Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/September

After reverting an edit having to do with the translations, I looked at the definitions. It seems to me that something is missing. Our main definition says:

1. A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.

The first part strikes me as fundamentally different from the remainder. The first part has a definite metaphysical dimension, while the rest is strictly biological/taxonomic in nature. While it's true that the two coexist in all human beings we know of, they represent different aspects of what it means to be a human being. After all, if you say "I demand to be treated as a human being", that's not the same as saying ""I demand to be treated as a large sapient, bipedal primate, of the species Homo sapiens." Rather, it depends on the concept that we're sentient, having our own personalities and feelings, and having a certain intrinsic value as a fellow being that isn't assigned to, say, furniture or electronic devices. Any suggestions on how to better deal with this contradiction? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"I demand to be treated as a human being" doesn't really mean "I demand to be treated as Homo sapiens rather than Felis domesticus or Opuntia ficus-indica" (stop watering me!). It implies that you want to be treated in the way that human beings are typically (supposed to be) treated. I am not convinced that the subtlety of this is stored in the phrase "human being". Equinox ◑ 23:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I do think the definition is somewhat problematic as is. It places greater emphasis on the taxonomic definition, whereas that is entirely secondary in the conception of many people. In the Aristotelian philosophical tradition and in Christianity, for instance, emphasis would be on the intellectual/spiritual aspects of the human being, not the physical appearance. I doubt the amount of hair humans have is at all relevant to most people's use of "human being". I think in defining it this way, we are failing to capture the lexical sense of the word and are instead substituting a taxomic description of the entity for the definition of a word Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Philosophers can haver about the spiritual aspects of the human being, but we don't identify something as a human being because they have a soul; we identify something as having a soul because they're a human being. I've seen a Christian publication get actively offended at someone discussing the fact an adult chimpanzee compares well intellectually with a toddler and suggesting that might imply rights, some sort of personhood. I wouldn't oppose adding a clause about "the most intelligent of that order".--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, yes. But my point is that our definition places undue emphasis on the taxonomic description of Homo sapiens, whereas that is not what most people have in mind when they use the term in question. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty typical with dictionaries. Humans are prototype based or have a vague understanding of what something is. A zebra is a black-and-white horse or a zebra is something that looks like this. I'd say that most people have in mind themselves when they say "human being", their family, their neighbors. To get tangled up in philosophy would be a mistake; we should identify what a human being is, which Homo sapiens does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but my point is that in many people's minds, Homo sapiens is less successful at capturing what a human being is than more philosophical definitions. The taxonomic definition is arguably a very superficial description that in fact completely fails to identify what makes a human being a human being. But we may have to agree to disagree for the sake of keeping the definition straight-forward and clear. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As we have ] as a taxonomic entry, whatever its shortcomings, it seems to me that this definition, having a wikilink to that article, is free to cover other aspects of humanity. Isn't this usually used to emphasize the benign, ethical, deserving-of-sympathy aspects of humanity as opposed to the malign, selfish, deserving-of-caution aspects. I am fairly sure that attestation would prove the term to be used in that one-sided way. DCDuring (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I like this quote:

When we call someone a human being we do not mean that he or she is the bearer of such an intrinsic property. Rather, we mean that he or she looks like a human being, behaves like a human being and thinks and feels like a human being (or as we think a human being should look, behave, and think and feel). We might also mean that he or she has been born by a human being.

If we are going to look to philosophers, we should probably look to ordinary-language philosophers. DCDuring (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this not a straightforward SoP of the form Adj + Noun, “a being that is human”? Compare “a super-human being”, “an alien being”, “a supernatural being”, “a transcendent being”, “a miserable being”, “a wretched being”, “a worthless being”.  --Lambiam 03:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion was discussed before: Talk:human_being. Equinox ◑ 11:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Since that discussion we are more likely to also consider the lemmings, eg “human being”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No way should this be deleted as SoP, IMO. Mihia (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with it on the grounds that "person", as person says, is not synonymous with "human being" in any scenario where there's other sapient creatures running around.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with some of the opinions above that the present definition places too much emphasis on technical and taxonomic details. Mihia (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

白吉饃 is defined as a synonym of 肉夾饃 (ròujiāmó, Chinese hamburger). A native Chinese speaker tells me the first refers to the bun and the second to the sandwich as a whole. Can somebody confirm and correct? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

That is right. I have made the necessary changes. Thank you for finding this. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The OED claims this is chiefly North American. Do we agree? I know at least in my home country Australia it is commonly used. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• It is certainly almost never used in the UK (where the word realtor in unknown). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• I haven't thought about it before in a UK context, we do use the term estate agent. DonnanZ (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• In the UK the term property is used (as a mass noun) for real estate. “So what do you do for a living? Oh, I buy and sell property, that’s what I do.” It is a countable noun when referring to a specific piece of real estate. I don’t know about the usage in other English-speaking countries.  --Lambiam 15:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Not usual in UK. Equinox ◑ 21:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In Australia it would be an uncountable noun, and also used for real estate agent with no hyphen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

»The tuscany cowboys who tend the region's oxen and horses. ... for most of the year, the butten ride with the herds on the Maremma's grasslands, ... « 
Entry need / wanted? --188.23.69.175 20:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That says butteri. DTLHS (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Right: butten ↔ buttero . Let me please find butten in wiktionary. 188.23.69.175 20:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a certain Germanic plant name of which I have created the German Merk, exposing etymology and cognates. I post here to raise attention in the editors of the other Germanic languages which I hardly read or create in but have cognates; they appear currently to be @So9q for Danish, @Donnanz for Norwegian, @Krun for Old Norse or Icelandic, @Fringilla for Swedish.

I forewarn that the word is often omitted from dictionaries – which is why Wiktionary can stand out by having the word – and is exquisitely annoying to search because of its homonymy to several words very common in the Germanic languages; it also does not have the same semantic range in every language, the taxons have to be checked for each. It might also be a diverting task to English editors because in English it is that third etymology of march, allegedly meaning “smallage” (@Leasnam?).

It may be that a Proto-Germanic word can be created, to get rid of the cognate listing, I don’t know. Fay Freak (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

merke in Norwegian has Old Norse etymology, but it doesn't relate to the plant, one species is called stor vasskjeks. DonnanZ (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s exactly of the same form, merki in Old Norse, like the one which means “mark”, and “märke” in Swedish just like the word for “mark”, and in Danish “mærke”. I saw the Danish and Swedish at least used in several botanical treatises, where I have been told that the Norwegian is written merke. Admittedly (because of homography making search hard) I wasn’t even sure of having found uses in Norwegian, however various sources list a Norwegian term, which should be merke. I was taking care that it follows modern spelling rules – other spellings have been used in the 19th century and hence reference works in English still mention Norwegian, Danish and Swedish terms as if the spelling has never been standardized; it might however have died out in Norwegian, excluded from the language during its detachment from Danish, while not in Danish and Swedish. One must see, as a speaker of the languages, what one can search: words related to botany, and various genus names. Fay Freak (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For example this is such a hit from 1960, apparently a Norwegian botanist, listing Norwegian merke. Fay Freak (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I can find references to skarntyde and giftkjeks Conium maculatum poison hemlock , , , . DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sium latifolium at Germplasm Resources Information Network (great water parsnip) has vattenmärke (Swedish). DCDuring (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

has Bredbladet Mærke (Danish). (EOL may not be accessible via Chrome and, especially Firefox because of certificate problems.) DCDuring (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Since some species of Sium are native to and common in northern Europe, the terms may well turn out to have very old associations with the plant. DCDuring (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, S. latifolium is thought to have been introduced (not native) into Norway. DCDuring (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't see anything relating to a plant for mærke in DDO, bredbladet means broad-leafed or broad-leaved. DonnanZ (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Funny. I mentioned in the beginning that the word is often omitted in dictionaries; and special meanings for plants are often missed. But the Danish is one of the easier-to-find ones: Here with “Sium”; the word might also be used for other genera. Fay Freak (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

While we are at it, while I have searched for a quote, I found in a rhyme with Merk the term Melde. With the help of Pfeifer I could add the etymology, encountering more terms, homonymous in most languages and all lacking in Wiktionary, including an English dialectal one; see the Dictionary of the Scots Language linked at the German for more info. Swedish: One finds more with the plural mållor than with målla. One page. Etc. Fay Freak (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

How print dictionaries treat this pair seems to have changed over the past twenty years. Until well into the 2000s the usual practice seems to have been to include werkeloos as a variant of werkloos, without any distinction in meaning. More recent dictionaries tend to have a semantic distinction similar to ours, but also have werkeloos as an informal variant of werkloos. But this too is not satisfactory, because werkloos can also mean "idle", for instance in werkloos toezien (werkeloos toezien), so werkloos should also be an alternative form of werkeloos. Furthermore a usage note at werkloos currently reads: "The word is sometimes confused with werkeloos, which means "having nothing to do, doing nothing"." This sense at werkeloos has also been labelled nonstandard. I think this is unacceptably prescriptive for what is essentially a variant with an epenthetic schwa, especially because the semantic split between the forms seems to be a rather recent development. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Words like belangeloos and goddeloos show that there is no basis for the belief that the -e- indicates that the first component is a verb stem. In fact, the only words on -eloos that I managed to find in which the first component is unambiguously a verb stem are duldeloos and reddeloos. There is an article in Onze Taal that gives a more detailed view of the situation. We can point out in the usage notes that there has been a recent development in which some speakers started to pair up the different spellings with different senses, and that some even proscribe mixing these up (for example, the book Vraagbaak Nederlands). Here is an example from 1770 in which werkeloos clearly means “lacking employment”, so any suggestion that this is a recent “confusion” (like stated here) is false.  --Lambiam 17:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Our entry backronym gives as an example: “MADD (“Mothers Against Drunk Driving”)”. I find it hard to believe this is not simply a plain acronym.  --Lambiam 16:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any of the first four examples in the backronym example box are right. backronym on Wikipedia.Wikipedia has some examples. We can probably find some in deleted folk etymologies if we could conveniently search deleted content. There might be some on talk pages. DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Lambiam -- It's not a backronym, but the name of the group was contrived to give an acronym whose pronunciation suggests anger... AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the given definition, "anything that wigwags". It seems to be a person in a particular role: one source in Google Books defines it as "a lookout". Equinox ◑ 21:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a legitimate suffix? Most or all of Category:English words suffixed with -logist seems that it should be -ist on an existing -logy. Equinox ◑ 15:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Oxford has it. DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

definition: "(regional) In order that, to enable."

usex: Come here till I speak to you

What definition wording would be substitutable in the usex? DCDuring (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Come here so I can speak to you? Come here so that I may speak to you? DTLHS (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping for something that didn't force the addition of an auxiliary (can, may) and didn't force I to move and/or be replaced by me.

Current definition yields:

Come here in order that I speak to you.

Come here to enable I speak to you.

Presumably your definition would be "so (one) can/may; so that (one) can/might".

I'm not used to seeing dummy words, like one, in definition lines. DCDuring (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I could make the existing definition: "in order that (one) may/can"

The alternative "to enable (one) to" requires a use to replace the I in the usex and replace it with me. It's hard enough to get a user to properly interpret "(one)". DCDuring (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's desirable that the definition be substitutable for the defined term, but not mandatory. I think this is a case where we probably can't achieve it with any sort of natural phrasing, and usexes/citations might do a better job. Equinox ◑ 00:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not but a language learner might be tempted to treat the definitions as substitutible. I'm not even sure I understand the meaning of till in the definition in question, so I would have a hard time coming up with a non-gloss definition, which I think at least would prevent learners from trying a substitution. Maybe we should RfV it to get some evidence of actual usage. DCDuring (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The Beckett usage seems like a subordinating conjunction (as well as the usex), not a preposition. DCDuring (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

In case it helps: this is a meaning I'm very familiar with, and I would interpret it as "so that". It's not something I would use and I suppose I'd see it as Irish. Equinox ◑ 02:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Verbose and not natural, but grammatically substitutable: “so that it is possible that” or, slightly shorter, “to make it possible that”.  --Lambiam 20:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It may be a bit verbose, but much less so than a usage note. DCDuring (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(Notifying Fay Freak, JohnC5, Benwing2, Lambiam): How do we handle things like jūstum est aliquid facere, jūcundum vidētur, nōn quīn Latīnum esset 'pecāttō' dīcere, sed quia...? Do they go under the adjective's lemma with a lablled special sense, as a substantive, or even an adverb? Brutal Russian (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

In jūstum est aliquid facere, jūstum can also be analyzed as the subject complement to the subject aliquid facere. It is a somewhat general feature of Latin that the neuter forms of an adjective can be used as a noun for an abstract concept (most often in the plural, “that which is ...”). I think we should only list these neuter forms (other than as an inflected form of the adjective) if they acquired a somewhat specialized (and attested) meaning, and then we should present this under a noun and/or adverb heading, as applicable. I see that we have bonum as a noun, and vērum both as a noun and as an adverb. We can also look at what other dictionaries do. We do not give a noun sense for honestum, even though both Lewis & Short and Gaffiot list the noun sense “honesty”, so that appears to be an omission.  --Lambiam 05:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The translingual section indicates "8 strokes in traditional Chinese, Japanese and Korean, 7 strokes in mainland China." This character is 7 strokes in Japanese, not 8. See http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=82b1 and https://www.edrdg.org/cgi-bin/wwwjdic/wwwjdic?1D_vk#

If I understand the Han char template correctly, the parameters "|sn=8|snm++=7" should be "|sn=8|snmj+=7". The simplified grass radical 艹 is usually three strokes in Japanese, so there may be other characters with this radical that are similarly impacted. --71.168.173.2 00:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Surely the whole concept of indicating different stroke numbers per language is a bit silly? I can't speak for Japanese and Korean, but throughout Chinese history 草字頭 has been written in 楷書 with both broken and unbroken 橫. While it's probably true that the majority of mainland Chinese write it unbroken, a good proportion still write it broken, so it's not exactly a hard fast rule. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

We are unlikely to find attestations for this word because it is spurious: the OED (1989) says it is an error for goetic, and its only citations are from other dictionaries and glossaries. Webster (1913) listed the word, but it is not in Merriam-Webster. This "word" should be indicated as being erroneous. — Paul G (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Online OED says "Origin: A variant or alteration of another lexical item. Etymons: English geotic , goetic adj.

Etymology: Probably originally a misapprehension of geotic, variant of (or error for) goetic adj. (compare e.g. quot. 1727 at goetic n. 2), but taken by Johnson (in quot. 1755) in the sense ‘of or belonging to the earth’ by association with geo- comb. form, and hence used contextually. Compare the etymological note at geodetic n. and adj." SemperBlotto (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Who goes spouting about our inability to find attestations when it took me less than a minute to find enough on Google Books? Anyway, I modified the definition and expanded the etymology per the OED. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

In spite of being nowhere mentioned, it seems to be a word, from the 18th to 21th century, reminiscent of a separate borrowing from French saturer. Or all erroneous? Fay Freak (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It is used as an infinitive here. I think of this as a back formation rather than a borrowing from French.  --Lambiam 11:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As the author of the book is French, it is on the contrary actually very likely on loan from saturer. The authors of the publications of the Google search for satured above also appear not to be native English speakers.  --Lambiam 16:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(Notifying Fay Freak, JohnC5, Benwing2, Lambiam): This is attempting to be the lemma form of the impersonal est ubi which doesn't occur in any other form by substituting est for its lemma form that it never occurs with in practice, with the resulting meaning having nothing to do with the original ("I'm at a place where"). In addition, the provided meaning is patently incorrect, being but a contextual rendering that in English happens to allow the same interpretation. The Latin phrase is a special case of the normal combination of est and a relative pronoun - equivalent to English "there are some", "there is a time when" which are unlikely to be seen as meriting a lemma of their own by any native English speaker who understands its syntax. Therefore I ascribe the Latin one's being listed as such to someone not understanding how the English translation mathes to the Latin words and concluding that it's some sort of a special and opaque idiom. I don't really know what to do with it, but I don't think it can be left in the current state. Brutal Russian (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brutal Russian If it can be conjugated through the full range of tenses, the answer is to (a) move it to est ubi, and (b) modify the conjugation and headword tables to have the .impers modifier, like this:

{{la-verb|irreg.impers|sum|suffix=ubi}}

This produces:

est ubi (present infinitive esse ubi, perfect active fuit ubi, future active participle futūrus ubi); irregular conjugation, suppletive, impersonal, no passive, no supine stem except in the future active participle, no gerund

I'll fix the duplication of the word irregular. I don't know if a future participle exists; if not we can make it go away through overrides.

Benwing2 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think no impersonal verb has a future participle.  --Lambiam 20:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

But any verb can have the Future Infinitive like Pliny's cum puderet vivos, tamquam puditurum esset extinctos - which, by the way, regularly has no copula in the Present and is a verbal form all of its own in the more conservative language, with there having been no Future Active Participle at all originally. It is the same problem as with listing the Passive Participle in the Masculine, which leads to problems, e.g. the same pudeō having the PPP puditus all of a sudden, all but one forms of which are completely fictiotious. Why would we not instead list participles in the Neuter, the canonical participle form that every verb necessarily has? The existing fictitious lemmas could then be renamed and the forms deleted. Brutal Russian (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Lambiam): Do gerundives in general exist for Latin deponent verbs? We list them, e.g. for ēnītor we list ēnītendus, but if they exist, what sort of meaning do they have? On the analogy of perfect participles, it should be active, but we already have a future active participle. Is it like an active participle of necessity (who/which must strive, who/which must struggle, who/which must give birth, etc.)? What does ēnītendus sum mean? Benwing2 (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ēnītendus sum means “I should be brought forth”, that is, like the gerundives of all verbs it has a passive meaning (which can only be applied to verbs with a transitive sense, deponent or not). Not to be confused with ēnitendus with a short i, from ēniteō.  --Lambiam 19:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Even intransitive verbs would have to have the Gerundive, albeit only in the N.Sg., if we continue to go with the current layout where there's no Nom. Gerund, but there are expressions like mihi abeundum est. It's a good occasion to repeat my suggestion here, that is to make separate Gerund and Gerundive cells and strike out the Future Passive Participle, maybe making a note saying "The Gerundive is used in this function in Late and Medieval Latin". Pinkster 2015 p.301 treats the issue of whether Nom. (as above) and non-prepositional Acc. (of the type Caesar maturandum sibi existimavit) Gerunds exist and seems to remain ambivalent on the former, while opining against the latter and regarding it as an Impers. Gerundive. For our table-making purposes, however, I think adopting the full number of cases for both parts of speech is preferrable, thus treating the Gerund as a full-fledged verbal noun like those in -iō (Quid tibi tactio hunc fuit? "What did you touch him for?’"), even if one ultimatly developed verbally and the other way more nominally, so to say. With this approach we won't have to list Gerundives for intransitive verbs. The Nom. Gerund cell still probably needs to have some reference to the Infinitive, that being the default verbal noun in most constructions. Brutal Russian (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

When I edited^H^H created "wikt:Talk:brutish", I was shown some 'advice' that said (something like):

I concluded that this might be a good place to draw attention to the questions / comments recently added there.

"Note" that:

A new section -- called "How many syllables are there in the word brutish?" -- has recently been added to "Talk:brutish".

and ... you might want to read that ... and/or respond. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced the diphthong /ʊu/ in the pronunciation – which counted for two syllables – by /uː/.  --Lambiam 19:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I was looking to see how Wiktionary would define way to today, and I saw it listed only as a misspelling of way too. Usually, when I read/hear it, it's placed at the beginning of a statement expressing disapproval of something someone's done, as in "Way to ruin my birthday. Brian!"

What part of speech would you consider the more common, non-error use of "way to" to be? Khemehekis (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

way (US, As the head of an interjectory clause) Acknowledges that a task has been done well (, chiefly in expressions of sarcastic congratulation???).

to introduces an infinitive.

IOW, I don't think it merits an entry, as users are expected to be able to look up the meanings of words used in SoP terms, combine the meanings, and select from the possibly numerous combinations of meanings. DCDuring (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I checked out the entry at way (def. number 8). Is this ever used without to after it? If not, it's not something SoP, it's something that should be at way to instead of at way. Khemehekis (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It's followed by an infinitive, which happens to always start with "to". That's also true of all kinds of verbs such as want, need, plan, intend, opt, like, love, hate, try, fail, presume, etc. It wouldn't be good practice to make an entry with "to" for every phrase that always takes an infinitive. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we mention at the entry that it is always followed by an infinitive clause?  --Lambiam 11:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And we should revise all the wording, starting with "As the head of an interjectory clause". A normal user might remember what a clause it, but I doubt that head and interjectory are understood with confidence. Who are we writing definitions for? People who don't need them? Or just university-educated learners of English as a second (or nth) language? The qualifying phrase "chiefly in expressions of sarcastic congratulation" suggests that the contributor of the definition lives in a world where sarcasm doesn't lead to unpleasantness and sincere congratulations are rare. DCDuring (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

How about: "(US, followed by to-infinitive) Used to express congratulations." ?

The possibility of sarcasm is possible in many utterances. We could add ", sometimes sarcastically" if we have a consensus that sarcastic use is sufficiently common. DCDuring (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Any words that do that that aren't verbs? Classifying way in this sense as an interjection (and then saying it's dollowed by an infinitive) seems dodgy to me. Khemehekis (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hard to say. It's an ellipsis of "That is the way to...", so it's really a sentence that's complete except for the partial infinitive construction used to fill in the blank. I would analyze your example as "^1a(^2a(That)^2a+^2b(is)^2b+^2c(the ³(way+⁴(to ruin my birthday)⁴)³)^2c)^1a + ^1b(Brian)^1b". It looks more like a snowclone than a part of speech. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I would have guessed it to be an ellipsis of "What a way to...", as in "What a way to ruin my birthday, Brian!" Leasnam (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't work as well when it's straight rather than sarcastic: "You did it. Way to go!" Chuck Entz (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The English entry for this word has the following definition:

3. Ability to employ the English language correctly or idiomatically.
 My coworkers have pretty good English for non-native speakers.

Should we really have this definition? I don’t really feel this is a separate sense, but rather a use of the sense “the English language”. There is an idiom to have , but this can be any language, and the idiom isn’t specific to the word English. Rather, “to have the ability to speak and/or understand (a language)” should be listed among the senses of have. – Krun (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that there is already a related entry at have:

16. (dated outside Ireland) To be able to speak a language.

I have no German.

So, while "my co-workers have English" is dated (apart from Ireland, if that label is correct), "my co-workers have pretty good English" is not. I'm not sure how this should be best represented. Mihia (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In general, any language name can be used in the sense of the ability to speak that language, in and outside Ireland: “Your Japanese is pretty good for an American.” So I think this does not deserve a separate sense at language-name entries. I don’t know anything about the spatial or temporal distribution of have being used in the sense seen in “to have (pretty good) ”.  --Lambiam 10:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I agree that any language name can be used, and that the questioned definition at English is unnecessary, but I was going off at a slight tangent to wonder about the definition at have. At least in the UK, "He has English", for instance, is dated, and I think risks not even be understood by younger speakers, whereas "He has very good English" seems much less so, so I was wondering if and how the definition at have should be amended to reflect this. Mihia (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO the sense is a misunderstanding, and "English" refers to the language produced, and not to the abstract ability. "They have good English" = "their English is good" = "the English (they speak) is good English". Equinox ◑ 12:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that all our English definitions of languages fall short of covering actual usage. (Other dictionaries have the same problem.):

1. Don't we need a definition of English, or at least appropriate labeling and revised wording, for uncountable usages like "They don't speak much English there." "They have learned little English."?
2. For mathematics we have as sense 2 (of 2) "A person's ability to count, calculate, and use different systems of mathematics at differing levels." This seems comparable to "Command of English" in usage like "His English has improved." The other definitions of English as noun, common or proper, don't clearly cover this.

If we lay this deficiency off to the ability of language users to recognize metonomy in context, then we could eliminate many definitions in many entries, eg, our second definition of mathematics. DCDuring (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I for one think we do not need that second definition, like we also do not need an additional definition for the noun singing such as “a person's ability to use the voice to produce musical sounds at differing levels”, although one can say, “her singing greatly improved after she took singing lessons”. Same for painting, sleight of hand, summersault, and so on. In all languages that I know, the same term is used for the name of a language and as a collective noun for referring to utterances in that language. It would be interesting if this is a semantic universal. I am rather confident that the metonomy of saying “ has improved” meaning “the quality of has improved” is indeed a universal.  --Lambiam 14:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone has noticed this and if I'm the only one who's bothered by it, but Special:Contributions/75.134.138.206 has added colour definitions to random nouns. I'm not necessarily saying that these kinds of definitions should be excluded, but honestly, can't you use most nouns when trying to convey a colour? The list is starting to get pretty long – just look at their edits. I can almost picture shit brown ("A dark brownish colour, like that of shit, also called shit brown"), piss yellow ("A light yellowish colour, like that of piss, also called piss yellow") and mucus green ("A slimy greenish colour, like that of mucus, also called mucus green") making an entrance any day now. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of these verge on the absurd, like manatee! That might be a quirky name for a paint but I can't imagine serious everyday usage. Equinox ◑ 12:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I remember hearing of a colour called "Karitane kack", referring to the stuff babies leave in their nappies, probably best described as a mustard colour. Karitane is a place in NZ, and Karitane hospitals used to care for sick babies and their mothers. But there is no such word as kack. DonnanZ (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No wonder I can't find it, it's spelt cack. DonnanZ (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A Canadian ex once referring to a pair of my trousers as "cacky pants" (she meant khaki) made me laugh. Equinox ◑ 14:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Blame interior decorators, the paint industry, Crayola, etc. They use names of things for colors all the time. I don't see how we can tell from usage in ordinary running text what specific color is being referred to. We would probably have to accept one or, preferably, more authorities to support a specific color. Color patches on a computer screen are not reliable, so ostensive definitions would not be definitve. MWOnline has simple definitions of colors, that are merely suggestive, eg avocado "a light yellowish green". DCDuring (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Why not just RfV these? At the very least the color patches won't be supportable. I doubt that most of the purported color names have any supportable definition to be found in the sources we use for attestation. We could start by challenging wine-dark. DCDuring (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Specificity is not an RFVable criteria. They are used, therefore they will pass. DTLHS (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

But in reference to what color? It's one thing to attest to the use of a spelling, it's quite another to attest to each of multiple meanings, especially detailed or specific ones. If our RfV process means anything at all with respect to definitions, we need some identifiable semantic content to the attestation. If the usage is vague, then our definition needs to be similarly vague. DCDuring (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You found another limit of “verification by use”. Remember, RfV is for the existence of terms; some details must come from elsewhere, often naturally occur only in mentions. If you have a measure in the pre-metrical era, you won’t find a use telling you how many meters or grams it is, one gets it from lists, and there are special studies on such, say “Islamic measures and coins of the Middle Ages”; sometimes one also finds a vessel and metes it in actual reality to find out the meaning of the term for a unit of measure. This goes for words used in the 21st century too. We should count ourselves lucky that an artsy man imparts us detailled understanding of colours, this gives Wiktionary a great advantage in comparison to other dictionaries. Fay Freak (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

RfV is for disputing the existence of terms or senses.  --Lambiam 22:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

But here sense is a breviloquence of “term in a certain sense”; or the existence is stressed, not the content of the sense. By encoding senses in signs not always the whole sense is conveyed and everyday signs are open-ended. Sorites paradox, semantic holism. Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As a colour name, “manatee” is apparently not necessarily the dark grayish-blue colour promised in the definition – this scarf is more of an olive-greenish grey. That makes inclusion pointless.  --Lambiam 12:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

According to this logic inclusion of “God” is pointless because there is no fixed common meaning (which is by the way the conclusive reason why it is correct that there is no God, but most do not know that). Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The anon who keeps adding these senses also changes their mind constantly when it comes to what nuance they're describing (see this). These contributions have to be some kind of vandalism – I reverted some of their more dubious contributions, but I'm not sure if I'm supposed to add the rest to RFV. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This leads me to the view that rather a range should be specified, which is possible nowadays with CSS (to have transitions of colors). Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We define you never know what you've got till it's gone as "Good friends, family and acquaintances shouldn't be taken for granted". But why only people? Couldn't it also apply to wealth, health, etc.? Compare the broader definition at you never miss the water till the well runs dry (which I just created; that's how I noticed this). Equinox ◑ 13:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore putting "shouldn't" in the definition suggests that it is an admonition, but it could just be an observation. Equinox ◑ 13:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Right. You could pave Paradise and put up a parking lot and it's Paradise you'd have taken for granted. DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Changed. Equinox ◑ 12:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this really the most common wording of this proverb? DCDuring (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In decreasing order of popularity (according to the reported number of ghits):

• 71,100: You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone"
• 70,200: You don’t know what you have until it’s gone"
• 60,200: You never know what you have until it’s gone"
• 45,600: You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone"
• 31,100: You never know what you’ve got till it’s gone"
• 24,600: You don’t know what you have till it’s gone"
• 22,500: You never know what you’ve got until it’s gone"
• 12,800: You never know what you have till it’s gone"
• 11,600: You don’t appreciate what you have until it’s gone"
• 4,650: You never appreciate what you have till it’s gone"
• 1,500: You don’t know what you have got until it’s gone"
• 827: You don’t appreciate what you’ve got until it’s gone"
• 98: You never appreciate what you have until it’s gone"
• 92: Some people don’t know what they have until it’s gone"
• 74: You don’t know what you have got till it’s gone"
• 70: You don’t appreciate what you have till it’s gone"
• 49: You don’t appreciate what you’ve got till it’s gone"
• 49: You never appreciate what you’ve got until it’s gone"
• 29: Some people don’t appreciate what they have until it’s gone"
• 28: You don’t know what you’ve till it’s gone"
• 26: You don’t know what you’ve until it’s gone"
• 22: You never know what you have got until it’s gone"
• 20: Some people don’t know what they’ve got until it’s gone"
• 16: You never appreciate what you’ve got till it’s gone"
• 16: Some people don’t know what they have till it’s gone"
• 14: You never know what you have got till it’s gone"
• 9: Some people never appreciate what they have until it’s gone"
• 9: Some people never know what they have until it’s gone"
• 8: You never know what you’ve till it’s gone"
• 6: Some people don’t know what they’ve got till it’s gone"
• 6: You never know what you’ve until it’s gone"
• 4: Some people don’t know what they’ve until it’s gone"
• 3: Some people don’t appreciate what they’ve got until it’s gone"
• 3: You don’t appreciate what you have got until it’s gone"
• 2: Some people don’t know what they have got until it’s gone"
• 2: You never appreciate what you’ve until it’s gone"
• 1: Some people don’t appreciate what they have till it’s gone"
• 1: Some people never know what they’ve got until it’s gone"
• 1: You don’t appreciate what you have got till it’s gone"
• 1: You never appreciate what you have got until it’s gone"

 --Lambiam 22:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Joni Mitchell wins! Joni Mitchell wins! DCDuring (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to give the following quotation, but I can scarcely understand whether the specific words are actually kith and kin or kith and kine:

1. • late 14^th C., John Gower, Confessio Amantis, Book V:

     First she made hym the flees to wynne:

     And after that from kith and kynne,

     With great treasore with hym she stale:

So what does everybody think hereof? Thanks! —Lbdñk (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This concordance to Piers Plowman gives kynne as an alternative spelling of Middle English kyn meaning “kin”. No cows were harmed in this investigation.  --Lambiam 22:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lambian, don't you mean "kine" ;) Leasnam (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As this is pretty SoP, I find the label "nonstandard" a bit odd. One can say "frightened of water", "fear of water", (potentially) "water-fearing" etc., but "waterfright" is somehow nonstandard?

I find myself scratching my head here. Tharthan (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Suffering from headitch? Google Books Ngram Viewer.  --Lambiam 22:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

1. The two words run together are not natural; neither would "spiderfright" be standard. 2. Usually a "fright" is one individual scare; a general lifetime feeling is a "fear" or "phobia". Equinox ◑ 01:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox: Then... explain stagefright, nightfright, and snake-fright (which I imagine could be theoretically written "snakefright"). Tharthan (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

stagefright, as well as stage-fright, are both used much less commonly than stage fright ]. Whether that makes them "non-standard" or not, I cannot say Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Stage fright" certainly supports your point. But otherwise a "fright" is just a single instance, not a long-term phobia. I don't think "nightfright" or "snakefright" are words that normal human beings would use; they are probably restricted to weird Anglo-Saxonists. Equinox ◑ 02:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you when it comes to "snakefright". I can see nightfright, though, if only because of the rhyme. We might want to look more into that one. I'll open an RfV for it.

Regarding your comment about Anglish stuff, I would note that there have been many supporters of some form of a more (for lack of a better term, and by analogy with the common phrasing used to describe this concept in other Germanic languages) "High English" option for speakers to use who wish to use it. And even in much more recent times, Orwell wasn't exactly opposed to it, now was he? You can hardly call him some odd nobody.

But, anyway, do you think that we might want to consider having an " (Anglish) " descriptor tag or something of that sort to indicate terms that are purely Anglish in usage? That would alleviate any concern that unwitting users might think that they are somehow usual, everyday terms. We wouldn't need to remove the "(nonstandard)" tag from such words, if previously present, of course. Tharthan (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say a resounding no. What constitutes "anglish" ? bookshelf, is that Anglish ? earbud, is that Anglish ? how about skyscraper ? waterfright and nightfright are legitimate English words, produced organically through the natural speech of human beings who are not Anglo-Saxonists. Let me tell you, just because some might assume a word is "anglish" and cry Anglish when they see it does not make it so. Don't let that get to you. An Anglish term is one that only Anglish speakers would use, and is a conscious attempt to replace or oust a non-English word (think "uncleftish"...<=see? red link). We generally do not harbour anglish terms here. On the other hand, compounding is an inherent word-generating energy in the English language, always has been; always will be. Compounding does not in any way signify "Anglish", nor should it in our minds (we've either been taught wrong, or we've been drinking bad Koolaid...). The trend in English today is for short, straight-forward, no-nonsense language. That includes words like nightfright and nightfear, etc. Not everyone wants to say "nyctophobia" all the time (ugh- yeah we know what it means, but God can we get another way to express it !); no one is trying to replace nyctophobia with nightfright, etc., and I rather like "nightfright" as a synonym. Haven't used it myself yet, but I'll consider it. So, no, we don't need an Anglish label because we already have non-standard, which works just fine. Leasnam (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Plus, think of the slew of Anglish terms that would be flooding in were we to create a label--it'd be like ringing the dinner bell for all Anglishers to "Come and get it !". Just prob not a good idea ;) Leasnam (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We are certainly pretty much kindred souls when it comes to this subject, as you know. My suggestion was merely for terms that fit the description of Anglish that you said: terms that are only used by those who are active "Anglishers". But if you think that "(non-standard)" is sufficient, then that's fine with me as well. I would say, however: what real harm would there be if terms that meet our attestation requirements (but the durably-archived sources are by Anglish-enthusiasts) were added to Wiktionary? Sounds harmless to me. But the concern that we would need to mass-delete unfit entries is a fair enough point, I suppose. Tharthan (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe have a peek at waterstuff etymology 2 as an example. It simply has nonstandard as a label. If it said Anglish what would that do ? I think it would be a little too gratuitous if you ask me. Leasnam (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following suggest that already in the 19th century waterfright was considered an originally Anglo-Saxon word that had been lost from the English lexicon: , , .  --Lambiam 21:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether it has become very rare or not is a different question from whether it is nonstandard or not. Again, if stagefright/stage-fright/stage fright, nightfright, and snake-fright are not nonstandard, then how on Earth could "waterfright" be? Is it not more likely to be rare, very rare, or poetic?

Perhaps this ought to be challenged through an RfV. We don't have three citations for it right now. Tharthan (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've just added four five, all 20-21 c. Leasnam (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Leasnam. I would question the William Ellery Leonard quotation, though. It seems as if it may be describing a personal "scare" (as in "Tylenol scare" scare), rather than an enduring phobia. Tharthan (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Right. We may want to consider moving the 1927 and 2018 cites to a separate sense line. Leasnam (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

We should call this a 19th century coinage (or revival- is there anything in Middle English?) DTLHS (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tharthan, if I'm not mistaken (please Equinox correct me if I am), but I believe the non-standard labelling refers to the "running together" of the two words as one, e.g.waterfright vs. water fright; not actually the term itself. Am I correct in thinking that ? Leasnam (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As a phrase, "water fright" hardly exists either. Mihia (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's commonly used with space or without. Equinox ◑ 11:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, in light of Leasnam's discoveries regarding fairly normal attestations of "snake-fright" and "nightfright" (look at those attestations for sense 1!), have you (@Equinox) changed your mind about "-fright" having a sense that goes beyond a "single scare". Tharthan (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox Well? Tharthan (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"-fright" does not have a sense because it's not a suffix. I saw that disingenuous hyphen! There is no amount of book mining that will convince me that any modern-day English speaker would say "I have waterfright!". Equinox ◑ 20:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears this character is likely a variant form of 轉, more sources needed. Dingo1234555 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The page nõukogude (Estonian for 'Soviet') is asking for a user to provide its genitive and partitive for the adjective. I only know a little Estonian, but to my understanding the word is always in this form, as its syntactically a genitive plural of a noun. To support my claim, here are a couple of examples of the word appearing unchanged even though if it were declinable, you'd expect it to have a case ending: https://et.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/N%C3%B5ukogude_Liit contains:

• "aastal Bessaraabia piirkonda Rumeenialt Nõukogude Liidule" (not e.g. "Nõukogudele Liidule")

https://www.sirp.ee/s1-artiklid/c21-teadus/noukogude-ebavordsusest/ contains:

• "Nõukogude ajast" instead of "Nõukogudest ajast" (from Soviet time)
• "Nõukogude süsteemis" instead of "Nõukogudes süsteemis" (in Soviet system)

and others.

My suggestion basically would be to remove the adjective section entirely and add some kind of a note to the noun section that this form is used as a "Soviet" modifier. I don't consider my Estonian to be good enough that I'd be willing to make this change myself though, but I still wanted to inform you of my thoughts on the matter. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Andres, Strombones.  --Lambiam 12:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it. See also eesti and rootsi for the same phenomenon.Strombones (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

All of them are usually treated as adjectives without inflection by the grammarians. nõukogude and Nõukogude have different meanings. nõukogude is not 'pertaining to the Soviet Union' as the article states but 'pertaining to the political system or the way of life characteristic to the Soviet state and society', Nõukogude is 'pertaining to the Soviet Union or the Soviet Russia (before December 1922)'. eesti and Eesti (genitive), rootsi and Rootsi also have different meanings, though sometimes both are possible. Of course, those adjectives descend from noun inflections. Andres (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the "translation" should be a separate Portuguese entry. DonnanZ (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The usual pretext for such a separate entry is that it is needed to house the Portuguese pronunciation. DCDuring (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"Taking photographs from the air" doesn't match up to virtual private network though. DonnanZ (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The last edit of the editor before adding this Portuguese translation was adding Portuguese to the translations at aerial photography, so this is a typical copy-and-paste error.  --Lambiam 21:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how VPN can be an abbreviation of aerofotografia or "taking photographs from the air". Can we just delete the translations section? DonnanZ (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The abbreviation is used in Portuguese, though, borrowed from English (, , ).  --Lambiam 17:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thanks for sorting that out. DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

We have "colony" listed here for rabbits, rats, seals, and several other animals. Should it be there? A colony is not a generic collection, but a group living together in a social way. Equinox ◑ 13:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps illustrating your point, there is leper colony, nudist colony, penal colony; bird colony is a red link. DonnanZ (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that whole list needs review and possible pruning. Mihia (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this one because colony had the same misleading noun sense (I've removed it), but the appendix really is garbage. "Anthology of poems", "anthology of prose": these are not collective nouns for any number of poems/prose found together, but are rather specific "containers" that poems/prose might be arranged in. Maybe I am growing "a trellis of raspberries" but that certainly doesn't make t~ a collective noun for r~. Equinox ◑ 14:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

How about "a pondful of algae"? DonnanZ (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

How about "a pile of crap (e.g. this list)"? Mihia (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the worst that could happen to me if I unilaterally deleted it? Vote on my talk page. Just kidding, NEVER write on my fucking talk page. Equinox ◑ 20:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

If you did that you could be turned into a "knot of toads", or even an "intrusion of cockroaches". Mihia (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Right, it is full of garbage. Mostly they are made-up terms not used in real life or daft entries such as "pile of books" or "set of golf clubs". Mihia (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, "a holiness of donuts"? I know ring and jam doughnuts (where the jam is inserted) have holes in them, but... It seems to be a favourite place for IPs to add things, and a target for vandalism (i.e. rubbish). DonnanZ (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to exclude IPs from editing it. DonnanZ (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We should apply the same CFI as for regular entries. Here is one for parliament of rooks, for which more attestations are not hard to find. But we should exclude things like bouquet of flowers, in which the head noun already means “collection of ”, or bunch of grapes, in which the head noun can be used for countless things that come in bunches. There is also Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by subject. Half the items or more are puerile jokes (“moxie of doxies”, “lechery of priests”, “buttload of proctologists”). What is a practical approach to cleaning up this mess of mishaps (other than discarding all and starting over)?  --Lambiam 17:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Discarding all and starting over again is very tempting, it certainly needs a heavy cull. Attesting them all is a daunting task though, any volunteers? DonnanZ (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

At least one book has "a holiness of donuts", but I'm still tempted to delete it. DonnanZ (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Verb senses:

5. (auxiliary verb, taking a past participle) Used in forming the perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect.

I have already eaten today.

I had already eaten.

...

14. Used as interrogative auxiliary verb with a following pronoun to form tag questions. (For further discussion, see "Usage notes" below.)

We haven't eaten dinner yet, have we?

Your wife hasn't been reading that nonsense, has she?

Are these actually separate senses? Mihia (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone might not know about tag questions and the ellipsis involved, so perhaps the semantics aren't obvious. You would think that, if we have such definitions at all, we should have a similar definition for all the modals, auxiliaries etc that can form tag questions, wouldn't you? DCDuring (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, well what I have done for now is just move the two definitions together, and try to make some connection in the definitions. The situation is also slightly complicated by the fact that tag "have" is also (much less commonly) a main verb, as illustrated by the third usage example, so I have tried to reflect that too in the definition. Mihia (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Grouping the more grammatical functions seems essential. DCDuring (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't have any mention of tag questions at the entry for do, do we?

We should have comparable treatment at should, shouldn't we?

I could continue, but the point is that the content on tag questions in general in the usage note belongs in an appendix with at most a short note (or just a usage label) referencing that appendix in all of the lemmas (forms?) that are used in tag questions. DCDuring (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. Mihia (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Verb senses:

2. (transitive) To be related in some way to (with the object identifying the relationship).

I have two sisters.

I have a lot of work to do.

...

4. (transitive) To be scheduled to attend or participate in.

What class do you have right now? I have English.

Fred won't be able to come to the party; he has a meeting that day.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that definition 2 seems unsatisfactorily vague, is there actually any important difference between the meanings of "have" in "I have a lot of work to do" and "he has a meeting that day"? Mihia (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Def. 4 seems like a subsense of def. 2, as do a few of the others.

• More power to you for taking on such a word. I hope you have convenient access to the OED. DCDuring (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have hijacked original sense 2 so as to reflect the first usage example only, and moved the second usage example. If anyone has any clearer idea of what sense 2 was supposed to be referring to, please be my guest in making the necessary further changes. Mihia (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

My conjecture is that it was supposed to capture usage not captured in the definitions not of the possession sense (narrowly construed), nor of the auxiliary senses, but following the pattern of the last (legal) definition, def. 4, and some others. It is a characteristic of "light" verb senses (eg, of verbs like do, make, take, get) that they convey little meaning in themselves, but make predicates that derive most of their semantic content from an object or perhaps other complement. DCDuring (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have dredged back through the long history of this, and the first appearance of this definition was as:

(transitive) To be related in some way to (with the object identifying the relationship).

I have two sisters.

The dog down the street has a lax owner.

Looking at the original examples, my feeling now is that it was probably a miswritten attempt at the present sense 2 that later had the second example changed to an irrelevant one (I have a lot of work to do), possibly due to a misunderstanding, or just random attrition. Mihia (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Have/take a look at Appendix:Collocations of do, have, make, and take. Also w:Light verb. I'll take a look at how other dictionaries "define" light verbs. DCDuring (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Collins COBUILD clearly has the light verb concept in mind in these definitions, but most dictionaries have more traditional definitions. DCDuring (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"The quality of state of being". This definition sounds rather abstruse. 31.173.85.103 17:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We define beingness as “the state or quality of being being”, so I expect state of beingness to mean “state of the state or quality of being being”. At least, that is what the expectational expecting of my expectancy is expectingly expecting.  --Lambiam 21:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I would more cynically posit that somebody went through a big list of Xness words and defined them all as "quality of X". This definition doesn't make sense to me. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the definition either. Mihia (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminds me of trying to read Heidegger: »In the being of this being it is related to its being. As the being of this being, it is entrusted to its own being. It is being about which this being is concerned…« — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be used in New Age contexts FWIW. DTLHS (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox, DTLHS: That explains why it doesn't make any sense. Tharthan (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

New-Agey people seem obsessed with existing "in the moment" or "in the now" or being "centred", "present", etc. So it quite possibly just means state of being in their jargon, with -ness added to make it sound special. RFV it maybe. Equinox ◑ 11:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

O, the unbearable lightness of beingness!  --Lambiam 00:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Chaucer: "Com neer, my spouse, lat me ba thy cheke!" Should we move this to Middle English? Equinox ◑ 14:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, until such time that any modern citations can be found. Leasnam (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved. Leasnam (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Should there be a page be above in the sense of being the bigger man? Or should that be be above something? Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think so. This sense should be at above, if not already. There is already an entry that may fit the bill, even if these definitions do not all seem totally watertight:

10. Too proud to stoop to; averse to; disinclined; too honorable to give.

Mihia (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mihia But isn't that sense of above always connected to a form of be? Can it exist without that? Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought myself above that sort of thing. He felt above such quotidian matters. Etc. DCDuring (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. All those examples have a form of be that is omitted and the sentences would flow a bit better if it wasn't omitted, but indeed, it's possible. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Alternative sentences with forms of be that convey the same idea seem long-winded or worse to me. I think that it might be that many copulative verbs or copulative senses of verbs can occupy the be slot. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. An example where, unless I am overlooking something, it seems hard to find any paraphrase at all with "be" might be e.g. "He remained above that sort of thing". Mihia (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is more than copulas, unless one has a very broad definition of copulas. Other verbs that accept adjective complements can accept above in the sense under discussiion. Act is one. DCDuring (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The etymology of this character contains a reference to "(Schuessler 2007, apud Pulleyblank 1989)". The page for apud defines it like so:

1. Used in scholarly works to cite a reference at second hand

   Jones apud Smith means that the original source is Jones, but that the author is relying on Smith for that reference.

Substituting the aforementioned reference into the "formula" given produces, "Schuessler 2007 apud Pulleyblank 1989 means that the original source is Schuessler 2007, but that the author is relying on Pulleyblank 1989 for that reference." Which seems to suggest the patent absurdity that Pulleyblank in 1989 referenced a paper written 18 years in the future. Is the etymology reference reversed, is the definition for apud reversed, or am I completely misunderstanding something? 71.168.173.2 00:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it has necessarily such a specific meaning as in our definition. A better definition may be “(at least,) according to”, indicating a source for a statement just made. It is a form of hedging. Used in ways like (Petrus 56, apud Paulus 56), involving two authors next to the present author, I think it means that, at least according to Paulus, the statement is found in the writings of Petrus, something the present author was unable to verify themselves. The diction is used so seldomly between two authors that I could not verify that the actual use mirrors this. Used the other way around (as in the questioned etymology reference) it seems a contorted way of expressing the intention.  --Lambiam 12:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

2. (dated) a vehicle used to convey or transport those who are sick or injured

3. (rare, nonstandard) ambulance

Erm... isn't an ambulance a vehicle used to transport those who are sick or injured? So couldn't one use sense 2 to communicate sense 3? Tharthan (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I remember making this entry. If memory serves, sick-wagon was used before modern ambulances, and could be anything from a stretcher to a goat-cart. So it was not an ambulance in the way we think of it today. But it can also be used as a modern ambulance. So the answer is no. Leasnam (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know what meaning applies in to no end "without success, or without achieving useful results".

Secondly, at end of appears in "'ge' sound at end of 'mortgage'" or "'it ' at end of sentence"

What about no end to, here --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"to no end" is definition #5 and/or #6 at end: "Result", "A purpose, goal, or aim". My feeling initially was that "to no end" was sufficiently idiomatic to merit its own entry, and we do have e.g. to no avail, but I wonder now whether there may be too many variants: "to not much end", "to little purpose", etc.

"at end of" in your examples is a minor variant or shortening of "at the end of", with "end" having a normal or obvious meaning.

"no end to" is given as an example for definition #2 at end. Mihia (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The Dutch pronunciation for Theo, /ˈteːjo/, ends with a red o. Possibly this is because an unadorned o is not supposed to exist in Dutch. The IPA key has no o, only variants of o with part cut out or dots or a slash added. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum Yes, what is often written as /o/ in older Dutch IPA transcriptions on this site should usually be /oː/ (of which can be an unstressed allophone). It could also be used for another vowel, but I strongly doubt anybody has transcribed that here. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

what's the pronunciation of the'e? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

/ˈðeɪ.ə/, I believe. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That wouldn't be "Eye dialect spelling of there" --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps /ðɛə/, of which it would be ire dialect spelling.  --Lambiam 11:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam: "ire"? --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

/ˈaɪə ˌdaɪəˌlɛkt/.  --Lambiam 22:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam: what meaning of ire are you referring to? --Backinstadiums (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It was a little joke, since the spelling “eye dialect” could have been eye dialect spelling for “ire dialect” in non-rhotic English dialects such as whe’e “the’e” represents “there”. Conversely, Apalachian with its epenthetic /ɹ/s could be called a “dire lect”.  --Lambiam 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Mihia (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The etymology section of gambit states that it derives ‘..., from Latin gamba (“calf”)’. (The sense development is left unexplained.) I assume that “calf” is meant to be the anatomical calf (back of the lower leg), not a young cow. Italian gamba has the term derived (why not inherited?) from Late Latin gamba – why “Late”? The PIE etymon *kamp- (“crooked”) suggests a joint. L&S defines it as “hoof”, and our entry concurs. But Gaffiot gives jarret, meaning hough, or, for a digitigrade like a horse, its hock. At Du Cange we find it is the part of the leg between the knee and the foot, which would be the shank – given as the second sense at Italian gamba. So what did Latin gamba really mean? Which part of mammalian anatomy is implied?  --Lambiam 09:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam: It's clear to me that it meant "shank" or "hock". Late Latin because doesn't occur before, and so absent from OLD (whose cut-off is late 2nd cent.) - seems to be one of those popular Greek-derived words from the traders' argot. Here Adams discusses the Vegetius citation (late 4th cent.), which seems to be its first. Brutal Russian (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Brutal Russian: So do you think the points I raised (meaning of Latin gamba given at the entry itself as well as at gambit; "inherited" instead of "derived" at Italian gamba) should be corrected?  --Lambiam 08:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Oh, I had missed that part - fixed it myself. "Derived" is what one uses when they aren't sure about the precise relationship, it subsumes "inherited" and "borrowed" if I understand correctly. The latter two templates are also younger than many of those entries. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do these really have /c/ rather than /k/? The general (and as far as I know, exceptionless) rule is that /c/ exists before back vowels only in loanwords from Persian or Arabic. Turkish wiktionary has the same transcription, but they were added by the same user. I think it's a mistake, but I don't know for sure. 2.202.159.91 09:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I also think it is a mistake. In Turkish words of Turkish origin, palatalization of /k/ to /c/ only occurs next to front vowels (/e/, /i/, /ø/, /y/). See Turkish phonology. In oku-, a pure-Turkish root, the k is surrounded by back vowels. You can hear okuma pronounced here. Compare with the pronunciation of bükülme.  --Lambiam 12:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this can mean two different things. One, "The Itchy & Scratchy Show is a fictional TV show" meaning, this TV show occurs within another fictional work. Two, "The Simpsons is a fictional TV show" meaning, this TV show contains content that is made up. Is this worth making in our entry? DTLHS (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've been bold and added a second sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto I don't think either sense covers "The Simpsons is a fictional TV show". Substituting the first def gives "The Simpsons is an invented TV show" (i.e., it doesn't exist as a TV show in real life), and substituting the second gives "The Simpsons is a TV show that appears in a work of fiction." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Most other dictionaries have a definition of the "characteristic of, relating to, etc" variety. I take it this is intended to allow for substitutibility without requiring a proliferation of definitions that are not significantly different. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Is "The Simpsons is a fictional TV show" correct? It does not sound right to me. Mihia (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It also sounds strange to me, but it is easily attested. DTLHS (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the idea is contrast with "reality TV".

What seems a bit better to me would be fiction TV show, like fiction backlist etc, (but not very often fiction book without a modifier before fiction).

In rhetoric it seems like an instance of hypallage. One can say that The Simpsons is fictional without raising too many eyebrows and one can say that The Simpsons is a TV show without raising any. It is economical to say "The Simpsons is a fictional TV show." Few would even notice the awkwardness/potential for misinterpretation, let alone fail to understand the intent. DCDuring (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Then I must be one of the few! Mihia (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

We are all unusual in our ability to detect linguistic oddities. I'm sure you got the intent. DCDuring (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I may be able to guess the intent only because I already know that The Simpsons exists as a TV show in the real world. If I read "XYZ is a fictional TV show" for some XYZ I have never heard of, I would probably assume it meant that XYZ does not exist in the real world. See also . Mihia (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got to be somewhat well-read (you know, books and all that) to make that reading, at least have experienced one of Shakespeare's plays within a play. (See w:Story within a story.) DCDuring (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Or have seen The Hunger Games or The Truman Show, whose eponyms are fictional reality shows.  --Lambiam 02:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The definition here excludes rivers flowing into other rivers (or lakes). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

In English there is no distinction between a river that ends in a desert (e.g. Colorado River), flows into another river, or ends at a lake or sea. I've updated the definition. Leasnam (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the pronunciation given in this entry (/ɪˌlɛkˈtʃɹɑːnɪk ˈsɪɡɚˌɛt/) be tagged with a lect-label and stand in square brackets? --Akletos (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A lot of these do not seem to be actual words and the ones that do have actual usages seem to come from the lemma farerka f (“female Faroe Islander”) which is more often capitalised.

• farerki - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library
• farerka - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library
• farerką - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library
• farerkich - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library
• farerkie - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library
• farerkiego - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library
• farerkiej - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library
• farerkiemu - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library
• farerkim - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library
• farerkimi - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library

Feedback? İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 00:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Just delete them, or mark them for deletion. DTLHS (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

They were created by WF's bot, so doubly subject to being deleted on sight, which I have just done. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Experience has taught me to be cautious in entering SoP terms, but in this case "key figure" has two meanings:

1. A person who plays a key role in something.

   She is a key figure in ...

2. (often plural) An important figure in an analysis, such as a financial analysis.

Is it entry-worthy? I came across the 2nd sense when creating nøkkeltall. Sense 1 is nøkkelfigur. DonnanZ (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Many combinations of words are highly polysemic. Football book could mean a book (to be read) about American (or other) football or the gambling record for any of those sports. DCDuring (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say not. Key just means important. "These figures are key to the analysis", etc. Equinox ◑ 13:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of SoP terms where it is likely to be significantly difficult for people to understand which senses of the component words are intended. However, I don't think this applies sufficiently to "key figure" in normal contexts. Mihia (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The stock exchange / stock market senses are missing, if anybody wants to tackle them. DonnanZ (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That is just a use of one of the existing senses of the term. DCDuring (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Two senses are given here. DonnanZ (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I see. I am not familiar with that narrow formal sense. I have only heard the same thing called a listing. DCDuring (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Are the transitive senses "to decrease size or volume by concentration" and "to make more close, compact, or dense" synonymous? Also, I came to the entry looking for a transitive chemistry sense, but I only see it in a trans-table header. Ultimateria (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

As currently defined and exemplified I do not see the difference. They can be combined into “to concentrate toward the essence by making more close, compact, or dense, thereby decreasing size or volume”. I can imagine making a distinction between the more physical subsense, such as thickening a watery fluid by evaporating some of its water content, and the figurative subsense, as when whittling a text down to summary form. But that can also be covered by the usexes.  --Lambiam 06:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have merged the senses and used your wording. I'm considering the chemical (liquid) senses separate, following the lead of other dictionaries. Ultimateria (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What do definition editing options do? WikiWarrior9919 (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

They are effectively undocumented, and earlier discussions that might shed light on the issue have been buried under the dust of history – at least, while I could find mentions of the discussions, the discussions themselves remained elusive. What I could figure out is that enabling this (under Preferences → Editing gadgets → Enable definition editing options) adds two “side boxes” to the editing window with widgets (buttons and such) encapsulating typical sequences of edit operations that tend to occur and recur when creating definitions, making this less tedious.  --Lambiam 14:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Notifying Fay Freak, JohnC5, Benwing2, Lambiam): I've mentioned here that it's the Infinitive that is the more common and less marked form in comparison to the Past and Future Participle, and unsurprisingly this holds true for every other single Infinitive form - they're the unmarked verbal forms par excellence. I have no special objections to the lemma form being 1P.Sg. on this website - tradition and all, besides too much work to transition from - but I don't think there should be many objections to transitioning the Module:la-verb template to listing the Pf. Inf. fuisse, puditum esse and Fut.Inf. futūrum esse in place of the current 1P.Sg.Pf. and the Fut.Part. Besides being more intuitive and avoiding fake forms, they look better next to the Present Infinitive already listed there. What think you? Oh, and as I also mention in the same edit, the standard Fut.Inf. has no esse, so maybe it should simply be futūrum, or with esse bracketed. Brutal Russian (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Lambiam): I personally agree with the idea of using the infinitive as the lemma; it after all has more info in it than the 1sg. pres. But given the behavior of other dictionaries I think we should stick with the 1sg as the lemma, and for similar reasons with the 1sg. pf. and supine. However I'm fine with listing all the participles under the neuter singular instead of masculine singular. Benwing2 (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, the 1Sg. in the present is how at least half the world seems to be searching for and citing their Latin forms, and this is covered by it being the lemma form on Wiktionary. But searching for the 1Sg.Perfect here won't be any different from searching for Pf.Infinitive - I'm just proposing that in the headword entry of each lemma, every tense be cited in the logically and intuitively coherent Infinitive - (present infinitive esse, perfect infinitive fuisse, future infinitive futūrum) - whereas now they're cited in an unattractive and at times erroneous mix of (present infinitive esse, perfect active fuī, future participle futūrus). I don't expect this change to pose any problem even for those who're used to finding the Perfect stem in the 1Sg. - it's as simple a conversion as cutting away the -sse.

Oh, by the way... It's also a good opportunity to suggest again implementing the normal v-less Perfect stem (amāsse) as automatic and (preferrably) default, instead of the current ubiquotous literary/pedantic variant that is amāvisse - not attested at all for this particular verb in the classical language. Brutal Russian (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

In 3rd-conjugation deponent verbs, the infinitive is a dubious citation form (sequi etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: How so? Brutal Russian (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What pronunciation does lit'rally represent? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I’d think /ˈlɪtɹəli/, nachrally.  --Lambiam 11:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Logically it seems to indicate the dropping of the schwa. However, if I were to read this in a modern British text I might assume it meant a pronunciation with a glottal stop /ˈlɪʔɹəli/, since the use of eye dialect normally marks out a nonstandard pronunciation and the dropping of the schwa is very widespread. Ajmint (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

In the original sense, as coined by George P. Krapp, and reflected in sense 1 of our entry, eye dialect does not mark nonstandard pronunciation. That is why it is called eye dialect”: it just looks like it is dialect. See Eye dialect at Wikipedia. If the spelling reflects a truly nonstandard pronunciation (as with “thar”), we should not call it eye dialect.  --Lambiam 16:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This has come up before. At one time, sense 1 of eye dialect was the only sense. It was then pointed out that many of our supposed "eye dialect" entries were actually not "eye dialect" by that definition, because they represented nonstandard pronunciations. Then the second sense, "Nonstandard spelling which indicates nonstandard pronunciation", appeared, apparently justifying those entries. It would be good to have an agreed policy on this. Mihia (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Polysemy in ] is fine. But it is not fine that we use the term in our definition lines in two ways with different implications for users. I don't think the term "eye dialect" can be used in definitions. But what substitutes would anyone suggest for use on the 2,000 pages that use {{eye dialect of}}? DCDuring (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to complicate things further, we also have {{pronunciation spelling}}, which also seems to be used for a mixture of wonky spellings of standard pronunciations (e.g. educashun) as well as spelling indicating nonstandard pronunciations (e.g. fink for "think"). I don't know on what basis "pronunciation spelling" is used rather than "eye dialect". What I tend to do if I create "type 2" entries is add a label essentially saying "representing X kind of speech/pronunciation" (which, at its most general, could be "representing nonstandard pronunciation"). One I remember, for example, is "oi" for "I", which I labelled "representing rural dialect pronunciation". One downside is that these are not automatically categorised as anything, as they would be with one of the specific templates. Mihia (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think {{eye dialect of}} should be used for spellings that reflect standard pronunciations, {{pronunciation spelling of}} should be used for all other cases, with further information including in a label (e.g. {{lb|en|depicting|_|Geordie|Scottish English}}). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If the term eye dialect does genuinely have the two meanings as defined at our entry, then I think it is confusing for us to suppose that it has only one of these for the purposes of our labelling. Plus, I think that "eye dialect" is a term that many people will not know, so they are likely to click on the label to find out, and that presently takes them to our dual definition. I also think it is by no means obvious that the term "pronunciation spelling" should exclude spellings reflecting standard pronunciation, such as educashun. Personally, I would naturally think that that was a "pronunciation spelling". Mihia (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here: first of all, "eye dialect" is a technical term that has a specific meaning when used by linguists. Since we're trying to follow the lead of linguists, we should stick to that meaning in our technical terminology.

The more difficult matter is what to use instead. The available terminology is based on the premise that standard speech varieties represented by standard orthography are invisibly normal and only deviation from those standards merits attention to characteristics such as pronunciation. Thus, "pronunciation spelling" tends to be used only when the pronunciation is different from the standard, "dialectal spelling" tends to be used only for dialects that are different from the standard, and eye dialect uses this underlying premise to imply deviation that isn't there by using nonstandard orthography on standard speech.

We need a term for using overt representation of pronunciation to imply things about the person quoted, whether the speech represented is standard or not and whether the speech variation is what would be traditionally considered a matter of dialect, or of age, or of gender, or of social class, or of any number of other things. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Instead of a term, I'd use a brief explanation of the meaning intended --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The current entry for coffea has a short vowel, but Smith & Hall's English-Latin Dictionary says it's long: https://www.latinitium.com/smithhall?s=coffee. What is it then? Slayergames444 (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Conceivably it's both, but short "e" is more Latin, because vōcālis ante vōcālem corripitur. The variant with /o/, however, seems to be suggested for the plant, not the product. Brutal Russian (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't read the Scribd article, as I don't have a subscription. Could you copy-paste it here, or summarize it? Слейер^talk 20:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Slayergames444: You don't have to have a subscription, you just need to click Download and upload any document - even random-generated gibberish - and you'll get any of their documents in return (the larger the file, the more downloads until it asks for more gibberish). If for some reason it didn't assign a temporary account to your session so you can upload, just create one. It's a very useful website for learners of Latin. Brutal Russian (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The entry for Latin rhetorica gives it as n pl with genitive rhētoricōrum. While this is possible, in L&S I have also found rhētorica, f: https://www.latinitium.com/lewisshort?s=rhētŏrĭca

So, which is it? Neuter plural, feminine singular, or both?

As L&S says, rhētorica is the science of rhetoric, and rhētorica is rhetoric itself, a type of language. Brutal Russian (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone versed in physics tell me if this word is used in that field? If so, what does it mean? Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think I have seen it used (to mean "false") but it is difficult to search for. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• You can find plenty uses here, both in physics and in other sciences. I think it does not have a technical meaning but simply means “false, not genuine”, as in false positive. A reason for scholars to prefer this term may be that “false” and “not genuine” may elicit an unintended connotation of foul play and counterfeiting, whereas observed results can be spurious because they are artifacts occasioned by the limitations of an experimental set up.  --Lambiam 19:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• The reason I ask is because in Chinese spurious in this context is expressed as 亂真, which does not mean 'false', at least not literally. This makes me think that perhaps we should have a separate sense at spurious. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the English word "spurious" means the same in physics as in any other context. It is not precisely synonymous with "false", however (e.g. per Lambiam). How would you explain 亂真 in English, and how it differs from "false" (other than by using the word "spurious")? Mihia (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You can see by the definition at 亂真 that the term does not literally mean "false". But I know little of physics so I can't speak to its technical usage. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of its use or proposed use in a physics context? DCDuring (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There is actually a physics/electronics term "spurious emission/radiation" which refers to electromagnetic emission outside the expected/desired frequency range. I see that Collins Dictionary thinks this is worth a separate entry . Certainly, our "false, not authentic, not genuine" definition does not seem to cover it. On the other hand, I wonder whether broadly the same "accidentally generated" sense exists in other contexts too. I think we are missing a sense at spurious anyway, but whether we need to split out an additional physics-only sense I'm not sure. Perhaps the "spurious emission/radiation" usage could be a usage example of the broader "accidentally generated" sense. Mihia (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In my mind it is tightly connected to the sense of noise, in the second and third definitions. Like, you're trying to measure something, but since no system can be perfectly isolated, part of your result is due to some other things, which you might not even know exists. That's where noise comes from. Experiments are designed to minimize noise, so its magnitude is on average lower than the magnitude of whatever you are really interested in. But since noise is essentially random, sometimes its magnitude jumps up and becomes a spurious event.

But there's another layer here, one which I feel the "false, not authentic, not genuine" definition does great disservice to: many, if not most, of the greatest discoveries in physics came from someone looking at one or several spurious events and asking the right questions about what was really going on. There's a great quote in the Wikipedia article on White dwarfs:

I was visiting my friend and generous benefactor, Prof. Edward C. Pickering. With characteristic kindness, he had volunteered to have the spectra observed for all the stars—including comparison stars—which had been observed in the observations for stellar parallax which Hinks and I made at Cambridge, and I discussed. This piece of apparently routine work proved very fruitful—it led to the discovery that all the stars of very faint absolute magnitude were of spectral class M. In conversation on this subject (as I recall it), I asked Pickering about certain other faint stars, not on my list, mentioning in particular 40 Eridani B. Characteristically, he sent a note to the Observatory office and before long the answer came (I think from Mrs Fleming) that the spectrum of this star was A. I knew enough about it, even in these paleozoic days, to realize at once that there was an extreme inconsistency between what we would then have called "possible" values of the surface brightness and density. I must have shown that I was not only puzzled but crestfallen, at this exception to what looked like a very pretty rule of stellar characteristics; but Pickering smiled upon me, and said: "It is just these exceptions that lead to an advance in our knowledge" , and so the white dwarfs entered the realm of study!

In short, I would define it's usage in physics as "exceptional". 75.131.55.114 04:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The statistical collocation spurious correlation is about ten times more common than either spurious emission or spurious radiation, but it seems to me to share the same sense of spurious. It seems to usually refer to some defect in one's measurement or statistical method that creates a misleading result. It is often a good idea to analyze the departure of actual from expected values to determine any non-random cause, but finding something interesting in the error is relatively rare. DCDuring (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that "spurious emission/radiation" arises from defective measurement or analysis. I think it is real, and actually exists, though it is unwanted. If "spurious correlation" is used to mean that a mathematical correlation exists, but this does not reflect a "real-world" correlation, then it could be broadly the same sense. If "spurious correlation" is used to mean that no correlation exists at all, but the supposed correlation is a result of faulty statistical analysis, then this is IMO existing sense 1 ("false, not authentic, not genuine"). I see that a new physics-specific definition, "Resulting from a random process that gives the impression of a real relationship" has been added. I don't personally feel very enthusiastic about this definition. Mihia (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have spent two fun-filled hours looking through various sources including general and statistical dictionaries and statistics and econometrics books and determined that spurious correlation is not as well-defined as spurious radiation is.

It was originally coined in reference to spurious correlation of ratios and is often used to refer to correlations caused by any data transformations or their absence and to confounding variables, but also to "nonsense" and "illusory" correlations, ie, those without valid causal interpretation. In all cases the calculated correlation is mathematically "real". I had hoped such use would shed light on the physics use of spurious, but I don't think it does.

Synonyms for senses of spurious include: bastard (literal and figurative), false, forged, and deceitful/deceiving. This would make for three or more distinct definitions. In addition there is use in several fields of biology referring to parts of an organism that resemble parts that have a certain function but do not themselves so function, eg, an alula.

I agree that none of these readily fit spurious radiation/emission. I haven't found other collocations in physics that show meaning distinct from the meanings of the synonyms mentioned above. DCDuring (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we are probably missing one or more senses, but I remain unpersuaded that there is any sense that is entirely specific to physics. Mihia (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I think spurious radiation merits an entry. Lemmings agree. DCDuring (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) I have added a new sense:

Extraneous; stray; not relevant or wanted.

I tried to concentrate on the matter in hand, but spurious thoughts kept intruding.

Spurious emissions from the wireless mast were causing nearby electrical equipment to go haywire.

I am going to send the existing physics-specific sense to RFV. Mihia (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The first two senses seem to overlap a lot: "The class of literature comprising poems" and "Composition in verse or language exhibiting conscious attention to patterns." Is one supposed to be countable? Because it seems like they're both just "poems as a field". Ultimateria (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The distinction is lost on me. A well-chosen example might have helped to clarify the issue. I see that our entry prose makes no such sense distinction (but notice that the second sense – dull and commonplace language – may be evoked more by the adjective “plodding” in the usex than by the noun “prose“). There is also a circularity: poetry = the class of literature comprising poems; poems = pieces of writing in the tradition of poetry. Ergo, poetry = the class of literature comprising pieces of writing in the tradition of poetry. Who could have guessed?  --Lambiam 19:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

My guess is that the distinction is supposed to be along the lines of e.g. "drama: The class of literature comprising plays" / "drama: A composition, normally in prose, telling a story and intended to be represented by actors impersonating the characters and speaking the dialogue". However, because "poetry" is uncountable in both senses, the distinction becomes less clear. BTW, sense 3 at poetry, "A poet's literary production", seems to also add to the overlap. Mihia (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I have merged the first two senses, but "a poet's literary production" seems very dubious to me as a standalone definition. Ultimateria (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Should the pages literary language and standard language include only a restricted set of meanings, presumably the most common established senses? A user has been heavily policing the page and reverting any edits that attempt to insert additional senses, without providing any sort of explanation initially.

The terms are used in at least two clearly distinct ways. First, 'literary language' can refer to a language that has established some sort of literary tradition. In this sense, English can be called a literary language. In the other meaning, 'literary language' refers to the specific form of a language that is used in literary writing, i.e. a literary 'dialect'. The term 'standard language' works in a similar way, which can be somewhat verified at Wikipedia. 37.47.199.108 19:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone please double-check my Spanish here?

The second Spanish definition of haber says,

to hold; to possess(Can we add an example for this sense?)

The end credits of Toy Story 3 have the song "You've Got a Friend in Me" in Spanish. My Spanish classes are long past, but my ears hear "hay un amigo en mi." Will that work for the haber page?

Also, if hay is a form of the Spanish verb haber, and the Spanish verb haber has 5 definitions, should Wiktionary's hay#Spanish entry also have 5 definitions? Right now hay uno.

iGracias!

71.121.143.213 08:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC) (blooper reel: i linked to iGracias!)

As seen here. At the moment our entry hay has only the definition “1. (impersonal) Present indicative form of haber, there is, there are”. Shouldn’t it include “2. Formal second-person singular (usted) present indicative form of haber.” and “3. Third-person singular (él, ella, also used with usted^?) present indicative form of haber.”? Or are these from a separate etymology (not from Old Spanish ha i (“it has there”)? Should it perhaps be “alternative form of ha”?  --Lambiam 21:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of the time I only hear "Black", occasionally "Blackburn" emerges. I'm sure this isn't the only one like this. DonnanZ (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a problem plaguing many .ogg audios (see e.g. Wiktionary:Information desk/2019/June#Cambridge). The problem appears not to be in the file itself (listen here) but in the media player or the Javascript library used by Wikimedia determining an incorrect length. There is a phabricator bug report from 3 September 2018, but I don’t see much action.  --Lambiam 21:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, this one was added in 2009, diff. I haven't noticed any problems with more recent recordings, I will have to recheck a few. DonnanZ (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge was replaced by Wonderfool in reponse to an RFAP (he has some uses) diff. It sounds OK now, so an RFAP for Blackburn may be the way forward. The recordings for Thursday are fine, by the way, and one dates back to 2005. No rhyme nor reason regarding age of the recording. DonnanZ (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, the audio for rhyme or reason works fine. DonnanZ (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There may be a problem with the source of the original at Cambridge - DerbethBot, same as for Blackburn, diff. DonnanZ (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the identity of the editor adding the link has a lingering effect on the result.  --Lambiam 01:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it may be pure coincidence. I found another broken audio link at Manchester, with a different contributor. DonnanZ (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually it was DerbethBot at Manchester, taken from the "The Voice of Hassocks", that fooled me (diff). DonnanZ (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have aired this topic in the Grease pit as well. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why "R" is an abbreviation for Thursday? I get that "T" has already been used (for "Tuesday") but why not "H"? John Cross (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps because 'h' is not pronounced, whereas 'r' is. DCDuring (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It should be pronounced θ (th), so you should discern the H. I have never come across R for Thursday, but there quotations at R#Abbreviation, all relating to (US?) universities. DonnanZ (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

We also have “U” as an abbreviation for Sunday, a meaning I’d not have guessed in a week’s time.  --Lambiam 01:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I use 'R', 'Sa', and 'Su' for ad-hoc personal-use calendars. I wouldn't expect others to understand 'R', except in that sort of context, where an explanation would seem condescending. DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I remember my university using 'R' and 'U' in that way on class schedules. bd2412 T 13:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Is "fast food" really a synonym of "junk food" like its second sense states? I don't consider cooked foods such as cheeseburgers to be junk foods; in my mind junk food comes vacuum-sealed. You find it at a gas station, not at Burger King. Maybe one of our citation hunters can find the term used that way though. Ultimateria (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In my experience it can be, yes, though not all fast food is junk food. I think quite a few people in fact do consider the kind of fare that you get at e.g. Burger King to be "junk food" (perhaps not entirely fairly). There is no reason why junk food needs to be vacuum-sealed, as far as I am aware. Mihia (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Can microwaveable meals be classed as fast food? DonnanZ (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If the 'meal' is microwaved in a commercial establishment, yes, in my idiolect. DCDuring (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant at home, e.g. a curry bought as frozen food. I think the convenience factor has to be considered. DonnanZ (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I consider fast food to necessarily come from a restaurant. Ultimateria (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This weekend I learned that in my sister's idiolect processed food included the microwaved breakfast sandwich (croissant, egg, sausage patty, cheese slice) that I eat a few times a week. I thought that the term was reserved for food that was chemically transformed in some way more dramatic than the milk-to-cheese, flour-to-croissant, etc conversions.

Obviously, fast food highlights the convenience and junk food asserts poor overall nutritional value. Since fast food isn't always fast and "healthy" food can be fast (ie, a street vendor's fruit), these terms are far from SoP. To a large extent, the application of the terms reflects one's lifestyle/ideology. The two terms have a lot of overlap, but are not full synonyms. However, very few 'synonyms' have identical coverage. Clearly the word synonym in our entries is sensu lato. DCDuring (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Two web pages:

1. an essay on the differences (and commonalities) by the team at FoodToLive, a food supplier;
2. a bunch of opinions by random people on the differences, somewhat illustrative of the range of interpretations.

 --Lambiam

This is a really good question that we should take seriously. All I can say from my own personal experience is that "fast food" is prepared quickly and easily (and usually is something you take from a commercial place like McDonald's; would not describe something you cook at home) whereas "junk food" is something that is bad for you because of high levels of salt, sugar, etc. A lot of fast food is junk food but that doesn't seem to indicate a definition any more than "a lot of mammals are squirrels". Equinox ◑ 05:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I see many commenters mentioning the overlap, which I agree with. I should have directly asked: can we remove sense 2 of fast food? "A type of food that is quickly made, but of low nutritional value; junk food." Ultimateria (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You could just RFV it. I know there is a risk with these "multiple similar meaning" terms that we will lose a real distinction because nobody bothers to support it; contrariwise, if the meaning is at all prominent anywhere then it will probably get re-added with proof, eventually... Equinox ◑ 06:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RfV it. I suspect unambiguous quotes in support of definition 2 will be forthcoming. DCDuring (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've tagged and listed at RFV. Ultimateria (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)