Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/October

The girl's name comes from an invention of Jonathan Swift, for a lady-friend of his named Esther Van whatever. But it's also a butterfly genus, from Greek Φάνης. Are these totally unrelated? Could, for example, Swift have borrowed the butterfly genus name (if it existed at that time!) because it happened to fit with his lover's name? Or is it all a coincidence? Equinox ◑ 00:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, the butterflies were named Vanessa decades after Swift died. To rub salt in, Swift died the year Fabricius was born. I also found some paper relating to this: Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 00:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Flashy in appearance. My new car looks sporty but is actually very practical." Maybe sporty cars are flashy, but is this the actual definition? Doesn't it mean more like "intended for racing, like a sports car"? Equinox ◑ 01:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not "like a sports car"? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Prisencolin has been adding these in a few Chinese entries, like 見 and 端. Are these valid? @Wyang, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Well... it is modelled almost entirely after the Middle Chinese initials system. I would change it to:

1. (～母) a Middle Chinese initial and the 'Phags-pa script letter ...

Wyang (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: OK, that'd work. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright sounds good.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Would sex industry be SOP? I noticed we don't have an entry for it. We do have sex work. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but i'd say the same regarding sex work and several terms at sex#Derived terms. But as there are other SOP-like terms and as e.g. Sexindustrie wouldn't be SOP (as it's a single word, cp. WT:COALMINE), i'd say it should be okay. -84.161.5.32 00:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether "content" needs an additional sense in the Web 2.0 sense of media available for downloading from a website. That might do as a definition. The existing senses don't seem to cover this meaning. — Paul G (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Web 2.0 is far too specific. The sense is something like "the actual useful material on a site/in a book/magazine/etc. that people come for, rather than structure or filler". Our "subject matter" sense comes closest but could perhaps be broadened. Equinox ◑ 14:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Sleep" is used informally as a unit of time until some future event, as in "Two more sleeps until Christmas". We already have "An act or instance of sleeping", but I'm not sure whether or not that would include this. Should this be considered as separate sense? — Paul G (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the entry for lim made me wonder - is there such a thing as Singapore English, or is it actually a Malay word? DonnanZ (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that there is a Singapore English, and I can't see why you'd doubt that a large Anglophone community would have its own dialect. See w:Singapore English for more. (Also, the word is not Malay; as the entry states, it's Chinese.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, the word kopi fooled me, which occurs in Malay. I have never been there, although my father was taken as a POW there. DonnanZ (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Singapore English does exist for sure, but I have doubts about this word in particular. I've sent it to RFV. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion between Singapore English, the official form, and Singlish which is unofficial, and use of it in the media is frowned upon by the government. Both categories are listed in this entry. DonnanZ (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a dialect continuum between standard Singaporean English and Singlish. This word would definitely be considered Singlish. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a sense missing here, with a technical name I can't remember. It's the sense in "If you're hungry then we have chips". The chips exist regardless of whether or not the addressee is hungry - rather, the then is short for something like "then you'll be interested to know that...". Does anyone know the term for this? Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like adverb sense 4. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 00:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't specific to the word "then", though, since "then" can always be omitted in "if...then" pairs. You often hear waiters say something like "If you need anything, my name is Mike", and every Sunday at church our priest invites people to coffee hour after the service saying "If this is your first time here, the parish hall is around the back in the neighboring building." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: ] has a definition that uses the term relevance conditional to cover what we are talking about, but the associated WP article and the works that article references don't seem to cover the ordinary-language phenomenon in a way I find useful. CGEL calls the clause following if a protasis and briefly discusses relevance protases:

One further special case where Q is not a consequence of P involves 'relevance protases':

i If you need some help, Helen is willing to lend a hand.

    ii If you're interested, Dick's coming to the party too.

Here Q is true independently of whether P is true. Nevertheless, such examples are consistent with the invariant meaning of if, which excludes only the case where Q is false and P true. In uttering I'm asserting Q, with P ex[ressing a condition on the relevance of Q. Such examples might be regarded as a shorthand was of saying something like If you need some help you will be interested to know that Helen is willing to lend a hand or If you're interested it is worth telling you that Dick is coming to the party. There is thus some implicit predication in the actually expressed Q is an argument.

HTH. It helped me. DCDuring (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've added an entry for relevance conditional. DCDuring (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I added a Discussion post on "caelum" page. When the noun means "sky/heaven", I found that the plural is irregural (it follows the masculine II decl.). But I am not expert in Latin, so I would like a confirmation. Thanks. — This unsigned comment was added by 84.253.143.113 (talk).

It's true; the plural of caelum is masculine caelī. I don't know how to fix it. I think we may have to add a word-specific declension to Module:la-utilities, but I don't know how to do that. @Kc kennylau? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't think module edits are needed - gave it a shot. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 19:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This may be entry-worthy, considering the presence of stroke of genius, and stroke of work. See this. DonnanZ (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather delete those two entries. --Barytonesis (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by that view either. DonnanZ (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It might be a pseudo-anglicism. I created it based on the Russian: догха́нтер (dogxántɛr). At the Russian Wiktionary they want to know. Ringing @Cinemantique. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

See dogcatcher, who is not necessarily an exterminator. DCDuring (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The original post sounds like it's a question for WT:RFVE to determine whether or not English dog hunter (or maybe dog-hunter, doghunter?) does exist.
The mentioning of dogcatcher could imply that dog hunter is unlikely to exist.
Searching for "dog hunters" brings up some results which might be relevant. However, the term might (also?) refer to people who hunt (animals) with dogs instead of people who hunt dogs. For example, www.alabamadoghuntersassociation.org seems to be an organisation of US-Americans who hunt with dogs. -91.6.198.138 13:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this an actual attested word that needs its own entry? Or was it later created on the basis of the (internally formed) Romance "cognates", particularly French surprendre / Old French sorprendre? It seems like all the other Romance words for surprise ultimately came from the French, not this supposed Latin word. I see some mention this Latin word as "Medieval Latin", but I'm not sure if it's legit. Word dewd544 (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I found a 17th century occurrence of "superprehendit". I doubt it's found in Classical Latin though. --Barytonesis (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(This is just one example.) Is it correct to call this "transitive"? Equinox ◑ 18:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say so. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I know that there are more senses and sg/pl patterns exist, e.g. شِقَّة (šiqqa) -> شِقَق (šiqaq), just fixing the apartment sense for now. What should I do if I already know that not all senses, etymologies, pronunciations are covered but I can't be bothered or don't feel confident, busy, etc. to do that? Should the entry be marked for attention? It is sometimes very time-consuming to do a comprehensive entry. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is standard Wiktionary practice: leave an {{attention}} with its first parameter being a brief explanation of what needs to be done. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I got around adding missing senses/readings but I might just use {{attention}}, if other entries seem too complicated. I actually made quite a few Korean entries with complex etymologies in the past covering just one etymology but I knew there were more. I will try to avoid it. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I just searched for vrång and was sent to vrang. One would assume that this is a just "fuzzy match". Except there is a Swedish word vrång, as documented on Swedish Wiktionary at vrång. Could someone create that entry and make sure this redirect does not take place any longer? MGorrone (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(PS If there is a way to avoid an external link's look to the Swedish Wiktionary link, as is possible with w:Wikipedia links, please notify me. Bracketing "wt:sv:vrång" and "sv:vrång" gives me "wt:sv:vrång" and "sv:vrång" respectively.)

@MGorrone: When you search with diacritics and the entry does not exist, it will send you to the version that does exist with the same letters (though different or no diacritics). This is obviously a useful feature. If you notice a missing entry and want it to be created, this is not the place to request that. Instead, you can add vrång to WT:RE:sv.

You need to type ] to get sv:vrång; this is because such links create interwiki links otherwise. I modified yours above accordingly, because it had added such an unwitting and unwanted interwiki link in the sidebar. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

One or two days ago, I looked for an Italian translation of reinvent the wheel and found scoprire l'acqua calda. That didn't seem right to me, so I posed the problem ad Italian Stack Exchange, and two out of three who commented on the issue (or rather, one commenter and the answerer) agree with me that the idioms are different. Quoting the answer, which I agree with, «'Scoprire l'acqua calda', which I usually hear in the form 'la scoperta dell'acqua calda' (the discovery of warm water), has always meant to discover something that some, or even most, already were familiar with. It is used as a dismissal.». I do not think this is the meaning of the English idiom, so this translation is incorrect and should be removed. That leaves us with the question: is there a matching idiom in Italian? And what about the other way, that is, is there an English idiom matching the above-explained meaning of 'scoprire l'acqua calda'? MGorrone (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@MGorrone: Is it similar to French ne pas avoir inventé l'eau chaude (“not to be the sharpest knife in the drawer”), ne pas avoir inventé le fil à couper le beurre (Talk:ne pas avoir inventé le fil à couper le beurre)? @Imetsia, what do you think? PUC – 11:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It feels like the distinction MGorrone points out is more of a nuance. I've made the definition at scoprire l'acqua calda more precise to reflect that. Maybe reinvent the wheel is a somewhat approximate translation, but the two terms are close enough in meaning. Imetsia (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia: Reading the new definition, I think old wine in a new bottle is very close. PUC – 10:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It sure is, and I've added it to the entry. But I still kept "reinvent the wheel" because that seems to be a common and accepted translation as well. Imetsia (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

An IP edited the use example back in June, swapping genders (except in the last part) and adding a claim that it was first used in the sitcom Hazel. I can't find any verification of that last one online, so does anyone know whether it is correct? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Could someone knowledgeable about Latin kindly translate the following book title and publisher name which appear in a citation at philematology? Thanks.

Speculum φιληματολογίας cum Sacræ tùm profanæ: Per quæstiones aliquot ex variis multorum monumentis non minus ad voluptatem quam utilitatem S.S. Theologiæ & Philologiæ Studiosorum concinnatum operâ & studio, : Sumptibus Friderici Bergeri Bibl., 1659.

— SGconlaw (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Done. Whom could I tag to better format it and verify that name at the end? MGorrone (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have the impression that 'speculum' here doesn't literally mean 'mirror', but rather 'sum-up', like 'specchietto' in Italian refers to a sum-up table. And should we really keep those & for "et", that circumflex on operâ and that grave accent (which makes no sense if you ask me) on tùm? MGorrone (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It was not uncommon for older books to be titled Mirror of : see, for example, "w:The Mirror of Justices". The idea, I suppose, was that the book reflected the type of proper behaviour described in the work. I'm not familiar with Latin, so I think it's best to retain the original diacritical marks that appear in the original work. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone edited this, and the code looks like before my edit: "< references />" (no space after"<"), yet the translation appears! What in the world…? I don't get that code… — This unsigned comment was added by MGorrone (talk • contribs) at 18:38, 7 October 2017.

Thanks very much! I tidied it up by inserting the translation into the citation which is in the "Etymology" section: see this diff. The "References" section usually just contains the code "<references />", and this causes all text that appears between "<ref>" and "</ref>" tags to appear as footnotes. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @MGorrone (or anyone else), would you like to try your hand at translating this Latin book title at carol into English as well?

Piæ cantiones ecclesiasticæ et scholasticæ vetervm episcoporum, in inclyto regno Sueciæ passim vsurpatæ, nuper studio viri cuiusdam reuerendiss: de ecclesia Dei & schola Aboënsi in Finlandia optimè meriti accuratè à mendis correctæ, & nunc typis commissæ, opera Theodorici Petri Nylandensis. His adiecti sunt aliquot ex psalmis recentioribus ] (1582)

Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Maybe that is how the Italian "specchietto" arose. As for the diacritics, I find that grave accent pretty weird. Was it actually in the original or was it just a digitalization error or some accidental ink blot? I'm fine with the circumflex, though I guess a macron would be more standard. The & is just a scribal abbreviation, should we really keep it? Coming back to the grave accents, those in the other title look like log vowel marks, maybe they were meant as acute accents? After all, the Romans occasionally marked long vowels with something similar… the grave accents look really weird, I'd go for either acutes, circumflexes, or macrons. In any case, if no-one beats me to it, and if I remember, I will translate that title tomorrow. MGorrone (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the use of diacritics in the title of Speculum φιληματολογίας, as far as I can tell they are true diacritics and not merely digital artefacts or smudges. However, feel free to look at the original title page and see if I've made a mistake. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw I moved the diacritics and abbreviations matter to Latin Stack Exchange. Let's see what they think. Time to translate that title now. MGorrone (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, while looking at the cover of the now newly completely translated title Piæ Cantiones etc, I noticed whoever copied the title converged the "long s's" ſ into regular s's. If we want to keep things as in the original work, why not keep the ſ's too? MGorrone (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation! I usually preserve long esses for the quotation proper but not for the title and imprint information so it is easier to read the latter. However, now that you have highlighted the point, I can't say that it is a particularly good reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What does it mean to "keep things as in the original work"? We're changing a lot of things in transcribing it, and the long s is a font feature that has not historically been copied in citations. It seems best to transcribe it as "s" instead of trying to preserve that typographically historical feature.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I recently looked up 稻草人 here to find out what the first character meant, and I saw the usage example. Now in there, we have a "ná thang" spelt 那通. I have two questions about this:

1. Shouldn't "ná" be spelt 哪? After all, the translation makes it appear interrogative ("How can you …"), and that, AFAIK, suggests 哪 as the correct spelling, since this is interrogative while 那 (the current spelling) is not. Also, 台湾闽南语常用词辞典 suggests 哪会 as a spelling of "ná ē", which AFAIK has the same interrogative "ná" in it. 2. The translation suggests (as the 台湾闽南语常用词辞典 confirms) that "thang" 通 means "can". However, said meaning is not present in the entry at 通. Shouldn't we add it? — This unsigned comment was added by MGorrone (talk • contribs).

Regarding 通, please feel free to add it yourself, of course. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, it's because that's what this uses. It's our best bet as to what the original orthography is. The orthography of quotations should not be changed to fit a particular standard. This is more of a "problem" for Taiwanese, since the MOE recommended characters are quite new and many people continue to ignore the recommendations. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"An equal exchange" seems like a terrible definition. Can we improve this entry? DTLHS (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've replaced the noun definition, using the verb as a model. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"A member of the king's council." Which king? DTLHS (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the long dead variety. The definition apparently derives from this text via Webster 1913, but Burrill only uses senator as a Latin word there. "A member of a privy council" may be a better definition, but I'm not sure that it is citable either. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Are we not missing the common sense in advertising? ---> Tooironic (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"(marketing) The output of copywriters, who are employed to write material which encourages consumers to buy goods or services."? DTLHS (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I must have missed that. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I know we already discussed this. Isn't the example question "C’est la combientième fois que je t’ai dit ça ?" transformed from an assertion? (which I understand possible in French, and I attest in Spanish and Galician for all my teenagehood É a enésima vez que che digo que ordenes o teu cuarto / Es la enésima vez que te digo que ordenes tu habitación : "It's the **** time I tell you to tidy your room" < C(u)antas veces ch/te digo que... "How many times I've told you that..."). Then wouldn't it ("****") be able to be translated as umpteenth? (whath is mostly interrogative) Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's what it's getting at, but grammatically it's a rhetorical question parallel to the English "How many times have I told you to stop doing that?!" So combientième doesn't really mean "umpteenth" even though both terms can be used in exasperation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this layout for synonym correct? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Basically, except that #* rather than #: is used for quotations. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved from WT:RE:ko

• 과거 (gwageo) - missing 科舉 sense, among others ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving missing sense requests from requested entries page. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

All added. Wyang (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks guys. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

like on 長 at s:Page:First Lessons in the Tie-chiw Dialect.pdf/41. I remember seeing these on 上 and maybe 好 too; do these indicate the different pronunciations/tones? Is it this what these Unicode characters are for? —suzukaze (t・c) 05:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The circles are a variant of the ꜀/꜁ notations. Wyang (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: The link is broken. Could you fix it, please? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atitarev: It should be better now. —suzukaze (t・c) 18:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this is getting into Wikisource policy territory, but is it worth transcribing them? On one hand it would be more accurate, but on the other hand font support is poor, people might not care, and I've skipped over such things countless times alreadyI'd have to find all the instances I ignored (which is probably not a simple task; if only there was a magic button to add them all for me) ... —suzukaze (t・c) 18:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly transcribe them at Wikisource. Here at Wiktionary they might be worth a hard redirect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

schedule, route can be pronounced both the American and the British way in Australia, especially the former. It seems some people are not clear about how to pronounce correctly route, As for router, I never heard /ˈɹuːtə/. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've also never heard /ˈɹutɚ/ in Canada. In fact, I would pronounce it as without Canadian raising for some reason. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example. I think she doesn't have Canadian raising in router, but she does in household. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This and this do have Canadian raising most of the times the word appears. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• cousu de fil blanc
• шито белыми нитками

How to figure out that they are equivalent?

Compare to lost soul. d1g (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The Russian translation of the French phrase should be put in the French Wiktionary: wikt:fr:cousu de fil blanc. --85.201.168.136 08:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't only go there actually. It belongs here and there. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In this particular case, since the Russian phrase is calqued on the French one, it can and should be found in a "descendants" section on the French entry (as is now the case). But that doesn't mean we should add a translation table for French words that are accurate translations of Russian words, just because there is no accurate English equivalent. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

They are idiomatic translations of each other and English has nothing to do about it.

But more about Russian calques French phrase.

There is no agreement not to use calques in translation tables. d1g (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. What I'm saying is this: there's no accurate English equivalent of dépaysement. But let's imagine there were an accurate Navajo equivalent (totally unrelated etymologically): well, too bad, we're not the place to provide that translation, and we're not going to add a translation table to the French entry for the translation in Navajo, or conversely.

The only reason why we're mentioning the Russian phrase шито белыми нитками on the French entry cousu de fil blanc is because it's etymologically related to it: i.e. it is calqued from it. But it is not a translation table. --Barytonesis (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis well I'm clueless what is wrong in "an accurate Navajo equivalent (totally unrelated etymologically): well, too bad, we're not the place to provide that translation"

On other hand we would place Navajo translations at French wiki? And this would be okay?..

Multiple wikis make things complex.

This is a serious complication, but what problem is solved by this, really?

For example English verb "drift" in racing now can be translated with slang "валить боком" (валит боком, etc).

Should I remove this translation just because they are irrelevant etymologically?..

This would throw away all neologisms and slang.

What is "translation" exactly then?.. d1g (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense.

Translations of veni, vidi, vici

Should be at veni,_vidi,_vici#Latin

Not at I came, I saw, I conquered

Not at Latin wiki d1g (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"It should" doesn't work here. It has been decided that translations only go to English entries to centralise the contents. It's a policy for a good reason. If there is no English equivalent then there are no translations. Derivations can go to the original language entry, as in abat-jour and in some cases English "translation target" entries are created, as in little brother. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

> If there is no English equivalent then there are no translations.

Exactly this make no sense at all.

All languages (language pairs) can avoid English entirely.

Many of French phrases and words were derived into Russian.

Same about other interactions.

English has nothing to do about it. d1g (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an English dictionary for English speakers or learners. Translating cousu de fil blanc into Russian is out of scope. You should probably think more carefully about what it would mean to translate between all language pairs. DTLHS (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

veni, vidi, vici can't be an English phrase. Try to understand why it is so.

"translate between all language pairs"

I said from original language to others.

Efficiently it is the same thing as this 1

So paragraph "#Project_scope" doesn't make sense if we don't follow it. d1g (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"This is an English dictionary for English speakers or learners"

Not only English dictionary.

veni,_vidi,_vici#Latin described using English

I see no problem to place translation at most appropriate place and not at I came, I saw, I conquered d1g (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This links to lather, rinse, repeat, which, while meaning the same thing, is just a variant of the phrase rinse and repeat. The latter should be a page in its own right, not a redirect page.

 Done

I don't understand why it is only Old East Slavic and not Latin borrowing.

Compare to agnello in Italian. d1g (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be a Latin borrowing for both linguistic reasons (the diminutive -ец suffix is pure Slavic and is unrelated to the Latin ending -us) and sociological reasons (both Russian and Bulgarian fall into the Eastern Orthodox sphere of influence, so borrowing words related to Christianity is expected from Greek but not from Latin). Still, the words are related, since Proto-Slavic *agnę and agnus come from the same source, Proto-Indo-European *h₂egʷnós. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea how to reflect relation to Proto-Indo-European correctly.

Maybe russian "агнец" should refer to агнѧ? d1g (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything is fine, link to PIE is here agnę (agnьcь) present at агнец. d1g (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Is sideburn a back-formation? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's actually an anagram of burnside, named after General Burnside, who was famous for them. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

But the singular probably is a back-formation from the plural. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the recent changes to that entry are an improvement. --Barytonesis (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --Barytonesis (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Benwing2 A lot of these should just be suffixes. —Rua (mew) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this and USer:Benwing2 has been very unavailable, even via email. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:affix template should get update to name suffixes as suffixes and not as "interfix". d1g (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

E.g. Russian language uses only 2-10 interfixes, rest are suffixes and compound suffixes (or even parts of compound words like -строительный). d1g (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

{{affix}} determines whether something is a suffix by looking at where the hyphens are. A term with hyphens on both ends is considered an interfix. —Rua (mew) 12:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Well in current setup "-тельн" is less ugly than "-тельн-"

-SUFFIX is possible just as -SUFFIX-

Ideally they should get individual symbols. d1g (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Suffixes are lemmatised the same way as the part of speech they form. Since adjectives are lemmatised to the nominative singular masculine in Russian, a suffix that creates adjectives is lemmatised that way too. So it should be -тельный (-telʹnyj). —Rua (mew) 14:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not correct to claim "-тельный" as Russian suffix, because it is a suffix and n-sg-m ending.

It is useful to have -тельный and -строительный, but it is wrong to call them as "suffixes".

No linguist or morphological dictionary would call them "suffixes"... d1g (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's nice, but it is how it's done on Wiktionary, for all languages. —Rua (mew) 15:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's why wiktionary is a useless resource about actual morphology.

It pretends to explain word formation, doesn't succeed.

I presents readers with wrong information like -строительный as suffix

Disaster, not less. d1g (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you, and think we could do a better job of distinguishing derivational suffixes from inflectional suffixes, but this is hardly the way to convince people. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think any words will help with @Rua

Everything is said at Suffix d1g (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Does this citation qualify as Modern English? It's barely understandable. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Chaucer wrote in Middle English, so no? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Right; Chaucer can be used to cite Middle English, not Modern. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora, Angr: what do you think of this? I've chosen the uppercase Sol, and translated it by "Sun", not "gold". --Barytonesis (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Seems good to me (not that I know much of Middle English). It also means "gold" apparently, as a lowercase common noun. Entry in the Middle English Dictionary. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis Based on the surrounding context, it definitely seems to mean ‘gold’ there, and not ‘sun’, although it’s a mention, not a use. AFAICT the Middle English means more or less this: “‘Sol’ is gold, and we term silver ‘Luna’, iron ‘Mars’, we call quicksilver ‘Mercury’, lead ‘Saturn’, and ‘Jupiter’ is tin, and ‘Venus’ copper, by my father’s kin!” The passage is in the middle of a list of alchemical substances. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vorziblix: mh, I don't know now... I see it simply as the names of celestial bodies that are metaphorically assimilated to a specific metal; that doesn't mean they've become anything other than the names of celestial bodies. mercury has really "taken off" though, since it even replaced quicksilver; and saturn sort of as well, since we speak of saturnism. --Barytonesis (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: In alchemical works you can find them commonly used in place of the names of the metals, with no apparent celestial reference, and even simply named as metals; it seems to have gone beyond metaphor. By way of example, some quotes, although more recent than Chaucer:

• 1688, Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, trans. Chr. Packe, Some Phylosophic Rules or Cannons, Concerning the Stone of Phylosophers:

  Luna cannot be transmuted into Sol, except it return into running Mercury (but by the physical Tincture) the same is to be judged of the other Metals. ... Sol ought to be put to Mercury, that he may be dissolved into Sulphur, and then cocted into the stone of Phylosophers.

• 1611, attributed to Arnoldus de Nova Villa, A Chymicall treatise of the Ancient and highly illuminated Philosopher, Devine and Physitian, Arnoldus de Nova Villa who lived 400 years agoe, never seene in print before, but now by a Lover of the Spagyrick art made publick for the use of Learners, printed in the year 1611:

  The common Sulphur is found in Sol and Luna, in Mercury more fugitive, in the body water.

• 1688, Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, trans. Chr. Packe, One Hundred Fifty Three Chymical Aphorisms:

  And Gold, as hath already been said, ought to be more perfectly Tinged by the Mercury of Phylosophers. This Mercury cannot be had of Antimony alone; But by it, as a Medium, from other imperfect Metallick Bodies, which abound with the Tincture of Gold; Of which sort there are found only two, to wit, Mars and Venus... Antimony, Mars and Venus, consist of Sulphur and Mercury.

• c. 1480, George Ripley, The Mistery of Alchymists:

  When our Medicine thou wilt assay,
  Thou maist make both Sol and Lune,
  In lesse space then in one day.

— Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

contributors: @Benwing, Rua

I'm dead serious this word is from упое́ние (upojénije).

Both can quit project if don't have sources for ety. d1g (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not a very wiki-like atitude. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora indeed, it isn't friendly to revert without any meaningful discussion.

It is just asocial, so I created a topic here to settle all questions.

Problem is that any idiot can open RG-80 and see "упоение".

@Atitarev is not an authoritative source of Russian morphology. d1g (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

упое́ние (upojénije) is only a related word. Morphologically, it's упои́ть (upoítʹ) + -тельный (-telʹnyj). @D1gggg, you're just not good at this, you should just leave the grammar and etymologies alone and I am dead serious about it. Also, there is no point making multiple similar topics.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources for ety?

Imagination of Atitarev? d1g (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

While the suffix part can still be argued - inflectional suffix -тельный (-telʹnyj) vs suffix -тельн- (-telʹn-) + ending -ый (-yj), you can't be "dead serious" about упои́тельный (upoítelʹnyj) being derived directly from упое́ние (upojénije), which itself has a suffix -ние (-nije). The full decomposition of the word is у- (u-) + -пои́- (-poí-) (the stem of

I recognize work by "Ефремова, Татьяна Фёдоровна", but I also have to add that this person never worked at any of RG editions. This makes my life hard from time to time.

First, en.wiktionary seems correct in:

"упоение" = "упо(ить)" + "ение" (further analysis of -ение is possible, -ие is just ending)

Then we have:

"упоительный" = "упо(ить)" + "-ительный" (or whatever you want to do with -ый)

It makes perfect sense why "и" is in suffix when "упоение" is used as base word

Do I forgot some rule how words can be derived? d1g (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see big difference between trimmed "упоить" and trimmed "упоение" if resulting word is the same. d1g (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Analysis not by makes assumption about поить as root

I see some relation between "упой" "упоение" but cannot explain every translation d1g (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is crazy, but also say "до упоя" and "с упоя" and this is shorter that "поить" d1g (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is crazy, what is root here: "с перепоя"? d1g (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

-пои́- is indeed useless and unrecognized by anyone d1g (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I wounder if @Rua able to provide a single source for "-строительный" as "prefix" d1g (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You created the entry. —Rua (mew) 17:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't a suffix.

Try to read a single book about Russian before you make edits. d1g (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Try to learn the definition of suffix before you claim that things aren't suffixes. Both this and -ный (-nyj) are clearly suffixes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Find a book where -ный claimed as suffix/prefix/affix. d1g (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Find a book where -строительный claimed as suffix/prefix/affix. d1g (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Find a book where a bound morpheme that's attached to the end of a root to form a new word is described as anything else besides a suffix. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Angr try to answer without questions or learn German or Russian. It will help.

fehler-haft

fehler-haft-e

fehler-haft-ere

fehler-haft-erer

fehler-haft-eres

fehler-haft-eren

fehler-haft-erem

о-шиб-о-чн-ый

о-шиб-о-чн-ое

о-шиб-о-чн-ая

о-шиб-о-чн-ые

о-шиб-о-чн-о

Real name for this thing is "inflectional suffix" or ending. d1g (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You know why they're called inflectional suffixes? Because they're suffixes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This is strange motivation to use ambiguous words over unambiguous words. d1g (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that "sum" is the proper Latin translation for 'there be. "Sum" specifically means 'I am'. Latin uses the verb "esse", to be, to express 'there is'. "Tres pueri sunt", There are three boys. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The lemma for Latin verbs is the first-person singular present active indicative. So sum stands in for the whole verb. —Rua (mew) 18:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Again

• removed -о- interfix
• "Russian words suffixed with -тельный" is less precise than "Russian words suffixed with -тельн"

As if this person not trying to penetrate information given to them in Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/October#Category:Russian_words_by_interfix by several users. d1g (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Can @Rua discuss their changes?

edit 23:33, 13 10 2017

PS. I doubt this person is able to discuss anything (and above) d1g (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed interfix -о- is just insane:

from люби́ть and лю́бят:

so common part can be only "люб"

next letter is "о" and next thing is also root, so it must be interfix between two roots

RG-80 says both are verbs, so no need to worry about POS

This isn't some random letter "о" inserted here by magic as "любо" d1g (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Similar edit at speedometer reverted by @Aryamanarora.

At least one user here has sense of what interfix is.

No luck with @Rua, Benwing. d1g (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Leave me out of your feud. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 11:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to remove Russian interfixes. @Rua explain how removal of interfix is helpful to anyone. d1g (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Creation lock from @Rua...

It is a proper Russian suffix.

• https://ru.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD
• paragraph 619

I don't understand edits from this user at all. d1g (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, this term typically applies to English speakers who live abroad, and not foreigners. For example, we would call Chinese people living in Australia migrants or immigrants, and rarely expats. Should we add a usage note to that effect? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought there is a difference between the two- (im)migrants have the intent of permanent settlement in the new place, where expats refer to anyone living outside their native country. Is this correct, or is this a stereotype-influenced impression? Wyang (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

For me (as an American expat living in Germany), there's considerable denotational overlap between the two terms, but their connotations are rather different. The word immigrant connotes a person from a relatively poor country who's moved to a wealthier country to make a better life for him- or herself (or perhaps to escape persecution, in which case there is again overlap with refugee), while expat connotes a person from a relatively wealthy country (not necessarily an English speaker, though) who's moved to another country (regardless of its wealth) to live and work either temporarily or long-term. (For example, Germans living in Spain are expats even though they aren't English speakers.) Technically I meet Wyang's definition of immigrant, because I have no intention of living in the U.S. again, but I would rarely use that word to describe myself, because my home country is quite affluent, and although I did come to Germany for a job, I never felt like I had to leave the U.S. in order to find a job. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't really agree with your definitions. In my experience as an Indian permanently living in the United States, Indians who live abroad can and are often called expats or immigrants (usually though they're called NRIs, for "Non-Resident Indian"), and I'm sure you know India is not a wealthy country. Furthermore, I really don't think immigrant and refugee overlap. I do agree with Wyang though, IMO immigrant usually means permanent settlement outside of one's country, while expat means anyone living abroad. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I contend that there absolutely denotational distinction based on the person's plans to stay: an "expat" is staying long-term but intends to return (usually at a predetermined time, like study abroad), whereas an "immigrant" has moved with the desire/intent to potentially stay permanently. I would further contend that a migrant is moving solely to find (usually temporary) work.

I just opened megahertz to see a Greek translation (I'm answering this Quora question and the other answer says μεγαρτος means megahertz, so I wanted to see if Wiktionary confirmed it), and I got γιγαχέρτζ. Reaction: um, what? You serious? Let's check this out! Loading γιγαχέρτζ, and of course it means gigahertz. So is the translation at megahertz wrong or can γιγαχέρτζ very ambiguously mean both? And if the former, is the correct translation μεγαχέρτζ as I would guess? Time to create that entry then! MGorrone (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Just created μεγαχέρτζ. MGorrone (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The template "&lit" generates this wording:

Used other than a figurative or idiomatic meaning.

Is it just me or is this incorrect English? Can something be used "other than a meaning"? Mihia (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be "used other than with...", but that sounds a bit clunky. Perhaps a complete rephrasing would be better. Equinox ◑ 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It once read "Used other than as an idiom".

It now reads as Equinox suggested, pending reversion to the earlier wording or another revision. DCDuring (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I create an entry for that? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:EC8B:A545:AD92:AE89 13:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO, you could make a case for creating it. DCDuring (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

But see “make a case”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., which suggests that many other references don't find it a good case. DCDuring (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I create an entry for my old clarinet? I believe I could make a case for that. Mihia (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

B&T shows there to be an English fornim, but I can't find any quotes in Google Books so I've left it out of the descendants. A quote would be much helpful to prove the existence of fornim. Anglish4699 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

*if there even is a quote. Anglish4699 (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Google Books is one of the best resources we have that is available for citing, but it's not infallible nor all encompassing. But it's very adequate, because not only we can access it, but Wiktionary users can as well, and they can cross check the citations for reference :). That said, we used to have an English entry for fornim, but it was removed (i.e. moved to Middle English fornimen) because satisfactory English citations couldn't be found. Leasnam (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

At some point in the past, somebody was obsessed with the word "blee" (I think it's some sort of Anglo-Saxon alternate-universe version of "colour") and added it to all the "colour" entries in a matter-of-fact way, without appropriately glossing it as a weird word that NO HUMAN EVER USES. I have removed it when I see it. I now want to challenge Citations:blee, which is some kind of weird poetry(?) that talks about "stale poppy-cods blummered in blee / From the willy-wad over the way". What is "blummered"? We have no entry. Why should we trust this weird text to support "blee", especially when that word has a history of agenda-pushing on this project? Equinox ◑ 07:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I trust Citations:blee. It might be there just to go with the rhyme like "rattatattoo," though I don't know for sure. Indeed a better citation should be found. About the "Synonym: ..." sections, they look a little ugly. There are WAY too many of them. A smaller synonym section would be better. Anglish4699 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the word blee as a whole is not attestable? What about the other quotations on the main entry page? I moved the poetic quotation to the citations page as it wasn't clear what sense the word blee was being used in – in fact, I think it was just a nonce word there. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

If boner is a noun, how horny (adj.) can be a synonym? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not. Where do you see that it is? The entries don't link to each other. Ultimateria (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Sorry, my mistake: if hard-on is a noun, how horny (adj.) can be a synonym? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for bringing it up. Ultimateria (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure being useful. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 22:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Can a good lexicographer do something about these definitions? I find them really lacking and I need glosses for other languages. Ultimateria (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In this phrase, which word is the nucleus? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Cobra", unless you're differentiating between types of cobras. Ultimateria (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Bottle of Dog is a Geordie synonym for (a bottle of) Newcastle Brown Ale. I've added a definition to Dog as a (sourced) synonym for Newcastle Brown Ale. It looks to me as though that makes Bottle of Dog redundant as SOP, yes? -Stelio (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Dog attestable in other collocations? DCDuring (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, yes. In particular, it's derivative from the phrase "taking the dog for a walk" such that to "walk the dog" means to drink Newcastle Brown Ale. Here are some examples from websites... -Stelio (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• 2008-01-25, Chronicle Live: The brewery’s most famous brand is Newcastle Brown Ale, or "Dog".
• 2011-04-04, Beverage Industry: Tied to a tradition in the United Kingdom, Newcastle Brown Ale is asking beer drinkers to “Walk the Dog,” which is a British euphemism for visiting a bar. Newcastle is offering “Walk the Dog” tasting events in select on-premise venues in various cities around the nation. While visiting their favorite establishments, curious “Dog Walkers” will be greeted by Newcastle brand ambassadors who will expound on the virtues of “Walking the Dog,” while offering samples of Newcastle Brown Ale.
• 2013-06-18, Facebook (The One and Only - Newcastle Brown Ale): It's only Tuesday but who needs a Dog?
• 2015-02-06, Telegraph: The ale was also dubbed "dog" by drinkers, as they would make the excuse of going to "walk the dog" when nipping out for a sneaky drink.
• 2015-02-07, BBC News: The beer is one of the best selling in the United States, where, as in the UK, it is also nicknamed "Dog".
• 2016, Tesco: Did yee knar... ...NewCastle Brown Ale is affectionately known as 'Dog' by those in the know. "I'm gannin' to see* a man about a Dog" and "I'm taking the Dog for a walk" were often used by Geordie men as an excuse for visiting their local to sample their beloved tipple.
• 2016-03-28, Drinking got me thinking...: I usually went for a bottle of Dog. Dog being Brown Ale. Why Dog? It’s called Dog as a reference to someone telling his wife that he was going to walk the dog and nipping to the pub for a pint instead, it’s a real old fashioned Geordie flat cap and whippet image isn’t it. This was part of an old advertising campaign for the beer and the reference has stuck ever since.
• 2017-02, Beer Advocate: “The Dog,” as it’s popularly known in its home, is one of Britain’s last old-school Brown Ales. But at the same time, it’s very atypical.

Cross-linking to RFD discussion. -Stelio (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"He went to the University of Kansas for almost two years before he dropped out." Is this American English? I don't know if we say this in Australia. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's used in the US. It's used in Canada as well, but I thought it'd be more widespread. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We always say it in the US. It's not even a low-register term. Ultimateria (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that there would be varieties of English that didn't say this. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That phrasing is perfectly fine in British English too. What would you say in Australia instead? -Stelio (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. I guess we might say that. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is fairly common in Australian English: google:"went+to+Sydney+Uni", google:"went+to+Melbourne+Uni", google:"went+to+ANU". Wyang (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we say this in Australian English. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 20:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have come across this in both Den Danske Ordbog and Duden for skepsis and Skepsis (scepticism) respectively. At the moment σκεπτικός (skeptikós) is given for both scepticism and sceptic. Is there an entry anywhere for this? DonnanZ (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Also listed under Origin at “sceptic”, in Lexico, Dictionary.com; Oxford University Press, 2019–2022.. DonnanZ (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. There is an Ancient Greek word σκέψις (sképsis, “examination, observation, consideration”). It doesn't actually mean "skepticism", just as σκεπτικός (skeptikós) doesn't actually mean "skeptical". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There's also σκῆψις (skêpsis, “pretext”), but that's unrelated to these words. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sense 3 shows "doubt, hesitation" for σκέψις (sképsis). That could be it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Could I create that? @Mihia --2A02:2788:A4:F44:448:929:A14:5B56 08:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• No. I've just created it for you. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You stole it from me! But thank you. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:448:929:A14:5B56 08:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Are these two words synonymous? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:448:929:A14:5B56 08:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, no, but canvass could be used to metaphorically solicit compliments, but presumably only from multiple potential sources of compliments, to make the metaphorical meaning close to the basic ones.

The meanings of this word have migrated pretty far from "To toss on a sheet of canvas". For now, "fish for compliments" may be off the reservation.

Metaphorical idioms, like fish for compliments, are not good for definitions, even when synonymous.

Perhaps fish for compliments is a hyponym of one of the existing definitions. Or perhaps it could be under a "See also" header. DCDuring (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please have a look at bork (etymology 2)? I had a bit of trouble deciding whether it is transitive, intransitive or both, and may have borked the entry somewhat. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you find citations for the infinitive / forms that aren't borked? Many of your citations could be construed as adjectives. DTLHS (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see, borked in "the computer is borked" is an adjective rather than an intransitive verb? Could you help move the quotations using the word as an adjective to borked? I'm struggling a little to identify them. It's surprisingly hard to find citations for the word; I'll try again tomorrow. Also, is bork (etymology 1) transitive or intransitive? It seems to be both. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I would say there is no support for an intransitive sense. "Bork/borks/borking/borked itself" doesn't get any hits. DTLHS (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the etymology 1, 2004 quotation an intransitive use? Also, the 2006 ("was borked") and 2008 ("is being borked") quotations? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The expression "You can't talk" means "You are guilty of the same thing that you are accusing others of". The entry for talk has a definition "To criticize someone for something of which one is guilty oneself", but does this fit "You can't talk"? If it does, what is the explanation of "can't"? If it doesn't, what does "talk" actually mean in the expression? Mihia (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) .... It just occurred to me that, even more confusingly, "You can talk" means the same ...

I don't know if I've ever head either "You can't talk" or "You can talk" used this way. The usual expression in my experience is "You're one to talk". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Where are you from? Mihia (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Texas. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:D75:DF3:C5B4:2D49 10:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe these are BrE only then. To me here in the UK, "You can't talk!", "You can talk!" and "You're one to talk!" are all familiar expressions. Mihia (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"You can talk!" is by far the usual form in the UK. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Tangentially, the definition as currently stated has some ambiguity in it: the use of "one" may allow the definition to be read as though the speaker is guilty (which may be true, but it not necessarily true). Person A: "He's a lazy arse." Person B: "You can talk!" Perhaps replace "of which one is guilty oneself" with "of which they are guilty themselves" (enforcing the third person)? -Stelio (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Ignore this. I wasn't thinking clearly. ;-) -Stelio (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Literal translation is used also in ES/GL and I assume PT too. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 22:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aearthrise, Algentem, Lingo Bingo Dingo: Does this Coptic word really mean ‘gate’ as claimed? It’s a loan from Ancient Greek προβατικός (probatikós, “of or relating to sheep”). The connection to ‘gate’ apparently comes from a biblical passage, John 5:2. It looks like the Coptic translator just transcribed the Greek word directly here, so if this is the only attestation I doubt we can make any conclusions beyond what the original Greek word implies. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

“προβατικός”, in Liddell & Scott (1940) A Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press has this: προβατικὴ , the sheep gate. --Barytonesis (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Its use is as a nominalised adjective: "προβατικὴ πύλη" (dative following ἐπὶ) for "sheep gate", dropping to "προβατικὴ" for "sheep gate". But saying "προβατικὴ" means just "gate" is pushing one step too far (keep the sheep!). Here is a photo of John 5.2 in the original Greek (left) and a 1925 translation into then-Modern Greek (Katharevousa, before the 1976 shift to Demotic Greek); note the "" in the modern translation. -Stelio (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a proper noun, referring to the "Sheep Gate" in Jerusalem, so I have changed the part of speech and the definition. The etymology should probably also reflect the form προβατική used in John. This transcription is also used in at least one Sahidic version. It is notable that both dialects have borrowed it as a feminine proper noun. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Algentem, Barytonesis, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Stelio, VorziblixThe Bohairic Bible translates ⲡⲣⲟⲃⲁⲧⲓⲕⲏ as 'Sheep Gate'; the ⲡⲣⲟⲃⲁⲧⲓⲕⲏ noun entry must be changed to 'Sheep Gate'.

--Aearthrise ^{(Ⲁⲉⲁⲣⲑⲣⲓⲥⲉ)} 11:52, 19 October 2017(UTC)

Thanks all! The entry’s looking much better now. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Says the sense of "attendant, usually an expert swimmer, employed to save swimmers in trouble or near drowning at a body of water" is "Chiefly US". Is that true? If so, what are lifeguards called in other English-speaking countries?

In British English, a lifeguard. Here is an example. -Stelio (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

They would be called surf lifesavers in Australia if they were at a beach, but still lifeguard for pools. Other dictionaries note the sense originated in the US rather than being chiefly restricted to it. Pengo (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"lifeguard" is standard in (modern) BrE, as far as I know. As a BrE speaker, I wouldn't even have known that it was originally US, if indeed that is the case. 03:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I was curious about the etymology of the Swedish word slut. It's not on the Wiktionary page, and its English homonym dominates web search results even if I include "Swedish" in the search terms.

Can any Swedish speakers help?

Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum: I'm not a Swedish speaker, but there's no doubt in my mind it's from the same origin as German Schluss, which has the same meanings. Schluss is from the same root as schließen (“to close”), which is from Proto-Germanic *sleutaną. That page lists a related term *slutą, which I suppose is the source of both the German and the Swedish words. However, since *sleutaną appears to be only a West Germanic word, I suspect that Swedish slut is not inherited from Proto-Germanic via Old Norse, but rather a loanword into Swedish from Low German. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually it occurs to me that *slutą is more likely to be the source of German Schloss, not Schluss. But the rest of what I said still applies: *sleutaną seems to be only a West Germanic word, so Swedish slut is probably a loanword from Low German. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Until May, the word Na'vi was a nonexistent entry in Wiktionary. Then in last May, it was deleted altogether. Most of the citations referred explicitly to Avatar, and therefore did not pass FICTION.

However, searching through Usenet I can find several hits for the word "Na'vi" that do not mention Avatar. Not for the Na'vi species themselves, but for the constructed language Na'vi:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/IpZvYjdsW8c%5B1-25%5D

"I don't know what the figures are for Lojban (nor how they might be arrived at) but, at the moment, at least Klingon, Dothraki, Na'vi, and toki pona that I know of claim followings in the hundreds (again, I have no idea where the numbers come from)."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/na$27vi$20%22toki$20pona%22/lojban/Qzd-7EO4W14/dU9_5PosQF8J

"And maybe we could take some words from Toki Pona and Na'vi too! Let's take all their words! One conlang to rule them all, le'avla!"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/na$27vi$20%22toki$20pona%22/gjax-zym-byn/prI7Y-bLNWE/je60Z_2kWcUJ

"At the moment I can only think of four conlang creators paid specifically to create a conlang- Dothraki, Klingon, Na'vi and someone got af few thousand to write a language for a video game whose name I can't remember."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/na$27vi$20conlang/alt.usage.english/BT3K9p53zcE/HejCtVVDQtQJ

"Lots of people will be willing to learn Na'vi, and if Dnghe was proposed as a conlang and not as an auxlang, people would be quite happy to adopt it. Its problem is that it is marketed as an auxlang."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/na$27vi$20conlang/word-tasting-notes/SCmB93njys0/hukqWIqqCAAJ

"Tolkien is famous for creating languages for his different races. He’s not the only person to create languages, of course; Klingon and Na’vi are two recent examples of thoroughly created “conlangs,” constructed languages (I find the term conlang a bit fanboyish – sci-fi fans have an absolute fetish for syllable acronyms – so don’t count on seeing me use it much)."

Could these be used as citations? Khemehekis (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure all those would count, but it hardly matters — google books:"Na'vi" conlang shows that there are more than enough cites for the language sense to recreate the entry, which I have done. (The deletion summary claims that it failed RFV, but the debate was evidently not archived on the talk-page.) As for the term referring to the people, I think finding cites that pass WT:FICTION will be harder, although by no means impossible. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, your entry looks great! And I see that now we have some new categories that need to be created. Khemehekis (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This entry has an adjective and a noun sense, but the wording in the definitions doesn't necessarily match. I know nothing about clothes, so am skipping it. --P5Nd2 (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

At the entry for flagship it insists that flagship is not an adjective, although it looks like one. I'm a call a spade a spade type, and I disagree. All online dictionaries agree with our entry, though. Why on earth could there not be an adjective definition here? --P5Nd2 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@P5Nd2: --Barytonesis (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That's just the attributive use of the noun. The OED has " b. attrib. or as adj. Representing the leading product, etc., in a range; specially promoted." in its noun entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Does one not say this? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This should be a straightforward addition, in the same vein as burned out. Compare burnt and burned. -Stelio (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the entry. -Stelio (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Can this also mean 'to let someone know; to inform', e.g.: 연락처 좀 알려 주세요, "Please let me know your contact information." ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The verb in the sentence, 알려 (allyeo), is 알리— (alli-, “to make someone know; to let someone know”) in its infinitive. The infinitive of verbs combines with 주세요 (juseyo), the informal polite declarative honorific of 주— (ju-, “to do something for someone”), to form the Korean equivalent of “please + verb” (when requesting a favour). 알리— (alli-) is the causative of 알— (al-, “to know”), and 알려지— (allyeoji-, “to be made known; to be found out”) is (derived from) the passive of 알리— (alli-, “to make someone know”), thus the causative passive of 알— (al-, “to know”). Wyang (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Korean 주다 (juda) in this usage is an equivalent of the Japanese 下(くだ)さる (kudasaru). I don't know if there are other languages that work similarly. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Just tried my best at translating the usage example at tung#Middle_English. I am fairly confident of the first part, save for that "bieð", but the second part? I'm not at all sure about it. Someone to check? Also, I had the impression this is more like Old English, but that may be just me having seen only Chaucer as an example of Middle English (well, besides Middle English Wikipedia, one of whose article had a discussion going on about whether it was Old or Middle, but that was way more "Old-looking" than that example). MGorrone (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@MGorrone: I believe alswa here means as, and cann is the ancestor of ken (“to know”) rather than can. I’d render it something like “He who is God’s wisdom, through whom all wits and all wisdoms and all speaking tongues come, he lay as the child that knows no good and can’t speak” — referring, I suppose, to Christ being incarnated as a human child. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

All right, I’ve done my best to fix it up (and format it). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this actually a "traditional British dish"? It seems to have been invented sometime in the latter half of the 20th century. DTLHS (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

My part-time-food-historian wife placed it as coming from Devon (which happily matches the Wikipedia page), but couldn't date it. That means it doesn't occur in her historical reference works, and so is indeed likely to be recent (again, as per Wikipedia). -Stelio (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A classic Shakespearian insult is "rump-fed ronyon". I see little about this on the Web; most of what I do see suggests that it means "fat-rumped" from overeating. This is supported by an 1830s German commentary.

However, I don't believe it. Shakespeare's insults tend to focus on poverty, and I have a hard time believing that a fat rump would even classify as an insult. A runyon is a mangy (scabbed) creature. I believe the real explanation is to be found here: "Some fighting to establish teat order continues during the first week of life and the smaller, weaker pigs may be forced to nurse the less productive rear teats. This further reduces their chances for survival." I think that Shakespeare's viewers were in a position to understand this easily.

Is there a chance to get a definition set up for this ... and if so, is there a way to sneak in the right definition? Wnt (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In the Finnish orthography an apostrophe is used between two same vowels (e.g. tiu’ut) if the vowels belong to two different syllables, or to indicate omission as in yht’äkkiä. By the rule it is precisely the curly apostrophe and not the printer's apostrophe.

However, in the English Wiktionary the printer's (also typewriter -, straight -) apostrophe seems to be used as standard. I was in the process of substituting curly apostrophe for the printer's apostrophe in the Finnish entries of the English Wiktionary when I found myself in disagreement with the user @Angr who thinks that printer's apostrophe should be used as standard.

I have these arguments to support my opinion:

1. Here is a link to a very good source for correct Finnish. Unfortunately it's written in Finnish. In it one can find this statement: "Merkki ' ei kuulu suomen kielen normaaliin kirjoitusjärjestelmään, joskin sitä merkistön rajoittuneisuuden vuoksi voidaan joutua käyttämään heittomerkin korvikkeena". When I drop this sentence to Google Translate I get this: "The character ' does not belong to the normal language system of Finnish, although it may have to be used as a substitute for a punctuation mark because of the limitation of the character set". GT translates kirjoitusjärjestelmä (“writing system”) and heittomerkki (“curly apostrophe”) erroneously to "language system" and "punctuation mark" respectively, but otherwise the translation is good.
2. Lemming principle: MS Word Finnish language version, the Finnish Wiktionary and Finnish newspapers and book printers use the curly apostrophe.

Angr backs his case with the following:

1. It is Wiktionary's in-house style to use the straight apostrophe.
2. Curly apostrophe and straight apostrophe are functionally equivalent in all languages.
3. We have entries for don't, j'ai, Türkiye'yi, δ’ (d’), and so on, and many such entries have hard redirects from the spellings with the curly apostrophe. I don't see any reason to treat Finnish differently.

While I understand the strive for standardization, I don't think Wiktionary standards should overrule language-specific otrhographic standards where they exist. I agree on the functional equivalence, but we use all sorts of language-specific signs.

We agreed to bring the issue to the Beer Parlor in order to let the community decide which way we choose. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would prefer the whole of Wiktionary to use proper curly apostrophes (unless definitely inappropriate in a particular language). They look more polished and professional. Of course, I understand that they can be a nuisance to type. Mihia (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer curlies, if used at all, to be applied in some mechanical way at display time, without affecting the underlying markup. I don't know if that's unambiguously possible across all languages. Equinox ◑ 19:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some kind of automation in the website software, however it works, would be desirable. Mihia (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think curly apostrophes should always be used in text. But that is separate from what should be in titles. Titles should use one or the other, and straight apostrophes are already used in entry titles of many languages that prefer curly apostrophes in text (see Angr's list above), so it would be the least confusing to use them in Finnish as well. That does mean that we need 1. redirects from curly to straight and 2. entry-name replacements that replace curly with straight (so that one can type curly into {{l}} or {{m}} and their sisters and automatically link to the correct entry). — Eru·tuon 21:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Aside from any technical issues, which in theory should be fixable given resources, why would we want to use a different style in titles than in text? Mihia (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. My personal technical reason is that Windows doesn't let me easily type a curly apostrophe. So if I were creating a new entry for a term with an apostrophe, I'd have to look up the curly apostrophe online to type it into the address bar, or find the alt-code (apparently Alt + 145). I doubt that is going to be fixed. Hmm, never mind: actually you can type the HTML entity ’ into the address bar and get to the correct entry. Nifty. — Eru·tuon 23:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'm fine with us using curly apostrophes in entry titles, but then we should use them for all languages that use apostrophes. As long as hard redirects are in place in both directions, and as long as we have a single style that applies to all languages, either option is fine with me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Are the redirects really necessary? At least my browser treats curly and straight apostrophe as equal recognizing the difference only when there's an entry for each alternative. For example we have now an entry for "liu’un" (curly) but a search for "liu'un" (straight) leads me to the "curly" page. Opposite direction may be tested with "tiu'un" (straight). Another test case is "don't" which exists in both curly and straight version. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're typing into the Wiktionary search box, I wouldn't have thought the search behaviour should be browser-dependent. Any browser ought to send to Wiktionary exactly what you typed. It oughtn't to make guesses about how it is to be interpreted. When I tested this originally, actually also with "don't", I found that don’t (curly) had a redirect page to don't (straight), i.e. someone (presumably) manually created the redirect. Based on that, I assumed that the search software didn't automatically handle it. However, now when I try searching for fo’c’s'le (two curlies and one straight), fo'c's’le (two straights and one curly) etc., they all take me to fo'c's'le (three straights) automatically, without any redirect page. Therefore I assume that curly and straight are treated the same by search, unless separate pages exist. On the other hand, as you can see, links don't work. Mihia (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It's good that the links don't work. That gives the editor a signal that there may be something wrong in their usage of apostrophes. Correct (or any currently existing) forms may be found by writing the same text in the search box. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Apropos of the above, is "printer's apostrophe" a known term for the curly straight apostrophe? The Wiktionary definition reads "An apostrophe (punctuation mark) indicating elision". I don't really understand whether "indicating elision" is supposed to differentiate a "printer's" apostrophe from other types, or whether it is just general extra information about the purpose of an apostrophe. Anyway, the definition makes no reference to curly vs. straight. Should it? Mihia (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

To add the confusion: in Unicode the sign called "APOSTROPHE" is a straight one. I guess they forgot to consult linguists when naming it. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A straight apostrophe is an apostrophe, and anyway that's typography, not linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

In Irish, do first and second-person pronouns ever mutate? Thus, is it Ar mhé/mhise or mé/mise, Níor mhuid/mhuidne (or shinn/shinne) or muid/muidne, ba shibh/shibhse or sibh/sibhse, etc.? Esszet (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge, of the first and second person pronouns, only tú mutates; thú is the disjunctive form, i.e. it appears in the same positions as é, í, iad, while tú appears in the same positions as sé, sí, siad (at least in the standard language; dialectal usage may be more complicated). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, but we may want to get a second opinion anyway…@Embryomystic? Esszet (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that pronouns mutate. For a start, I don't think any verbs mutate the subject, except in some cases the definite article mutates a noun, except Chonaic an mé é "The I saw it" is as nonsensical in Irish as in English. (And even where the verb or copula does mutate, it doesn't mutate a pronoun: "Ba mise an dochtúir".) And the prepositions merge with the pronouns, so it's not "ar mé", it's "orm"; it's not "do tú", it's "duit". Some of these syntheses do get lenited, but I suspect it's a dialect/accent variance, not something with grammatical significance. In terms of the Caighdeán Oifigiúil, though, no. Apart from "thú" as distinct from "tú", the pronouns don't get mutated. In Irish, anyway. I think Scottish Gaelic does lenite pronouns, and while there are a couple of hits (now I've had a chance to have a deeper look) for things like "ba mhise", it would appear to be, at the least, non-standard compared to ba mise" --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, all this, pretty much. And similar to the dhuit, etc. that Catsidhe notes, Ulster Irish lenites the M in the first-person singular form of do: domh. But it's just dialectical variation, nothing predictable about it. embryomystic (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, that should probably be noted somewhere...I’ll find a place. Esszet (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

From Spanish coco, which DLE claims is from Portuguese côco (“bogeyman”). Can't find that spelling, Portuguese coco has RFE. Any ideas? – Jberkel (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess that spelling is like writing co1co and co2co, or coco1 and coco2, as they are not only homonyms because of the etymology but also because of the phonology: one is with closed /o/=/ô/ and the other open /ɔ/=/ó/. About the etym for the three of /ô/, Houaiss says:

1. coco /ô/ e coca /ô/ têm orign. o signf. de 'papão, fantasma com que se mete medo às crianças', p.ext. 'fruto do coqueiro' e, daí, 'objeto esférico, cabeça' e uma série de signf. segundos e cruzamentos entre as f. coco/coca e cuco/cuca; para coco /ô/ e coca /ô/, Piel busca a orig. no v.lat. calcáre 'pressionar, apertar', pelo "facto de os franceses chamarem este fantasma ou espírito (al. Alpdruck, lit. 'peso do espírito chamado Alp') perturbador do sono de cauchemar", voc. bem explicado como der. de calcáre + germ. mar 'espírito noturno'; a hipótese deve ser levada em conta, segundo J. P. Machado (s.v. 1coco); o trânsito da acp. 'papão' para 'fruto com que se figurava o papão' e 'fruto da palmeira chamada coqueiro' é bem documentado: o port. coco /ô/ e coca /ô/, design. de 'fantasma infantil, papão, figura de mau aspecto ou de mau agouro', foi us. para o 'fruto redondo' do coqueiro encontrado pelos portugueses no território asiático de Malabar, na viagem de Vasco da Gama à Índia (1497-1498), por associação da aparência do fruto à cara ou à figura do 'papão'; do port. a pal. passa ao esp. fr. ing. coco, it. cocco, al. Kokos e aos comp. ing. coconut e al. Kokosnuss; a acp. angios prende-se ao lat.cien. gên. Cocos (1753); a última acp., 'esfregação lúbrica', pode ter relação com o roçar no fuste do coqueiro, como exige a sua coleta, ou poderia ligar-se ao verbo cocar no sentido de 'acalentar, fazer festas'; cp. coca /ô/ e 1cuca; 1449 é a data para a acp. de angios, e c1471-c1536, para a acp. 'máscara ou objeto'
2. 2coco /ô/ 'dança regional', hom. de 1coco /ô/ e prov. de mesma orig., pode provir, no entanto, de outro étimo, ainda obsc.
3. nothing

Need translation? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 22:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Não, obrigado! So the origin is definitely Portuguese (Vasco da Gama) with a hypothetical link coco – Latin calcare. – Jberkel (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a difference in meaning? If not, I think we can move the translations of road sign to traffic sign. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think they can be synonyms, but traffic sign would also be one of those big ones with the orange lightbulbs spelling something out, right? Additionally, I think street sign is a synonym; I would describe a stop sign as a street sign. Ultimateria (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: sorry, I'm not visualising it :3 would you have a picture for that sort of traffic sign? And our definition of street sign seems too restrictive then. --Barytonesis (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: According to Wikipedia it's a variable-message sign. I've found articles from Google Images that refer to them as both traffic and road signs (and certainly not as variable-message signs.) Ultimateria (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't tried to find citations, but it seems to me that road sign has two meanings – it could either be a synonym of street sign ("a sign showing the name of a street") or of traffic sign ("a sign for the control of traffic or the information of drivers"). — SGconlaw (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen headlines use "OKd"; searching Google News for "OKd for" I spot two from the last two weeks: "Grant OKd for Beaverton clinic" (Portland Tribune) and "Nonbinary designation OKd for Californians" (SFGate), vs none for "OKed for" and one "OK'ed for". I've also seen people use "PMd". Is that common? Also: use of "'d" ("OK'd") should surely be in -'d and not 'd, or at least, shouldn't be in both places. And is -'ed ('ed? as in "OK'ed") also nonstandard even with initialisms? (Was it used historically? With no deleted letter, there does not seem to be a reason for it, except with modern initialisms where it clarifies pronunciation.) - -sche (discuss) 17:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

See “Facebook translates 'good morning' into 'attack them', leading to arrest”. Apparently Facebook's inbuilt translation tool renders Arabic يصبحهم (“yusbihuhum”, “good morning”) to “attack them”, leading to the arrest of a Palestinian man by the Israeli police.

What are these two words? The one the poster meant seems to be يُصَبِّحُهُمْ (yuṣabbiḥuhum, “he wishes them good morning”) < صَبَّحَ (ṣabbaḥa) (?). What about the other? I couldn't seem to find any word with that spelling. The closest I found were يُذَبِّحُهُمْ (yuḏabbiḥuhum, “he slaughters them”) < ذَبَّحَ (ḏabbaḥa), and يَذْبَحُهُمْ (yaḏbaḥuhum, “he slaughters them”) < ذَبَحَ (ḏabaḥa). Wyang (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the other word is يَضْرِبُهُمْ (yaḍribuhum, “he beats them”) < ضَرَبَ (ḍaraba, “to strike, to hit”), if I can decipher this article correctly. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Via twisted paths I landed on おまんこ, looked at the usage example… no translation. The phrase is «おまん子のむく毛は馬がこするやう». Firstly, I am surprised to see it spelled with 子 instead of full Hiragana. This way it almost looks like a compound おまん+子, whereas it is actually おまん＋こ. Anyways, if おまん子 means "pussy", むく毛 means "rubby hair" (blast the damn googl "fungus"…), 馬 means "horses" and こするやう means… I dunno, Google says "rub", so… «Horses rub the shaggy hair of the pussy»? What? Is that some kind of obscene pun? On closer inspection, こするやう may be こする+やう, the former is "rub", and the only meaning I can find for the latter is 夜雨 | night rain. So «Night rain under which horses rub shaggy pussy hair»? Um, what? Can someone help me figure this out and possibly add a translation? MGorrone (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the chuckle, MGorrone. :) Let's break this down:

• Re: the spelling, the example given is from a collection of 川柳 (senryū, basically, a kind of haiku; see also Senryū), so there's a certain amount of poetic license. Add to that the fact that this is from 1833, when spelling conventions themselves were somewhat more fluid anyway. So the use of 子 (ko, “child; diminutive noun suffix”, kanji, also sometimes used phonetically) for the final こ (ko, hiragana) is not that odd.
• むく毛 (mukuge) can be parsed a few different ways. This again is part of the wordplay common in Japanese literature.

• 尨毛 (mukuge): “shaggy hair”, as you guessed
• 木槿, 槿 (mukuge): “rose of Sharon, althea, Hibiscus syriacus”
• 毳 (mukuge): “soft downy hair”

Given the context, the last is more likely the intended meaning, while alluding to the flower (not an uncommon connection even in English writing on the subject of female genitalia) and punning on the “shaggy” meaning in relation to the horse.

• こする (kosuru) here is probably the “to rub” sense, lemmatically spelled 擦る. Another interesting possibility is 鼓する (kosuru, “to incite or encourage someone to do something”); however, this latter verb is transitive, and we have no clear object -- horses might pluck up their own courage, but it would be odd for a horse to encourage someone else, especially in relation to this subject matter.
• The final やう (yau) is the pre-reform spelling of modern よう (yō, “like something, seeming to be something”).

So putting this all together, we have:

• the hair of the pussy, like a horse rubbing

This still seems odd, until we note that a horse will often rub against something when it's bothered. So I suspect this senryū is describing a woman who is hot and bothered and is masturbating.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr so would the translation I just added, «The fluff on the pussy is like a horse rubbing (refers to female masturbation).», be correct? MGorrone (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@MGorrone:, close, but it doesn't quite fit... the English rendering couples (ha!) the first and second parts too closely. The JA doesn't quite say that the first part itself is like the second part. It's hard to render grammatically as English. The Japanese can be grammatical and a vaguer and still make sense. The は on the first part introduces the topic, but not necessarily the subject, of the utterance. I've reworked it slightly to try to make the EN a bit more open-ended:

The fluff on the pussy ... like a horse rubbing (in reference to female masturbation)

If that passes muster, the quotation lines could use a bit of templating / formatting. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Could sb. please add info. about this anomality in its pronunciation? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

What anomaly is that? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aɴɢʀ: farce, larceny, sparse, Mars --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: That's a deficiency in English spelling, not an anomaly in the pronunciation of scarce. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aɴɢʀ: I disagree in this case. The key is its pronunciation in Middle English, which following the "general rule" for its spelling, shouldn't deviate from the rest. --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking that scarce could have had a long vowel in Middle English. Problem is that the word itself consists of solely a closed syllable, indicating an anomalous lengthening. Hence we once again arrive at the problem that @Backinstadiums is asking about. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 00:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• First off: I have little experience researching English etymologies. Looking specifically at scarce, I find myself wondering if the /ɛ/ pronunciation arose more recently by way of influence from scare? Are there any historical rhyming dictionaries of Middle English that could elucidate the pronunciation at that stage of the language? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hillcrest98, Eirikr: In Shakespeare's times it followed the regular pattern.

Does that lead credence to Eirikr's hypothesis? Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 03:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

According to this resource, جِياد is a plural of the adj. جيد. Could sb. please confirm? --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

These IPs, presumably the same person, have tagged at least a couple of entries as exonyms that shouldn't have that label. I've responded on one talk page and undone edits to pages where I'm 100% certain that "exonym" can't be right, but could someone else check the other entries? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused, I'm lost here, I guess all are exonyms. La Meca is Spanish for Mecca, which AFAIK are exonyms coz are not used in Saudi Arabia, not even with aliphate. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Punic is written from right to left, shouldn't the plural form would be 𐤎𐤐𐤈𐤌 instead of 𐤌𐤈𐤐𐤎? --Malaysiaboy (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. It should be fixed now. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a Danish reference is included, which is an inflection of the Danish verb vække. The Danish equivalent to vakt is vagt. Shall we just remove the ref? DonnanZ (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe replace it with a reference to SAOB? Mewasul (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

A good idea, added both SAOB and SAOL. DonnanZ (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't watch the show myself, but it seems there may be a need for this category (along the lines of Category:English terms derived from Tolkien's legendarium). We do have Category:A Song of Ice and Fire, but entries like Pheidole viserion certainly don't belong in it (and I'm not sure ones like Khaleesi do either). Should we have this category, and if so, how should the two be linked to each other? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I;m also confused why Category:Terms derived from Tolkien's legendarium by language isn't just called Category:Terms derived from Tolkien's legendarium like Category:Terms derived from German. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this a true suffix? Doesn't feel like one. No other entry links there. Equinox ◑ 12:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I find the notion awkward that this be a suffix. As this “works” part is semantically heavy, it is clearly compositional and not derivational. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 12:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No entry for -works in Oxford Online, and there is a derived terms section at works. Even then there are certain terms missing such as sewage works and coachworks (a motor trade business that does coachwork). I think -works is a candidate for RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not being a native English speaker, I might be wrong here. But if someone had said « has an eye for » I wouldn't think they have a good taste, but rather that they are good at spotting or picking up something – as in «she has an eye for beauty», «he has an eye for details», «she has an eye for talents». Is the definition correct? Mewasul (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mewasul You're right, the definition is broader and I've tried a new one. I think "appreciate" is a key term here. Do the Norwegian translations still apply? Ultimateria (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ultimateria Yes, they do. Thanks for replying! :) Mewasul (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

as in "一封封信". Is this valid? —suzukaze (t・c) 07:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is:

一	封	封	信
one	classifier	classifier	letter

i.e. many many letters. Wyang (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thank you! —suzukaze (t・c) 19:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

So, apiece links to a-, but there's a zillion entries. I kinda understand it as "per piece, for each item", but no entry really seems to match. Which one is it?

Also, I was wondering how productive it is, or how acceptable it'd look today? (Like, "Rent is $200 aweek", "No less than 200 words apage", sic.)

Thanks, 62.147.26.233 14:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it should be a prefix in apiece, but a compound of a + piece. Check here. DonnanZ (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The Online Etymology Dictionry's entry says "see a (2) + piece"; their "a (2)" is the one derived from Old English an (“on”), which makes it the same as our a-#Etymology 2. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've updated apiece with both sources. (Couldn't link to a-#Etymology 2 specifically, though.) Regardless, what about the productivity of this "a+word" thing? How weird would it look to write things like "Rent is $200 aweek" or "No less than 200 words apage"? 62.147.27.33 15:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think "aweek" and "apage" would have to catch on first. Apiece was apparently first used in Middle English, so it's been in use for a very long time. DonnanZ (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. 62.147.27.55 19:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

An RFD a while ago left this entry incoherent, since the remaining "by extension" sense still refers to the deleted sense. I think it's still SoP and would delete the whole thing (perhaps move some cites to overworld); do others agree? Equinox ◑ 17:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, you can refer to almost any video game level or area as a "map" so it's not idiomatic that "overworld map" can also mean "overworld". Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Which meaning of English "room" does the Hungarian word "helyiség" correspond to?

A separate part of a building, enclosed by walls, a floor and a ceiling. I added it to the entry. --Panda10 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Yiddish word listed in the section's heading's entry says "Offensive". However, in my experience, it is only offensive as a loan word into English (Yinglish), but in Yiddish conversation it has become the native term for "African-American". On that note, should Wiktionary have a separate entry for the Yinglish word "Shvartze" and list it as offensive? ShemtovKML (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never discussed black people in Yiddish in Europe, mainly because there aren't many. I have discussed black people in Yiddish in the US, where this term is unquestionably offensive, although we felt that נעגער (neger, “Negro”) as found in e.g. Weinreich is inappropriate nowadays as well (at the time it was meant as a more respectful term). Matching English, I use אַפֿריקאַנער־אַמעריקאַנער (afrikaner-amerikaner), although I've no idea if that's even attestable. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Where you using Yiddish among Heritage Language speakers? Because I could understand such speakers considering it offensive, given its use as a loan into English. However, among native speakers, which is what I am most familiar with, it seems to be a neutral term, though it can be offensive, but in the way "Black" can be offensive in English ie. context. ShemtovKML (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Also re: the etymology.While the entry here lists it as a calque from English "Black", I have hearsay evidence that in pre-war Europe, it was used as a term to refer to Caucasians with a darker skin tone then expected, that was extended to African-Americans, perhaps helped by the calque of English "black". Perhaps someone could research this to see if there are any trusted sources that confirm this etymology out there? ShemtovKML (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

See this article, written by a Black Jew, who, while discussing the implications of loaning the Hebrew "Kushi" into English, says this about "Shvartze" (emphasis mine): "On its own — like shvartze, which is Yiddish — the term is not inherently offensive or derogatory, in the same way the word for “European,” in West African languages, is not at face value an epithet, but merely an implication of outsider status. Context. Context. Context." ShemtovKML (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Something I came across in a Norwegian entry (gå til sengs med fienden), which seems to be used figuratively, and not just the title of a film (Sleeping with the Enemy). Is it worth an entry? DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think sleep with the enemy is definitely worth an entry, and I'm quite surprised we don't have one yet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK, now this is the sticky part, what would be a suitable definition? DonnanZ (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather, shouldn't there instead just be additional definitions at sleep with and go to bed with? I say this because while "the enemy" is a common object of this phrase, it's not the only collocation. For example, one might say, "The Conservative party have gone to bed with the DUP." Possible synonyms are deal with the devil and Faustian bargain. -Stelio (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Stelio – and should have given it a second thought before creating the entry :) I'll add examples to gå til sengs med and fiende. Mewasul (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly not condemning your entry, in fact I like it. It can stay. DonnanZ (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

According to https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/0#Chinese, yet "0" does not appear in líng. What meaning of bottom is it? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's LGBT slang (or gay slang, as written previously). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And is it really 0, or is it 〇? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: Obviously it's 〇; I didn't notice bcuz it doesn't appear in líng, do you know why? --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No. No one added it yet, I guess; that's the wiki way. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Angr, Backinstadiums: I don't think it's 〇 in this context. If it were 〇, then "top" would be 一, but it's 1. And yeah, it's not in líng because líng doesn't automatically get updated when 0 was created. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I just have to say I really like the idea of using 1 and 0 to mean top and bottom respectively. I had hoped 10#Chinese would mean vers, but it doesn't, it means anal sex. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: Why top and bottom? in which situations? what does vers. mean? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: In gay slang, a top is a man who prefers to be the one doing the penetrating in anal sex, a bottom is a man who prefers to be the one getting penetrated, and a vers is a man who likes both. So it's kind of cutely symbolic in my opinion to use 1 to mean "top" and 0 to mean "bottom". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Vers is 0.5, which we are currently lacking. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Cebuano and have no idea what's going on there, but it seems strange to me that a single diacritic should warrant the existence of two entries. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In some languages a single diacritic is certainly enough to warrant the existence of two entries, e.g. Irish cuan vs. cuán. But to judge from síya#Usage Notes, in this case síya should probably just be an {{alternative spelling of}} siya. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course (it applies to French as well: la vs. là); my post was badly written, sorry about that. Btw, are we sure it's an alternative spelling used in running text, and not a "dictionary spelling"? I mean, we don't want to create an entry for Russian господи́н alongside господин, for example. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If Cebuano is anything like Tagalog, the entry should be at siya, with "síya" as the header. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just bumped into tetra and noticed that the "etyl|mul|en" template for "Translingual" currently produces a link to w:Translingual language, but «Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Translingual language in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.». I believe w:Translingualism was meant, but I cannot edit templates (and would probably not attempt to even if I could, given my terrible programming skills outside TeX and my very low knowledge of Wiki templates in particular), so I cannot do anything about this. Can someone fix this? MGorrone (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The easiest solution is to make w:Translingual language a hard redirect to w:Translingualism. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The translation tables for the nouns probably need cleanup in many languages: there's a confusion between the words used in direct speech (as in "Yesterday, I did that") and reported speech ("I told him that I did that the day before"). --Barytonesis (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I bit off topic, but it's interesting Hindi परसों (parsõ) handles both phrases and direct and reported speech. I'd imagine all the Indo-Aryan languages in the tables are fine then. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Too bad I don't speak it, otherwise I would try and confuse everyone by adding ambiguous usexes! a not so subtle invitation... --Barytonesis (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)