Wiktionary:Tea room/2020/April

The declensions of Old Dutch leido and namo do not agree. Leido forms are generated by the template; namo's are hardcoded. Which is correct ? Leasnam (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Oudnederlands Woordenboek gives the accusative singular of namo as “namen (2), námen (1), namen (1), namo (l. namon, Q) (3)”. I do not know what the abbreviations stand for.  --Lambiam 11:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I see at александровский#Russian that there is a {{rfdef}} without a comment after two definitions. Is there a sense missing, or did someone forget to remove the template? The history shows it was there from the start. Ru:Wiktionary only seems to give one sense. PJTraill (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

ru:индиго gives a third sense: вымышленное свойство высокоразвитых детей; дети с таким свойством. DeepL says this means: Fictional property of highly developed children; children with such property. I have added an {{rfdef}} for this, but it sounds a bit weird; could this be spam, or is the translation misleading? PJTraill (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

See Indigo child, although I don't know about the status of that idea in Russian. DTLHS (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a substantial number of books with дети индиго in the title, so apparently also this facet of New-Ageyness has not passed over the Russian doors. I think though the lemma should be the combination дитя индиго (ditja indigo).  --Lambiam 16:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Then that lemma should presumably be flagged ru:Pseudoscience and given as a derived term at индиго. PJTraill (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC) (sadder (in the modern sense) and wiser for that having learnt this)

As no-one has reacted further, I have made those two edits; I hope the results are satisfactory. PJTraill (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Verb senses:

1. (transitive) To help forward; to assist.
   • 1885, Richard F. Burton, The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, Night 558:

     Upon this he brought me a cotton bag and giving it to me, said, "Take this bag and fill it with pebbles from the beach and go forth with a company of the townsfolk to whom I will give a charge respecting thee. Do as they do and belike thou shalt gain what may further thy return voyage to thy native land."

2. (transitive) To encourage growth; to support progress or growth of something; to promote.

   Further the economy.

   to further the peace process

Does anyone see two clearly differentiated senses here? Mihia (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. There is obvious overlap, but IMO you could not substitute the second definition into the first citation, nor could one substitute "assist" into the usage examples for the second definition. DCDuring (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just that the examples are not optimally chosen then. For example, to me, the sense of the "further thy return voyage" example seems identical to that of the "further the peace process" example, and both "further the economy" and "further the peace process" could, as far as I can see, be examples of the "help forward" sense. I'll leave it as is for now, but if you have a clear handle on the difference, and you feel inclined to come up with some more clearly differentiated examples, then that would be helpful, I think. Mihia (talk)

I think the original literal meaning is “to move forward”, which is also the literal meaning of Latin promovere, whence the verb promote. I think both listed senses have this meaning in a figurative sense, in which “forward” is along some desirable path.  --Lambiam 15:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

When I saw the date of the Burton quote I had my doubts about it, which I see are backed up by the Wikipedia article; if we are going to use such texts, perhaps it would well to flag them as wilfully archaic and to supplement them with more authentic texts. But then I gather that Spenser was also intentionally archaic, and there is presumably a whole spectrum running through cases like Tolkien. PJTraill (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Right. We can do literary analysis of single quotes, but that is not lexicography. It is more in the tradition of lexicography to paraphrase definitions from other dictionaries. Ideally we would look at a sample of usage of each word from a corpus, divide the usage examples up into candidate attestation for definitions and write our definition. In this case we have one archaic literary work and two possibly made-up examples. Not much to go on.

At the very least take a look at “further”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the first half dozen OneLook links before I posted this thread, but I could not find any dictionaries that gave two separate definitions like ours. On the subject of the quotation, it seems to me that the archaic language is something of a red herring with respect to the specific question here, since the use of "further" is not itself archaic. Mihia (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Adverb senses:

4. (in the phrase 'further to') Following on (from).

Further to our recent telephone call, I am writing to clarify certain points raised.

This example is further to the one on page 17.

5. (conjunctive, formal) In continuation of what has already been enacted.

2006 February 14, European Court of Human Rights, Turek v. Slovakia‎, number 57986/00, marginal 110:

The Court notes that the applicant’s registration by the StB as their “agent” lies at the heart of the application. Although the Court has no jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the registration as such, it observes that, further to his registration, the applicant was issued with a negative security clearance and his name and reputation were called into question.

Synonym: in furtherance

Does anyone understand sense #5 as distinct from sense #4 (or at all)? The word "enacted" puzzles me. Is this some kind of special legal meaning? Or is the citation just an example of the normal phrase "further to", as it seems to me it may be? Also, is "in furtherance" really a synonym? I thought "in furtherance" meant "so as to advance or move forward something". Mihia (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I see the phrase as meaning “in addition to” (something preceding in time), ”in continuation of”. The nature of what is being added to or continued is different in senses 4 and 5, but that does not make the meaning of the phrase per se different. Here, what is being added to or continued are “endeavours and activities”; neither of the current definitions fits well.  --Lambiam 15:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it means "in addition to" or "in continuation of". The text seems to me to mean that he was registered as an agent, and, following on from or ensuing from this registration, the other things mentioned happened, i.e. just the usual meaning of "further to". Well, since I still can't see this as anything other than the usual meaning defined in a confusing way, I'm going to merge them. Mihia (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello all. Recently there was an attempt to move the Spanish influenza page on English Wikipedia to "1918 influenza" or something similar. Is 1918 influenza etc a legitimate English language term? What are its origins? Who used/uses it? I would like to see Wiktionary's coverage of this term (if it is a term unto itself and not a SOP) be built up at some point in the future. I made a request here:. Today I added a new quote including the name "Spanish Influenza" from a 1920 book. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking whether we should include it? Does its use include the outbreak of Spanish flu that occurred in 1919 or any other year?

I seems legitimate. Its origins could be in Wikipedia talk pages in 2020. You could determine whether it has been used by exercising your skills on Google Books and News. DCDuring (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A legitimate (and easily verified) name is the “influenza pandemic of 1918”, which can be shortened to “1918 influenza pandemic”. The bracketing is “(influenza pandemic) of 1918” → “1918 (influenza pandemic)”. By careless rebracketing this can be re-interpreted as “(1918 influenza) pandemic”, which appears to mean, the “pandemic caused by (1918 influenza)”. Et voilà, we have a new name for the disease. Whether this can be attested in durably archived sources is a separate matter, but for an encyclopedia one should hope that entry names are not based on mistakes, unless the mistaken name has become the commonly used name.  --Lambiam 14:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"1918 influenza" can be used to refer to the virus itself. This is not a synonym of H1N1 because flu viruses evolve rapidly, so currently-circulating H1N1 is not the same as the 1918 virus. --47.146.63.87 20:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Adjective sense "Long" presently is tagged "Can we add an example". On investigation I find that people use phrases such as "a far run", "a far hike", and so on. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=far also has the definition "Extensive or lengthy", giving the example "a far trek". However, I don't know why, but somehow I have no familiarity with this usage. To me, e.g. "It's a far hike to the road" looks like a mistake for "fair hike". Before I add such an example, can someone confirm that this actually is correct English. See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#far. Mihia (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Here we can read (1838) that something is a “far stretch”. While figurative, the basis of the metaphor is spatial distance, so the usage is not new. Also in the time-honoured expression far cry, the origin is that of a cry heard over a long distance.  --Lambiam 12:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sense 4 of the verb assist is presented as: (archaic) To stand (at a place) or to (an opinion). I don’t get what it means that someone “stands to an opinion”. The usage example does not help to decipher this.  --Lambiam 11:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Lambiam, you should check out section I(1) under “assist” in the Oxford English Dictionary: “figurative to stand to, abide by (an opinion).”

Worth entries? PUC – 18:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't say so. It is adj. sense #2 at iron: "(figuratively) Strong (as of will), inflexible." (whether it is a true adjective is another question). You can also have e.g. "iron resolve", "iron determination" etc. Mihia (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Will of iron" must be a noun "iron". We do have a sense "great strength or power" (I'm not quite sure what that is getting at); I believe I've seen some dictionaries with definitions along the lines of "something proverbially tough and durable". Equinox ◑ 19:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes you are right of course. My comment is applicable to the "iron will" version only (though to me the other one seems SoP too). Mihia (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear how to handle figurative epithets of the type of (material) lexicographically, Another example is of steel. We define a figurative sense for steel as “Extreme hardness or resilience”, but you can’t replace “a grip of steel” by “a grip of resilience”, and while “a grip of extreme hardness” sounds OK, this has a different sense of of (the current sense 10.2 instead of 5.2), so this should not count as a proper substitution.  --Lambiam 09:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, in "will of iron", "iron" is (IMO) a (figurative) substance, from which something is (figuratively) made, not a property such as "hardness" or "resilience". Mihia (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyway I have added the "figurative material" sense at iron that seemed to be lacking. Mihia (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mihia: A question regarding this sense you've added: could mettle be considered its hypernym?

And is it not actually missing a sense? There's the positive aspect of it ("good temperament"), but also the neutral one ("temperament" alone). In "you are gentlemen of brave mettle" or "someone's true mettle", you could replace "mettle" with "temperament", but not with "good temperament".

A bit like width or strength, which indicate both measurements and qualities. PUC – 15:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not personally feel enthusiastic about listing "mettle" as a hypernym at "iron". On the point about the missing sense, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how far lack of literal substitutability is conclusive. "true mettle" normally has positive connotation (or expectation). It is possible to qualify the word negatively, e.g. "feeble mettle", but still "mettle" seems to me to have underlying positive/desirable connotations, and a negative qualification is just describing that the desired qualities do not exist, or not in sufficient amount. Mihia (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I've been creating French entries for prepositional phrases such as d’acier, de fer, en or, en béton, which behave syntactically like adjectives, and are much easier to define than the noun you'd extract from them. I'm not sure this is the best approach, nor whether it would be applicable to English; thoughts? See also English d'or and its talkpage. PUC – 10:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how others feel, but I'm not personally keen on creating a bunch of entries like of iron, of steel, of gold etc. I would prefer to see significant figurative senses treated under the nouns, as these senses are not dependent on or restricted to the "of ~" phrasing. Mihia (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It might make more sense with French grammatical structure, but in English we have attributive constructions such "iron will" that this strategy can't handle. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

We have a very long etymology describing a purported joke that may or may not have existed. How sound is this etymology? Equinox ◑ 21:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Online Etymology Dictionary has something similar:

canard (n.)

"absurd or fabricated story intended as an imposition," 1851, perhaps 1843, from French canard "a hoax," literally "a duck" (from Old French quanart, probably echoic of a duck's quack); said by Littré to be from the phrase vendre un canard à moitié "to half-sell a duck," thus, perhaps from some long-forgotten joke, "to cheat." But also compare quack (n.1).

I note that we do not have "hoax" as a definition of canard#French. DCDuring (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I further note that the authoritative French dictionary referenced in the entry does seem to have a definition close to hoax, though my French is not good enough to be sure of that. DCDuring (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The definition can be translated as “Fake news, often invented from wholecloth and inflated to melodrama in second-rate newspapers”. A second definition is the kind of newspaper that publishes such stories; we might say tabloid. The definition “newspaper” is too general.  --Lambiam 09:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

So Online Etymology Dictionary is wrong. I'll ask them about it. DCDuring (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The meanings of hoax and fake news overlap, though, but the latter does generally not have a sense of “Ha! Fooled ya, didn’t I?”.  --Lambiam 20:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The English word hoax does not have any necessary association with a newspaper of any kind or indeed with any medium. DCDuring (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

In the French definition the association with a newspaper is qualified with “often”, which means it is not a necessary one. Here, in the Bulletin of the French Parlance Society of Canada, the etymology is given in more detail (from “selling someone a half duck ” to "selling a duck” to just ”a duck”), while the meaning is given as “a hoax, a lie, false news, news intended to entrap people”, with a reference, I assume by way of attribution, to the 19th-century Dictionnaire général de la langue française of Hatzfeld and Darmesteter, with which I am not familiar.  --Lambiam 22:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

MWOnline has a second definition of canard I am not familiar with: "a groundless rumor or belief", which has even more distance from any particular medium and removes malicious intent. Is anyone familiar with this? DCDuring (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Here Trump’s insistence he won the 2016 elections by a landslide is called a canard. Here, Trump’s accusation of Jews of beding disloyal is called “an age-old anti-Semitic canard” dating back to well before the advent of newspapers. And here the claim that Medicare-for-all means lots of people losing their insurance is called a canard, not in any specific way tied to media.  --Lambiam 22:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The word hoax appears twice in the entry:

1. In the etymology, where it is offered as a definition of canard#French.
2. as a synonym.

As to the etymology, it does not appear that hoax is a valid definition of the French term. It doesn't seem the best of synonyms, but doesn't seem wrong. I usually think of a hoax as a large-scale prank.

Canard in English has no necessary connection with any particular medium. It seems to be mostly about well-publicized falsehoods. I don't hear it much in connection with private matters, though I suppose it could, in organizations, in legal proceedings, etc.

I also associate it with red herring, though that may be my mistake. DCDuring (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

In "hold someone to ransom", is "ransom" a noun or a verb? PUC – 10:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Noun, I think... I'd never even considered that it might be a verb! Equinox ◑ 12:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, surely must be a noun. Mihia (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, especially in light of the alternative forms hold for ransom and hold ransom, where it cannot be a verb. PUC – 14:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And “held to a ransom of several thousand ducats”.  --Lambiam 20:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth entries?

• “cost leader”, in Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1999–present.
• cost leadership on Wikipedia

PUC – 14:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think leader has a definition that quite fits, though it would be the same as for price leader. DCDuring (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This was changed from Adverb to PP. I think this may be wrong; the "as" in this phrase is a conjunction, not a preposition, isn't it? Equinox ◑ 15:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an interjection. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That is, the whole phrase. The word as is a conjunction.  --Lambiam 20:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really seeing how it’s an adverb; I think either “interjection” or “phrase” works. Also, I’m wondering if there’s much point in adding sense 3. Is it likely that the phrase will be used literally? (Pinging @DCDuring who added it.) — SGconlaw (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I treated the ping as an RfV. Cited IMHO. DCDuring (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth an entry? PUC – 16:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. --Gorgehater (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

No. See ever def 2: "at any time". DCDuring (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

But surely “more than ever” really means (or suggests) “more than at any previous time” or “… time so far”. PJTraill (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There are phrases such as "like never before" and "than ever before" that suggest this isn't a set phrase. Not only that, but you can have almost any comparative with "than ever", as well as "same as ever". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There are semantic constraints on which definition of ever is appropriate in this collocation, but that it hardly limited to this term. Eg, in "limited to this term" context eliminates term (of office) as a possibility. The only thing that differentiates more than ever from limited to this term is the fact that all the component terms are old terms that have more grammatical than semantic content, which make SoPitude harder to see. I don't think it's worth it to try to include all of these as entries, though it may be worth the effort to incorporate such a common collocation in the entry for ever. DCDuring (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked at never for comparison, which means “at no future time” in the idiomatic phrase “it’s now or never”. Next to the definition “at no time” there is only the time-related defs “not at any other time” and “not previously” – where the examples for the latter are in sentences in the past tense, so it would appear that in these examples the negated previousness derives more from the verb tense than from an asymmetric meaning of never. Basically, never can mean “not ever” for every meaning of ever, which apparently, depending on how it is used, sometimes refers only to the time ahead (“at any time in the future“), as in the question “Can I ever be loved?”. As to the original question, you can also say “happier than ever”, “better than ever“, ..., so specifically “more than ever” does not by itself deserve an entry, but is seems worth recording that ever can also mean “at any time in the past“.  --Lambiam 21:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If anyone here creates a "more than ever" page, please send me an alert. Depending on what emerges on that page I might weigh in from my own copyrighted (but yet-unpublished) definition. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You copyright your own definitions? Not really in the spirit of a wiki, if you ask me --Vitoscots (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

rummy is classified as a heteronym, but I reckon all senses are pronounced the same. What do you guys say? --Gorgehater (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone able to help with the definition? @BD2412 (since the word seems to be used in law), are you or your law dictionaries familiar with this word? - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am not finding this in any law dictionaries, new or old, but here is an 1831 Irish case making liberal use of the word. bd2412 T 23:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The second sense is labelled "vulgar", "derogatory" and "offensive". That seems very strong, I don't see anything particularly vulgar about it. PUC – 12:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Not vulgar; that should be removed. Equinox ◑ 17:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The term itself is not vulgar, but people who use it in this sense are.  --Lambiam 21:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Might "vulgarian" be a better label in this case, then? Tharthan (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No, no label is needed. The word is not vulgar; what the people are like is outside a dicdef. Equinox ◑ 00:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Some people think that any non-clinical term that touches on sexuality is ipso facto vulgar, which is probably why the tag was added. (I am fine with the removal of it.) I suppose the term is indeed non-clinical, i.e. "informal", though I further suppose that's probably covered by "derogatory" well enough to not need a separate label...? - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#iron. Mihia (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have a single entry for to conjure with? PUC – 15:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What part of speech is the word "far" in "We are far from home"? Mihia (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is an adjective. You can substitute the comparative and superlative: “Now we are even farther from home”; “This is the farthest from home we’ve ever been”.  --Lambiam 21:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, though the adverb also has a comparative and superlative, and in "We are a long way from home", it seems to me that "a long way" is adverbial. Mihia (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Other dictionaries classify "near" in phrases such as "draw near", "get near" and "come near" as an adverb. What is your view? Is it an adverb or an adjectival complement? Mihia (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Adverb sense:

Having a small intervening distance with regard to something.

I'm near-sighted.

The definition does not seem to successfully capture the meaning in the (sole) usage example, and in fact does not seem to be the definition of an adverb at all. In order to get a better grasp of what the definition should be, I have been trying to come up with other examples where "near" has the same meaning as it does in "near-sighted", but I haven't found any so far. Perhaps someone else can think of one. Or is "near-sighted" a one-off phrase? Mihia (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

near field? near death? Either those count as adverbial, not withstanding that nouns are modified. Or near-sighted can be deemed an adjective from near-sight. I am not nearly sighted, but my sight is limited to things that are near. red is not an adverb in red-colored nor colored red, likewise, is it? — This unsigned comment was added by 109.41.1.218 (talk) at 2020 April 8 14:30.

I see "near-sighted" as probably meaning, literally, "sighted in a 'near' way" (though this is not a natural way to put it). "near death" does not mean "death in a 'near' way", and I don't see "near field" as meaning "field in a 'near' way" either. Presently we classify "near" in cases such as "near death" as a preposition, though this is a disputed point. However, if it is not a preposition then presumably it is an adjective, not an adverb. Mihia (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It says these are "used in taxonomic names for organisms that often have English names of the form Sodiro's ...". I have not been able to find any organism with such a name in English. Which exist? Equinox ◑ 00:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe none, and instead it could be: "that often could have English names of the form Sodiro's ...". Compare Darwin's finch and Category:English taxonomic eponyms. --Bakunla (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We could simply reword the definition to "Used to form taxonomic names meaning (or corresponding to) Sodiro's ...". Some such wording could replace the wording in many such eponymic taxonomic epithet entries. DCDuring (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So as I was meandering around I saw this "Can we date this quote" at https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/proceedings. Which seems self explanatory except that it is next to a definition, not a quote? There seems to a name? "Blackstone" tagged on the end. Was a quote used as a definition? Or something else? Curious. Be willing to fix, if I had a clue. --Owl wow (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Weird placement. I've just removed it — not like it's hard to find quotes for that sense anyway. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It had been there for 11 1/2 years! DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

“Blackstone” probably refers to William Blackstone. I suppose the editor was hoping that someone else would look up one of his works (probably his Commentaries on the Laws of England). See {{RQ:Blackstone Commentaries}}. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This was probably just a reference to a definition (ie, mention) in Blackstone, not necessarily a use. DCDuring (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The former was defined as an alt form of the latter but this seems wrong (I replaced it with rfdef). Gleucometer indeed seems to only be used in reference to must-testing and never e.g. blood-sugar, whereas glaucometer never seems to be used in reference to must-testing but only used next to words like glaucoma and blood sugar, but I'm not sure if it has two senses (e.g. for testing glaucoma vs for testing blood sugar) or what. - -sche (discuss) 04:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If used in connection to measuring the level of blood sugar, glaucometer is a misspelling of glucometer.  --Lambiam 14:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC) It seems to be a fairly common misspelling, but a patient’s glucose level, from Ancient Greek γλυκύς (glukús, “sweet”), has nothing to do with Ancient Greek γλαυκός (glaukós, “light blue, grey”). The term has been used for an instrument to trace the shape of a glaucoma patient’s retina, but this appears to be a nonce term for a one-of-a-kind device developed by Stanford Research Institute in the early seventies.  --Lambiam 14:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It either means "fig tree" (not "boat") or the reference link is wrong. Also, it cannot be an adjective or, at least, it should be stated somewhere that it is attributively used. Reason also stated on Talk:𒈣. Regards. --92.191.109.168 14:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

...has four citations, but all of them refer to the eccentric 7th Marquess of Bath, who used the word this way. So: has it been used without reference to him specifically? And, if not, should we even keep it? Equinox ◑ 19:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Just want to point out that OED has this sense and sources it to the 7th Marquess of Bath as well. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In Australia, stress for this word is often placed on the last syllable ("em-ploy-ER"). Is that a feature in BrE and AmE too? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard that in American English. DTLHS (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Me neither. I have heard both stress on the second and stress on the last syllable of "employee", so I wonder if stress on the final syllable of "employer" originated by analogy with that. I can imagine a speaker of my dialect using such a stress pattern for contrastive purposes, even though it is not one of the lexicalized stress patterns for employer.--Urszag (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have never heard that in any variety of English (but have never been down under). Is the middle vowel then still pronounced as the diphthong /ɔɪ/ like in boy?  --Lambiam 09:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I have updated the page entry. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth an entry? PUC – 12:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

One of several elliptic phrases heard in courtrooms, others being so noted and exception noted. It means “your remarks/the testimony/... are/is duly noted”. In full this is a SOP. Does ellipsis make it idiomatic? I should think not.  --Lambiam 22:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It also has some ironic usage outside law as a way to tell someone off. I'll see if I can dig up some quotes. --47.146.63.87 02:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s not worth an entry, as it’s just duly + noted. Also, I recall that sarcastic usage alone is not enough to justify an entry. See “Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Sarcastic usage”. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this might be a borderline case. Outside of formal contexts, it's "seldom or never used literally". --47.146.63.87 19:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Either I've missed the sarcasm in online communication, but I'd say that's not true. Anyhow, being derived from a legal idiom means it's not transparent. It's easily understood, of course, but everything that could have an etymology could have an entry. This doesn't mean that it should of course.

I mean, it is not sarcastic in the sense of dark humor. It's (figurative)

Does anyone know the exact definition the word 'polygot'?

Perhaps a misspelling of polyglot?  --Lambiam 21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Are the recent edits by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs) an improvement? PUC – 14:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a mixed bunch. The change to the POS is very wrong. The change to the first (originally the only) definition is IMO not an improvement, but using a gloss-style parenthesis is. The second, newly added sense, looks fine to me, but seems to be an adverbial.  --Lambiam 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The rationale for my parsing of "no matter what" is that:

• "what" is a pronoun that concludes the phrase, "no matter" (and "no matter" is an abbreviation of "it doesn't matter")
• "no matter" is a prepositive adpositional phrase that is antecedent to "what"
• because "no matter" is not a verb despite its etymology, by definition it defaults to its POS as a preposition

I 100% agree that "no matter what" an adverbial prepositional phrase, but it's a prepositional phrase nonetheless, IMHO. I didn't think it was necessary to specify its adverbial nature in my edit, but doing so might have helped. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

And the first definition IMO is of a subordinating conjunction. It also does not necessarily relate to a "speaker's ambivalence", eg, "No matter what cupboard you looked in, there were black beans and rice." DCDuring (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If you look again perhaps you'll agree that "No matter what they might do" is a subordinating conjunction. Nevertheless, we're left to identify the specific POS relating to "no matter what." The ultimate meaning is the same as "regardless of," but the structure differs. You make a good point about ambivalence having no denotative relevance. I'm going to edit that part accordingly. Check it again five minutes from now. --Kent Dominic (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, my approval of using a parenthesis concerned only the style, not its content.  --Lambiam 10:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

And I'd be willing to forget about adding a conjunction PoS, despite it being possible to argue that the term seems to arguably function as a subordinating conjunction. It can also be viewed as a pronoun while filling its conjunctive function. DCDuring (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No matter what seems to be synonymous with whatever and share the same PoSes, except for the "interjection" use of whatever. If so, it might be simpler to have one {{synonym of}} definition for no matter what for each PoS whatever and no matter what share membership in. DCDuring (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth an entry? Meaning "mature", "old enough to take care of / look after oneself and make one's own decisions". PUC – 20:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If there were there cites that unambiguously support and non-SoP definition, it would be. DCDuring (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It is easily attested in this sense. I even found an 18th-century cite (although with tmesis) that indicates (“as the saying is”) that the saying was already common then. The first, longer version is far more common, so I’d make that the main entry and define the other as being {{short for|...}}  --Lambiam 15:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there actually something idiomatic here? Citations showing adverbial use would be helpful. DTLHS (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

In this wiki, Ziehen is marked as "gerund of ziehen". In the Finnish Wiktionary, someone nominated the page for deletion saying that "it's not an inflected form but a derivation", and also "in no way idiomatic": https://fi.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikisanakirja:Poistettavat_sivut/Ziehen. When I voted for "keep" and argued that it's a gerund (and thus an inflected form and thus worth keeping) according to this English Wiktionary, the person answered and gave these links: https://de.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Gerundium#Germanische_Sprachen and https://deutschegrammatik20.de/deutsche-grammatik-inhaltsverzeichnis/glossar-grammatik/glossar-g/grammatikglossar-gerundium/ in support of their view that my argument that it's an inflected form is wrong. Who's correct, is Ziehen a derivation or an inflected form? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a matter of which definition you prefer, which is ultimately a matter of taste. By definition, a gerund is a nonfinite verb form that functions as a noun. But not all linguists call all verb forms that fit this description a “gerund” (German Gerundium – see the Usage notes there). If you restrict the definition by requiring a gerund to be an inflected verb form, then the German infinitive used as a noun is not a gerund... unless you see the lemma form – unusually but quite reasonably – as an inflected form, etymologically the neuter accusative singular of a verbal noun obtained by adding the suffix -en. German linguists tend to avoid the term for the use of the German infinitive as a noun, but some linguists see no problem in doing so (e.g. here, here and here).  --Lambiam 10:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a derivation (a substantivisation), and more important: it's a word and it's attestable (e.g. google books: "das Ziehen"). As for the Finnish WT: Who knows what they have comparable to WT:CFI? --Bakunla (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Finnish Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion (in Finnish, of course): . Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

We already had such discussions and I pointed out that there is no clean line between derivation and inflection. In any case the uncertainty is no reason for deletion. It exists, the page describes it as far as needed, so tamam. Fay Freak (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

We had these discussions on the English Wiktionary. They have little bearing on the Finnish Wiktionary. Also, if the dispute is whether some form is a gerund, then some of the discussants may not accept the applicability of guidelines on how to deal with gerunds.  --Lambiam 22:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply anything like that. I decided to link the Finnish CFI more like as "for your information" as Bakunla's comment looked like asking for one. I may have misunderstood something of course. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The entry has not been proposed for deletion here but only on the Finnish Wiktionary (Wikisanakirja:Poistettavat sivut#Ziehen). User FF’s statement to which I reacted, namely that “the uncertainty is no reason for deletion”, is therefore only relevant to the discussion over there – but with regard to that discussion there is no point in arguing for preservation based on earlier discussions here. My reaction has not directly anything to do with something you (M-M) said.  --Lambiam 15:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Lambiam, Mölli-Möllerö: thank you! This question has bugged me for such a long time. For those three authors categorizing -en forms as gerunds, Carl Einstein was not a linguist (as far as what I've read on Wikipedia), so I wouldn't regard his opinions on this subject as authoritative. The other two sources seem more authoritative. -- Puisque (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Basicly, Ziehen und Zerren are just the infinitives, but with capitalisation. The fact that syntax seems to require it to be a noun phrase barely matters, only if marked with an article. For example, das Rennen "the race" is always a propper noun, and therefore the nominalization Rennen very restricted. Consider e.g. das Rennen auf den Fluren "running in the hallways" vs "to run in the hallways". It's not the verb that's nominalized, but the verbal phrase, and das is understood as a specifier (substitute dieses "this"), illogical if indefinte (rather "Rennen auf ...", regularly without indefinite determiner), though frequent. The article is not repeated in the nominalized phrase, showing that it is not the verb itself that is a the noun. I do obviously not know the difference between determiner and specifier, at any rate. 109.41.1.218 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any current meaning of ever that accounts for its meaning in words like whoever, whatever, however, wherever, whenever, and some similar words. I also have not yet found any reference that has an entry for -ever. Are we missing something at ] or do we need ]? DCDuring (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionary offers an exposition of the sense development of ever to -ever.  --Lambiam 23:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

But did the free-standing term at any time have the meaning reflected in these words? It didn't seem so to me, judging from Online Etymology Dictionary's version, which undoubtedly reflects OED. DCDuring (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No, but I can imagine a shift in meaning from “Who ever would have thought this possible?” (still meaning “at any time”, compare “Never in my lifetime would I have thought this possible!”) to today’s “Whoever would have thought this possible?” (“not me”).  --Lambiam 15:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I've found the etymology of ever likewise insufficient to explain however and the lot, and am thus not convinced that an explanation has to be sought in the modern meaning. The exposition in Harper's could not go far enough to discount that. Native speaker intition is appreciable, but it is just intuition. That said, I only want to remark that I found two possibly unetymological comparisons in German: 1. German überall "everywhere" (as if over + all), in questions wo überall; 2. wie aber auch immer "be that as it may", which is appealing at first sight, because it correlates with certain uses of "however" that are however evidenced rather late in English, nevermind that aber "but" (Low German aver) and immer "ever, always" may give two leads to follow up on, too many in fact.

The deciding evidence would be in OE ae, that can be seen mentioned here and there without concrete details, as if it was illusive. Ger. jedoch "although" gives further parallels with regards to je "ever", jeder "every", jetzt "now", perhaps ach iwo (dismissive idiom), further irgend- "any". je ~ ja with its various uses in discourse is difficult to etymologize and sometimes conflated with ja "yes" (says Grimm in DWB).

Starting from native speaker instinct that is the result of the potential answer to this question would be throwing out the baby with the bath water, if ever should be understood in diachrony first, whether the implied reading had been possible at all. 109.41.1.218 17:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can even split some of those words today. "Who would ever have believed..." "Where could you ever hope to hide from them?" Equinox ◑ 17:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

But the meaning is different. In the split example, the ever has a meaning limited to time. In the wh-ever words -ever has to do with some kind of open choice. Whichever means "no matter which"; whoever "no matter who"; etc. The point is that such meaning is not to be found in uses of standalone ever, at least none I am familiar with or can find in a dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know whether whenever, which does have temporal meaning ("no matter when"), predated the other wh-ever words. It might then be possible to argue that the "no matter" meanings of those other words are due to abstraction away from "any time" to some more general "any" meaning. DCDuring (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Several (though not all) of the "etymology" sections in dormir go beyond Latin dormio and cite PIE *drem- (“run, sleep”). However, that entry does not mention "sleep", and all the derivatives it does mention relate to "run".

I haven't a copy of Pokorny to hand: is this simply a mistake? Perhaps two distinct PIE roots conflated? Or is there evidence that the PIE root did have this surprising range of meanings? --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(I should credit that this question was actually raised on Linguistics Stack Exchange by Ergative Man.) --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just realised that I should have raised this at WT:ES. What's the etiquette? Should I just move the question there? --ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess that is better. Perhaps some of our finest etymologists drink only coffee.  --Lambiam 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Moved to WT:ES --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Potentially apt to describe as an eggcorn as well? 98.185.189.181 04:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think so. DCDuring (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring: If that is the case, how would one make both the misspelling template and the eggcorn template work in this circumstance?

# {{misspelling of|en|change tack}} works.

# {{eggcorn of|en|change tack}} works.

But I'm not sure how one would have it say "eggcorn or misspelling of", without simply not using templates. Tharthan (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Eggcorn" is more obscure to normal folks than "misspelling". "Misconstruction" is a more generic term that has the advantage over "eggcorn" of being derived by normal morphology. DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

And is it fundamentally a misspelling? DCDuring (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Altered to # {{misconstruction of|en|change tack}}. Tharthan (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I would not call it a misspelling. The real difference between tack and tact relates to pronunciation, and even the "misspeller" knows this. Equinox ◑ 17:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Invented by Stillson, the wrench is called either a Stillson or a Stillson's (patent wrench). The quasi-plural form is not legitimate and should be deleted or moved to "Stillson's" and/or listed as a variant in Stillson. Bjenks (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a legitimate plural, though, of Stillson, which – next to being a surname – can be short for “Stillson wrench”, as seen in “Give a Stillson the same care you would a monkey wrench”, and in the plural in “I've used Stillsons to work on locomotives.”^{; paywall :(}  --Lambiam 17:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But the 'quasi-plural' singular to which I referred is found in this entry and is surely not legitimate. Bjenks (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(Notifying Benwing2, Leasnam, Lambiam, Hundwine, Mnemosientje): Currently, the declension table for ƿesend says it inflects as a strong nd-stem (with genitive plural ƿesendra and nominative/accusative plural variants ƿesende and ƿesendas) while the declension table for wesend seems to be manually entered, with the genitive plural form wesenda, and with wesend given as the only option for the nominative/accusative plural. The difference in inflection doesn't make sense, since these are not different words or even different phonological forms, just different ways of writing the same word. Does anyone know which inflection table is correct?--Urszag (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, the unhyphenated form (subsystem) is a lot more common, and Ngram Viewer seems to agree. I'd move it, but it was moved to the hyphenated form before. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The category "English words suffixed with -ative" does not include the rather common -ative words: affirmative, negative, palliative, initiative, and native. I suspect this omission might not be a mistake; are those five words considered -ative suffix words, or something else? The entry for -ative doesn't explain much. --78.8.159.10 21:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Rather than being formed in English by suffixation, these words were inherited from Middle English or borrowed from French or Middle French.  --Lambiam 06:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand now, thank you. --78.8.159.10 13:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, to be suffixed, there has to be something that the suffix was added to: native may end in "ative", but it's certainly not n + -ative. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is it reasonable to split outskirts into two etymology sections, as we have done? The meaning is, as far as I can tell, identical.
• The usage note says "In attributive use, the singular form is more common". What sort of attributive usage would this be? "An outskirt supermarket"? It doesn't sound right to me.

Equinox ◑ 17:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• 2010, J. L. Bourne, Beyond Exile: Day by Day Armageddon, page 37:

  I told her of my plan to take John into an urban outskirt area for the purpose of retrieving some vital technical manuals.

• 1983, Our Barrios: Past, Present, and Future, page 20:

  The outskirt communities were originally established as labor camps for railroad workers, farm and ranch hands.

• 1917, Michigan Film Review, page 347:

  Hal Smith, manager of the Ferry Field theatre, Detroit, one of the largest and prettiest outskirt houses in town, played Metro's "Revelation" for three days last week

It seems more prevalent in English-speaking places other than North America and UK. DCDuring (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Is that right? Can you get a single "straight A", i.e. one that is unqualified, not an A-minus etc.? Equinox ◑ 18:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In the example given at straight A, "Should I try to be a straight A student?", it seems to me that "straight A" is not a true adjective but is an attributive noun phrase that has been made singular because of a general reluctance in English to use plural attributive nouns. I also think it should properly be hyphenated: "straight-A student". Mihia (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere can I find the meaning of the river-name Ems, anciently Amisia. My best guess is that it derives from the same root as German Amme, thus meaning "provident or nourishing river". Does anyone have any better ideas?

I’d be more inclined to seek a connection with Proto-West Germanic *ahu (“river”) compounded with some suffix. The Ems article on Wikipedia states: “Etymology  tamesis, indo-european for dark, as in dark river”. That would be most curious. The same etymon as for the Thames? What happened to the /t/? Perhaps this originated from a misreading “ Ems. Tameſis” for the entry “ _TEms. Tameſis” in an early 18-th century Latin–German & German–Latin dictionary. The claim is found in a Dutch book, where Tamesis is called “Indo-Germanic”. The book is from 2016, predating the addition of the etymology to the Wikipedia article.
    In another 18th-century book entitled The Origin of Language and Nations, the claim is made that the etymon of Ems/Amisia is am-is(a). The author appears to have assumed that all words harken back to a Proto-Celtic language whose lexicon consists of compounds of mostly monosyllabic meaning-bearing morphemes. I mention this mainly for its curiosity value.  --Lambiam 17:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I just read an article that argues that “the names of most larger European rivers are too old to be of Indo-European origin” and therefore “are likely to derive from Pre-Indo-European languages”.  --Lambiam 18:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Adverb sense:

In the manner or role (specified).

The kidnappers released him as agreed.

The parties were seen as agreeing on a range of issues.

He was never seen as the boss, but rather as a friend.

Is "as" really an adverb in these examples? Mihia (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There is considerable disagreement in treatment between the usual lemmings. Nothing fits really well, but for the first usex I’d go with another “if all else fails option”, conjunction, like the PoS assignment for although. Note that – excluding Yoda-speak – this is the only one of the three in which the dependent clause can be moved to the front: “As agreed, the kidnappers released him.” Compare the sentence “The kidnappers did not release him, although agreed“, in which the clause can also be fronted. I think preposition is a better fit for the last two, with the whole prepositional clause being adverbial, very similar if not the same as sense 2 of prepositional as. (Preposition does not fit usex 1, because you can replace the past participle “agreed” by a finite, third-person (passive) past tense or perfect tense: “as was agreed” / “as has been agreed”.)  --Lambiam 19:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The third usex certainly would seem to fit with as#Preposition ("in the role of"). I'm not so sure about usex 2. DCDuring (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, yes, #3 seems identical to the existing preposition sense. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that #1 is a conjunction and #2 also a preposition. #1 could be seen as a shortening of "... as it was / had been agreed". Mihia (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#as. Mihia (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Where would a usage like "They were seen as in agreement" fit? It doesn't seem to be obviously a preposition, but it has semantics close to example 2. I'm not comfortable with usage example 2 as being of a preposition because I am having trouble coming up with examples that use anything other than a gerund-participle as complement. DCDuring (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, noun examples work, e.g. "They were seen as friends". On the "in agreement" example, could we say that "They were seen as in agreement" is short for "They were seen as being in agreement"? Mihia (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In the second usage example, agreeing seems to me to be participial (adjective), not gerundive (noun). Alternative examples with the same meaning would have as followed by in agreement (a prep. phrase). It can also be followed by past participles. The same meaning of as would seem to apply to uses in which it is followed by typical adjectives: "He saw the performance as creative but amateurish.". I'm too tired now to go through CGEL for some clarity on what word class it falls into in this usage. DCDuring (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Where the second usage example is concerned, another approach may be to look at parallels such as:

The parties were seen as agreeing on a range of issues.

The parties made an attempt at agreeing on a range of issues.

The parties were commended for agreeing on a range of issues.

If "at" and "for" are prepositions, then can "as" be one too? Mihia (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

An Estonian Wiktionary administrator says that the Estonian word eelmäng has at least three meanings (https://et.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Arutelu:esileikki) but only one is listed here. Maybe someone can add the rest of them here as well? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@BigDom

One cannot help but wonder why this administrator does not channel their knowledge into the creation of et:eelmäng.  --Lambiam 19:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Though it might come as a surprise, things are pretty slow on Estonian Wiktionary. It takes ten years to get a reply, apparently. --Vitoscots (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel famous now, I've been trolled by WF. Anyway, as he rightly pointed out I'm no Estonian expert, though I picked up a few bits during a month spent there last year and there's plenty of online dictionaries. The EKSS does indeed give three senses : the first is a prelude to a musical piece (synonym prelüüd); the second is given as an event preceding another, so a forerunner or harbinger; and the third is the sexual sense we already have. BigDom 20:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As if by magic, someone has now created et:eelmäng. They've given four senses, but the first two seem almost the same to me (both the musical sense). BigDom 20:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Estonian Wiktionary is in fact alive and well. The creation of "eelmäng" was not magic, it was most obviously influenced by my message at the discussion of "esileikki". Sometimes a message in a discussion forum might just go unnoticed. As soon as I stumbled accross on that almost 10 year old Wiktionary page of et:esileikki and saw a request of a clarification ("which meaning of eelmäng is this trying to refer to"), I gave a clarification in the discussion page as I knew what esileikki means in Finnish. My Estonian just wasn't good enough to edit the page itself, so I answered in the discussion section, also linking to eelmäng on this wiki. Since this wiki, contrary to what the discussion page of the et-wikt's "esileikki" said, only knew one meaning for eelmäng, I thought it would be good to notify about that here too so someone could add the other meanings here as well. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't magic, it's just a phrase :) You did the right thing and now both Wiktionaries have better entries, seems like a success all round. BigDom 10:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

German Vorspiel has the same range of senses. Of course, English prelude comes via French from Latin praeludium, while fore-play is probably, like Vor-spiel, a calque of prae-ludium – or else the English is, like the Estonian, a calque of the German word.  --Lambiam 12:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I added a sense for the noun I hear cooks using, saying food has "a nice chew", "is a tough chew", etc. But the definition probably needs improving, or even (possibly) merging into sense 1. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the Singapore English question tag or not (also spelled ornot, anot), supplying the function of Chinese question particles, SOP? Anot lists a Singlish sense but seems to take "or not" itself as SOP since it's just given as a contraction. I'm inclined to say that or not should be created since it doesn't form a question by itself in other English dialects—i.e., you would have to say "Did he do it or not?" and not "*He did it or not?" Nizolan (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

And the expression whether or not is always a difficult one for L2 learners to get to grips with. Surprised we don't have it --Vitoscots (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and create "or not" but I tend to agree about "whether or not", I'm not sure it's easily decomposable. I came across it earlier as the English gloss at 是不是 (shìbùshì) and it struck me as potentially confusing. Would be curious what others think. Nizolan (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It also occurs to me actually that the usual English use of "or not", i.e. the distinction between "Did he go?" and "Did he go or not?", might not necessarily be clear from decomposition either. It seems to have an emphatic function. Nizolan (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Cambridge has a entry for whether or not:

• “whether or not”, in Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1999–present.

PUC – 11:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2020/April § Etymology of the Armenian word 'շուշտ' - doubtful

Are senses 4 and 5 of English constitution really dated? None of the published dictionaries at Onelook mark them as such and I recall encountering them in not particularly old video games — sense 4 seems especially common as a stat in RPGs. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No way is sense 5, "A person's physique or temperament", dated, at least not in BrE -- not that I would say that this is the greatest ever definition of this meaning. I don't really understand 4, "The general health of a person", at least not as distinct from 5. If you're familiar with it, could you supply a usage example that would illustrate this? Mihia (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say basically the same thing as Mihia: I'm not sure how distinct the two senses are, but they're not dated. It may have become more difficult to use them due to people being liable to think you mean the other senses (especially in derived terms: saying someone is "constitutionally unable" to do something, for example), but they're still found (including in video games, as LBD says). - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#constitution. Mihia (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is an improvement. Thoughts? PUC – 12:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion: 1. Old "let the speaker know" is better than "tell the speaker something" because the second one is too broad. Tell the speaker what? My mother's name?
2. Old "whether...can see her" seems rather redundant since it's reiterating the sentence next to it. But the replacement doesn't even make sense and at best is ludicrously wordy. Equinox ◑ 17:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Anyway, it seems to have been reverted now. Mihia (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither the new definition by the IP ("Of fingernails, having been bitten down to the quick") nor the old one ("Having bitten off one's entire fingernail") seems right. PUC – 13:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should Delete this as a hyphenated attributive form that essentially means nothing more than the unhyphenated phrase. We may as well have entries for "gnawed-to-the-bone" or "scuffed-at-the-knee" or a milllion™ others. Mihia (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  I've RfDed it: WT:Requests_for_deletion/English#bitten-to-the-quick. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Presently, the second "as" in the "so/as ~ as noun" pattern is given both as a conjunction (example She's as sharp as a tack) and as a preposition (example You are not as tall as me). Any views on which it is? Mihia (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

MW Online calls the first as an adverb and the second a conjunction. I'd rather go with CGEL which, if I read it correctly, has the second as being a preposition. DCDuring (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What's your view on "You're not as tall as I am"? Mihia (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

We have an expression in English: to be/not be worth a lick, as in "He ain't worth a lick". This noun sense of lick carries the meaning of "try/chance" and implies that someone not worth a lick is "worthless". I imagine this sense of lick originates from actually licking something (e.g. an ice-cream or lollipop) as in: I wanna try that new flavour ice-cream. Oh, don't bother, it isn't worth a lick = "it isn't worth tasting/it isn't good". At lick we have sense 8 which comes closest to this use, but could this rather have evolved so far from its original meaning as to warrant a separate entry at be worth a lick ? Leasnam (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sense 7 seems the exact sense: "a small amount, a whit". DARE has 7-8 definitions, some of which we lack, but most of which are metaphorical extension of the literal lick, small amounts of work, liquor, food.

There are a few common collocations that use lick in a related sense: "(not) a lick of sense", "a lick and a promise"(?)

Taste, sniff, snort, touch, whiff have similar meanings. DCDuring (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see. I wonder if that sense also comes from the notion of a "small taste", a "lick" Leasnam (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think all the senses, except the "speed" and "watercourse" ones , derive closely from the notion of a lick of the tongue: the motion, the amount gained, etc. The two exceptions seem quite remote to me. DCDuring (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth an entry? Merriam-Webster and Macmillan have an entry for it, but it sounds rather SOP.

• “mix business with pleasure”, in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1996–present.
• “mix business with pleasure” (US) / “mix business with pleasure” (UK) in Macmillan English Dictionary.

PUC – 19:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Go for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  We follow the "lemming" heuristic. If one of the "unabridged" dictionaries has the term, we almost always include it as best we can. I follow MWOnline, which seems to agree with my sense of what is NISoP, but am not so confident about following, say, Collins in this regard. DCDuring (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

We have business before pleasure. Equinox ◑ 10:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Adverb sense:

Considered to be, in relation to something else; in the relation (specified).

1865, The Act of Suicide as Distinct from the Crime of Self-Murder: A Sermon

1937, Tobias Matthay, On Colouring as Distinct from Tone-inflection: A Lecture (London: Oxford University Press)

Is "as" really an adverb in these examples? Mihia (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't fight it. Most dictionaries put as, so defined, in the class "adverb", which has long been a residual ("junk") category, excepting certain open subsets, such as manner adverbs. Word class membership can be somewhat artificial for words that serve a grammatical function. DCDuring (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide example(s) of a dictionary that classifies it so? I'm aware of the traditional use of "adverb" for words that don't seem to fit elsewhere, but I'm finding this one hard to see. While "as" is known to be an especially difficult word to pigeonhole, I think we should try to get its classification as right as we can. Mihia (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Can this also mean commander or general in English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Not according to any of the OneLook lemmings.  --Lambiam 13:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I am confused, because the OED reads: "commander (a title conferred under the Republic on a victorious general and under the Empire on the emperor)“. Thus, its meaning seems more complex than just "emperor". ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The term imperator is not used in English in the sense of “commander”. It is (or rather was) used in Latin, originally in the sense of “general” and later more generally “commander”, before it acquired the specific sense of “emperor”. If it appears in the original sense in an English text, this is probably an instance of code-switching.  --Lambiam 09:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an extensive overview of the sense development – in spite of the title also in the times of the Republic – in the excellent doctoral dissertation The History of the Title Imperator under the Roman Empire.  --Lambiam 09:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed response. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"A reference to one's face flushing as being embarrassed". Does this sentence parse? PUC – 14:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really. I changed it to "from embarrassment". Ultimateria (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It did not parse mustard.  --Lambiam 08:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you "red in the face" if you just feel embarrassed, without the actual facial redness? (Also, the phrase is equally used for other rednesses of face, e.g. from physical exertion.) Equinox ◑ 21:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have heard the phrase "Is my face red!" as a way of expressing embarrassment, either real or feigned. DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The faces of people with dark skin do not visibly become red when they blush (the rush of blood to the face still happens, but the color of the face hardly changes at all), but I think they can still be said to be "red in the face" when they're embarrassed. —Mahāgaja · talk 04:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The meaning of the verb in internet-related contexts is listed twice, under two different etymology sections. That's obviously a mistake, but which one should be kept? —Rua (mew) 17:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: The first. A century ago a core means of communication with an indefinite circle of people was to pin something unto a board or post; so important that it was a severely punished offence to remove a government’s proclamation on such a place, particulary during the wars. Just note the transferral of the terminology in bulletin board. Fay Freak (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m translating an article on modern music in Japanese to English, which is difficult because of different terminologies in the two languages. What do you call a song structure where a lead singer sings a phrase and then a back singer sings the same phrase? It’s musically similar to call and response in that one sings and then the other sings at different timings, but different in that the two sing the same lyrics. It’s called 追(お)っかけ (okkake) in Japanese (not the “groupie” sense).

Also, what do you call hey or yeah or come on inserted in a song, usually sung by a back singer? Do you call them interjections? I’m not talking about the lexical category of interjections but about a song structure. It’s called 合(あ)いの手(て) (ainote) in Japanese. An online dictionary gives interjected chant as an English translation but I doubt it. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As to your first question, the term echo song is used. I do not know how general this is. In most uses I saw, the lines are repeated by a chorus, or by a sing-along audience. The term can also be used for a song in which only the last few syllables of each line are repeated, usually each time with a different meaning in the echo than in their first occurrence.  --Lambiam 19:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! And we haven’t had an entry yet. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As to the second question, I have a feeling there isn’t a specific term for those individual sounds, but they could collectively called backup vocals (see “w:Backup vocalist”). I also thought of scat singing but that is slightly different as it is often the singing of the main melody using meaningless syllables. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, in this webpage, I read head back. Is it more than the sum of parts in your opinion? If so, could someone create this entry? Thanks. Pamputt (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You can {head|go} {up to your room|down the stairs|back to home|off to work (heigh-ho)}, so this appears to be a sum-of-parts.  --Lambiam 18:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

None of the better lemmings have it, per “head back”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Also: head out, head in, head over. DCDuring (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't create. One can head anywhere (head north, head home, head to bed, etc.). Equinox ◑ 19:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And head to toe.  --Lambiam 10:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you very much for your explanations. Pamputt (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Does a noun sense of the Czech term smeť "sweepings" exist, as in Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sъmetь? I couldn't find it and I can't open the reference. I found smetí n in this Czech-German dictionary, translated to German as Müll (“garbage”)

@Dan Polansky, please respond, if you can. Not sure if we currently have other active Czech editors. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The existence of the Slovak smeť needs also be checked as well. It's mentioned as a cognate in some places, for example at сме́цце (smjéccje). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not use and have not heard Czech noun smeť, but it is in the dictionaries as a synonym of smetí: “smeť”, in Příruční slovník jazyka českého (in Czech), 1935–1957, “smeť”, in Slovník spisovného jazyka českého (in Czech), 1960–1971, 1989. Czech. Czech smetí would be approximately translated as trash or rubbish, but I am not sure of full equivalence. The form is indeed also Slovak, as per “smeť”, in Slovníkový portál Jazykovedného ústavu Ľ. Štúra SAV (in Slovak), https://slovnik.juls.savba.sk, 2003–2024. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Thank you very much! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Having six separate senses seems really excessive. Equinox ◑ 13:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Why not just RfV the completely uncited four? Century 1911 had two or three definitions (two of them appearing under the same def. number). It's possible that the meaning has evolved in such a way that we would need multiple definitions to capture. DCDuring (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Raising this kind of thing at Tea Room sometimes gets it sorted without the need for RFV process. (I'm a little hesitant to use RFC/cleanup when it would involve the actual deletion of senses.) Equinox ◑ 21:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to see how they differ. What is the difference between “one skilled in the construction of machines” (covered by sense 1), “one skilled in building machines” (covered by sense 2), again “one skilled in the construction of machines” (covered by sense 3, using sense 2 of mechanics), and “someone who builds machinery” (covered by sense 6, using sense 2 of mechanic)? Under such circumstances, RfV will prove unhelpful.  --Lambiam 09:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Usually I'd have thought that a search for quotations would help to show if there are indeed those shades of meaning. But I agree that here the definitions you highlighted are just different ways of saying the same thing. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A virtue of RfV is that it leads to a resolution without too much controversy. If no one is willing to invest the effort in citation, then the definitions can be deleted in 30 days. If someone is willing we may discover meanings possibly differing from those challenged. Jawing rarely leads to discovering meanings. DCDuring (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What if each single citation verifies all senses?  --Lambiam 07:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It could be that the citations suggest that there is often no distinction made. In this case, mechanician seems sometimes to be used as an occupation, sometimes as a formal job title, sometimes to refer to someone with broad mechanical engineering skills, sometimes to a workman skilled in operating, maintaining or repairing certain machinery. AFAICT, it is at least sometimes distinct from machinist ("machine operator"). The expression certainly seems dated, from the 19th century through the early decades of the 20th. At least one translator of Bishop Berkeley's De Motu referred to Newton as a mechanician. Also, see w:Mechanician. DCDuring (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted File:en-us-turgid-2.ogg from turgid. As I wrote in the edit comment,

Removed 2nd sound file. It uses pronunciation /ˈtɝgɪd/, with a hard "g" as in "goat". The American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, and Collins dictionaries all have only the pronunciation /ˈtɝdʒɪd/, with soft "g" as in "general".

After my deletion on en:wikt, the file page here shows it as being used in 2 other wikis, Japanese and Kurdish, both of which also have the /ˈtɝdʒɪd/ pronunciation as in File:en-us-turgid.ogg. I know neither of those languages, but I wonder at that. Maybe the word is a legitimate loan from English on both of those, with both pronunciations. Maybe. --Thnidu (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

In both cases these are included under (the equivalent of) the L2 “English”, not as loan words.  --Lambiam 08:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please nominate the audio file for deletion after removing all uses of it. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to get bad audio files deleted, but since @EncycloPetey recorded it, maybe he can request its deletion, or even better, replace it with him saying the word correctly. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In the past, Commons has always declined such requests for deletion of pronunciation files, or even the renaming such audio files for clarity of origin. The pronunciation I recorded is pronounced as I learned it from botanists at Duke University who taught it to me. The pronunciation is in use, even if it has not yet been documented as such by a major dictionary. It might be deemed the pronunciation equivalent of jargon.

@Metaknowledge This discussion is about the second ogg file. There is a first one which I recorded with the soft g. Are you suggesting that the second ogg file be made identical to the first? What would be the point of having two identical files? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I can't find any evidence for this, but I don't really interact with botanists much (not that I remember them using this pronunciation back when I did take courses taught by botanists). We don't really have policy for pronunciations, but if we include this in the entry based on your word alone, it certainly needs some qualification explaining that only botanists use it. (By the way, Commons would definitely rename it — although I'm not sure that would be as useful in this case as just editing the description at Commons.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Even that kind of labelling has been challenged at Commons in the past. I had a protracted discussion about an audio file for the phrase "Christmas tree" pronounced in English but by an Italian national for whom English was a second language. The best is simply to make a decision here whether or not to use the file, and leave it at that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that this is a common pronunciation among biologists in general. Maybe it is confined to Duke University’s Department of Biology.  --Lambiam 11:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The audio says Classical but it is actually phonemic classical or Ecclesiastical. 98.115.185.135 03:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

We have template {{derived}} for the etymology of terms in one language derived from another language. What about derivations from a term in the same language? Is there a preferred way of indicating these?  --Lambiam 09:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, we have a whole bunch of Category:Morphology templates. Do you have something specific in mind? PUC – 09:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

An example is the noun wing and prayer, derived non-morphologically from the prepositional phrase on a wing and a prayer. I think there are many analogical cases, even though I don't immediately find other entries, for example pants-down as in “in a pants-down moment, the Energy Department delivered a release replete with editing strikeovers”, from the phrase caught with one’s pants down.  --Lambiam 16:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've seen these handled with simple links, like "from the expression on a wing and a prayer". If there's no specific derivational process at work like compounding, I don't suppose there'd be any more specific template. (Compare duck test.) I guess we could create a category and template for "English terms derived from idioms" or something... meh... (check for support for such a thing first...) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't see much use for a specific template or a specific category. I've encountered similar cases in French before (though I don't have anything that springs to mind right now), and a simple "From the expression XX" seemed good enough. PUC – 17:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth an entry? PUC – 17:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why. I'd interpret it as "so" + "there's that": it has to follow on from some previous discussion, therefore so has its normal meaning. "There's that" could also be "there is that". We have an entry for there is (interestingly!): there is X means X exists. Again we have the usual meaning of that, i.e. something previously referred to (you can't use this phrase on its own, out of the blue). Equinox ◑ 18:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it usually means: “it exists, and it mitigates the issue at hand”. IMO the implied underlined part is not easily inferred from the literal meaning and indeed makes the phrase idiomatic.  --Lambiam 07:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In GBooks I can see "well, there's that, but..." Equinox ◑ 13:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Lexico (by Oxford) has an entry for this, and the definition makes it seem essentially synonymous with "frenemy" *cringes*. Does this word mean the same thing, and (if so) ought we to have an entry for it? Tharthan (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I tracked down Lexico's vague Warner citation: "So Henrie, Duke of Buckingham, third Richards friend-foe speade" (Albions England, 1597 printing, page 215, found by the view entire text option here). Given the context and the fact that I can't find any other instances of "friend-foe" used as a single term via a Google Books before 1950 search, I suspect it's just a poetic idiosyncrasy by Warner. Past the 1940s or so it comes into use to refer to Carl Schmitt's friend–enemy distinction, but I think that's SOP. Nizolan (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for looking into it. Tharthan (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a special reason why audeō is said to have no imperative? Horace uses the singular imperative audē in the famous phrase sapere audē and, in Cicero's Prō Cluentiō 65, we have audēte negāre to attest the plural imperative. --Thrasymedes (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Benwing2 is the one who first added a template including the string "noimp" (the exact template and parameters have changed since then). Benwing, are you OK with changing |2.opt-semi-depon.noimp to |2.opt-semi-depon? —Mahāgaja · talk 09:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Fine with me. Benwing2 (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done —Mahāgaja · talk 10:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is cited to Milton as "endazzled eyes". I've found a number of quote-collections which say endazzled, for example:

methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth, and kindling her endazzled eyes at the full mid-day beam;

This is from Areopagitica (here), but it looks like it was originally the word undazzled, and everyone quoting it spelled it wrong.

Methinks I ſee her as an Eagle muing her mighty youth, and kindling her undazl'd eyes at the full midday beam;

Does this become a word if it appears in reprint after reprint, even if it wasn't in the original? What's the right course of action here? I tend to think we should move this to "endazzled" as an alternate form of "undazzled", and put the Milton quote in the latter, but I'm not dead-set on anything. grendel|khan 16:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the real test is whether endazzled has been used in works other than by Milton. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Webster's defined it as "to dazzle" would suggest that people weren't reading this error as an alternate form of "undazzled" at any rate, and I can find non-Milton instances (e.g., or this one from 1996 which might suggest "archaic" is better than "obsolete"). It might make more sense to remove the Milton and use less ambiguous quotations. It also occurs in the 1933 Wallace Stevens poem "A Fading of the Sun", but the meaning is not obvious: "Who can think of the sun costuming clouds / When all people are shaken / Or of night endazzled, proud, / When people awaken / And cry and cry for help?" Nizolan (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I can’t imagine anyone reading endazzled as undazzled, just like no one would read enforced as unforced, enlightened as unlightened, enlisted as unlisted, or entangled as untangled. There are also uses of the forms endazzles, endazzling, and even endazzlement.  --Lambiam 11:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

However, for some reason, the OED (unupdated version) also interprets the Milton quotation as endazzled even though it is spelled undazzled in the given quotation. It appears the editor thinks Milton must have intended the word endazzled. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced Milton with three quotations from a range of other sources, and changed the "obsolete" label to "archaic". The question about whether Milton wanted "endazzled" or "undazzled" can probably be left to literary historians, though it might be useful to source the earliest unambiguous usage. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam: I've also created endazzlement based on the citations you dug up. In this case, as far as I can tell, it looks like there's no obvious variability in its usage over time and it can be independently formed from en+dazzlement without reference to endazzle, so I've just tagged it as rare rather than dated or archaic. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nizolan, Lambiam, Sgconlaw: Thank you to everyone here for getting to the bottom of this--this is exactly why I meticulously dig up original sources, because sometimes it leads to surprising bits, and wonderful improvements. grendel|khan 06:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grendelkhan: indeed! — SGconlaw (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The Japanese readings contains several forms not attested in my usual sources. Looking at the page history, a large number of questionable readings were added by a user on Feb 1, 2011. In the intervening years, a little more than half were subsequently removed, but the rest still remain. Can we verify the following readings?

On-yomi: けい (kei)

Kun-yomi: ゆ-わう (yu.wau), いわ-える (iwa.eru), いわ-く (iwa.ku), かた-なす (kata.nasu), かた-ぬ (kata.nu), かた-める (kata.meru)

71.168.173.2 04:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Belatedly catching up on some things.

Some of the readings listed are archaic or obsolete, but all are confirmable. For instance, see this page in Kotobank. Note that we seek to document not just the modern mainstream language, but also the rarities and historical details. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Two of the earliest-proposed names of Antichrist are Λατεινος and Τειταν, which apparently are alternate spellings of Λατῖνος and Τιτάν respectively. The spellings of Λατεινος and Τειταν were chosen because they both sum to 666 (using Greek gematria), whereas Λατῖνος and Τιτάν do not.

What I'm wondering is, where did these alternate spellings come from?

An initial thought might be that the extra letters were conveniently added, such as to get the sum to come out to 666.

But could there be more to it than that? At least one commentator has pointed out that the Latin long i, when transcribed into Greek, sometimes becomes ει--such as in the Latin name Papīrius, in Greek spelled Παπείριος. (This would make sense for "Latinus", which was loaned into Greek from the Latin... but it would make less sense with "Titan", which was loaned into Latin from Greek.)

Or could this have something to do with vowel shifts and/or non-standard spellings in late antiquity?

One last thing - Does anyone think that Λατεινος and Τειταν should be added to the Λατῖνος and Τιτάν pages as alternate spellings? (Even if those spellings are limited to Antichrist, they do seem to come up a lot in that context.) 76.111.168.184 12:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Since ⟨ει⟩ and ⟨ι⟩ were pronounced the same already by the first century, it's hardly surprising that spellings get confused, even when people aren't deliberately trying to get the letters to add up to 666, so it's even less surprising when they are trying to do so. And yes, I'd say Λατεῖνος (Lateînos) and Τειτάν (Teitán) should be added as alternative spellings if they're attested. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding transcriptions of Middle Chinese, I believe it is William H. Baxter that established the use of Roman letters X and H as markers for the traditional 上 (shǎng) and 去 (qù) tones respectively. These symbols are also used in the MC tables displayed by the zh-pron template on Wiktionary (as superscripts affixed to phonetic symbols). But I wonder why those particular letters were chosen.

Were they chosen because it's difficult to mistake them for anything else? Or were they abbreviated from actual words?

All I can find in Baxter's A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology is that he basically just chose them without giving much explanation. (§2.1, p. 31) --Frigoris (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Frigoris: It was apparently Li Fang-kuei who came up with -h and -x for these, the -h probably referring to the analogous hypothesised development in Vietnamese -s > -h > falling tone (, , ). Not sure about -x but I suppose it's a convenient letter for the proposed -ʔ the tone would have developed out of. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nizolan: Thanks, that's indeed very interesting! I never knew that. Frigoris (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This gets a few hits. Are there enough of them to create it as an alternative-form entry of the proof of the pudding is in the eating / the proof is in the pudding? PUC – 22:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I edited the second sense of -sphere from "layer of the Earth" to "layer or region of the Earth", thinking of terms like Anglosphere and Sinosphere following the ongoing RfV of Slavosphere, but this still seems unsatisfactory to me.

I think there are probably at least two distinct senses here: (1) a global (chiefly?) natural system like the hydrosphere or the cryosphere, where "sphere" literally means the sphere of the Earth (or sometimes another planet), and (2) a figurative usage involving a totality of related things, like the Twittersphere. The "cultural sphere" usage as in Anglosphere and Sinosphere would then be a specific case of the latter, but since it's productive it might merit its own sense (3?). Beyond these there's also (4) a more general literal meaning, e.g. chromosphere. But I don't know if I'm missing anything. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have added a third sense. Equinox ◑ 18:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Could the second sense (Anglosphere, Sinosphere, etc.) perhaps be a shortening from sphere of influence? Just speculating... 76.111.168.184 19:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It has a really convoluted history from what I can tell. Victor Mair discusses some of it in this post. The earliest instances of this usage are "Sinosphere" and "Indosphere", apparently coined by James Matisoff in this 1990 article. "Anglosphere" came along later thanks to Neal Stephenson in 1995.

The Mair post spends some time distinguishing it from the 漢字文化圈 ("Chinese Character Cultural Sphere"), but the underlying influence appears in any case to be Japanese/Sinitic: as he says, it was the Japanese historian Nishijima Sadao who popularised the expression 中華文化圏 ("Chinese Cultural Sphere") earlier in the 20th century to refer to the East Asian cultural zone—the 圏 here is the same sphere as in Co-Prosperity Sphere. This in turn was apparently influenced by a Chinese calque of an earlier German term, Kulturkreis, literally "cultural circle" (see Kreis). So a circle became a sphere in the transition to East Asia.

The term "sphere of influence" has been knocking around English since at least the 19th century, e.g. "let us imagine two atoms ... and a third floating within the sphere of influence of the two united atoms" (1838), "the sphere of influence assigned to " (1838). But as far as I can see, the usage of "sphere of influence" to specifically refer to a country's sphere, or "sphere" to refer to a cultural space more broadly, only takes off with World War II, presumably under the sway of the Japanese usage. So one way or the other, terms like "Sinosphere" seem to be recalling a specific East Asian usage, itself taken from the German for "circle", and have followed their own slightly tortuous etymological route. —Nizolan ^(talk) 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox: I made a stab at expanding the definition in your sense a bit and split the "global system" and "physical sphere" usages. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is just an error, and I see a similar point has been raised on the talk page before: Talk:kith and kine. Thoughts? Should we merge the two etymologies and senses? Equinox ◑ 19:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean, present two theories under one heading? Otherwise I don’t see how one can merge the etymologies “cattle” and “misspelling”.  --Lambiam 20:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean just put it as a misspelling or "eggcorn" or whatever we'd call it, not as a serious-sounding ME derivation. Equinox ◑ 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Are both in use? Have both been in use since ME? What is the meaning of kynne in the Gower citation? DCDuring (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The Middle English Dictionary renders the Gower quote as "Fro kiththe and kinne With gret tresor with him sche stal." and uses the quote in support of the following definition: "(a) A kinsman, a relative; coll. kinsfolk, kindred, relatives; also, a spiritual relative; neigh ~, a close relative, near kinsman; fremed and ~, strangers and kinsmen; frend (frendes, kith) and ~; nouther ~ no kith (nor win), neither friend nor kin, nobody; (b) kinship, blood-relationship; (c) parents; ?also, ancestors; (d) descendants, progeny; ?heirs." I don't see cattle or property mentioned.

This raises some questions in my mind about the meaning of kith and kine. Could it be best viewed as a misspelling of kith and kin in current usage and an alternative spelling historically? We would need citations of both to try to sort this out. I'd bet on the kith and kine meaning and "cattle" etymology being an invention of someone of antiquarian disposition. DCDuring (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The page demonstrative adjective lists examples of English demonstrative adjectives: this, that, these and those. Aren't those rather demonstrative pronouns and not adjectives? I'm not sure if English even has demonstrative adjectives; the word such is the closest to what I'd call a "demonstrative adjective" in the English language that comes to my mind. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mölli-Möllerö: When they govern a noun (e.g. this man, that woman, these cats, those dogs), they aren't pronouns either but determiners. However, some grammar books, especially older ones, do call such things "adjectives" even though modern-day linguists would say they aren't. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is given as a translation of French de fond en comble (“thoroughly, completely, from top to bottom”). Is it a thing? Does it deserve an entry? PUC – 10:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

We have the adjective wall-to-wall, which can also be used as an adverb, possibly in unhyphenated form (,,). I think from wall to wall used figuratively is a variant, but I have no idea if it is sufficiently common to deserve an entry. I’m fairly sure the original figurative use derives specifically from wall-to-wall carpeting.  --Lambiam 12:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Is one of these worth an entry? Among lemmings, only Collins has it.

• “of the deepest dye”, in Collins English Dictionary.

PUC – 10:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a variation on deep-dyed. But is it common enough? One lemon doth not a lemonade make.  --Lambiam 12:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

An anon removed the Psittacidae portion of the first definition (which change I reverted):

"A kind of bird, many species of which are colourful and able to mimic human speech, of the order Psittaciformes or (narrowly) of the family Psittacidae."

I bring the matter here because the anon's reaction is a criticism of the definition which, IMO, we should take seriously. In addition, it illustrates the generic problem of the scope of definition of popular words for things that parallel technical names.

The sole citation in our, from Dickens, illustrates little about any aspect of the definition given. The entry has a picture of a fairly typical parrot, which suffices for many users. WP refers to the superfamily Psittacoidea as the "true parrots". Other superfamilies include cockatoos and New Zealand parrots, which seem parrot-like to me, but not quite "typical". The anon is certainly on to something in wondering why Psittaculidae and Psittrichasiidae are not included in parrots. All the species in Psittrichasiidae have vernacular names that include the word parrot. The species in Psittaculidae have vernacular names like budgie or two-part names including terms like lorikeet, lory, parakeet, rosella, bluebonnet, racket-tail, and others, as well as parrot. The order Psittaciformes has species with names including cockatoo, macaw, conure, and kakapo. Finding citations that show the some would call each of these a type of parrot or merely like a parrot seems like the gold standard, but very time-consuming.

Other dictionaries have definitions quite like our definition, the older ones sometimes emphasizing the family Psittacidae, the newer ones the order.

We have the advantage of having educated many of our repeat users to look under Hyponyms headers, so we do not have to include everything in the definition.

A proposed definition, probably too long:

"Any of many species of bird, often colourful and able to mimic human speech, with a distinctive hooked bill and zygodactyl feet, in order Psittaciformes, the most typical of which are in superfamily Psittacoidea."

Thoughts? DCDuring (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The two quotations under the second Scots sense look like English (or, in the case of Joyce, like "English"). So is this an English sense...? - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring, Chuck Entz, I’ve been looking from the Portuguese name of Hibiscus tiliaceus/Talipariti tiliaceum and was surprised to find that most uses of describe a tree that grows abundantly in the mangroves of South America, which seems to contradict our definition and the Wikipedia page. I suspect our definition and the WP article cover only Hibiscus tiliaceus var. tiliaceus and not Hibiscus tiliaceus var. pernambucense (which some works treat as a different species). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That's no doubt true, however... Linnaeus published Hibiscus tiliaceus in the 1753 edition of Species Plantarum, while Arruda published Hibiscus pernambucense in 1810. It looks like the first time that pernambucensis was published as part of the same species was Hibiscus tiliaceus var. pernambucensis in 1949, so any reference to Hibiscus tiliaceus or any of its synonyms before 1949 would be Hibiscus tiliaceus var. tiliaceus or a synonym. After that, it would be a matter of whether the reference used treated the two as the same species or not. If not, Hibiscus tiliaceus would be Hibiscus tiliaceus var. tiliaceus or a synonym. In fact, w:Hibiscus has a redlink for w:Hibiscus pernambucensis, so Wikipedia is at least consistent in not treating pernambucensis in the tileaceus article.

Even when they were considered the same species, most works would only care about the infraspecific taxa found in areas they were familiar with. The only taxon found in most of the Portuguese-speaking regions is H. t. pernambucensis or synonym. As I'm sure you're aware, non-Portuguese/non-Spanish authors are blissfully unaware of most things endemic to Portuguese-speaking areas of South America. It's also true that H. t. t. has a more interesting story: it's native to coastal areas in a wide swath of South Asia and the South Pacific. Polynesian travelers brought the name, lore and possibly the plants themselves with them over vast areas of the open ocean at least a thousand years ago. I'm sure Portuguese works discussing South Asia, Australia and the Pacific islands refer to H.t.t. instead of H.t.p. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This turned out to be quite a bit more complex than I expected. I mainly need help with the wording of the definition. I intend to define any name that is attested only in reference to a Brazilian plant as refering only to the pernambucense/pernambucensis variety/species rather than the whole species; my questions are:

• What taxonomic name I should use in the definition?
• Is cottonwood hibiscus an acceptable English translation? If indeed the English name refers to both varieties, then it is valid (though I’d word it as “a variety of the cottonwood hibiscus” or similar if the Portuguese name is not found to also refer to H. t. t.).

I have gathered a list of around 100 names (!) that I will need to check for attestation. A couple of hits described an invasive plant of Mozambique, and one described a tree used to make fibre in East Timor; these were the only cases that clearly refered to H. t. t.. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This reference may give you a better idea of common names. The name I'm finding the most for the plant in English so far is seaside mahoe, though it's been used for other species. As for Portuguese, w:pt:Algodoeiro-da-praia suggests the name hibisco-do-mangue, which is mentioned here. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The OED's entry highlights the genus Coronavirus first, as opposed to our entry which has the family. There are other genera- is a torovirus a coronavirus? DTLHS (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the actual genus of SARS-COV-2 is w:Betacoronavirus, not Coronavirus. Apparently there is no currently recognized genus called "Coronavirus". Chuck Entz (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There also is no species accepted by ICTV that corresponds to SARS-CoV-2. They have a species called Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV), but that is for the first SARS. Other sources say that SARS-CoV-2 is not a descendant of SARS-CoV, having recently (late 2019) crossed over from a bat coronavirus, but others call it a strain of SARS-CoV. I am unsure how much virus descent patterns are like those of cellular organisms.

ICTV has created a new phylogeny that places almost all viruses in a phylogeny of realms, kingdoms, phyla, subphyla, classes, orders, suborders, families, genera, and subgenera. We have much revision to do in our Virus entries. DCDuring (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomic names of viruses are less stable that those of bacteria, chromists, fungi, and protozoa, which are less stable than those of marine animals, which are less stable those of plants, which are less stable than those of mammals. There are many new species of virus and they are relatively ephemeral, with new strains being reconceived as species. We would probably be well-advised to keep a focus on those that affect humans, directly by infecting them or indirectly, by infecting food and other things of interest to humans. But the concentration of research effort in those also makes the names, circumscription, and placement less stable. So we will have to work hard to keep up with developments if we are to be of any use at all. DCDuring (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned about the IP's edit at diff. I don't know Persian, but I do know the user redundantly added "noun" to the label template. Can someone who knows the language verify the IP's claim that the noun is "quite common in usage, not obsolete"? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @ZxxZxxZ, who created the entry. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What is prepizza?. --BoldLuis (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

SaltShaker Spanish-English-Spanish Food & Wine Dictionary - Second Edition (2009) lists the Spanish word prepizza as "pizza base, pizza dough with sauce." Seems attested enough, should be worth an entry. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The current definitions are rather disorganised. I'm working on cleaning it up, but there will be inconsistencies in the process. Apologies! Frigoris (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It's mostly done. --Frigoris (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Our first sense is "An adult female". I can't say that I am really familiar with this sense. Do others recognise it? Mihia (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it. BTW, sense 3 (effeminate man) is SoP really, since "girl" alone is used the same way, and you can attach "big" to most insults: he's a big idiot, a big Jessie, a big liar, etc. Equinox ◑ 14:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I added sense 3, and I did wonder about that. However, given that the "insult" sense is (for me) such a clear and obvious use of the phrase, it did seem wrong to me not mention it, given that we have the entry at all. Mihia (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I am familiar with big girl meaning a mature person, at least nearly adult, no longer childish. It is like big boy in "Put on your big-boy pants and make a decision". You can find several contemporary book titles containing "big-girl panties". It's even topical, as in this story headline from Vanity Fair: "GOP Congressman: Lawmakers Must “Put On Our Big Boy and Big Girl Pants” and Let Americans Die" DCDuring (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd regard that as the other sense of "an older girl; a girl who is no longer an infant". The reference to wearing different pants certainly seems to suggest no longer being a baby (in diapers/nappies?): so I think here the adult is being scathingly told that they aren't a baby any more, more than that they are an adult. Equinox ◑ 21:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that the wording is wrong for the sense I've heard. The essence of it is about behavior, making responsible adult-like decisions and accepting the consequences. DCDuring (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We should probably have a definition of girl something like "an offensive term towards boys, weak or sissy, having traditional girly qualities" --Equidrat (◑) 00:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose so. I've made an attempt. Equinox ◑ 12:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Tangentially related: Wiktionary:Tea room/2020/April § big enough and ugly enough, big and ugly enough, which I think is used in the same way. PUC – 21:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• OK, thanks, since there's no support here for keeping this definition as worded, it is sent to RFV. I suppose it should go through the proper process rather than me just deleting it. Mihia (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Could we merge some of these senses? The punctuation mark is not a truly separate sense from the mathematical thing: they are the same symbol, which just happens to have different uses. Equinox ◑ 15:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

~#Translingual has more uses too, which are also presumably called "tilde" in English. I don't see the need to duplicate all this information across two articles. Maybe we could give a flavour of the main uses under a single sense line at tilde, e.g. "The character or symbol ~, used, for example, ... blah blah", and relegate the detailed breakdown to the article ~. Mihia (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The diacritic might be worth mentioning separately since the word tilde itself is used functionally—"a-tilde" for ã is normal; "tilde 100" for ~100 is not—but agree with collapsing the rest —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any better way to handle the definitions of this term without having 63 senses? Imetsia (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, delete all of them. Mihia (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Under what established rationale? Unciteability (RfV)? Failure to meet CFI (RfD)? This entry is the consequence of a vote about toponyms. DCDuring (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Under the "common sense" rationale. Mihia (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Common sense" is not a criterion, not should it be. If you want them gone, RfV each one. I would hope that Kiwima would not waste her(?) time on them. You might also combine all for the ones for 'village' or all the toponyms into a single definition and not RfV that definition. DCDuring (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with verification that these places exist. It is to do with whether the purpose of a dictionary is to list every tiny place name, street name, bus stop, etc., multiplied by every language that uses the same script. Shall we have the same list in English too? Mihia (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

How do we know all of the villages are pronounced the same way? Also they probably all have different etymologies. The page should be split into 64 etymology sections. More research is needed. DTLHS (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I also look forward to the much-needed expansion of San José. There are probably several thousand senses we're still missing. DTLHS (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, I think a fully expanded toponymic dictionary with etymologies and other lexicographic information would be great. Copying a list of place names from a Wikipedia disambiguation article (why? because you're bored?) is not that. DTLHS (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Imo it would make sense to have a single "common toponym" sense under the same principle that a surname entry shouldn't list every single person it could potentially refer to. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We have had an explicit vote that exempts toponyms from the rules that apply to organization names and individual names. It has been a while, so we could revisit the vote. Or we could come up with an argument that my interpretation of the vote is erroneous. DCDuring (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

One solution that retains the information, and I think follows at least the letter of the current policy, could maybe be to have a "common toponym" sense with a complete collapsible list beneath it, though it'd need new templates for the purpose. @DCDuring: Is this the vote you're referring to? Nobody seems to have brought up this particular problem there, if it is one, so it might be worth revisiting. —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the one. It does seem to imply that, once someone has added a definition for a particular place, it needs to fail RfV or RfD to be removed. DCDuring (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Another issue to consider is what language placenames belong to. It is one thing to have major names such as "London" in multiple languages, potentially with inflections, additional information, etc., and yet another to have large numbers of tiny names replicated across every language. Of course, in some cases places have different names in different languages, and when the script is different this must of course be the case in writing. However, the presentation of 63 names as "Galician" because they are in Galicia seems to be based on an assumption that they are therefore Galician-language words. Is this how it should work? Verification of actual usage in an individual language in order for inclusion seems unbearably tedious to me in the case of tiny names. If someone wanted to refer to "Pereira #45" in an English-language context, then they would call it the same, right? So does that mean it needs a separate "English" entry? That way madness lies. Mihia (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, it would be very tedious. So perhaps it wouldn't get done. Thus RfV would be a very reasonable way of getting rid of many of the current definitions. If we end up with three uses of Pereira to name one or more villages, we could keep some such definition as Nizolan suggested. I don't think it's worth much further debate. Better just RfV 60-odd definitions, wait a month, get some cites for one or more reasonable definitions, and delete the uncited definitions. DCDuring (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree necessarily that RfV in its usual form is appropriate, but it depends on the intended purpose of including (tiny) place names in the first place, and on the intended method of verification for place names. I would say that verification of a place name entails looking on one or more (reliable) maps. Is the intention for Wiktionary to list all place names that are recorded on reliable maps, like a kind of gazetteer? To me this seems more like a separate project, though I suppose there is no absolute reason why it could not be combined. I see no logic in recording (tiny) place names just where we happen to be able to find three mentions of that place in running text, in the normal way. I do agree with what DTLHS says that "a fully expanded toponymic dictionary with etymologies and other lexicographic information would be great", but I think the question is whether Wiktionary aims to be that, and, if it does, what changes to entry layout and procedures need to be implemented. If not, then the CFI would need to be looked at again. Mihia (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The vote seems to me to say that the RfD question has been settled: we do want place names. (I voted no, BTW.) If you want to start another vote, I might well vote no again, unless there is some significant restriction on what is to be included. DCDuring (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Does quadruple bluff really make sense? I cannot think of an example to use this term. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it has citations. You could argue that it's a sum of parts. In reality I doubt that people often bluff this far... Equinox ◑ 12:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Community, Dear Equinox, You will remember that we posted a request of amendment last year in February to ensure the quality of the content of Wiktionary’s website. Data quality is in the best interest of the community. We mention in our previous message that TRANSTAINER ® is a registered owned by Paceco Corp. TRANSTRAINER® is a trademark registered for gantry cranes which is the generic term and not the legal term for these products. Following to our previous message, the definition under TRANSTAINER ® has been amended in Wiktionary as follows: Blend of trans- + container; initially coined by the Pacific Coast Engineering Company (now Paceco) as a brand name. We are thankful for this change which is appreciated. TRANSTAINER® is currently registered in numerous countries including the US, Canada, a significant part of the EU for decades. Therefore, the term “initially” in the amended definition could be misinterpreted. In order to assure the respect of the trademark we would appreciate that the term ‘initial’ be removed from the description of TRANSTAINER and TRANSTAINERS in Wiktionary. Your collaboration is greatly appreciated.

Linden & De Roeck

That was a lot to verbiage for a request to remove a single word. I guess you're being paid by the minute. The entry is accurate as is, so I don't have an opinion on this; @BD2412, who added the word "initially". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The entry is accurate. Removing "initially" would suggest that the word continues to be owned. The citations found in print and incorporated into the entry do not include any trademark notice. We need not afford recognition to rights in a word beyond those that the world in general affords to that word. bd2412 T 17:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm no fan of adding trademark status info to words, in part for the reasons BD2412 gives here (and others given in prior discussions, linked-to from the talk page of WT:TM). But in this case, the sentence is talking about the word's coinage, a specific, discrete event in rhe past: changing "coined" to "initially coined" mostly conveys (to me) that future uses were recoinages. Is this so, or do we consider it more likely that the word, once coined by PCEC/Paceco, came to be used by other people? Unless we're intending to suggest that future uses were fresh re-coinages, I think "initially" only adds some minor confusion here, and I would be inclined to omit it, or else reword the entry to match other entries which use the phrase "Originally a brand name". (One entry uses the phrase "initially a brand name", which would also work.) - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it only a trademark if it is all in capitals? DCDuring (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Isn’t this matter also dealt with by the following passage in “Wiktionary:General disclaimer”? “Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the entries of the Wiktionary dictionary are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wiktionary entries under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licensing schemes. Unless otherwise stated Wiktionary and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed by nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Wiktionary cannot grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.” — SGconlaw (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless you think the same term can be repeatedly coined with the same meaning, the word “initially” in “initially coined” is as strange as saying that Marilyn Monroe was initially born in Los Angeles.  --Lambiam 06:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A term can be repeatedly coined with the same meaning, as long as the later coiners aren't aware of the existing coinage. I agree that "initially" in the transtainer etymology seems redundant; but, if anything, it would seem to help the trademark owners rather than harm them. Equinox ◑ 18:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The early (c. 1960) attestation of the term was not for the term that means "mobile gantry crane". That makes the use of the term initially especially inappropriate and confusing. DCDuring (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The earlier attestation is for a different sense with its own etymology. It could be argued that the trademark coinage was merely an adoption or redefinition of that sense, but I'm not sure how we would demonstrate that. bd2412 T 19:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello all. I come before you to ask that this edit be upheld and not reverted. My rationale for making this edit is that Wiktionary users are highly likely to be unaware that 薄 means 'to approach; to go near' in this context, and I want to share this information with them so that they understand the word better. Reference: "2 迫近、接近。" --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(Similar example 謀生／谋生 (móushēng)) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(Moved from ) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why would you think that the edit might be at the risk of being reverted? I can't see anything unusual about your edit. --Frigoris (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Frigoris In 2018 and maybe as late as 2019, I would sometimes add something like this to some Chinese character words and it would get reverted. The rationale presented at that time was that it was better to present all the definitions that a character might have at once, but I saw it differently and I still see it differently. I see those little definitions above the character as a golden opportunity to tell the readers what a given character means in the context of a given word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

the houses facing
on the facing page
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english-spanish/facing_2

--Backinstadiums (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel the rail transport sense and its antonym trailing could do with illustrative usexes.  --Lambiam 21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this entry is much good. The def is "moved from an ineffective position", with one okayish citation (about a footballer being moved to the heart of the defence) plus a mention of Le Carré's Spy Who Came in from the Cold, which I'm sure is irrelevant since it's a reference to the Cold War. Most of the figurative usage I see in Google Books seems to be not about moving to a more effective position but about rescuing from a harsh place of abandonment, like an orphan in the snow: e.g. "She let the thoughts in that were knocking on the door of her mind, begging to be brought in from the cold". Equinox ◑ 19:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have an entry for come in from the cold. We could create one for bring in from the cold or brought in from the cold. Do we need this? PUC – 22:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. I don't even see why we need come in from the cold in addition to in from the cold. I also agree that the present definition of in from the cold is poor or unrepresentative. Cf also leave someone out in the cold. Presumably at the end of this is a figurative sense of "cold". Mihia (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I added a sense at cold:

(with 'the', figurative) A harsh place; a place of abandonment.

The former politician was left out in the cold after his friends deserted him.

If we give sufficient information here, perhaps we don't need the specific in from the cold entries at all? Mihia (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Wiktionary page for the ancient Greek word δελφίς has is ending in a short iota-sigma and its gender is designated 'f' feminine. This makes a little sense if it originated as a 'fish with a womb'. However, the declension has it with masculine articles and Liddel and Scott have it as masculine. The declension also has it with long-iota all the way through. Perhaps someone could either correct it or explain the incongruence?

Our page δελφίς marks the iota as long, except in the headword line where its quantity isn't marked one way or the other. But both the pronunciation line and the inflection table show the iota as long. The inflection table also shows the gender as masculine, though the headword line shows it as feminine. I'll fix both of those problems with the headword line now. (Incidentally, I've never believed the "fish with a womb" etymology; it smacks of folk etymology.) —Mahāgaja · talk 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Could there be a relationship with ἡ δέλφαξ/τό δέλφος, “sow/pig”? Cf. French cochon de mer.  --Lambiam 21:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A place that sells gill. What meaning of gill is it??? --Elvinrust (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elvinrust: Webster's Third has a meaning of gill that we lack, namely a British dialectal word synonymous with tipple (“any alcoholic drink”). This is presumably related to our Etymology 2. —Mahāgaja · talk 23:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)