FWD/FWD31.htm , has more usages of zine and it's said to be from the Futurian War Digest Oct 1943 Vol: IIII No: I. If the transcription is correct, than zine with etymonline.com/word/zine as reference as well as www.dictionary.com/browse/zine?s=t aren't correct. The best google book has seem to be sources stating that Futurian War Digest did appear around that time. -80.133.104.152 07:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Is English ungird from Mid. Eng. ungirden from Old Eng. ongyrdan? Some of the quotes on this Middle English Dictionary are in the late 1400s (1470s and on). I just don't know for sure if it made it to English by this way. Anglish4699 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Some dictionaries, like Miriam Webster connect the modern word to Middle English; others, like Century say it's a new creation from un- + gird. I don't see why we can't represent both theories--the modern meaning certainly reflects the latter. However, do you think we should move ongyrdan to ungyrdan ? Leasnam (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I just took a peek at the entry and sense 1 is what is represented by the ME word, so I think it's safe to connect it. However, we could simply leave it as it is now, showing both Leasnam (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your work. I just wasn't sure about it. About ongyrdan, it should be moved to ungyrdan if it best be there. I didn't know if the Old English prefix un- was also for verbs, but I did know that there was the prefix on- from Old English ond-, and-, so I put it as "ongyrdan" (see etymology 2 for on-). Speaking on this with a broader view, this can also be applied to other on- verbs such as onbindan. I'll move the entry myself for ongyrdan. Again, thanks! Anglish4699 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, I do see some un- verbs... can't believe that got by me >_< Anglish4699 (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking for a word that describes two types of verbs in English.

Type 1: come, graduate, quit, die
One CANNOT say, "I have come for two hours." "I have graduated for two years." "I have quit for two weeks." "He died five years."

Type 2: be, know, work, sleep
One CAN say, "I have been a lawyer for two weeks." "I have known him for two years." "I have worked here for two days." "I have slept in this room for a whole fortnight."

How would we describe these two types of verbs in English? Chinese does not distinguish between the two. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(btw, graduate can be type 2 in Indian English) —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 13:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like type 1 is dynamic/fientive verbs and type 2 is stative verbs, but it may be more nuanced than that. —Mahāgaja (fomerly Angr) · talk 14:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

punctual vs. durative Crom daba (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Stative verb/durative verb, state verb/action verb. DCDuring (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, 'shop' is BrE and 'store' is AmE; likewise, 'luggage' is BrE and 'baggage' is AmE. Is this not accurate? Our entries don't reflect this right now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As an AmE speaker, I'd say calling something a "shop" gives it more of a quaint, cozy feel than "store", and that many of the definitions besides #1 (An establishment that sells goods or services to the public...) are entirely current in modern AmE. As for "luggage" versus "baggage", I'm a little surprised to find that TSA (the US airport security guys) uses baggage at TSA.gov; in my idiolect, I'd always use "luggage" or "bags", and leave "baggage" for the negative sense (#2.) The Washington Post article "The secret life of baggage: Where does your luggage go at the airport?" uses all three, luggage, baggage, and bags, and I can't tell much distinction in how they're used. I don't know what's going on in BrE, but both luggage and baggage seem to be current in AmE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of Prosfilaes's intuitions. A shop is smaller and cozier than a store; Barnes and Nobles is a bookstore, but the little place downtown with the cat and the old man who smells like pipe tobacco is a bookshop. I use luggage and baggage interchangeably. It may be, however, that the American usages of store and baggage aren't found in en-GB, so that they could be labeled {{lb|en|US}}, but shop and luggage probably shouldn't be labeled {{lb|en|UK}}. —Mahāgaja (fomerly Angr) · talk 08:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

In my experience baggage is limited to the second sense in AmE. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 13:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Per Collins COBUILD (via Farlex, via OneLook): "In British English, both these words refer to the bags and suitcases that you take with you when you travel, together with their contents. Luggage is more common than baggage. / In American English, luggage refers to empty bags and suitcases. Baggage refers to bags and suitcases with their contents." I agree with almost all the differences between baggage and luggage in US English and also with the synonymy of the two words in most people's idiolects. DCDuring (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree that it's only luggage, not baggage, when it's empty (I'd buy new luggage, but never new baggage), but when it's full I'm pretty sure I can use either term for it. —Mahāgaja (fomerly Angr) · talk 20:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If regional labels are added to these entries, Canadian usage follows what Prosfilaes describes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"Store" may be used for large chains etc. in the UK: "a DIY store" (I don't think Americans say "DIY" but "home improvement"...?), "a superstore". A little retail outlet is a shop. Equinox ◑ 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm from the Thai Wikipedia and I have a problem concerning the translation of the name of a Russian medal, Medal "For the Return of Crimea" (Медаль «За возвращение Крыма»). My question is: what does the term "возвращение" (or "return") in the name of this medal actually mean?

1. Coming/going back (as in "the return to innocence", "the return of Jafar", "the return of Godzilla", etc)?
2. Giving/bringing/delivering/sending back (as in "the return of property")?
3. Or else?

Thanks a million! --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atitarev Wyang (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@หมวดซาโต้, Wyang: Sorry for the late reply. возвраще́ние (vozvraščénije) means both coming/going back and bringing/taking back. The collocation возвраще́ние Кры́ма (vozvraščénije Krýma) can mean "return of (the) Crimea" in both "coming/going back" and "bringing/taking back" senses but the medal can only be given for the action. BTW, I don't support the annexation of the Crimea by Russia. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please kindly create these two entries?

This is the word discussed in the Wikipedia articles Mawla and Mullah (?), and has a large number of meanings: "lord, protector, patron, client, companion, friend, trustee, helper, slave, freedman, uncle, nephew, non-Arab Muslim, etc." I'm especially interested in how these different senses arose from the root و ل ي (w l y) ― and it may be interesting to note that it is often claimed the sense "non-Arab Muslim" is derived from "freedman, slave".

Both forms are borrowed into Chinese, as 毛拉 (máolā) and 馬瓦里 (mǎwǎlǐ), respectively. Wyang (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I just leave a note since I can't contribute right know as I'm editing with mobile: The senses "lord, master" (active voice) and "non-Arab Muslim" are widely attested in Classical Arabic, the laater being developed from the passive voice of the same root, w-l-y, also pronounced identicaly, and would mean "slave". I think mullah is a Persian development and is not attested in Arabic. Plus, it is currently popular only in Persian-influenced languages, and not modern Arabic. --Z 13:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, Hindi has both मौला (maulā, “creator (poetic)”) and मुल्ला (mullā, “mullah, Muslim cleric”). Both are in use. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 00:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang, ZxxZxxZ, AryamanA: The entry مَوْلًى (mawlan) is created, its plural indefinite is مَوَالٍ (mawālin). مَوْلَى (mawlā) and مَوَالِي (mawālī) (pl) are informal. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Anatoli. Wyang (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Frank. @ZxxZxxZ, I think you're right. مَوْلًى (mawlan) is an Arabic word but مُلَّا (mullā) could be a re-borrowing from Persian. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Although Wiktionary does have a page for the German term Zwitter, it does not have proper etymology information (or any at all) and does not note the more or less unique nature of this coined term. Given the unusual way it came to prominence, and what odd terms surrounded it in regards to those circumstances, would it not be worth noting how a work like Zwitter formed, as extremely few German words actually use "Zwit-" as a prefix?96.231.152.137 15:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

What should be done with this? It obviously belongs to gold, but there's already translations there. DonnanZ (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing since it would cause a Lua memory error if the translations were moved back. DTLHS (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It's on the hit list you sent me. OK, no further action. DonnanZ (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think the link at gold should be highlighted better, placed in a band perhaps? I didn't notice it first of all. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

E.g. something like a {{trans-see}} link. DonnanZ (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I like that idea; it would make the link to the translations more visible. Obviously this is also a reminder that we need to solve the root problem, and make the translations templates and modules use less memory... - -sche (discuss) 18:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Something is wrong here that I cannot quite articulate. Sense: "An anthropomorphic representation of a skeleton." Usex: "She dressed up as a skeleton for Halloween." But she didn't dress up as "an anthropomorphic" whatever; she dressed up as a bone thing, a normal skeleton, surely. IMO there is a similar problem at catgirl, where we give a second sense of "A female who wears a cat costume". It's like having a sense at train for "a little model resembling a train", and exemplifying it with "he loves to play with his train set". Equinox ◑ 00:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

How about

(fantasy) An animated skeleton as an undead being.

Crom daba (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it even necessary, though? Do we need an extra sense at "mouse" for "an anthropomorphic mouse that acts like a person", for Mickey and friends? Equinox ◑ 01:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

In Mickey's world, anything can be anthropomorphized. A mouse is nothing special. But a skeleton, in many fantasy worlds and bleeding into general pop-culture, is a special being that is a skeleton animated by some sort of magic. It's its own class of thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Like a zombie. Perhaps. How do you feel about the catgirl thing I mentioned? Equinox ◑ 04:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd remove the second definition from catgirl. Crom daba (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about catgirl; I've never heard that definition. If it refers to someone who dresses up like a catgirl, then it should be deleted, but if it refers to someone who dresses up as a cat, then it should be kept. It's all about context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's someone who dresses as a catgirl. You see them at anime conventions etc. (apparently!). Equinox ◑ 00:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know: Commons Category:Catgirls offer "A catgirl, also known as Nekomimi, is a female character with cat traits, such as cat ears, a cat tail, or other feline characteristics on an otherwise human body." I'm not sure whether women who put on cat ears are dressing up like catgirls or are catgirls.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is that many anime/manga franchises have catgirl characters (they are not women with ears on, they are fictional cat-woman hybrids) and those are what people dress up as at those conventions. Outside of Japanese comics I don't think the catgirl is a big thing. Equinox ◑ 06:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen women and girls wear cat ears; Necomimi Brainwave Cat Ears were a popular (or at least well-advertised) tech novelty a few years back. If they are called catgirls, then I'd think that needs a separate entry.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This page is unnecessary because it's already a section on w/god. I'm asking that it be deleted. --Robbinorion (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

By w/god, do you mean god? The translation section was moved from god to god/translations because it takes up too much memory. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

In "And thund'ring swells the horrors of the main" (John Wolcot/Peter Pindar, "The Storm", from "To My Candle") what sense of main is used? "Open sea", "mainland", something else? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably "open sea". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Sense 2 of the noun. DonnanZ (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Old Engli.sh shows a 3rd person scīedeþ but I couldn't find that stem on B&T for forsceadan or sceadan. I could only find scēad_ or scād_. What is the mutstem? It would be great if we could generalize these mutstems as best as we can. Also, is the Pronunciation of /forˈʃæːɑdɑn/ right on the page? Anglish4699 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at various related verbs: sċēadan, tōsċēadan, forsċēadan, etc. and it appears this verb was already in transition from an originally strong verb (pt = sċēod/sċēd; ppt = sċēaden) to one that was weak, especially in tōsċēadan (pt = tōsċēadde). As such, I thought that forms like the 2nd and 3rd person singular sċēadest, sċēadeþ might be due to levelling, but this is probably not the case. Instead, because these derive from PGmc *skaiþizi and *skaiþidi respectively, the early OE would be *sċǣdis, *sċǣdiþ, which would then break into sċēadest, sċēadeþ, so the mutstem is actually sċēad for this verb and not *sċīed as might be expected at first glance. This kinda makes sense too, since the expected first person singular would be sċāde rather than sċēade...Leasnam (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

sċādan/sċēadan reminds me a bit of slāpan/slǣpan (“to sleep”), in that in addition to raising (seen in both, in the second forms) there is also breaking in the first. Forms like sċādeþ though are probably due to levelling/analogy and not inherited from PGmc. Then, preterite forms in sċēod- (from earlier sċēd-) broke due to analogy with ēa in the present stem (cf. waxan/wōx > weaxan/wēox) Leasnam (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, okay. Now I see why the 2nd and 3rd would have sċēad_ and not *sċīed_. Thank you! About the broken forms and future verbs, is it best to leave out the later broken forms and only put the inherited forms in? Anglish4699 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I would use the inherited forms and list the alternative tense-forms as synonyms on those pages, should they ever be created...but it's completely up to you how you want to do them...there really is no rule, except that they be verifiable Leasnam (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wiktionary entry says griffon rhymes with stiffen. However, as part of Brussels Griffon it's pronounced differently in this video and in this video (both of which are from the U.S.). Is the word pronounced differently when it's part of the name of the breed and/or in the U.S.? (Yes, I was inspired to look this up because a Brussels Griffon was awarded Best in Show at the National Dog Show in the U.S. a couple of days ago.) Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this SoP? You can also be an expensive date, expensive mistress, etc. Same goes for cheap drunk. Equinox ◑ 00:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is too slangy to be idiomatical, i. e. having been used by enough people to develop an independent meaning. Also, look on it from the reader side: Nobody will get the idea of searching “expensive drunk” instead of its constituent parts, only we do it by goodwill. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 01:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's idiomatic. An expensive date is just a date that costs a lot of money. An expensive mistress is just a mistress who costs a lot of money. But an expensive drunk is not a drunk who costs a lot of money. It is someone who needs to drink a lot of alcohol before they can get drunk. No actual transaction needed. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tooironic: But the idea is still that getting all this alcohol will cost a lot of money, no? I do think that it's more idiomatic/more of a set phrase than the rest, though. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

See also cheapdate Chuck Entz (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

While analyzing Wani's poem, it appears there is a slight difference:

• 905, Kokin Wakashū (introduction)
  • 難(なに)波(は)津(づ)に咲(さ)くや木(こ)の花(はな)冬(ふゆ)ごもり今(いま)は春(はる)べと咲(さ)くやこの花(はな)

    Naniwa-zu ni sakuya ko no hana fuyu-gomori ima wa harube to sakuya kono hana

    (please add an English translation of this example)

The bolded lines can be either interpreted as ko no hana (flowers on the trees), kono hana (this flower), or both. The translations haved use one or the other, but (probably) not both. From the deviations, are the two lines of sakuya kono hana pun-intended or independent of each other? (Note that fuyu-gomori is an epithet)

In a related matter, in kyōgi karuta, the reader says 今を春べと (ima o harube to), is this from a later sound shift from ima wa harube to or for rhyming purposes? --POKéTalker (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, KDJ has an entry for 此の花 (kono hana, literally “this flower”), and the top two defs (the two that appear relevant) are:

1　（「このはな（木花）1」から転じて）桜の花の雅称。 -- (Shift from 木の花 (ko no hana, literally “tree's flower”) sense 1) Elegant label for the cherry blossom.
2　（「このはな（木花）2」から転じて）梅の花の雅称。 -- (Shift from 木の花 (ko no hana, literally “tree's flower”) sense 2) Elegant label for the plum blossom.

The KDJ entry for 木の花 provides two definitions:

1　木に咲く花。特に、桜の花をいう。 -- A flower that blooms on a tree. In particular, refers to the cherry blossom.
2　梅の花の雅称。「此の花」と意識されることもある。 -- Elegant label for the plum blossom. Also sometimes perceived as 此の花 (kono hana).

The KDJ entry for 難波津 (Naniwa-zu) includes a quote of this same poem, using the 此の花 spelling.

Daijirin's entry for 此の花 (here at Kotobank) states:

梅の花の異名。 -- Alternative term for “plum blossom”.
菊の花の異名。 -- Alternative term for “chrysanthemum blossom”.

Take that for what you will. I suspect “plum blossom” is what Wani was going for, given that flower's strong associations with the return of spring. The potential for punning here is slight, and at most alludes to the poet looking right at a particular blossom bud while musing out the poem. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr, if you have time, please check on このはな, all three flowers accounted for. Thanks, --POKéTalker (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@POKéTalker -- Excellent, thank you. I reworked the hiragana entry to apply standardized formatting; the soft-redirect entries should generally only have one call to {{ja-def}} for each kanji spelling, with relevant glosses listed and separated by semicolons. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Just bumped into this and noticed the usage example doesn't actually use the word: "dragone che co le coda sfracassa" does not contain any inflected form of spetacciare, only the present tense of sfracassare. Is it misquoted or should we replace it with another quote? And which, if so? Also, do we know the etymology of this word? MGorrone (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Not misquoted. Or rather, there was an error (perhaps a typo) in the article, which I fixed to "la" instead of "le". Cfr. here. MGorrone (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Found an example: here it is. Sentence: «Evidentemente abbiamo (plurale m.) ricevuto una reazione chimica piuttosto indesiderata, viso che sono riuscito (singolare plebeo) a spetacciare le cinture di sicurezza e la doppia camicia di forza senza sforzo apparente.», «We (plurale maiestatis) evidently have received a rather unwanted chemical reaction, seen as I (plebean singular) have managed to tear the safety belts and the double straitjacket with no apparent effort». Is that source OK? MGorrone (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It has recently be edited by anons. I don't quite agree with the part where it says "it's not necessarily said to child or an adolescent, it's also said to an adult inferior". @Wyang, Tooironic, Dokurrat, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What is an "adult inferior" exactly? Sounds ambiguous to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's User:Fête's obsession with these types of entries. Anyway, I protected the entry and reworded the notes and definition- please take a look. Wyang (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: Looks good... thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: As for Mandarin, I think I would used 老實 for adults, but 乖乖兒地(adv) is also possible; I can't think up circumstances to use 乖 to describe adults though. If I really heard an adult is being described as 乖, I would think his or her must be too obedient. Dokurrat (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's considered a proverb. DonnanZ (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well we do have hindsight is 20/20. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That is one I had never heard of, I don't think it is used in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang, Tooironic, Dokurrat, Suzukaze-c, I feel like not all these senses are used, but I'm a bit confused as to which senses are referred to. It'd be nice to have example sentences to make it easier to understand the different senses of English time that correlate with Chinese 時候 / 时候. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Tooironic, Dokurrat, Suzukaze-c This is very confusing, including the split according to the senses of English time and the countable/uncountable tags. I suggest we write it as three senses instead (two modern and one literary), per Hanyu Da Cidian: (1) (literary) season and climate; (2) a period of time; and (3) a point in time; moment. Wyang (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Wyang: I agree. Dokurrat (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• If memory serves me right, I was the one who made the original changes to differentiate the senses. I'm all for rewriting the definitions to make them more accurate, but not with removing the countable/uncountable labels. This is very useful information that no other dictionary (AFAIK) provides. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Tooironic: I think it was A-cai who made these distinctions. I agree the countable/uncountable labels should be kept, but we definitely need example sentences. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Indian French on Wikipedia claims this definition in the French dialect used in Yanam, a French-speaking neighborhood of Puducherry:

Colloquially: Indians with French citizenship

Literally: Soldier

Does anyone have any Indian French resources to help verify this claim? I didn't even know French was still used in the former French colonies in India. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 01:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I tried a few keywords, and the only book I could find that used it in that sense in running French text was this one. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find that we don't have this word. Or maybe I am just making it up. Could "Westernism" be attested in something like the sense of "a word or concept imported from the West"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please help me add the BrE pronunciation? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How would one parse the phrase "the government effected a good many changes"? Why is "a" compulsory here? "Good" and "many" are adjectives right? And "changes" is a plural noun... ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tooironic: "A good many" = "several" or "a lot". I think it is more common in British English. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

See “a good many”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. A few dictionaries have it as an idiom. It might be a carryover of archaic grammar or semantics. Parsing it makes me think of good as an adverb. Many might be a noun in the expression, but seems better characterized as a determiner. A good number of changes is synonymous, so perhaps changes was a genitive. DCDuring (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

See ], in which I have characterized a good many as a determiner. DCDuring (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

See also ]. Are there other similar uses of good? DCDuring (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

a good deal —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Somewhat similar is good part, as in a good part of |, the good part of |. Further, one can also find the same expression with better or even best using the same sense of good. DCDuring (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Some can play a role parallel to that of good in both a good few (some few) and, less commonly, a good many (some many). DCDuring (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Many thanks to all involved. Very helpful! ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for noticing what seems to be an idiom, a common one, that escaped us. DCDuring (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There are some nationality pieces on Wiktionary with the definite article, as القبط and الفرس; I do not know about others because of lacking categorization of these names. I think that having these people names with the definite article as lemmata is wrong as it is thinkable to have these names at least in the construct state, for example قبط السودان, and on the other hand people search the names without ال (al-) and editors link to the names without ال (al-), as the English article Copt does though the linked form without the article is not created. Also Arabic Wikipedia has them all without the article in the title, like فرس (مجموعة إثنية) or قبط, فور. Do you share the assessment that these names should be mown? @Profes.I., @Atitarev? — Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 14:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Palaestrator verborum: I concur with you on all accounts. --Profes.I. 16:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct, no article in lemmas. Model on عَرَب (ʕarab, “Arabs”) or رُوس (rūs, “Russians”). For linking in examples, one can use alternative forms for display, e.g. الرُّوس (ar-rūs) links to روس. If the entries with ال (al-) already exist, we can term them to redirects to lemmas without "al-". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I created these entries but I'm at a loss how to define these concepts in English. A Dutch person would surely know what it is, but I can't think of any word that describes it in English. The senses in the English entry refer to entirely different things. —Rua (mew) 23:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rua I've added a reference to a raclette grill and included an image of one. The image actually refers to the Swiss practice but it's one of the best I could find on Wikimedia. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang, Justinrleung, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c The current etymology section (more can be seen in commented wikicode) smells fictional to me. Any ideas? Dokurrat (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure @2001:da8:201:3512:bce6:d095:55f1:36de has a source for this. Wyang (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat (S)he added a note to the etymology:

"《汉语外来词词典》上海辞书出版社1984年12月 / also appears in http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/11777230.html p162".

For reference, a screenshot of the relevant passage on p162 of the second reference is here. I think we should add this book (外来词：异文化的使者 史有为) to Wiktionary:About Chinese/references. Manchu lagu is verified in 《御製満珠蒙古漢字三合切音清文鑑》 ― screenshot of the entry is here, glossed exactly as '蝲蝲蛄'. Wyang (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: Roger. Dokurrat (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The definition seems to be wrong: it is circular. Equinox ◑ 20:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Is that a thing? There's this, but not much else. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Google "all oak and iron bound" (Books • Groups • Scholar). DCDuring (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Is that a thing? There's this, but not much else. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Google "all oak and iron bound" (Books • Groups • Scholar) DCDuring (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Historically speaking, I don't think this term was (meant as) offensive; this is a recent development. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was once "gallant". Changed to "now offensive". Equinox ◑ 22:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't really agree that it is now "offensive". It is just an outdated expression. Mihia (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, imagine using it in politics or in the boardroom. It would be seen as patronising and out of touch at best, probably as deeply disparaging. Not sure how we measure offensiveness, though. Equinox ◑ 19:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

But does any modern speaker actually use it? Theoretically if they did it would probably be offensive. 2600:1011:B107:A324:14A4:4BD2:F9D3:375C 20:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If people used it nowadays with offensive intent, or were offended to read it in older works, then the "now offensive" label would be correct. AFAIK it is not used now offensively, and when read in original context it is not "offensive" to modern eyes, but just reflecting an older style of thinking that does not chime with modern views. Mihia (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's about intent. If it was about intent, we wouldn't need a dictionary to tell us what might be offensive, because offence would be determined by whether we wanted to offend. A word like negro used to be a neutral term to refer to black people (in encyclopaedias etc.) but is clearly offensive today. Equinox ◑ 03:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn’t it even SoP because it is a fact? “Weak” in relation to the sexes of humankind automatically means “womankind” without any idiomatic addition, for in humans, woman are statistically weaker than men by their muscular composition, if not by the mental one. And expressions which aren’t idiomatic can neither develop connotations. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it can be said to be purely SoP, no. Mihia (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Men are statistically weaker by pain tolerance, by having external vulnerable dangling bits, by being more likely to have many X-linked genetic diseases, by dying earlier. And every set of frequently used words get connotations, even if it's far beyond us to annotation all of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"weaker sex" is considered offensive now because it is considered degrading to women. It wasn't before; absolute power by men in society was the norm throughout most of history (in slightly different forms but mostly the same). It wasn't offensive back then because in those days (if you go back even 400-500 years) women didn't even challenge their authority or position at all. Nowadays, feminism is well-established (compared to before), much thought about, and much emphasized by modern society. I think "now offensive" is definitely appropriate. In fact, I've never heard anyone actually use this term before in my life, ever, when I've ever conversed with anyone, online or real life. I've only seen it in historical texts and novels. If a male politician called women "the weaker sex" nowadays, man; the negative publicity would be right up his ass. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to agree that it is not used offensively now, and that historical uses seen in their historical context are not offensive now, so I can't quite see why you think "now offensive" is an appropriate label. Mihia (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, anyone who used the term now would most likely offend a very wide audience. 500 years ago, it would not have offended almost anyone. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Except maybe Christine de Pizan. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 04:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It might offend some strident fringe. Most people would merely see it as a quaint expression, I suggest. "offensive" is surely too strong. Mihia (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"weak" applied to a person or a group of people is a warning sign for being insulting or offensive; no one wants to be described as weak. If you use it to describe a group like gender, race or nationality, especially with generality (without a specifier like "at soccer"), it's offensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Virtually anything can be offensive if it is not a descriptor a person wants to be identified with. We don't currenly label the first definition of weak as "offensive" and I don't think we should. It can be a statement of fact from one person's point of view and an offensive insult from the perspective of someone else. The "weaker sex" is just an extension of that. Women are generally weaker than men, according to the primary definition of "weak," and thus there is nothing inherently offensive about it, it is just that narrowing in on anyone's weak points as a way of describing them is generally insulting/offensive. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that women are less able than men? I'd say that's an offensive insult. I don't agree that the first definition is in fact the primary definition of weak, and even the first definition is broad enough to not be generally true. Statistically, males don't handle pain as well; that's a pretty core definition of weak as well. We don't label weak as offensive, but like many adjectives, using it as a stereotype for a large group is offensive.

"Females are called the weaker sex, but why? If they are not strong, who is? When men must wrap themselves in thick garments, and incase the whole in a stout overcoat to shut out the cold, women in thin. silk dresses, with neck and shoulders bare, or nearly so, say they are perfectly comfortable! ... Call not woman the weaker vessel; for had she not been stronger than man the race would long have been extinct. -- Littell's Living Age, Volume 38, page 824, 1853. This phrase has been objected to for a long time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I misread the definition, sorry. I was just referring to the "lacking in...strength" part, which is typically true. Also, it's funny how one can reach opposite conclusions using anecdotal evidence. In my experience, women almost always dress warmer than men in the winter and I often find that women, but never men, think I dress inadequately for cold weather.

Now, I'm not vehemently opposed to "weaker sex" being labelled "now offensive," because it is in fact true that it would be. I just think it isn't necessary, because "weak" itself could be labelled "often offensive" or something similar. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Women feel the cold more (which I don't think I'd call weakness"). I suppose "weaker sex" can be generally offensive for its stereotyping, while using "weak" in general (e.g. for an individual) doesn't stereotype. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)