Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/May

It looks as though the entries for Russian months all include examples like:

1. в апре́ле про́шлого го́да ― v apréle próšlovo góda ― last April

   в апре́ле бу́дущего го́да ― v apréle búduščevo góda ― next April

The Russian is clear (I think, though I am a beginner): "April of last year", and so on. I am an English speaker from southern England, and this does not match my understanding of the English phrases: to me, "Last February" was February 2018, and "next October" is October 2018. Notoriously these phrases vary wildly within the British Isles, let alone anywhere else. I would like to change these to "April last year" and "April next year", but invite comments in case I have totally misunderstood something. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in Russian, unlike in English, "April of the past/coming year" does not imply a calendar year? —Tamfang (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev? --Per utramque cavernam 18:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium, Per utramque cavernam: "April of last year" and "April of next year" are more accurate translations than "last/next April". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A request for a quick check that I've done the right thing in giving strangles two separate "Noun" entries, since one is a lemma (horse disease) and one is a non-lemma (plural of strangle (noun), an option trading strategy). I followed ducks as an example of the same. -Stelio (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Etymological discussion moved to: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2018/May#strangles. -Stelio (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm only an occasional contributor here, so would be grateful if someone would kindly check and improve my recent addition to jizz. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So, I'm editting in Malagasy now. My contribution to the sum of human knowledge is fanogon-, a form of the noun fanogo. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't this also mean shirataki? ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. All these gosh-darned "proper name" entries that don't include normal usage... —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

example Dixfield, Swanville etc... --74.124.128.224 16:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• What about them? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Can i add place names without deletion? --74.124.128.224 16:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Place_names. There isn't a consensus about all place names, but as long as you stick to the ones in the first list at the link I just provided, you should be OK. Personally, I only find place names interesting enough to include if they have non-obvious foreign translations, but I'd never nominate one for deletion solely for the reason of failing to meet that criterion. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The origin of some place names can be quite interesting, I'm about to enter Spartanburg. Regarding uninhabited islands: some have crept in even if they're not meant to be included. DonnanZ (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to add a Serbian word to the "translations to be checked" on the page for (English) "mold" but I just can’t figure out how it works. E.g., when I enter "sr" as language, an error message comes up, although it’s the correct abbreviation.

Any pointers? Or rather: Isn’t there a wizard or easier way to edit those things?--Geke (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that this Wiktionary considers Serbian to be a form of Serbo-Croatian - language code sh. Have a look our entries for some Serbian-only words to see how we handle them. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

For me, the translation-adder script "autocorrects" sr to sh. The script only works if you're adding a translation for a specific sense, though; you can't (AFAICT) add to the "translations to be checked" box with it, because adding translations you're not sure of is discouraged. - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Any research on this? Spybag may be new coinage, with a nominal definition which is intuitive in describing humor fiction (or nonfiction) which deals with the espionage domain.. which is hampered by poor intel or poor operation. Similar military intelligence in its idiom form. Also the usage of -bag as suffix may be interesting. -Inowen (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC) PS: link: spybag

tíha is glossed as weight and váha as weight (mass). Now, I see two problems here:

1. Are they really synonyms or is there a difference, e.g. váha is a technical term in physics whereas tíha is more "colloquial" (and can perhaps be used metaphorically to mean "hardship")?
2. The gloss at váha makes "weight" and "mass" appear synonymous, which is not the case in physics, so maybe a better gloss is in order; also, maybe we should add a usage note to clarify the distinction between the two? Depends on what comes out of problem 1…

Oh btw those are Czech words.

MGorrone (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The current definition of "slip" as "young" and "person" is incorrect on two accounts, a misgeneralization from contexts in which it often occurs. Please check a source such as OED for the correct definition as something slight, small, slim. It's often qualified ("...of a girl" or "...of a boy") to apply to children, and more generally "of a" is needed to transform it into a person, but youth is not inherent to the meaning of the word itself. I'm not going to make the edit myself because I'm too long out of practice and not tuned in to the community curating English and don't have time to chase up literary examples to cite. Alden/Onyx or something like that. 107.77.235.214 20:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard it applied to anyone except a girl, a young woman, or an old, usually frail, woman. The notion seems to me to be "slim, slender, willowy, slight", not "small".

Macmillan (Online) has an entry for a slip of a boy/girl, defined as "a small thin boy/girl". I have heard the collocation "a little slip of a thing", referring usually to a young girl. Citations would clarify whether there is a gender limitation on use and thus whether its use might be a microagression in the eyes of some. DCDuring (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've certainly no quibble with you about "small." But in writing fiction, I wouldn't hesitate to describe a character as "a slip of a man," understanding, of course, that this could be seen as quite a denigrating description of an exceptionally slight person -- denigrating not because it compares him to a girl (it doesn't at all, in my far, far pre-millennial ear) but because it describes him as physically insignificant. To me, though, it's merely descriptive, not inherently judgmental. I've simply never understood any inherently young or female connotation to slip, though I agree that at least in the realm of cliché, latterday usage tends toward girls. Intuitively there is little difference between this slip and the origin of "a slip of paper." When you get to "pink slip," then it's inherently paper, but that's an evolved term. Underneath all of these, a slip is really a physical trifle or a trifling thing, isn't it? In "slip of paper," which may very well be something torn and irregular, it gets transformed into a trifle consisting of paper. In "slip of a ," it's transformed into a physically trifling person. If it were inherently female, we wouldn't need "of a girl." I see that the error had already slipped into Merriam-Webster by 1989, but M-W has always been known for that very kind of imprecision, and the notion has not yet corrupted the OED. I will trust OED over M-W every single time. There we also see that "slip of a " does share its origin with "slip of paper," among other slips. When you look at the etymology, there's simply no reason to describe a slip of a person as inherently young or female -- and in all my reading, this entry is the first time I've seen a suggestion that femininity would be inherent to "slip" rather than to "girl" or "woman" in the expression. I think this instance of devolution and loss of meaning should be resisted. But English Wiktionary is not my domain. Either someone will correct it or it will continue to be erroneous. It's off my mind and out of my hands now.

Alden/Onyx or something like that. 99.93.9.16 00:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary gives Czech chlad and zima as synonyms, but my (half-)Czech friend says chlad means cool, so cold but not very cold, whereas zima is more appropriately rendered as cold. Czech Wiktionary seems to suggest that they are indeed synonymous in terms of "temperature lowness", but chlad refers to sensory perception (smyslový vnímání) while zima is actual factual cold. Who is right, or is either right? MGorrone (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Synonyms don't have to mean exacdtly the same thing. I'd say cool and cold are synonyms in English too. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A dictionary is supposed to help with word choice (diction!). Even if we declare such words to be synonymous, shouldn't we make clear the distinction in the gloss or in usage notes? DCDuring (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

We should try to make the distinction clear in the definition itself. Only if that is insufficient should there be a usage note. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My friend went on to explain that "chlad" is used for shadow in summer and for air conditioning. I take it that "chlad" is, in her usage, a pleasant sensation of freshness (shadow and air conditioning), whereas "zima" is actual "cold" as in winter (which coincidentally is also called "zima"). She also asked her Czech mother, who answered with two messages, «Chlad je poloviční zima» (chlad is half zima), and «Chladnička chladí potraviny na 4 stupně» (the fridge "chlads" (cools down) food to 4 degrees). That is not quite the "pleasant freshness" vs. "cold" distinction, but it is indeed "cool" vs. "cold(er)". MGorrone (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: and @DCDuring: this issue came up because I translated a song into Czech and had my friend correct the result, and she corrected my chlad to zima, and I asked her why. If there is enough difference to warrant such a correction, it is worthwhile, IMO, to investigate exactly what this difference is, and clarify it in a usage note. MGorrone (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, a usage note is a good idea. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

An etymology would also be nice. Zima has one meaning winter, chlad, if the same as холодный, would be from PSlav meaning cool, cold; uncertain beyond this. That doesn't explain much, but it's a hint that the former is perhaps more specific.

cool and cold are almost like antonyms (with overlap) because I like it cool but dislike the cold. Those are slightly different senses so we could expand the definitions. I guess hyponym and metonym respectively wouldn't be clear either. Very fuzzy. 109.41.1.155 15:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In English "cold" sometimes appears as a gloss or synonym of wintry, but some sources restrict "cold" in these definitions to its non-literal senses. Whether or not this specifically parallels the Czech words definitions, it may suggest possibilities. DCDuring (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Czech chlad and zima are basically synonyms (Czech speaker here). The sentences Venku je zima and Venku je chlad seem synonymous. SSJC definitions do suggest greater intensity in zima, per SSJC:zima "velmi nízká teplota" contrasting to SSJC:chlad's "nízká teplota", where "velmi" (very) is missing. I personally would not say "Chlad je poloviční zima", but what do I know. As for translation, "cold" seems to be a good one for chlad; Glosbe seems to agree; there's even the phrase "polární chlad" (polar cold), which can hardly refer to mild cold. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Is badass still regarded as “vulgar”? I had updated the label to “possibly offensive” but @Tharthan begs to differ. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it in any professional correspondence, for instance, so I suppose "yes", it's still vulgar. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Is that the test, though? The word now seems mild enough to be used in general conversation without raising too many eyebrows unlike, for example, the C-word and F-word which remain widely taboo. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's vulgar, it's just (very) informal; same thing for kick ass. OTOH, take it up the ass is vulgar. --Per utramque cavernam 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

One wouldn't freely use it around their conservative pastor or churchfolk though, so caution should still be given per its use Leasnam (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of things I wouldn't say around conservative churchfolk that aren't vulgar, though, so that's hardly an adequate test. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

True, but this is one because it's considered vulgarity. Leasnam (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If ass is vulgar, then badass is also, very likely. Ass has become an intensifier, likely because it's obscene.

The term profanity literally stands in contrast to sacred (sacrecy?). Vulgar is itself vulgar or pejorative, depends on perspective. The difference to obscene as a label is not quite clear to me. At least, I don't think badass is used offensively or as a slur. 109.41.1.155 15:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the test should be whether a term would be considered vulgar in ordinary conversation and not if said to any specifically sensitive audience (e.g., conservative churchfolk) or special context (e.g., business correspondence). I’d also disagree that simply because the word incorporates the word ass it is automatically vulgar. I think the word has lost most of its vulgar connotation, which is why “possibly offensive” is sufficient (Oxford Dictionaries Online doesn’t label it as “vulgar”, for example). However, if there is consensus that the word would still raise many eyebrows in normal conversation I’ll leave the “vulgar” label in place. — SGconlaw (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"I’d also disagree that simply because the word incorporates the word ‘’ass’’ it is automatically vulgar." Yes, I agree with you. To me, the word ass has lost its "edge" in this specific word, through some kind of "erosion". --Per utramque cavernam 20:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO this isn't vulgar, whereas Per utramque cavernam's example of "take it up the ass" is. Given that it's approbative or even self-applied, I'm not convinced "sometimes offensive" would be right for sense 2 (of the noun or adjective, the latter of which is currently so labelled), either. - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, looks like there's a consensus. I've removed the labels "possibly offensive" and "vulgar". — SGconlaw (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Hey, I know that you pinged me after reading this, but I didn't get your ping for some reason. If you want to remove the vulgar label, that's fine I guess (although I do not agree at all). But removing "possibly offensive" is taking a big leap, because there are plenty of people who would take issue with this being used in public or being used in polite company (I know that some people were surprised at seeing this when I went into a large book shop which had a book with that in its title not long ago ). Tharthan (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tharthan: the usage note you added seems fine to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your idea of "concensus" is quite interesting. I count 4 to 4 voices here (the IP being me).

The use of ordinary to mean not vulgar is also peculiar, considering sense 4 and ordinär (vulgar). That's the same difference as with vulgar.

I agree that even ass itself does not have a strong edge. I approximately say "'ba-dass", not "bad ass-car" anyway and apparently that makes a difference as xkcd has it]. It probably helps that it's a sweet as rhyme on as.

A positive connotation is not offensive by definition, but doesn't exclude vulgarity. If anything has lost it's edge, it's the perception of vulgarity. So perhaps it's not a suitable label at all.

The label "youth slang" is an endearing compromise. I suppose the usage is somewhat ironic -- powerful precisely because it's using an explicative. If you think it's not at all offensive, that's pretty badass style. Rhyminreason (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhyminreason: Many people these days, especially many youths, swear and use other vulgarities every other word. They think that it's cool, when it isn't. It makes them sound like buffoons. Soon, I think English's vulgarities will go the way of some of the French vulgarities, where they aren't even really perceived as vulgar anymore due to overuse and normalisation in the culture. It's quite sad, really. It's the dumbing down of society, in my opinion. Tharthan (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the reverse of the w:euphemism treadmill and probably isn't particular to this generation. A certain quote from the Greeks lamenting the ethics of young people comes to mind. Rhyminreason (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this UK English? I thought so, but I can see some usage online from Americans. Would they say 'mind the gap' in the US? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's fairly clear English--I'm not sure why we need an entry for it--but if I heard it in the US, I'd think it was a Britishism sneaking over.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This entry needs some labels for the senses. Is it archaic (per Oxford), offensive (per American Heritage), derogatory, etc.? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It needs some work, certainly. "One who does not believe in a certain religion." is supported with "Some Muslims are taught that non-Muslims are infidels and are to be shunned." which does not fit; all non-Muslims are people who do not believe in Islam. I'm not sure how phrase the definition or the labels, though.

I don't know why Oxford is saying that it's archaic. I guess a little bit, but it still has currency in sentences like the quote above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not archaic. It does seem at least somewhat derogatory. - -sche (discuss) 02:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it has become increasingly derogatory over time. At some point, it was simply a statement of fact. An infidel was someone who was not of "the Faith": literally an infidel. Now it sounds dated and pejorative if used seriously. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, usually now ironic in some way. Equinox ◑ 16:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback, but does someone want to take a stab at improving the entry? Also, the fact that the translation table at unbeliever redirects to infidel is just wrong. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We have not only two senses but two claimed etymologies — yet I think they are the same thing and should be merged. Chambers only has "a personal reason for getting involved". Equinox ◑ 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with (or able to track down citations of) the use of this as a bare adjective, meaning "great" (presumably an elision of "hella good/cool"). "I just scored free tickets to the show!" - "Oh, that's hella." It seems parallel to how "wicked" can be either an adverb ("wicked cool") or a standalone adjective ("that's wicked!" / "wicked guitar solo"). - -sche (discuss) 02:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it right for this to be entered as a verb, and to have the "to"-infinitive on its definition line? Seems fishy to me. Equinox ◑ 15:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It's rather a phrase, and the "phrase inflection" is similar to usuall phrase changes, like regarding person (changing one's into my, his, .... as in to one's knowledge). But phrases beginning with a verb are often added as verb entries in wiktionary: return to one's senses, stick to one's knitting... -84.161.20.186 17:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The entry for Tá's ag is capitalised, but I can't see any indication as to why. Is there a reason for this or should it be moved to lowercase? Zumley (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering that there is tá a fhios ag and that tá is capitalised in a fhios a bheith agat because it's the beginning of a sentence, it looks like a miscapitalisation. www.teanglann.ie/en/fgb/fios has "Is bréag é agus tá a fhios agat gurb ea,   it is a lie, and you know it is.", thus lowercase should indeed be correct (and not be a wiktionary mistake). -84.161.20.186 16:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! Zumley (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we have an English entry for one of these, for words like automobilia (okay, bad example, it could be a blend) that come from memorabilia? It's a lot like -ana. I just saw this:

• 2017, Steve Radlauer, Ellis Weiner, Monsters of the Ivy League

  Over the course of Yale's first two centuries, Calhoun was the only graduate to be elected to a superprestigious position in the US government. Ergo, Yale is, or at least was, proud of its association with him and is, or was, rife with commemorative Calhounabilia, including a statue

Equinox ◑ 16:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably. It seems to be a quite productive suffix:

• 1975, Georgie Anne Geyer, The Young Russians, ETC Publications, →ISBN, page 277:

  In "Lenin rooms," those patriotic corners in the schools and in the Pioneer palaces where Lenin memorabilia are displayed in effusion, I had the feeling that this was no more than the kinds of patriotic display of Lincolnabilia or Washingtonabilia in schools in the United States.

• 1995 November 24, Caroline Sullivan, “CD review: The Beatles Anthology 1”, in The Guardian‎:

  Why not just put the whole lot out as a bargain-priced odds'n'sods set, and save the hand-tooled luxury pack for worthier Beatlesabilia? The genuinely interesting artifacts could have been released as an EP, which would have saved listening to the rest.

– Einstein2 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been through the list of wikitionary and found that Kannada witionary has not been created yet so I'm interested, please help for the same. If anyone can see it please help me in new to this realm thanking you. Regards Prasannaloop — This unsigned comment was added by 157.49.168.111 (talk) at 01:17, 7 May 2018.

Hi, there is a Kannada Wiktionary at https://kn.wiktionary.org, which you can certainly help to edit. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Or if you'd like to add Kannada entries here (English explanations of Kannada words), take a look at how the Kannada words we already have at formatted (Category:Kannada lemmas) and make some new entries modelled on that. :) - -sche (discuss) 19:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I added the definition of Dragon Ball to this site - who removed it? — This unsigned comment was added by Inowen (talk • contribs) at 10:02, 7 May 2018.

It was speedily deleted as an administrator felt that it did not satisfy the requirements of the WT:FICTION policy. See "Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Dragon Ball". — SGconlaw (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

own success]] is an idiom catchphrase. -Inowen (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be victim of one's own success here; arguable. Equinox ◑ 02:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be sum-of-parts. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added a definition for liberalism to define it as interchangeable with progressivism. But it got reverted. I think it should be undone.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-liberalism-and-progressivism.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Progressive AltHypeFan (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Finding some random Web sites is not enough. You must urgently read WT:CFI regarding what we accept. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 03:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be tagetes, which is given as the plural; @SemperBlotto who created this. See also Tagetes in Wikipedia, translingual Tagetes, “tagetes” in Den Danske Ordbog, tagetes in Oxford. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

google books:"a tagete" (which gets hits) vs google books:"a tagetes" (where the hits are all for capitalized Tagetes) suggests that the common noun singular is tagete. Tagetes seems to be attested as the genus name, and also by elision in the place of a species name. - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately people are human and make false assumptions. Apparently tagetes should be treated the same as species, i.e. singular and plural the same (coz it's Latin?).

I also checked Tagetes in Duden, interestingly all inflections are the same, without variation (just like Spezies). DonnanZ (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it could be treated as a common misspelling. I checked also “tagetes” in The Bokmål Dictionary / The Nynorsk Dictionary., “tagetes” in Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB)., and SAOL / SAOB. Swedish inflections are similar to German. DonnanZ (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Misspelling implies an error in writing. Here, not only the writing but the manner of speech is in question. So misspelling would be a misnomer. Rhyminreason (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Digging through more books, I finally found ones that use lowercase tagetes as a common noun singular. (Two are attributive, but two are plain noun attestations.) Lowercase tagete seems like a back-formation in the mode of pea. I've moved the content around so tagetes has the translations and tagete is listed as a synonym / probable back-formation. - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant, more or less what I would have done, thank you. DonnanZ (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The octochamp page (https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/octochamp) lists "octochamp" as 'informal', but it is used by Nick Hewer (the presenter) in-show, and there is no other word for it. Therefore, it seems to be more like jargon than an informal word. — This comment was unsigned.

Well, "eight-time champion" would be the other/formal way of expressing it. - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The same rules as for works of fiction, or names (see WT:CFI) should apply to neologisms, ie. references to the work don't count as use, but as mention, and therefore don't qualify the term for inclusion. We don't include protologisms, is that correct? I'd add an RFV but I don't feel strong enough about it, yet. Rhyminreason (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Aren't these homophones? I mean, there are several ways of pronouncing them, but I don't think any applies to only one spelling. The pronunciation sections should either be synced, or one could even be reduced to "like ". - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I have heard Sara being pronounced as /ˈsɑːɹə/ (most commonly) or even /ˈzɑːɹə/, but I've not heard Sarah pronounced that way (it's always been /ˈsɛəɹə(ɹ)/ in my experience, which can also be used for Sara and hence, yes: homophones in this case). That's just my personal anecdotal experience rather than a prescriptive opinion. -Stelio (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Where I live, both Sarah and Sara are pronounced /ˈsæɹə/ (due to a difference in the distribution of /æɹ/ and /ɛəɹ/ in words between British English and some North American English dialects which lack the Mary-marry-merry merger, such as mine. This can also be seen in words like vary and various, which are /ˈvæɹi/ and /ˈvæɹi.əs/ respectively in my dialect, as well as the word parent, which is pronounced /ˈpæɹənt/ in my dialect. Interestingly, though, my parents pronounce vary and various as /ˈvɛəɹi/ and /ˈvɛəɹi.əs/, whereas most of the friends I grew up with and others who I know pronounce those words as, like I said above, /ˈvæɹi/ and /ˈvæɹi.əs/. My parents pronounce parent, Sarah and Sara as /ˈpæɹənt/, /ˈsæɹə/ and /ˈsæɹə/ respectively, however). Tharthan (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Amusingly, however, at the moment /ˈsɑɹə/ is listed as a pronunciation only of Sarah and not Sara, the opposite of your anecdote! Dictionary.com's dictionaries and Collins have them being pronounced identically, whereas Merriam-Webster asserts they are different, and a user on stackexchange asserts that in Scotland Sara has the vowel of "bat" and Sarah has the same vowel of "air", but I doubt how widely that (or any) distinction holds in practice. /ˈsɛəɹ.ə/ is noted for Sarah and Sara by Dictionary.com, and for Sarah by Collins (as a British pronun) and by Merriam-Webster. /ˈsɛ(ː)ɹə/ is noted for Sarah by Collins (as an American pronun) and by OxfordDictionaries.com. /seɹ.ə/ is noted for Sarah by Collins (as an American pronun, but with the stress on the last syllable!) and approximately by Merriam-Webster (in their non-IPA notation as /ˈsā.rə/). /ˈsɑɹə/ is noted for Sara by Merriam-Webster and for Sarah by Collins (as an American pronun, but with the stress on the last syllable!). /ˈsæɹə/ is noted by Collins as another American pronun (with stress on the first syllable, as expected!). - -sche (discuss) 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the truth of the matter is simply that different women named Sara(h) pronounce their name differently. As a merry-merging American I'd pronounce them both /ˈsɛɹə/ at first encounter, but would alter that if someone told me she preferred, say, /ˈsɑɹə/ or (here in Germany) /ˈzaːʁa/ or anything else. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's absolutely what I would expect. Unless someone has reasoned objections, I would like to update Sara to just say "in any of the ways Sarah can be pronounced; see that entry" or similar. - -sche (discuss) 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• In the UK, they are different. "Sara" is pronounced with /ɑː/ and "Sarah" with /ɛː/. The Hensher citation at the entry is a good illustration. Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  That distinction doesn't seem to be maintained in practice. For example, here's English comedian Sara Pascoe (0:15) and English comedian Richard Herring (0:05) pronouncing Sara Pascoe's name with the "air" vowel, and Welsh comedian Rob Brydon (0:48) pronouncing Sara Cox's name with the "air" vowel. (I've heard /ɑ/, too, of course, like this Channel 4 presenter pronouncing Sara Khan's name with /ɑ/.) (And here is the host of the UK's 'Last Leg', who is apparently Australian(?), using the "air" vowel for a "Sara".) - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, I guess I'll concede the point since there are too many high profile exceptions. I admit I still think of them as exceptions though… Ƿidsiþ 08:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

doleful currently uses {{en-adj|er}}. While there are citations for dolefuler and dolefulest, in practice more doleful and most doleful are significantly more common (links to Google Ngram Viewer). While I could change the template use to {{en-adj|more|er}}, is there a standard way of indicating that "more" is common and "er" is rare on the page for doleful? -Stelio (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of entries don't make any such note, although they probably should. Those that do make such a note probably use usage notes. IMO this is a common enough phenomenon, and stardardizing the wording of a note about it is desirable enough, that the template should probably accept a parameter the way en-noun accepts a parameter to display "usually uncountable, plural ". I'll start a GP thread about that. For now, usage notes are your best bet. The usage note(s) should be templatized, like Template:U:en:equal, since many entries can use them. Maybe name them something like Template:U:en:adj more vs er? - -sche (discuss) 16:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Anyway, it would normally be dolefuller/dolefullest. The single-L version is pretty uncommon. Ƿidsiþ 05:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• The Google n-gram for the last 100 years is interesting. It would nice to include this as an image on such pages. Ƿidsiþ 05:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Super; thank you both! I've updated doleful to include all three comparative/superlative pairs, listing them in order of commonality, with a usage note to explain and references to Google Ngram Viewer. I've not templatised the usage note at this stage, but I'll look at doing that at some point in the future. -Stelio (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Worth entries? --Per utramque cavernam 13:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Is 'sad!' now an interjection? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

How do you know it's new? DTLHS (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't, but people keep on making statements and then saying 'sad!', I don't remember that before Trump popularised it. People used to say, 'that's sad' or, 'how sad', didn't they? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. Unsurprisingly it's hard to search for this construction to date it. DTLHS (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you give examples? Is it distinct from exclaiming e.g. "pitiful!" or "pathetic!"? Equinox ◑ 20:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right, it's not different and it's just a new way of using the word. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that it is new at all. As far as I can tell, people have been saying "Sad!" as a short form for other phrases for quite some time. "It is sad to hear that!"/"I am sad to hear that" → "Sad to hear that!" → "Sad to hear!" → "Sad!". Also, alternatively, (or concurrently), "That's sad!" → "Sad!", "So sad!" → "Sad!", "How sad!" → "Sad!" Tharthan (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

ISTR also that in the '90s (when losers were called "sad cases") people might exclaim "saaaaad!" too. It's in an I'm Alan Partridge scene but I think it's part of a sentence there. Equinox ◑ 20:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Such a use of the word sad in speech seems normal and somewhat common to me. I seem to remember my mother saying it a few decades ago. I might even say it myself after having heard a description of a situation I found sad. I agree especially with Thartan's comment. DCDuring (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Unrelated, but ought we to have an entry for the Donald? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The Chinese entry has this as an adjective, but the Japanese entry has this as a noun and is exclusively a Buddhist term. Closest translation is "like this". Anyone help me clear this confusion? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the JA sources I've looked at don't actually give a POS. The implication is that terms with no stated POS are nouns, but that's not always the case: for instance, 如実 (nyojitsu) has no stated POS in the KDJ monolingual JA entry, and it's most commonly used as an adverb. The JA definition for the "like this" sense is given as:

「かくのごとき」「このように」の意で、経の最初に書かれていることば。

Meaning of just this way, like this, used as a word written at the start of sutras.

With that stated usage, it sounds much more like an adverb. Ferreting out some actual usage examples could help clarify. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian (《現代漢語規範詞典》) defines it as a pronoun ("like this"). Wyang (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The Chinese definition of 代词 is wider than "pronoun". Pronouns can only substitute NPs, but 代词 is the general term for pro-forms. I think 如是 and 如此 are adjectives/adverbs since they can replace adjectives or adjectival phrases (AP, AdvP, PP, etc.). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, we have "particle" as a POS for things that don't clearly belong to any other part of speech. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In Japanese contexts, a particle is a more clearly defined category. Using that POS for terms like 如是 might be akin to applying an ===Article=== heading to an English term of otherwise-indeterminate POS-ness. Personally, I'd be much happier if we find usage examples, and base POS decisions on those. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably needs labels of some kind; I surmise it's not completely standard? --Per utramque cavernam 12:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe mainly British/affected/formal/old-fashioned as in -st? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What causes you to surmise that it's not standard ? Do you mean not universal to all English varieties ? Leasnam (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, it's not old-fashioned in that way. unbeknownst is fairly common, a slightly jocular formalism that has hung around in common speech, and in most uses of beknownst it's actually a kind of locution for unbeknownst (the examples use "little beknownst" and "beknownst to only them"). I would usually read it as a bit jokey, in the same way as a comment like, "Well I wouldn't say he was disgruntled, but he definitely wasn't entirely gruntled either." Ƿidsiþ 07:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this specially American as said in wikipedia and the etymology (stated there) suggests? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked a few dictionaries and confirmed this is US only. (But we have a synonym/alternative form problem and a part of speech problem in the entries.) Ultimateria (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we need two senses? --Per utramque cavernam 09:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There is some (mis?)usage that does not conform to the more literal, but idiomatic, first definition. In these cases it seems to mean something like "by its very name". But there are other readings and usages too. DCDuring (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a term I came across at trampfart, and there is an article Tramp trade in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how common it is now with containerisation in shipping; I worked for a shipping agency in Sydney years ago who dealt with all manner of ships in the tramp trade, usually chartered. DonnanZ (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've added a definition. Feel free to improve it. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, that was quick. Do we still use the term tramp steamer, no entries for tramp ship or trampship either. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a highly dated, or even obsolete, way of referring to menstruation with obvious strongly negative connotations, but the translations seem to be for the neutral 'menstruation'. I think ideally the translations should either attempt to reflect the tone of the English or have qualifiers. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing these translations. I would also move the translation table to the page of a word that's more common to refer negatively to menstruation, but I can't think of one. Ultimateria (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: I have updated the translation table in the style used by User:Per_utramque_cavernam for other words with neutral and colloquial translations, what do you think? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: Hmm, I like the note, but I think our standard practice of labeling the table "derogatory: a woman's menses" is sufficient (but often ignored...). The point that I didn't really make before is that the previous translations would all be more useful at either "menses" or "menstruation" or "period"; I don't think anyone would think to look for them at "curse". Is there a more common derogatory term? Also, the Finnish term isn't labeled as derogatory, so I would remove the translation. Ultimateria (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of leaving room for any translations that captured the pejorative sense while sending folks directly to the more neutral (and common) entry for the corresponding neutral translations. DCDuring (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Sorry for the late reply. I did check that the deleted translations were already mentioned at the standard entries. Re: the Finnish entry, I added 't-check' after the note about derogatory or negative meanings was added and the 't-check' template was removed, so it should be correct. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please check this entry. I have two questions:

1. Why is this derived from the plural, not dual?
2. What's the relationship between عيينة and عوينة?

Thanks. Wyang (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe عُوَيْنَة (ʕuwayna) is singulative, not plural. It's a singular diminutive. The ending ة often forms singulative nouns.

عيينة is the Standard Arabic singulative diminutive of عين.

عوينة is (I believe) a dialectal singulative diminutive of عين (Libyan dialect). —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown Thank you Stephen. Sorry I should have made #1 clearer... I was wondering why عُوَيْنات ("spectacles; eyeglasses") was derived from the plural, rather than dual (since it's an object occurring in pairs?). Thanks for the answer to #2. عوينة is also in Wehr, and is cited as the source of a 14th-century Chinese word. It seems to be the assimilated form of عيينة. Wyang (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, عُوَيْنات is not derived from either the dual or the plural of عين (eye), it is derived from the singulative diminutive عُوَيْنَة (ʕuwayna) (eyelet). Inanimate feminine nouns such as عُوَيْنَة (ʕuwayna), ending as they do in ta marbuta (ة), normally have the feminine sound plural in ات, hence عُوَيْنات (ʕuwaynāt). The dual form of عُوَيْنَة (ʕuwayna) is عُوَيْنَتَانِ (ʕuwaynatāni).

So why do we use the plural instead of the dual of عُوَيْنَة (ʕuwayna) for eyeglasses? I think the reason is (1) that eyeglasses did not exist 1300 or 1400 years ago (so there is no record of the dual being used for that), and (2) that today's Arabic dialects have dropped the dual. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The readings provided by the Nom Foundation seems to cover also simplified Chinese characters. Here are a few examples: 马 (mã, refer ), 鸟 (điểu, refer ), 红 (hồng, refer ), Most of these are sourced from the gdhn reference code provided by Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt

Are characters such as 马 and 鸟 actual Han characters used in Vietnam? Are the readings provided by the gdhn reference code reliable? Curiously 馬 is given as mở while 马 is given as mã under the gdhn reference code. In Wiktionary, the page for mã includes simplified Chinese characters such as 马, 码, 蚂, 玛, 唛 but the corresponding traditional characters 碼, 螞, 瑪, 嘜 are not included. Is there a mistake here? KevinUp (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp It's not a mistake, but gdhn includes these simplified characters so as to inform Vietnamese readers how these simplified characters should be read. (The name gdhn literally means "help read Nom and Sino-Vietnamese"). The content in that book can be queried here- as you can see the traditional and simplified are listed side by side. Most of the simplified characters are not attested in the Nôm literature, unless they have existed as informal variants prior to the official simplification. Wyang (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. Unfortunately I have problems accessing that page. I need to check the readings provided to see if it is linked to a traditional form. And some of the readings appear to be inconsistent: 馬 (mở) and 马 (mã) , 勝 (sền) and 胜 (tanh)

Hello. I just created the following page: Module:vi/nom-data. Hopefully it will be of some use in future. I've also figured out how to query the contents of the gdhn book. I can see that the simplified characters are listed along the traditional ones. KevinUp (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang I've noticed that a small number of Sino-Vietnamese characters such as 𡎭 (⿰土统) and 𬖷 (⿰粘间) are being encoded using simplified Chinese characters. It should be noted that the corresponding traditional characters ⿰土統 and ⿰粘間 do not exist in Unicode. KevinUp (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp Yes, indeed. Wyang (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sense 5 says "Used to emphasise a noun or verb": example: part of the brain that does the "actual thinking". I believe this sense should be removed and the cite should go to sense 1 ("Existing in act or reality, not just potentially; really acted or acting; occurring in fact"). Thoughts? Equinox ◑ 11:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the difference is figurative vs, well, actual meaning. Simply because the dividing line between fact and imagination is not clear cut, so the term might be used erroneously under the assumption that sense 1 applies. The nebulous meaning of the quote being a fitting example. Not sure that's lexical, if the speaker is actually convinced. I don't think so. Not sure whether there is inflational or ironic usage as in "that was a real circus". "for actual" is a jocular substitution of "for real". Rhyminreason (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the definition and example fall well within sense 1. Ultimateria (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how good that example is, but I think there is a difference. The OED distinguishes between "Existing in fact, real" and a separate "intensifier" sense "In weakened use, emphasizing the exact or particular identity of a following noun: precise, exact". I suppose this is what they were getting at. Ƿidsiþ 07:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I read here editions having "omnīs" for "omnēs" (acc.pl.) and "-ntīs" for "-ntēs" (acc.pl.). Should not this variation be noted on our templates? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's an archaic feature, which we should treat as the infinitives in -ier (audirier), imo; see the conjugation table of audio. @Mahagaja, JohnC5, Metaknowledge? --Per utramque cavernam 12:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Here particularly of Quintilian I see one edition with "-ēs" and one with "-īs" (but acc. "testēs" "partēs"). I still have not understood the reason of the latter editor for this. Which would be right? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Why was this done: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=⁰&diff=next&oldid=39814265? Is it because ⁰'s only definition is "superscript of 0". See also: ¹. --Bringback2ndpersonverbs (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm not posting in the right section, but on the PIE entry *h₁entér, it lists oscan and Umbrian "antep" Are you sure someone isn't conflating the letter r with rho (p-lookalike)

Yeah, somebody accidentally put a P instead of an R (when the content of that article used to be part of *h₁en). Fixed it. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I trust that's according to the source material. Otherwise I would suspect a remote possibility for the 𐌐, eg. as in en. up, *upo (“under”), which seem to be conflated in Proto Germanic. By the way, the glosses for the cognate untar at its own page and at 𐌀𐌍𐌕𐌄𐌓 (anter) don't agree. *under has both senses but a slightly different root for Latin inter, not exactly *h₁entér. Rhyminreason (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Judging by recent articles in the British press, this is used by (mostly white?) leftists there to refer to (well-off?) white male conservatives. (Some articles say it was originally used by Remainers to refer to Brexiters.) It's apparently likening the people's complexion to ham (or accusing them living high on the hog?). It was supposedly used as early as a June 2017 BBC Question Time (from York, in the phrase "wall of gammon"), so there might be enough durable citations to "hot word" it (and check back in a couple months to see if it meets the spanning-a-year criterion). In any case, it's getting a rush of attention (the referents find it offensive), if anyone wants to take a stab at adding it. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It has now been pointed out that Charles Dickens used "gammon tendency" in Nicholas Nickleby, chapter 16, so it may not be "hot" at all. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I think this is new. Dickens used "gammon" (AFAIK) in an old sense of "nonsense, rubbish, tommyrot", whereas the new independent coinage seems to refer to elderly men with pinkish faces. Equinox ◑ 18:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, I've added a reference to gammon for a BBC News article that traces this recent sense to February 2016, so it's already spanning more than two years. -Stelio (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Entry for Etymology of peely-wally links to unrelated article

I'm not familiar with proper editing, however... on looking up "peely-wally", I see that the Etymology claims it is an extended form of "peelie" with a -link- to a sole English definition of: a coupon, attached to product packaging, which can be peeled off. However, peely-wally seems to be a Scottish phrase denoting: Pale, pasty; off-color or ill-looking ...originating long before peel-off coupons. The Scottish definition of "peelie" is: Thin; gaunt; pale. So peely-wally does perhaps seem to be an extension... of the Scottish definition of peelie. Perhaps an experienced Wiktionary editor might include the Scottish definition on the "peelie" page ...or remove the link (to the inappropriate English 'coupon' definition) from the "peely-wally" page.

Scottish definition of "peelie" at... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/peelie or http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/peelie

Just noting a discrepancy.

• Yes, thanks, I've changed this a bit. The reference should ultimately be to the Scots word peelie (which we were missing). Ƿidsiþ 07:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This word is commonly used by weather forecasters throughout the USA to describe rain that has evaporated before reaching the earth from its clouds. I see no logical reason for it to have been redacted from my original effort to add it to the "approved" vocabulary. Scott MacStravic

• That's virga. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The etymology is given as "Blend of abnormal + end", and yet the etymology of "segfault" is given as "Clipping of segmentation fault". Is the former not also a clipping, since it contains all of the second element? &mdash 89.197.103.111 16:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it a clipping – seg is a clipping of segmentation, but segfault is better described as a blend or contraction IMO. Ƿidsiþ 11:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A clipping is a kind of blend, according to WP (see w:Blend_word#Linguistics). Rhyminreason (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but not all blends are clippings. Ƿidsiþ 05:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ety 3:

1. (in the US, especially used in Chicago and New York) Eye dialect spelling of the.

Is this "eye dialect"? According to Wiktionary's definition, "eye dialect" is a nonstandard spelling that indicates a standard pronunciation. Is "da" considered a "standard pronunciation"? Mihia (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

If you read w:eye dialect, you'll note that it's used liberally and less pejorative. I mean, yes, dat's da idea. It's supposedly the standard pronounciation in the region. "pronunciation spelling" would be more informative, of course. Rhyminreason (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "pronunciation spelling" is better. I have changed it. Thank you for alerting me to this alternative way of labelling these. IMO this "eye dialect" thing is overused and/or often misused in Wiktionary. If I encounter further examples like this I intend to change them to "pronunciation spelling". Mihia (talk)

Prior to 2015 (when the "pronunciation spelling" template was created and started to be deployed, although the issue had been discussed already in 2012), "eye dialect" was widely used on Wiktionary in this idiosyncratic way, so most of the entries that use it need to be reviewed. - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Today's WOTD, "hearts beat as one", is defined as "to share the same feelings". This definition is the wrong part of speech. I'm not sure that "hearts beat as one" even exists as a dictionary phrase. Mihia (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the definition is awkwardly non-substitutable (although I think it is the right part of speech). The definition could be made less awkward, and the includability more obvious, by moving the entry to "beat as one" and labelling it "(of hearts) to share the same feelings"... but if "hearts" are the only things that "beat as one", it might be weird to not include them in the headword. - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Usually the owners of the hearts are stated, or at least implied, so "hearts beat as one" seems incomplete as a phrase, and it is certainly not a verb as presently defined. It seems more like a fragment. I agree that the lexical item is "(to) beat as one", used almost exclusively with the subject "hearts". Mihia (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Can something be done about the audio volume of the pronunciations on pages like bloedzuiger? —67.14.236.50 02:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Not by us, unless there's another recording that can be substituted. All of our recordings are hosted on Wikimedia Commons (this one is c:File:Nl-bloedzuiger.ogg). Perhaps someone there might be able to fix the volume. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Why not just level it out with Audacity or something and reupload? (Edit: thanks, User:AmazingJus, for doing so with this one!) We have too much technology at our disposal for this to be a common issue. Or is Commons less inclusive with who’s allowed to make changes? —67.14.236.50 04:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but it will have to be done at Commons- not here. I don't know their rules, but I'm sure the main thing they would be concerned with would be the edit history and attribution- as long as it's clear where you got it from, it shouldn't be a problem to upload a better version. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The new file can be uploaded to the same file name. It is fairly straightforward. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 04:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Worth an entry in some form? Perhaps it is SoP, but feels less so than e.g. " been here and gone". Equinox ◑ 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Some slang dictionaries have been and, which seems to be the same as go and. There is also some support for been and gone and. Get this:

• 1848, William Makepeace Thackery, Vanity Fair (novel):

  Sir Pitt has been and proposed for to marry Miss Sharp, wherein she has refused him

DCDuring (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, see “go and”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• But it's not slang in the Thackery quote – Pitt has been (i.e. visited) and also proposed. Ƿidsiþ 07:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This makes me think of try and (as a substitute for try to). --Per utramque cavernam 08:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Try and only substitutes for try to in the plain form, not in the -ed or -ing forms. That might make it a lexical item, eg, entryworthy. Alternatively, we could have a long usage label. I'd think that a usage note would be separated by too many page-downs from the definition. DCDuring (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• The idiom "been and gone and done it" means "actually done it" rather than just planning it or talking about it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparing been and gone with some of the other expressions mentioned makes me think it is not entryworthy, though it does seem usage-note-worthy at the appropriate sense of be.

Try and, go and, up and, and (more datedly dialectal) take and all seem to have some quirkiness of usage, such as limitations in the form of the following verb or the assumption of a meaning not present in the and-less usage of the verb. They are also distinct in register and relative frequency among English-speaking regions. They appear in usage and style guides like MWDEU and Garner's Modern American Usage. To bury the quirkiness in the overlong entries ] and ] seems to place unreasonable demands on a user. Take and, being more dated/obsolete, might be adequately accommodated at a definition at ]. Up (verb) is similarly short enough so a user should find relevant definition easily. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

An old spelling of city, used around the 17th century. Any volunteers? DonnanZ (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

1. Used to link singular indefinite nouns (preceded by the indefinite article) and attributive adjectives modified by certain common adverbs of degree.

   not that good of an idea

This usage is viewed as incorrect in BrE. Is it fully accepted in AmE? Mihia (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would say colloquial, surely – you don't see it in the NY Times or whatever. Ƿidsiþ 05:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have added a "US, informal" label. Mihia (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This was added to RFV, but it is more appropriate here. Kiwima (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A usage note at haughty suggests, "Possibly due to the similar sounding (and utterly different in meaning) hottie, haughty has become rare in some parts of North America." I can't find any published sources making a similar suggestion – though there are a few that suggest the two words are easily confused (e.g. , ). The usage note was apparently added by User:Facts707 with this edit. The suggested effect is not impossible, but it's also not obvious. I would prefer to see outside verification, or else remove the note. Cnilep (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

One more data point I should have checked earlier: According to Meriam-Webster.com, haughty is in the "top 10% of words", making the claim of rarity dubious. I'm not sure, though, whether M-W's "popularity" is by usage or by look-ups. Cnilep (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This Google n-gram suggests that haughty has had a recent spurt in usage at the same time that hottie has achieved fairly wide usage. I'd remove the note. DCDuring (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Identifying the "top 10%" of words by usage is quite a tricky proposition. If every word that has ever been used in English is included, every word that you and I know might be in the top 10%, since 90% of all words may be highly obscure or rare or specialised. Having said that, "haughty" surely cannot be in the top 10% of usage of "reasonable" English words. (I don't in any way oppose the removal of the label, btw.) Mihia (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Haughty is 5230 in the PG frequency list.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

As the n-gram shows haughty was previously significantly more common. I've been wondering how to plausibly interpret MWOnline's relative frequency number. They must have some defined list of terms, which I haven't seen specified. Perhaps they have some minimum level of required attestation. If we were to include lexical items like species names we would swamp the normal vocabulary-in-use of virtually any speaker and exceed the number of other lexical items in the language. DCDuring (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you looking at overall usage, anyway? The note says "in some parts". And it appears to be an unverifiable opinion. Slightly embarassing to say, I didn't know the word, though I might have seen it. Surely, haughty is rather rare outside the cot-caught merger, in North America? 5000 words is a lot, more than the average for a common word inventory, as far as I know, so place a place behind 5000 seems to be rare, indeed. Project Gutenberg might not be quite up-to-date and biased for out-of-copyright, ie. old material.

Also: some people say "notty"? Never heard that in person, either. Rhyminreason (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"In some parts" people write hawty for hottie. The mere fact that someone makes an unsupported claim is bad enough. When it is qualified in such a way as to make it unfalsifiable it should be considered worthless. DCDuring (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhyminreason: Haughty is by no means rare. Perhaps it is used less than it once was, but it is not rare. Then again, where I live, the cot-caught merger is not present (except coming from the mouths of some youngsters). Tharthan (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tharthan: I thought you were from Eastern New England, which is one of the epicenters of the cot-caught merger. The merger is complete in the traditional accents of Maine, New Hampshire, eastern Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and eastern Connecticut. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I am from Eastern New England, but (without revealing exactly where I live) I would note that not all of the traditional accents in Eastern New England have the cot-caught merger. In fact, in one of the states you mentioned, the merger is only complete in certain areas of the state (many, but not all) . One big city, and a few smaller cities in that state do not have the merger. I happen to live in one of those smaller cities, in the suburbs. My mother was born in a city in that state which does have the merger, but she moved to the city in which I live when she was a child, so she only has the merger in a word or two . My father is from another New England state, but close by to mine, and also does not have the merger. If you would like more details, I can e-mail you. Tharthan (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the traditional Eastern New England accent is pretty recessive now anyway (I've met more Bostonians without it than with it), so it's quite possible that you and your parents don't have the same accent that people in your area did 60–80 years ago, when the data for The Pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States (where I got my info from) were collected. Also, the merger in Eastern New England is different from the merger in the western half of the U.S., because in traditional Eastern New England there is no father-bother merger (father having a frontish unrounded vowel and cot/caught having a backish rounded one), while in the western half of the U.S. all three vowels have merged to a centralish unrounded vowel. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You may well be right, but I e-mailed you some more information, just FYI just in case. Tharthan (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

5000 is more than the average for the common word inventory? Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has about 5500 distinct words, and the Half-Blood Prince, sixth book in the series, has 10,000 distinct words, including four instances of "haughty". Tom Sawyer has 7000 distinct words. Combined, the first six Harry Potter books, Tom Sawyer and Pride and Prejudice have 23,000 distinct words between them. In that selection, or just the Harry Potter books alone, "haughty" sits around place #6500. ("haughty" would jump up quite a few places if only root words were counted, or if names were exclude.) I'm pretty sure any educated native speaker knows way more than 5,000 words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Combined, the first six Harry Potter books, Tom Sawyer and Pride and Prejudice have 23,000 distinct words between them": How did you arrive at that number? --Per utramque cavernam 22:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I took text copies of the works, lower-cased them, and counted the number of unique words (defined as strings of letters.) It's a bit rough, but eyeballing the list of distinct words, it's not too far off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: What I find surprising is the apparently limited amount of overlap your numbers are pointing to. If two English books have 5000 and 7000 distinct words respectively, it seems very improbable (impossible, really) that you can simply add the two numbers; they must share a good amount of words between them. What would be realistic? 500 hundred words found in one but not in the other? The total figure would be 8000, not 12000. --Per utramque cavernam 12:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't simply add them. Pride and Prejudice has 6000 distinct words, and Tom Sawyer and P&P combined have 10,000 distinct words, not 13,000. A lot of the words are only used once; P&P has 2000 words used only once in it, and Tom Saywer has 3500 words used only once in it. There are 4,000 words used only once in P&P and TS combined. I've uploaded a wordlist of just the two works to User:Prosfilaes/Tom Sawyer versus Pride and Prejudice; as you can see, there's not a whole lot of overlap.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Thanks. All right, I just wanted to make sure (sorry if it sounded like an insult at your intelligence btw!). Interesting, I would have expected more overlap than that. Per utramque cavernam 13:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a number I heard in school, referring to chinese: "Studies in China have shown that functional literacy in written Chinese requires a knowledge of between three and four thousand characters" (w:Chinese Characters). So it's a minimum, not average, sorry. Still though, knowing and using a word are two different things. Rhyminreason (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Chinese characters aren't the same as English words- they're syllables. If you look at Category:Chinese lemmas, most of the entries have more than one character. That's not to ignore the semantic component- you can say more with fewer characters than if they were strictly phonetic- but there's a lot more to basic Chinese vocabulary than the number of single characters. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I removed the usage note. - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is the second sense labelled as 'rare'? The Queen has ladies-in-waiting, it might be unusual (not rare) to hear much about them, but the name for them is not rare. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think sense 2 is the main sense, and the "rare" label can be removed. DonnanZ (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to label this "rare". Mihia (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Donnanz: Thanks. I think the definitions need improvement, though, but I don't know much about it. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know enough either: the 1st sense I imagine is virtually obsolete (but I could be wrong), and a royal lady-in-waiting seems to be more of an attendant and a companion than a servant, being an honour is probably correct. This is where the links to Wikipedia and Oxford (with its usage examples) come in useful. DonnanZ (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The senses should be merged, IMO. Ƿidsiþ 11:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think the majority of the translations are for a "woman who is servant to a lady" anyway, but for a royal lady-in-waiting, to which can be added “hofdame” in Den Danske Ordbog and “hoffdame” in The Bokmål Dictionary / The Nynorsk Dictionary.. DonnanZ (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The entry トレント has just been added by a new user Testaccount9000, almost certainly the same person (or possibly persons) as Wikipedia user YodogawaKamlyn (sorry, I don't know how to do proper cross-wiki links, or exactly what the rules are on having different accounts). This is almost certainly completely bogus - the article as it is makes no sense, and is completely unsupported by evidence, except for en:WP and ja:WP articles, created by the same person. I suggest it should be peremptorily deleted. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, Eirikr, does this seem to be same user who adds other bogus Japanese mythology terms under a variety of IPs? If so, perhaps our colleagues on Wikipedia should be notified of the scope of the issue. - -sche (discuss) 16:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a list of four WP user names involved in the original addition of this "torento" to the WP:List of Japanese deities page, and they seem to have similar curious habits, such as "translations" of "edit" or similar words into a random language as the edit summary. It would help to know whathese other bogus terms are. Oddly enough, user YodogawaKamlyn has just added an entry to the list which appears to be genuine. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hardly. This user speaks Japanese and has trouble with English. The other IP user couldn't get anything right in Japanese after years and years of trying very hard. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this user actually does speak Japanese, judging by the edit summaries on ja:WP, and by the bits of Japanese pasted into the Talk page of the List of deities page. But this discussion should surely happen on WP... Imaginatorium (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoever they are, the JA WP editors remarked on this user's poor Japanese abilities in the deletion discussion for the machine translation of this same bogus Torento no kami article on the JA WP. Surveying this user's activity across the MediaWiki sites, I see nothing to suggest competence or good faith. I posted more details at w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Torento-no-kami. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't paying attention when I wrote the above. Since then I posted some details about the behavior of their socks on Imaginatorium's WP talk page, which seems to have spooked them. Without any use of checkuser tools at all, I would guess we're dealing with a kid or clueless adult in Minot, North Dakota who thought that they could fool people by copying content from various places and editing from IPs and sockpuppet accounts. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add a Chinese section to the 㧡 entry, so I need Pinyin (and perhaps other dialects). I looked at Chinese Wiktionary, and it gives "hрi, wшi" for Mandarin and "hoi6" for Cantonese. What is going on with that Mandarin? It must be some sort of Mojibake. I was able to decipher hрi (which features a Cyrillic letter in the middle - nope, that ain't no p) as hài thanks to zdic, but wшi is still mysterious. I mean, it starts with w and has a final featuring a diphthong with -i as the second element, is it's either wai or wei, but which, and what tone?

Moreover, what is it pronounced like in Hakka? hakkadict gives kai24 (= PFS khâi) for Sixian and Southern Sixian, kai11 (= PFS khài) for Raoping, kain11 (= PFS khàinn with -nn indicating a nasalized final) for Shao'an, and kai53 for Hailu and Dabu, but this video seems to have khan for a word that means exactly what 㧡 is reported to mean by Hakkadict, so what is up with this?

twblg.dict.edu.tw doesn't even have the character, so does this have a Min pronunciation?

MGorrone (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Assuming we are looking at a simple code point shift, à is U+00E0 and was turned to р which is U+0440, so ш, which is U+0448, should be from U+00E8, which is è, giving us wèi. Is this a thing? MGorrone (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@MGorrone: @Suzukaze-c and I have expanded the entry. Indeed, р should be à and ш should be è. This character is a rare character outside of Hakka. AFAIK it is definitely not normally used in Mandarin, Cantonese or Min Nan. In Hakka, it should be read as khâi (Sixian). (Note that the version of PFS we use here in Wiktionary is only applicable to the Sixian dialect. We currently don't have support for other Taiwanese dialects. 53 in Hailu, 33 in Dabu and 11 in Raoping/Zhao'an correspond to 24 in Sixian.) I don't have an explaination for khân in the video yet; it's probably an idiolect thing. I'll probably elaborate on that when I answer your question on Chinese StackExchange. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I had never, ever seen this as one word until I edited مهمان‌پرست just now. I have seen 'guest-friendly' before, but never 'guestfriendly' as one word. So is 'guestfriendly' (one word) American English? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No. It seems to have been created as an Anglish-ism; it should be moved to the hyphenated spelling. - -sche (discuss) 16:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Should probably be RFVed. It famously appears in Finnegans Wake, but that hardly counts as an English-language citation… Ƿidsiþ 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I completely missed the label. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Guestfriendly (no space or hyphen) seems to be becoming a staple in tour guides and hospitality-industry literature. Guest-friendly remains more common and thus should be the lemma. DCDuring (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this includable as a sentence adverb (≈to be honest)? "Truth is, I don't like movies that are only good once", "Truth is, he's clean and sober", "Truth is, he's too tired to think about it much right now". --Per utramque cavernam 22:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just an elision of the definite article. Like "Problem is…", "Thing is…" etc. Ƿidsiþ 04:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems odd to have an entry for Wake as Wake Island (created 2013) and another one for Wake Islander (created before that in 2011).

• Is Wake Island usually known as just Wake?
• Are there actually any Wake Islanders? According to Wikipedia the population is nil, with around 100 people stationed there (non-permanent residents). DonnanZ (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

They both look attestable. DCDuring (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the attestability of using Wake as a short form of Wake Island, the question is how common is it; I feel there should also be an entry for Wake Island. As for Wake Islander, I fear that may be a myth, so it needs proper attestation. It reminds me of Mustique, a private island, I read somewhere that no babies are allowed to be born there, so no one can claim they are a native of Mustique. DonnanZ (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c, Eirikr and anyone else who knows Japanese: At WT:WE there's a request for Japanese 富士の山 (ふじのやま, Fuji no yama), but wouldn't an entry just be SOP as 富士 + の + 山? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

🤷 It's included in the Digital Daijisen. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 21:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

One lemming does not a summer make. I remain unconvinced. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Mahāgaja on this one. Moreover, the DJS citation is for the Taketori Monogatari, a tale about a thousand years old, and the grammatical construction in the quoted text itself suggests non-lexicality:

「富士山」に同じ。
「士(つはもの)どもあまた具して山へのぼりけるよりなむ、その山を―とは名づけける」〈竹取〉

Similarly, 岩手山 (Iwate-san, “Mount Iwate”) and 高尾山 (Takao-zan, “Mount Takao”) can be called ～の山 (XX no yama). While the former appears to be a lexicalized compound, with some instances even showing rendaku, the latter with the particle の (no) is just "the mountain XX". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The entry for cheerio seems sure that it can mean "hello", in Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. As a speaker of British English, I can fairly confidently say it only ever means "goodbye". The entry contains a large number of translations for the purported "hello" sense. I don't want to undo all that work when I might be wrong. Does anyone use it to mean "hello"? 81.109.108.218 21:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I use Br. English (born in NZ) and (to me) it has always meant "goodbye". DonnanZ (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. No such sense in Chambers Dictionary. Equinox ◑ 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I added one example that appears to be a greeting. DTLHS (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Is that play (?) from Britain, Ireland, Australia or New Zealand? I found this, but that doesn't help (me) much. 81.109.108.218 22:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for Samuel French, Inc. states that it is an American company but that it publishes stage plays for the UK market. Of course, that could be very different from what was the case in 1947. DTLHS (talk)

I've seen a few older Samuel French works; they published a broad range of plays, and that alone isn't going to help much.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell from the text cited, nor can I find the text online: what is the surrounding context? Equinox ◑ 23:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Fleetwood. (As he pauses in arch c. and eyes the assemblage with a cordial smile) Cheerio, everybody! What a delightful gathering of charming femininity! (Coming down to r. of Alvina admiringly and continues suavely) Alvina, you are even more ravishing than those flowers you are holding in your lily-white hand! (Bows gallantly.)" DTLHS (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

chiefly British
—usually used as a farewell and sometimes as a greeting or toast

According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheerio

At the back of my mind is some inkling that I may know the "greeting" sense. If it exists, I think it is obsolete or at least very dated. Mihia (talk)

It's been updated to my satisfaction (not by me). Thanks! 81.109.108.218 22:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this British? It's definitely not American. Our entry doesn't cover this. DTLHS (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is British. From Oxford:

1.1(usually kennels) A boarding or breeding establishment for dogs.

‘I put my dog in kennels if I go away’

Planning permission could be obtained from the local authority, but there could be objections to setting up a kennels. DonnanZ (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Planning permission is also a British term, so that text was presumably written in Britain. DonnanZ (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Is 色則是空 an alternative spelling to 色即是空? The only difference is the use of 則是 (it is only) instead of 即是 (it is indeed). May also apply to 空即是色. Daijiten uses both. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Is one of these worth an entry? We have runny nose; is it more idiomatic than these three? --Per utramque cavernam 13:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, but I do feel like sense 1 of stuffy should be split into two senses. There's a big difference between a stuffy room and a stuffy nose, and I bet other languages don't use the same word for both situations. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A stuffy nose is a "nez bouché" in French, but a "**pièce bouchée" doesn't mean anything, so yes. --Per utramque cavernam 14:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, and in German a stuffy nose is a verstopfte Nase, but if I ever heard the phrase verstopftes Zimmer I'd imagine it meant a room that was crammed full of stuff. (verstopft also means "constipated", so you have to be careful to clarify which end of you is verstopft.) —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol, only seeing this now :p --Per utramque cavernam 12:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

wikidata:Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical data#First experiment of lexicographical data is out. Coordination could be awesome! Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 11:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we have this right?:

• audience left Noun Uncount On the left side of the stage when viewed from the audience facing the stage; stage right.
• camera left Noun Uncount On the left side of the stage when viewed from the audience facing the stage, stage right.
• house left Adv NotComp Stage right.
• stage left Noun Uncount / Adv Comp The area to the left of the stage when looking towards the audience
• audience right Noun Uncount On the right side of the stage when viewed from the audience facing the stage, stage left.
• camera right Noun Uncount On the right side of the stage when viewed from the audience facing the stage, stage left.
• house right Adv NotComp Stage left.
• stage right Noun Uncount / Adv Comp The area to the right of the stage when looking towards the audience

Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sobreira Yes, although "camera left" and "camera right" have nothing to do with an audience watching a stage, they are to do with how directions are seen from the point of view of a camera or camera operator. If you think of an audience watching a cinema screen, for instance, then camera left would normally correspond to house left, but not always – depending on how the shots are treated in postproduction, camera left could end up as house right, or up, or something else entirely. Ƿidsiþ 07:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This phrase isn't in Wiktionary but it seems like it should be. To me, it means more that just a story that's official; there's an implication that this version of events is very convenient for the powers that be and that there were some shenanigans with evidence and/or witnesses. Not sure if it qualifies as an idiom though. It's hard to get anything meaningful from Google since it keeps pulling up the movie "The Official Story", a title which seems to refer to exactly the meaning I have in mind. Add it to official perhaps? --RDBury (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, "official story" uses official in the same way as "official explanation", "official line", "official narrative", etc. —Ruakh_TALK 20:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, seems entirely sum-of-parts to me and thus not idiomatic. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We have the usual educational sense of grade, but then an extra one: "(Canada, education) A student of a particular grade (used with the grade level). The grade fives are on a field trip." This seems misplaced to me because it is not a "direct" use of the noun, and "grade fives" is not the plural of grade. (We also have no corresponding sense at year, form or class.) I would just move it to a usage note, but the problem is we have translations for that sense. Equinox ◑ 06:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It seams idiomatic. What's that about snow clones?

The quote is for the plural (not of "grade", but of "grade-five"), so it's opaque which sense it actually stands for (plural tantrum or singular from backformation, e.g.).

I guess RFV would be the wrong direction?

But wait. Further up we have "a degree of quality" and quote "food grade earth" (obstruse word omitted for clarity, exuberant quote IMHO). That def is effectively equal to def 1. From the quote I can tell that the editor thought it was different because it was used adjectival. Either way it should be del'ed. 94.134.128.125 12:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This just seems like an ordinary metonomic use of grade, context-dependent for the selection of the appropriate definition. It doesn't seem particularly Canadian, though in the US we would usually say fifth-grader(s). I don't see how this warrants either a separate definition or a usage note. It seems like a feature of English grammar: how we form transparent compound nouns.

Instances of this grammatical construction in the singular are extremely common: position three, day five, phase three, page six, level two. I don't think it's limited to numbers either: condition red, code blue. And even plurals can be found:

1. Game sevens of World Series demand the entire nation's attention. (Not fanciful: see this Google search.
2. I'm always been wary of season twos.

This seems like yet another case of suddenly becoming conscious of what is normally unconscious. All too often the sudden awareness of an instance is not accompanied by identification of other comparable instances. I myself fall prey to this phenomenon regularly. DCDuring (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

94 IP dude, I'm not saying we shouldn't document this (necessarily), but that it isn't a distinct sense of the noun grade (and indeed isn't used that way, hence my mention of the plural). (I think I misread your comment actually. but never mind.) Equinox ◑ 02:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone help find an English category for this entry? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone help me add the adjective/attributive sense of "conflict" as in "conflict diamonds", "conflict palm oil", etc.? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a noun, not an adjective; compare "blood diamonds", "blood money", etc. Arguably, it's just the regular sense of the noun (like "conflict negotiator", "farm eggs"); if it's not, then we're also missing a sense at blood. (Actually, we may be missing a sense at blood regardless, to cover "shedding of blood; taking of life; slaughter, murder", as when people speak of avenging the blood of someone, or seeking revenge for the blood of someone.) - -sche (discuss) 02:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Cf. war child. Equinox ◑ 02:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Other dictionaries have more than two senses/subsenses. They seem to have a sense that is specifically about battles or wars. Collins puts that sense to "journalism". DCDuring (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sense 3 of "blood" is "(historical) One of the four humours in the human body." But aren't references to blood as a bodily humour just references to actual liquid blood, sense 1, that simply consider that liquid to be a humour? Suppose a certain religion considers blood and water to be the two sacred fluids; would we add a sense "One of the two sacred fluids in Religion X"?
Relatedly, until a moment ago we had three separate senses for "earth" as a classical element, for each of three groups of people who considered it one! I consolidated them into one definition on the model of "fire" and "water".
- -sche (discuss) 03:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If we had a "Coordinate terms" section at ], we might want to put the other three humors on one line. What definition would we refer to in {{sense}}?

IOW, I think it merits a definition line, perhaps as a subsense of sense 1. DCDuring (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the "no good" sense used in native English? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I heard it used pre-internet. DCDuring (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, nothing like as widely as it is in Japanese, I think. But there is a much narrower usage in the film industry: the Complete Film Dictionary, by Ira Konigsberg, published 1987 has an entry:

• NG takes: A take which is "no good" and hence not usable.

I quickly found similar entries in other such dictionaries, and all explain that it means the take is not usable. This corroborates my feeling that "NG" is not a word from the wider English vocabulary. In Japanese the "no good" would not need to be explained, because it is as common as "OK" for the opposite. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It's also commonly used in Chinese. It seems like the Chinese usage is from Japanese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

NG is not a word to be used in a definition. It needs a definition for many native speakers I think. DCDuring (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

How to do the interconnections ?

• https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Dhurrie
• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/dhurrie
• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/dhurri
• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/durry
• "smoking a durry"
  • https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8395544/

69.181.23.220 11:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedia claims a term for "Turkic" is, along with تُرْكِيّ (turkiyy), which also means "Turkish", is أَتْرَاكِيّ (ʔatrākiyy), as in لُغَات أَتْرَاكِيَّة (luḡāt ʔatrākiyya, “Turkic languages”) and provides two references, not sure how good they are. The term seems to exist in Google books but no hits for a vocalised form to be sure about the pronunciation. I assume I got the reading correct from أَتْرَاك (ʔatrāk) plus a nisba. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

...are categorized as lemmas, thanks to their headword-line templates. Is this desirable? (Incidentally, I can find citations of a contraruta, seemingly a rough synonym of en contraruta which the current definition of contraruta could be expanded to mention.) - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No. They should be deleted, or replaced with something like {{no entry}}. DTLHS (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I think {{only in}} is fine (certainly there's long precedent for having them, they shouldn't just be deleted), it's just the categorization of the terms as lemmas that I wonder about. - -sche (discuss) 00:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a category for nicknames that aren't diminutives of names (like Cap and unlike Ozzy)? I notice that some (like Chief) don't have entries, because they're arguably just uses of the (lowercase) common noun + routine capitalization of terms used as names, but I can't find citations of "cap" meaning "captain" in lowercase (even though it seems plausible). I see Red is in CAT:English unisex given names. I guess most nicknames are at least rarely attested as formal/birth names, so maybe conflating them with given names is OK. - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Our categories in this area don't seem very intuitive. Therefore they must by well-documented and easy to find from the places one would look for a category intuitively, like Category:English nicknames. DCDuring (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

What does this term mean in this article? I've never come across this usage before. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

See w:El Capitan#Climbing history. It's a huge, sheer rock face well known as a challenge for rock climbers. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you. Would this merit inclusion on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The entry at of is organised under sub-headings, the first two of which are "Expressing direction" and "Expressing separation". The category "Expressing direction" includes senses such as "within a mile of the White House" and "a quarter of two this morning". I can't see how these, especially the first one, express "direction" as opposed to "separation". Does this make sense to anyone else? Mihia (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure those examples express direction, but what about phrases like east of Eden, east of the sun and west of the moon and left of centre? — SGconlaw (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, more accurate for this sense would be "expressing distance or motion". (The OED groups these together under the heading "Of motion, direction, distance.") I'll change it. The point is that these subsenses have in common the idea of movement away from some thing or time, whereas the "separation" subsenses are concerned with expressing a separateness or removal from something. Ƿidsiþ 13:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, would "motion away from" be better than just "motion" I wonder? A couple of other things. When you moved some stuff around in this edit did you intentionally remove the usage example "not that good of an idea"? Is there a problem with it? Also (addressed to everyone), the definitions of "of" begin with two that are marked "now obsolete or dialectal" and "obsolete except in phrases". I don't understand why a general-purpose dictionary would put obscure or obsolete senses first. Shouldn't the most common senses come first, even if they developed later in history? Mihia (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, I think we don't currently have a firm rule as to how definitions should be arranged. I'd agree that in most cases archaic, rare and/or obsolete senses can be relegated to the end. However, I've encountered situations where it seems more logical to put them in front because they show the development of the entry's senses – they show that the senses in current use derived from the obsolete senses. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That historical ordering is what I would prefer to impose as a general rule (as in all the best print dictionaries), but there is some disagreement about it here so in practice different entries have different layouts. Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but appreciate that this would be difficult for most editors (myself included) who don’t necessarily have access to the resources and time to arrange definitions in a strictly historical manner. I also imagine that in many cases it would be quite difficult to determine whether a particular sense predates another one. — SGconlaw (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Historical ordering may be useful to the people who consult Wiktionary in order to understand word development, but I feel that a larger number of users may be put off when they look up a word and the first thing they see is a whole load of obsolete meanings that are irrelevant to modern usage. Mihia (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What about the "not that good of an idea" example that I mentioned? I intend to restore it, but I don't want to restore it if you deleted it for a good reason. Mihia (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it seems OK…I was under the impression that usexes were just a stand-in until we had real citations, which is why I removed it, but if you want it back go ahead. Ƿidsiþ 10:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll put it back. "just a stand-in until we had real citations"??? Gosh, I hope not! These are extremely helpful IMO, and much more accessible than quotations/citations for the quick-glance user. Also, they can be hand-crafted to really highlight usage distinctions as clearly and conscisely as possible. Mihia (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a Latinate plural as well? Ultimateria (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"fasciae latae" I believe. DTLHS (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems like someone has been promoting this as their favourite/pet word here; I think it's rare and not likely to be commonly understood. It seems to have been used in a way that doesn't match its supposed definition anyway (e.g. sigheh). Would anyone object if some instances of 'wedlease' were removed? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "some instances"? Mihia (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of the times where it has been used. This seems mainly to have been various IPs and single-edit accounts, possibly all the same person trying to popularise the word. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not just possibly. The IPs geolocate to Carphone Warehouse in the northern end of greater London, and everything else points to a typical Pass a Method/North Atlanticist Usonian campaign. They think they see a hole in our coverage, so they make up or misinterpret terms in order to fill it. Given their total lack of understanding of how real people use language, there's always something fake and usually vaguely disturbing about their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

1. (slang, Northumbria, Liverpool)

Is there any reason why "Liverpool" is converted to "Liverpudlian" but "Northumbria" is not converted to "Northumbrian"? It looks inconsistent. Mihia (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand. There is an entry for Northumbrian (quite rightly). DonnanZ (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that {{lb|en|Liverpool}} converts Liverpool to Liverpudlian, while {{lb|en|Northumbria}} doesn't convert Northumbria to Northumbrian. That's inconsistent. But it would be good to reach a decision before changing them all one way or another. --Per utramque cavernam 12:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest making them all the place name rather than an adjective, if only for the reason that it is more easily understandable by readers (for example, some may not know that Liverpudlian means "relating to Liverpool" and Mancunian means "relating to Manchester"). — SGconlaw (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think I prefer that option too. --Per utramque cavernam 12:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I do too, it also fits better with the national labels (US, Britain) etc. Ƿidsiþ 12:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with all the above Leasnam (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The first quotation: "this very Midland line" was referring to a branch of the Midland Railway from Rugby to Leicester, which was closed many years ago but shown in my "British Railways Pre-grouping Atlas and Gazetteer" published by Ian Allan Ltd. The point is I doubt that this is use of Midland as an adjective, so it should be deleted perhaps. DonnanZ (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And I think very is being used as an adjective here, not as an adverb. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I find that sentence quite hard to understand, but I imagine you are probably correct about "very". I see "Midland line" as the same type of usage as "Midland accent" and "Midland city" in two of the other quotations. But if it is not an adjective, then what is it? Is there a noun "Midland" in the relevant sense? Are there any instances where "Midland" (as opposed to "(the) Midlands") is unambiguously used as a noun in reference to this region? Mihia (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say here that Midland is a proper noun, meaning the Midland Railway. A line was built to Rugby by the Midland Counties Railway which later became the Midland. At that time they didn't have a main line to London and connected with the London & North Western trains at Rugby to provide a London connection. The Midland built a line from Leicester to St Pancras in London after this time, opening in 1868. I think that provides the missing context. DonnanZ (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see. Mihia (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We could create a new sense of the proper noun for the Midland Railway and move the quote there. DonnanZ (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am guilty of creating a precedent for that, where a railroad a concerned, see Wabash. DonnanZ (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I feel like the whole entry is the wrong way round…Midland was an adjective first, and the English Midlands were so called because they were a Midland area…I also don't think it's clear that it's not an adjective in the quotation. Elsewhere in the same source there is a lot of talk about a "Midland route" as well. Ƿidsiþ 07:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Or was it midland first? Midland may be a capitalisation of that. DonnanZ (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And was very used much more as an adjective in 19th century English? DonnanZ (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added a proper noun def for the Midland Railway anyway, which can be removed if anyone disagrees. I haven't moved the quote, I guess it will end up staying where it is. DonnanZ (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think "Midland" is ever an adjective, in any useful sense. The example is rather funny, because a standard diagnostic is that if a word can be preceded by "very" then it's an adjective: "very thick bark" shows that "thick" is an adjective. But of course this is a different "very". I also don't see how "Midland" could have been an adjective "first", since it would originally have referred to the "mid(dle) land", which is a noun-phrase. The problem with spurious entries like Midland, adj." is that there is no end to them. I just looked at the entry for 현대 as I was editing the WP article: so we have "a Hyundai engine", and probably "a very Hyundai sound" made by the engine. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"I also don't see how "Midland" could have been an adjective "first", since it would originally have referred to the "mid(dle) land", which is a noun-phrase." This is not a good argument. There are many examples of mid- + noun being used to form adjectives before they were nouns, including mid-ocean, mid-price, midshore, mid-size, mid-engine… Ƿidsiþ 10:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Also consider such American examples as "especially in the Eastern and Midland States", "rivalries between the Eastern, Western, and Midland States" and similar (pulled from a quick books.google search). Ƿidsiþ 10:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with an adjective that became a noun, then a proper noun, which then was used attributively in the first sentence. The Midland line is also referred to as the "Midlands line": you could substitute "Midlands" for "Midland" in that first sentence without changing it at all, syntactically. You could also take out "Midland" and "very" would mean exactly the same thing- it's the same "very" as in "to think that Julius Caesar stood on this very spot". That sentence doesn't belong in an adjective section, even if other quotes might.Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head, Midland in "this very Midland line" is used attributively (why didn't I think of that?). In fact, even today the main line from London St Pancras to Sheffield is still called the Midland Main Line, this title isn't used for other parts of the old Midland Railway, many of which still survive. DonnanZ (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been looking at the Oxford treatment of the adjective, "of or in the middle part of the country", in usage examples as midland, and "of or in the English Midlands" in usage examples as Midland. DonnanZ (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, well, that's interesting. Oxford is Oxford, but I do not think that a single one of their examples for the headword "adj. midland" (lowercased) referring to the English Midlands is actually an adjective. (Now the SOED does give a meaning dated to 1555 of "midland" adj. meaning "inland", which strikes me as archaic.) I mean, do they (you?) not think that a noun can be used attributively? A peanut icecream, a cheese-and-pickle sandwich, a wildebeest roast. In no case is the meaning "as an adjective" distinguishable from the meaning "as a noun". How do you decide which nouns need a separate but indistinguishable adjectival meaning? I cannot see how the logical conclusion of this is just to give every noun an "adjective" definition. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Apart from distinct semantics there are some grammatical tests for adjectivity. Can the word be modified by the adverbial very or too? Is it gradable? Can it form a comparative or superlative? Can it be used predicatively? (The last is not so useful for distinguishing adjectives from nouns.) DCDuring (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The words "peanut", "cheese", "pickle" and "wildebeest" all clearly exist as nouns outside of attributive use. The word "Midland" does not, as far as I am aware, otherwise exist as a noun in a relevant sense (except potentially as an abbreviation of "the Midland Railway", as mentioned above). If it is proposed as a noun in "Midland accent", "Midland city" etc. then it seems to be a case of a noun that is used only attributively, unless anyone has any counterexamples. Mihia (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

One keeps eyeglasses in an eyeglass case, books in a book case/book-case/bookcase. That is, nouns formed as plurals that are also plural semantically in compounds drop the plural ending s or es. DCDuring (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

In some cases I guess so ... yet "Seychelles government", "Netherlands flag", "Great Lakes scenery", "Cayman Islands airport" ... In fact, we can also say e.g. "Midlands accent" as well as the cited "Midland accent". Mihia (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

My grammar books discuss many kinds of compound nouns, but offer few restrictive rules about their formation or the derivation of their meaning from their components. (One characterizes them as mnemonics semantically.) DCDuring (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's an adjective...rather attributive use of the noun Leasnam (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes, it looks like an attributive form of the noun rather than an adjective. I seem to recall similar cases, where a normally-plural word is singular when attributive, coming up before. I've found a couple of citations where it's by itself as a noun, but virtually all use does seem to be attributive. Still, we have lots of hyphenated terms entered as nouns, as attributive alternative forms of their unhyphenated versions, and setting aside the debate of whether or not they should be included, they do go to show that we do treat attributive nouns as nouns and not adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 16:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Are the labels (philosophy, religion) appropriate? The second usex is a standard colloquial use I'm familiar with. --Per utramque cavernam 17:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In my experience this phrase is in general use and is not restricted to those fields. I'm not even sure it has any particular use in those fields. To me, the first usex seems very faintly wrong, or at least unrepresentative. Mihia (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. It looks all good now after PUC's changes. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 12:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, how do you read aloud the text "on July 4th"? (Like, do you say "on July the fourth" or "on the fourth of July"?) And for "on Dec. 25", do you say "on December twenty-five" or something else? Thanks, 82.227.203.82 17:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"On July fourth", "on December twenty fifth". DTLHS (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, though I have sometimes heard people use the cardinal number, e.g. calling today "May thirty" instead of "May thirtieth". It grates, but the descriptivist in me acknowledges its existence. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Same here. It annoys me too. Tharthan (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Generally, I've heard people read dates out according to how they're written -- if it's "July 4th", they'll probably say "July fourth". If it's "July 4", they'll probably say "July four".

However, it depends on whether they're reading something aloud, or just talking. If it's just talking, date format depends on speaker and context and rhythm and convention. The fourth day of the seventh month, in the United States, is almost invariably "the fourth of July". The fifth day of the fifth month is generally "cinco de Mayo". Meanwhile, the fourth day of the fifth month is more commonly "May the fourth". And so on, and so forth. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Notenkopf" is defined as "note head", but "note head" has no definition. Wikipedia has an article on "notehead", and links to it from "note head"; Wiktionary has a definition for "notehead", but no link to it from "note head".

These are common "terms of art" in programming (in particular the abbreviations MSB and LSB are often seen), but there is some SoP-ness. For example you can find "most significant word", "most significant dword", "most significant nybble". I think we should cover this at significant (or if necessary most significant and least significant, though there are then questions of something being less or more s~), and perhaps redirect the existing headwords. Thoughts? Equinox ◑ 22:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I think these are totally SOP. And much more general than "programming", as in "least significant digit", "three most significant digits of pi". It's the mathematical concept of "significance", which should be covered by "significant/significance". Imaginatorium (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

first of all, I'm not pretty sure if I should be saying this here so have patience with me, and english is not my first language so if there's any grammatical mistake please forgive me

I wanted to discuss the real meaning of the preposition على. I've just found out that here, the conception we have as "obligation, duty" in arabic it is not fully covered. the page of the verb وَجَبَ (wajaba) it is indeed adressing this meaning to the fullest and explaining how على is also used with this verb.

The point I want to reach is, as a classical and modern standard arabic studen I've found most of the time that what we have in english as "must" or "have to", the verb expressing neccessity of almost any reason, is mostly covered by the preposition itself only. which means that على can work as a "have to" or "must", as it is used عِنْدَ (ʕinda) as "to have" with a personal preposition

The example is عليك أن تدرس كي تنجح "You have to study to be successful". shall I include the meaning "to have to"/"must" in the على page? I've alredy done some edits here but I'm not sure how I can address this to be honest — This unsigned comment was added by Keitwr (talk • contribs).

@Keitwr: I have just added a usage example in this edit. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Plurals of Bulloch and Tulloch. I have always thought Tulloch is pronounced "Tullock" but I'm not sure about Bulloch. Has anyone any idea? DonnanZ (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Bulloch is pronounced "Bullock". The plural is Bullochs. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought it might be. Is there any objection to moving Bulloches to Bullochs and Tulloches to Tullochs? DonnanZ (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No objection. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, but Bulloches and Tulloches are blue-linked as redirects. DonnanZ (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Χριστός.-Inowen (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, I don't think that's relevant. These are surnames. DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that Inowen meant to create a new section unrelated to ulloches. —Tamfang (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)