Wiktionary:Tea room/2020/August

According to Garner's fourth edition

Though serving as a plural when the need arises, series is ordinarily a singular noun. But it is also a noun of multitude, so that phrases such as a series of things take a plural verb. However, the collocation there {has been - is} a series predominates in print sources.

Common nouns of multitude: lot, majority, mass, minority, multitude, percentage, proportion, variety.

However, the entry of series of the American Heritage Dictionary reads

When it has the singular sense of "one set," it takes a singular verb, even when series is followed by of and a plural noun: A series of lectures is scheduled.

Are these dissimilar usages stylic advice?

The inversion after there also chooses singular elsewhere, unlike in say there are a lot of them, but I do not know why

When the verb precedes the noun percentage, a singular verb is required. That is, a higher percentage of them are, but there is a higher percentage of them.

--Backinstadiums (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't said what "brand" of English you're referring to. But those books deal with American English. In British English, "a series" definitely takes a plural verb. A series of things ARE under consideration. A number of things are being done. There are a number of things to consider, etc. An interesting one is "couple". The couple are walking down the road, hand in hand. It can be jarring to read "is" after the word "couple", which I have always presumed was an Americanism (either a natural variant in English or one reinforced by the presence in America of German and other European language speakers". The police ARE - is said in both the UK and the US. The police IS is what French and German L2 speakers of English often say... — This unsigned comment was added by 81.141.8.25 (talk) at 19:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC).

I like the current definition, but I think this word is often used with a less precise definition as if it is literally read as a "weaselly word". MW has this definition and the American Heritage Dictionary combines the two in a single definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I no longer like the wording I gave this definition. Although use of a weasel word may be the result of an intention to mislead, it seems to me more often to involve an attempt to avoid making a strong assertion. In my experience, qualifications (such as the underlined ones above) are necessary to convey the uncertainty of an unqualified (strng) assertion. I would go so far as to assert that all strong assertions are misleading because they don't leave sufficient room for skepticism and all-around uncertainty. DCDuring (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Offhand, besides "to make it potentially misleading", it comes to mind that weasel words might be used so as to make a statement vague / avoid attributing it to anyone identifiable (thus making it harder to disprove — the very example cited in the entry is of this, rather than of per-se misleading use!), or perhaps even just to hedge it in the way DCDuring underlines above. - -sche (discuss) 06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I like that there are languages that have grammatical distinctions for epistemic modalities and evidentiality. It helps legitimize the use of the words pejoratively called weasel words. DCDuring (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I modified the definition. The citations given treat 'weasel word' as "a word that negates / removes the meaning of another word" (distinct from making a statement equivocal), and I find some evidence this was the older meaning. Bryan Garner's 2001 Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, page 926, quotes Roosevelt's line and adds "Some writers have incorrectly assumed that the metaphor suggested itself because of the wriggling, evasive character of the weasel", which might explain the modern, different meaning. Merriam Webster's definition focuses on how the words are used to make a statement not "direct or forthright", while Dictionary.com, after offering the same basic definition, and adds possible motives: to make a statement "equivocal, misleading, or confusing". (There is also a book titled Weasel Words: The Dictionary of American Doublespeak.) I think we could have two senses here: one for words that negative the meaning of other words, and one for words like "some say...", which are two different things. - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of this being a calque from Old English, as opposed to a recent sci-fi/fantasy invention? @Leasnam Equinox ◑ 03:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If early uses were in Old-English-era-esque fantasy, that would lend credence to the idea, but...none of the citations suggest that to me. In the Stephen Leigh cite, it seems perfectly analogous to dayshade (which we're missing, and which also as an aside refers to a kind of flower) / day shade (which might be SOP), i.e. a straightforward modern compound or invention, as you say. - -sche (discuss) 06:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Leasnam has changed it to a "compare identical formation" line which seems like a good move. Equinox ◑ 19:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The conjugation of Middle English kiþen does not match the forms in the Middle English Dictionary at https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED24365. The template-generated past participle forms are kiþed, ykiþed. The dictionary gives "ppl. kīthet & kid, kidde, kide, kud, cud, ked, keid". The short form kid or ked lives on in unked (according to Merriam-Webster). I could try to override a template parameter in {{enm-conj-wk}} but it would be better for somebody who knows more about Middle English to fix properly. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

...as the Quaker name for January, February, etc. Do we want them? I see we have First Day, to which I recently added the "etymology" (though the fact that different people start the week on different says (Sunday vs Monday) may give that one slightly more claim to idiomaticity). Capitalization varies, which could be evidence against idiomaticity, or not. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do Quakers also have (or have they had) preferred alternatives to Sun-Day, Moon-Day, Tyr's-Day, Wotan's-Day, etc.? DCDuring (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently they did: Sunday = First Day, etc. DCDuring (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do.  :) While less common, I do hear First Day, Second Day, etc. in use among Quaker family and acquaintances. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say they're inclusion-worthy. It's fairly similar to Portuguese (segunda-feira (“Monday”, literally “second weekday”), terça-feira (“Tuesday”, literally “third weekday”), etc.) and those are certainly inclusion-worthy. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a tad different, don't you think? The Portuguese terms are the standard terms, right? So naturally they are worthy of inclusion. That the effort to do away with weekday names that may concern some got more traction in some of the Romance languages, whereas it did not in English, is reason enough to consider the Portuguese terms naturally more fit for inclusion than the Quaker terms.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the Quaker terms aren't worthy of inclusion. I'm just saying that the Portuguese terms are no justification in themselves for including the Quaker terms. Tharthan (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's somewhat different, but at the same time, we don't usually concern ourselves with what is standard, but rather with what is attestable. So if something fairly transparent is included in one language, something similarly transparent can be included in another. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

COCA has two cites of flang that clearly use it as a simple past of fling:

• H-hmm. So I take it the previous nannies never flang? No, they, they were not flingers. (1994, TV, The Nanny)
• Before I could stop her she'd picked up one in either hand and flang 'em at my boy. (2002; FIC; FantasySciFi)

COHA has six cites:

• ...arrows, they would in no wise go forward, but drew aback, and flang and took on so fiercely that many of them fell on their masters, so... (1833; NF; HistoryVegetable)
• With lute in hand then sweetly to thee sang. Sometime in dancing wondrously I flang, And sometime playing farces on the floor, ... (1880; NF; RoyalEdinburgh)
• Heigh! FARROW Be quiet and leave me lay where Jesus flang me. (1934; FIC; Play:RollSweetChariot)
• " Who flang that brick? " he asked faintly. (1953; FIC; Adventurer)
• Just because you got your ankles together and your hips flang forward -- that don't necessarily mean posture. (1954; FIC; SweetThursday)
• "I jes' sorta flang out a fist an' he got in the way." (1963; FIC; AnythingYouCan)

-- Mocha2007 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted. I can also find plenty of other citations. I've added it to the entry ]. I have not yet added a mention of it to ]. - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna add flinged too, while I'm here. --Kriss Barnes (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@-sche, Leasnam: What is the difference between sense two of Wagen, and the word Waggon? Tharthan (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sche, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe sense 2 of Wagen is what we would call a cart or buggy (in general) but could also mean a shopping cart; and a Waggon is a railway or freight car. Leasnam (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A Waggon or Wagon is a railroad wagon/car, yes, especially one for carrying goods. A Wagen is a wheeled vehicle for transporting anything (whether moved by a person, a horse, an ox, a motor, a locomotive, etc). A railroad Wag(g)on is also referred to as a Wagen (indeed, the German Wikipedia article on "w:Railroad car" is "de:w:Eisenbahnwagen"), but Wagen can also denote other things fitting that basic definition (an automobile, a shopping cart, a baby stroller, ...). - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Some dictionaries also have a sense at Wagen for the use of Wagen to mean "either the Großer Wagen or the Kleiner Wagen constellation", parallel to English use of Dipper, but finding citations where Wagen has that meaning by itself outside those two phrases is nontrivial. - -sche (discuss) 05:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Some such uses (in the plural): , , .  --Lambiam 10:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The sense "a motor that does not take fuel, but instead depends on a mechanism that stores potential energy for subsequent use" seems poorly worded. One can find reference to e.g. locomotives with a "steam drive" (that ultimately requires input of water and heat and hence coal etc), navy ships with a "nuclear drive" (that require at least occasional input of radioactive material as fuel), etc. Hence, the bit about not taking fuel needs to be worded better; these are not (normally) "free energy" / "energy from nothing" / "perpetual motion" devices, they do ultimately depend on the input of fuel or energy, ... - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I revised the definition. No other dictionary I looked at had a sense like ours, their senses were similar to the revised definition. - -sche (discuss) 20:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Entryworthy? PUC – 11:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is idiomatic. The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary has an entry. And we have an entry for French ennemi juré. Usage note: often used in the plural, implying mutual enmity.  --Lambiam 22:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

An easy way to check for prima facie entryworthiness is {{R:OneLook}}. If a dictionary there has it, just add it. “sworn enemy”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows that one respectable dictionary has it. DCDuring (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think one cannot find among the 9 definitions of swear at MWOnline (let alone in either of our two inadequate definitions (last one added in 2003!) at ]) meanings that fit sworn as modifying enemy. It is the enmity which is sworn, not the enemy. The meaning is obvious in context (as is that of mortal enemy), but conventionalized metonymy, like conventionalized metaphor needs a definition. DCDuring (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds SOP, but is found in three dictionaries:

• “mortal enemy”, in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1996–present.
• “mortal enemy” (US) / “mortal enemy” (UK) in Macmillan English Dictionary.
• “mortal enemy foe” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman.

PUC – 22:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In contrast with immortal enemies or mortal friends? In this expression, the point is not that one enemy is a mortal being, but that one's enmity towards them is mortal ("deadly serious"). DCDuring (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So I've heard people use the phrases "open the lights" and "close the lights" (meaning, "turn on the lights" and "turn off the lights" respectively). I believe this is a calque from Chinese 打開 / 關, but I'm not entirely sure. Anyone think these should be added though? The etymology seems different, and I don't even see "turn on" / "turn off" listed as definitions under "open" / "close". 2601:49:C301:D810:579:EED5:5A39:105C 11:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The iWeb corpus has 15 and 22 examples respectively of these expressions; but if I look at the examples, there are 9 and 14 respectively that are straightforward examples of this use. Are we interested in a pair of phrases used 23 times in a 14 billion word corpus? (genuine question: I don't know our criteria). --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• These are collocations, and non-standard ones at that. Why would they be included? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  If open the lights is a common way in some lect of saying “turn on the lights”, then people will also say open the TV and so on. Then the collocation is an SOP, and “to turn on” should be listed as a sense of the lemma open. Compare the senses listed for Turkish açmak.  --Lambiam 23:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It may be a collocation from Chinese, but it's not just from Chinese. In Quebec, or instance, native English speakers (in Montreal, for example), commonly say "open/close the lights". Not sure about whether it's used with electronics. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a common mistake in French too. PUC – 13:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Which is where the Quebec usage comes from. It's common enough in Quebec French that I would consider it informal, not a mistake, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It's also used in Spanish: cerrar la luz. I believe Portuguese as well. I grew up using this expression myself in English (at least with "close") just due to cultural diffusion. —Soap— 23:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• If the translation is correct, this is the opposite of the English usage, so should definitely be added; alternatively, if it was translated wrongly, it should again definitely be added, because intelligent people have been discussing it here for a whole week without noticing the anomaly!

In UK safety-critical situations, the use of open and close is banned because it is ambiguous. In traditional, and non-technical, UK usage, to open a steam valve means to turn it on, while to open a switch is to turn it off, because the contacts are opened, ie pulled apart, to achieve this. And open circuit/closed circuit referring to circuit breakers, broken cables, etc are similarly defined as off/on. Strictly, the UK sense refers to the valve, switch or break, rather than the whole circuit, but it is sometimes abbreviated, so an electrician might say to another standing by the MCB board "OK, now open the lights and close the cooker"

Therefore, to avoid confusion, in standard operating procedures (SOPs), akin to pilots' checklists, turn to on and turn to off are used for valves and switch to on/switch to off are used for switches. It therefore seems important to add the Chinese use, which turns this on its head. Also, in Quebec/France/Spain/Portugal, etc, does close the lights follow the UK usage and mean switch on ... or does it mean switch off ... as, apparently, in Chinese usage.?

A similar situation occurred about 60 yrs ago, when wording on fire safety notices warning of inflammable materials was changed to read flammable, to save confusion with its opposite, non-flammable, particularly amongst people whose first language was not English. --Enginear 19:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The above question reminded me of something related: I would only use "shut off" referring to closing a tap or valve to stop a literal physical flow. But I remember forty years ago noticing a character in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress talking about "shutting off the video", which always struck me as odd. I never knew whether using the expression in that way was a bit of science fiction, or was in general use in Heinlein's circles in the 1960s. I see that our lemma says "by closing something (such as a valve)"; but again, a search in iWeb has a respectable 200 hits for "shut off the lights". --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I might shut off the video or the lights; I would definitely shut off the TV or the radio or the computer. Those collocations sound completely natural to me. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine, @Mahagaja:. But that's not what shut off says. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Then that definition needs to be generalized. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Google Books Ngram Viewer, “shut off the video“ is less popular than “turn off the video“, but not dramatically so.  --Lambiam 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

iWeb has 32 hits for "turn off the video", and 7 for "shut off the video". --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I've heard that used to refer to people by name, or to other proper nouns. Some examples:

• "Oh, that Richard, he's such a kidder."
• "It was all that Lex's fault; she's absolutely evil!"
• "That Star Clangers 2 was a total waste of time!" (Star Clangers 2 being the name of a fictitious video game)

The current determiner definition at the entry is "The (thing, person, idea, etc) indicated or understood from context, especially if more remote physically, temporally or mentally than one designated as "this", or if expressing distinction." But currently no given names, or any proper nouns for that matter, are appended to that in any of the examples or quotes listed at the entry. Is this a nonstandard usage of that? If so, is it to be made into a separate sense, or perhaps at least included in the usage notes? It's definitely rarer to see it used this way, anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think such an (often mildly) pejorative sense is found in some other languages too. Compare the third usage note for Latin iste. The connotation is one of disapproval. I think the same holds for Dutch die (Ach, die Jan). It is not restricted to proper nouns, but can be used with these as well. In stark contrast, French ce (Ah! ce Jean) has a connotation of admiration.  --Lambiam 23:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

In English an emphasized the can be used to express admiration. It can be hard to tell without context if the determiner that is favorable or unfavorable. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that as pejorative, nor does it take on a different meaning when applied to persons or entities referred to by proper names. Is the level of usage with proper names relative to usage with common nouns any more or less than would be expected given the relative frequency of proper names relative to common nouns? I wouldn't expect so. DCDuring (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a dated comico-tragical for tragicomic? I found it as 'older' English in a Greek dictionary. Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 12:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

A Google Books search found "Hatcher (1951) identifies the earliest recorded example as comico-tragical (OED: 1598), and suggests that this is an Anglicization of a Latin adjective comico-tragicus (1540), itself inspired by a non-serious nominal coinage of Plautus, tragicomoedia 'tragicomedy'."

Thank you so much, @Vox Sciurorum, I thought it was a mistake. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 15:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There are three senses of the verb out related to revealing a secret, currently 2, 3, and 4. I'm tempted to have one main definition with subsenses. Is it known which sense came first? I first heard the sense of outing somebody as gay. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Would someone knowledgeable have a look at the definition? I don't understand the "more views" part. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That definition is copied straight from the first sentence of the Wikipedia article Systems architecture, which is derived from an academic paper that states: “We use the following definition of the notion architecture: A system architecture represents the conceptual model 5 of a system together with models derived from it that represent (1) different viewpoints defined as views on top of the conceptual model, (2) facets or concerns of the system in dependence on the scope and abstraction level of various stakeholders, (3) restrictions for the deployment of the system and description of the quality warranties of the system, and (4) embeddings into other (software) systems.“ There are several issues with the Wikipedia definition (and therefore with its clone here), the most glaring of which is that the academic paper is specifically concerned with the development of the software of information systems, and not just any kind of system. Also, there is an essential difference between “X represents Y” (as in the paper) and “X is Y” (as in the Wikipedia definition). Some very differently formulated definitions can be found here and here, and yet another one here. The first of these two looks reasonably usable; it is in fact the definition of the (superseded) standard 1471 of the IEEE 1471. The second one is much more wordy and uses categories in an inconsistent and confusing way. I don’t know if the current joint ISO/IEC/IEEE standard has a concise definition of the concept. The architecture of a building is defined by its components and their connections, by which they can function together as an organic whole; for other kinds of systems the basic idea is the same. I hope this helps.  --Lambiam 22:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you able to rewrite the definition? I'm still not sure what "more views" (and what type of "views"?) is supposed to mean. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think “more views” is intended to mean “other aspects”. I can rewrite the definition, but I cannot promise the result will be more comprehensible and still an acceptable approximation of what people mean when using the term. I am tempted to say that the term is SOP, but that our list of definitions for the term architecture is lacking. (In which sense is that term used here? And the collocation “system architecture” is not petrified; one can also uses phrases like “the architecture of a system” – in the use linked to, not an information system but a vision system.) What I find the hardest is how to start with a category. Is it a model, or a description, or a specification? But here is an attempt:

“A way of analyzing a system as composed of interrelated components.”

In other words, what you see, or expect to see, when you open the black box (sense 3) and try to make sense of it. Maybe “analyzing” is too grandiose; “viewing” will probably work as well.  --Lambiam 23:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What about the sense given here? We don't appear to have that sense. Tharthan (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

We need to fix sense 1 anyway because we should not use the obsolete or archaic word lorn in a definition. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think all these senses are basically one sense. We do not have senses for poor like “having constant bad luck in acquiring wealth; desperate for money” or ”unhappy because of a lack of means”.  --Lambiam 00:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reworded the first part of sense 1. Leasnam (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This is labelled using dialect labels, so it's categorized into Category:Cuban English (and Philippine English). Is that right, or is the information that this refers to "a guide in Cuba or the Philippines" information that should be presented like that, as part of the definition, instead? - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is not an English term but an instance of code-switching of a noun sense of standard Spanish práctico, written without diacritic as is common in English texts. The noun sense is given here in a Spanish dictionary of synonyms as: “Práctico llamamos tambien al piloto principal de un puerto de mar, encargado de auxiliar á los embarcaciones á su entrada ó salida.” (Práctico is also what we call the main pilot of a sea port, charged with assisting the vessels on entry or exit.“) The dictionary was published in Madrid.  --Lambiam 00:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Such an issue afflicts several (all?) entries in Category:South American English, btw. (I am trying to clean up the category, because I do not think the words are limited to "the dialect of English spoken in South America", but rather, they refer to things that exist in South America.) - -sche (discuss) 00:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The audio file almost sounds like Dngweh2s (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the two figurative senses (artistic/intellectual, and hippie-like)? I can imagine somebody fixing onto such a person's long hair to insult them, but would the term really be used if the person had short hair or was bald? Equinox ◑ 23:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this, but I have a niggling doubt. --- "I expect this new boyfriend of yours is another of those longhaired, intellectual (or hippy) types!" --- On the other hand, wouldn't this normally be a hyphenated adjective anyway? -- ALGRIF talk 11:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The hyphen isn't relevant here; it may be hyphenated or not, even in other senses e.g. type of cat. Equinox ◑ 12:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

True. However, thinking about my usex, the speaker has not even seen the "new boy-friend" and so he could easily be a short-haired or bald intellectual or hippy, who has just been called "longhaired" in an insulting way. That is my niggling doubt here. -- ALGRIF talk 15:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The noun sense of lovelorn gives lovelorns as its plural (uses of which form are attestable). Yet the usex has “the lovelorn” in a clearly plural sense, similar to ”the rich are getting richer”. So is this usex actually an example of the noun sense? It seems to me to be the adjective, used in a standard way that can be used with almost any adjective A to refer to a collectivity, by which “the A” means “the people who are A”.  --Lambiam 00:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've always wondered if we have a policy specifically excluding noun uses of adjectives like that. The OED seems rather inconsistent on this issue, but this could be because not all entries have been reviewed since they were first published. For the reasons that you state, I would agree it's probably a good idea not to have noun senses of this form for adjective entries. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that we have a concrete policy, and the situation "on the ground" is inconsistent, e.g. we don't have rich#Noun but we do have poor#Noun. Some prior discussions are at Talk:deaf, Talk:Irish, Talk:wicked, a short 2015 BP thread and a 2016 Tea Room thread. We have a sense at the which explains the phenomenon. It can also occur without the in headlinese like "Smith: poor will die under government's proposed budget" or "Irish vote for Amendment C". - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Only the tall will make the varsity basketball team at forward and center."

This works for almost any adjectival (adjectives + present and past participles, possibly with adverb modification, even by PPs, eg, "the young at heart") that can be applied to a person. It works for adjectivals applied to other entities, but, I think, only in a context where the omitted noun is clear. DCDuring (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that while the (Chinese|Irish|French) head to the polls tomorrow works, *the (German|American|Korean) head to the polls tomorrow does not: it has to be the (Germans|Americans|Koreans), or else one has to take the noun to be a singular standing for all members of its class, and inflect it with singular rather than plural verbs (the German is punctual, the lion eats meat). OTOH, both the Abenaki and the Abenakis work as collectives, and likewise for Catawba(s), Thai(s), Xhosa(s). Is there a rule? - -sche (discuss) 04:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This page could really use some improvement. Ultimateria (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Can it be used for any washing device, or does it refer to a clothes washing machine specifically? PUC – 13:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The OED does note the use of the term to mean "a machine used in the manufacture of crêpe rubber", but even if a sense along the lines of "a machine that washes objects" is added, I think it should be made clear that the predominant meaning is a machine used to wash clothes. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard a dishwasher called a "washing machine" either. Equinox ◑ 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

carwash neither. -- ALGRIF talk 11:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is the sense "food" listed under "Verb"? It's been there since the page creation over a decade ago, so presumably there is a reason. Kritixilithos (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't deal much with our Proto-Semitic entries, so there may be some conventions I don't know about, but I can see why it was done this way: in the Semitic languages I've studied, the boundary between inflectional and derivational morphology tends to be a bit blurry: you have a single consonantal root that can be modified in various routine ways to be what other languages would treat as various types of verbs and nouns- sort of like a vacuum cleaner or a multitool with various attachments. Some older dictionaries try to keep things consistent by making up placeholder verb stems to serve as lemmas for nouns, but apparently there are indeed roots that really are one part of speech or the other.

If you look at the descendants for this verb, you'll find the verb Hebrew אָכַל (“eat”), and there's a noun that's clearly from the same source, אֹֽכֶל (“food”). If this interchangeability has been productive all along, it gets hard to say that the verb is descended from a verb but the noun is descended from a separate noun as opposed to the whole system having descended as a system. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, the example made it much clearer. Have a good day, @Chuck Entz:. Kritixilithos (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Originally, these were all under "root", despite that being a Eurocentric definition of a "root", rather than what a Semiticist would call a root (in this case, ʔ-k-l). Wikitiki changed it to "verb" without paying attention to the actual content, and we landed here.

As for this word in particular, the noun appears deverbal, and it is certainly old (given the Ethiosemitic forms), although whether it is genuine PS I am unsure. For example, Arabic has both أَكْل (ʔakl) (obviously deverbal within Arabic) and أُكُل (ʔukul) (which looks like it could be inherited, but not from *ʔakal-). Maybe @Fay Freak will have more insight. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It cannot be internally derived in Ethiosemitic because they lack the verb (they use the cognate of Arabic بَلَعَ (balaʕa)); the same is true for Old South Arabian. The vowel may also be seen in the singulative of Tigre እክል (ʾəkəl), like in Akkadian. The vowel change to /u/ is similar to that from *ḏanab- in Aramaic. Fay Freak (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

mesobronchium -> plural mesobronchi, dorsobronchium -> plural dorsobronchi. Can someone verify these plurals please? I would have thought bronchium -> bronchia and bronchus -> bronchi. Equinox ◑ 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.websters1913.com/words/Mesobronchium, as sourced in the entry, says the plural should be mesobronchia. Also parabronchia is listed as a plural of parabronchium, so it seems it should be as you say (i.e. mesobronchia). Kritixilithos (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Okay, changed. Equinox ◑ 01:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This article mentions huruhuru and claims widespread use in Maori to mean pubic hair.

"We acknowledge that we did not consider the commonplace use of the term huruhuru as a reference to pubic hair, and that consultation with a Maori representative would have been a better reference than online dictionaries"

They can't blame us, for the fact is we don't yet have a Maori section for huruhuru (or huru huru)! -- Unless, I suppose, they searched a dictionary aspiring to mention "every word in every language", as part of due diligence to confirm their proposed brand name had no negative connotations anywhere in the world...which would be a neat use, allowing small businesses the sort of certainty that mega-businesses only achieve by spending millions on consultants.

Does anyone have any evidence of that usage? I note that the BBC is only quoting the brewer's response, rather than stating it is correct, and not a publicity-seeking hoax -- a well-known small-business trick to gain column inches without paying for advertising. --Enginear 02:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added a Maori section at huruhuru. Most dictionaries don't like talking about things like pubic hair, so Te Aka (referenced in the entry) is less than clear, but the derived terms make it unambiguous that pubic hair is correct. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --Enginear 17:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

...What?

This is feel + adjectival down. Just as one might "feel bad(ly)", or a million other examples.

Why on Earth is this an entry?

I would propose this for RfD, but I just want to make sure that I am not missing something. I doubt that I am, but... I just want to make sure that my eyes deceive me not; that this is, indeed, a no good entry. Tharthan (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 10:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

RfD it. DCDuring (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

‘They won hundreds of dollars; five hundreds to be precise!’
 "The Name of the Number", by Michael A. B. Deakin , page 48.

Is the meaning of hundred used in the second sentence already added in its wiktionary entry? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is just "a numerical value equal to 100". — SGconlaw (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: how about the following?

something representing, represented by, or consisting of 100 units
Collins Concise English Dictionary 

They won hundreds of dollars — five of them, to be precise!​ And if someone asked what them stood for, what would the answer be? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I might answer: “I do not understand that sentence... Five what? Five people who were betting?? What is the context?”.  --Lambiam 16:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

They would answer "Five of those hundreds", perhaps, if they didn't walk away or punch you in the mouth. DCDuring (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Edited. The most comprehensive source: https://www.oed.com/oed2/00109312 --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but what is your point? Do you think the sense of the second use in the sentence you quoted is different from the first?  --Lambiam 18:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam: According to OED, it is; didn't you take a look? https://www.oed.com/oed2/00109312 --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

TL;DR. DCDuring (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The OED does not discuss the sentence by Deakin, so where you wrote, “according to OED”, you mean, “according to your interpretation of the OED”. All I see that seems relevant to me is this: “1. The cardinal number equal to ten times ten, or five score: denoted by the symbols 100 or C. a. As n. or quasi-n., with plural. (b) In plural: hundreds.” Why does this not fit both uses? What is this other sense you speak off?  --Lambiam 23:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam It doesn't fit because that meaning is not grammatical

The uses of the singular and the plural  
(iii) Number and weight. The numbers dozen, score, hundred, thousand, million, billion are not pluralized when they are (part of) dependents or when, as heads, they are preceded by definite numerals (cardinal numbers): (1) two hundred bikes / *two hundreds bikes (but hundreds of bikes / *two hundreds of bikes) (2) a few thousand cars / *a few thousands cars (but several thousands of cars / *four thousands of cars) (3) How many bikes were there? - About two hundred / *two hundreds (4) Can you count to four thousand / *four thousands?

--Backinstadiums (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That's irrelevant because the second part is grammatically the same as the first part, but "of dollars" in the second part is understood rather than expressed. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the point Backinstadiums is making is that, in this analysis, when you make the implied words explicit, you end up with “five hundreds of dollars to be precise”, which the OED declares ungrammatical. But with a little help of imagination we can reconstruct this dialogue intérieur: “They won hundreds of dollars; five hundreds, to be precise!”.  --Lambiam 12:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that "five hundreds of dollars" is actually ungrammatical (per se), anyway. It's stilted, sounds old-fashioned and overly formal (in the contexts I spotted it in, though I can see how it could also occur in e.g. childish speech), it's uncommon and not the standard form, but checking for everything between "two hundreds of" and "seven hundreds of", they're all common enough that Ngrams plots them. (They vary from 1-2% as common as the usual forms, which means a large raw number of uses. The meaning is also transparent.) - -sche (discuss) 21:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@-sche still hundred outnumbers hundreds --Backinstadiums (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It's very non-idiomatic to find hundred, thousand, million, billion, etc used in the plural after a number. That is not to say you won't find attested examples. The former UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, used to regularly say "we're spending another twenty BILLIONS on health", which struck me as odd each time he said it. The principle that these "unit-like" nouns are used in the singular, also explains why foot, pound and stone are often/usually used in the singular after a numeral (see the OED in each case). Five feet = five appendages to legs. Five foot = someone's height (a measurement). Five stones = five pebbles. Five stone = 70 lbs in weight. Five pound - £5 or 5 lbs in weight. It seems to me, anecdotally, that more and more younger English people are saying "five pounds"... — This unsigned comment was added by 81.141.8.25 (talk) at 08:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC).

• What is the consequence for Wiktionary? Which changes to entries are to be made? DCDuring (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This word has an enhanced meaning (= 'area of responsibility') in Medieval Latin.

See Souter, and a letter of Pope Leo I referred to in Southern,'Western Society...Middle Ages', page 157 — This unsigned comment was added by 86.8.131.123 (talk) at 06:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC).

English care end concern likewise have the dual senses “worry” and the sense “responsibility”. These dual senses also apply for German Sorge and French souci. L&S list the senses “care, forethought, duty, responsibility“ for Late Latin, with a quotation of Ammianus Marcellinus, so this well precedes the Middle Ages.  --Lambiam 18:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The page klarinetista is in the category "cs:Male musicians" but the translation does not say that it is a male clarinetist, nor does the page clarinetist provide any alternative (female or otherwise) Czech translation for clarinetist, though the page klarinetistka 'female clarinetist' also exists. What should be done about these inconsistencies? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Heard in a US tv series: "Well, the Russians say there's no deal unless Grace and Darius run point on this operation." Is run point an idiom? PUC – 13:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a variation on take point. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

One can also HAVE point, BE point. I think take point is NISoP.

“run point”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. gets no lemming corroboration; “take point”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. has principally take someone's point; “point”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. has military definitions, from which a metaphorical sense derives, something like "a vulnerable operational leadership position in a risky endeavor". We usually insist on having an explicit definition instead ("by extension") instead of relying on our users to sort it out. DCDuring (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is our point, def 2.6. The cite there has the form "walking point". Ƿidsiþ 18:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Don't we need the extended metaphorical sense as used in business, etc.? DCDuring (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, probably. Ƿidsiþ 19:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Not a phrase I am familiar with; I would probably interpret "run point" as "act as point man". Equinox ◑ 12:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You must mean "act as point person". DCDuring (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Is there a word in English to denote someone who is good at / enjoys drinking alcohol? Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

See Thesaurus:drunkard. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean someone who can handle their liquor or hold one's liquor? DCDuring (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Winebibber . — SGconlaw (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  What are you going with? DCDuring (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  It seems like there isn't an equivalent. I am trying to translate 酒神. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not an exact translation, but a few semantically related terms: two-fisted drinker, drink someone under the table, hollow leg, outdrink. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of making this entry. However, I can't seem to find any decent quotes where "Einstellung" is spelt "einstellung". The problem lies with this being a German borrowing. As German nouns are capitalised, the quotes use the capitalised form, even though its meaning is not a proper noun in either German nor English. Suggestions on how to proceed please? Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 11:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's usually capitalized in English, then make the entry capitalized. Not all capitalized nouns are proper nouns. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ex-Angr. -- ALGRIF talk 14:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

They have different meaning and pronunciation, not etymologically explainable (vowel length isn't anything randomly changing in Greek), and, as I propose, different etymologies: -ῖνος should stay with *-iHnos, while -ινος could be explained as i-stem + -nos, alike to -ικος. I don't see any semantic complications but many difficulties with the current connection, as I addressed in the beginning. 2A02:8388:C80:1900:9550:8BB4:B72E:8900 19:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently glossed simply as "I don't know", but doesn't it mean more than that? In my experience it's used with an accusative tone, meaning something along the lines of "You're the one who knows the answer to your question, so you should answer it yourself (and tell me the answer while you're at it)." PUC – 16:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily, I think. Sometimes it just means "your guess is as good as mine", with no implication that one's interlocutor ought to know the answer themself. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

A type of fire grate. No lemmings on OneLook. Cf. dog senses 11, 15 and maybe 9. Does it deserve an entry? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah it's from sense 11. The OED defines this as "a detached fire grate standing in a fireplace upon dogs". Ƿidsiþ 17:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently free hand reads (uncountable).

Free hand, n. ​
Unrestricted freedom or authority: They gave the director a free hand to cut the budget wherever she wanted​
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/free%20hand

However, the Random House Learner's Dictionary explains the NOUN GRAMMAR CODES as follows

 it can be counted and has a plural. It can be used with the word a or an before it.
 only used in the singular with a singular verb. It can be used with a or an before it.

FREE 8b. phr. (to have or give) a free hand: liberty of action in affairs that one has to deal with. So to have one's hands free 
oed.com/oed2/00089640 

Therefore, isn't adding both codes in the same word contradictory? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this case similar to take (a) pride?

4. esp. in to take a pride (in, †to do something, etc.).
https://oed.com/oed2/00188461

(esp in the phrase take (a) pride in)
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/pride

--Backinstadiums (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Maltese -ja Etymology 2 (can't work out how to link to a specific etymology) says "# Alternative form of -i (1st-person singular non-verbal pronominal suffix), used with stems ending in vowels or diphthongs" but the specific meaning (1s pronominal suffix) isn't present in -i, so it's linking to non-existing meaning. I might add it, but I've come here specifically to find out whether or not that suffix (-i) exists in that meaning in Maltese, having failed to find it in w:Maltese language. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's just missing, but here's a piece of advice: don't add it if you haven't studied Maltese. It's far too easy to introduce errors into the dictionary, and it takes a long time for people to catch them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's why I didn't, @Metaknowledge:. I see that Maltese was added to the -ja entry by an IP in December 2019. Do we have a way of notifying Maltese experts? Do we have any Maltese experts? --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Information desk/2020/August#How do I propose a word of the day?.

Two problems:

1 Not a part of the pavo participle.

2 It is the ablative of passus -us, = pace. This is not given. — This unsigned comment was added by 86.8.131.123 (talk) at 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC).

Does this refer to an entry on the English Wiktionary? If so, which entry? What is "the pavo participle"? The Latin term pavo is a noun. Our entry for passu defines it as the "ablative singular of passus". So I have no idea what you are talking about.  --Lambiam 11:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I suspect this may be another example of the problem I ran into a couple of questions above, that there is no obvious way to link to a particular etymology/meaning of a word. The entry for passu says it is the ablative of "passus", but unless you know some Latin grammar there is no reason to realise that it means spedcifically Etymology 2 of passus but not Etymologies 1 or 3 (which are indeed past participles). So the OP is wrong that "This is not given", but it's easy to miss it as one of three lemmas. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: The easy way to indicate that only one of the three etymologies is meant is to add a gloss, which I have now done. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a usage note about the locative case of дом ? Dngweh2s (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

дома is an adverb meaning "at home". в доме means in the house. на дому is used in some phrases referring to things done at your house, eg. работа на дому, work done from home. врач принимает на дому, the doctor conducts consultations in his own home. — This unsigned comment was added by 81.141.8.25 (talk) at 20:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC).

1. (transitive) This term needs a definition. Please help out and add a definition, then remove the text {{rfdef}}.

   Sleep your way to good health.

   He hoped to sleep his troubles away.

2. (reflexive) This term needs a definition. Please help out and add a definition, then remove the text {{rfdef}}.

   Sleep yourself slim.

   stay in bed and sleep yourself until a christian hour.

   Where did you sleep yourself?

   Sometimes they eat and sleep themselves into the grave.

I think we lack a definition that fits these well-attested usages.

Cf. oversleep for a related reflexive usage. DCDuring (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't you use this pattern with many intransitive verbs? Walk your troubles away. Drink your troubles away. It rained the sun away. DTLHS (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. Same with the reflexive usage. But can we substitute any of our definitions into such usage? DCDuring (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

MWOnline has three good, more broadly worded transitive definitions that cover more transitive usage than ours do, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Which one of these should get an entry? {{R:Macmillan}} has an entry for wise beyond one's years, but can't you be other things beyond your years? PUC – 11:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Created both. Beyond one's years seems pretty uncommon to be used without wise, but clearly has still been done alone and with other adjectives. The rareness is apparent in that most of my search queries for beyond my years with adjectives etc. only take up one page (except on one search which yielded a few) in Books each, while "wise beyond my years" obviously has over 10 pages of results. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I just went back into the etymology of Hindi मैं and was sent to मया, allegedly the intrumental form of अस्मद् "I"… except the pronoun appears to be अहम्, and this अस्मद् isn't even in the inflection table in its own entry! What is going on? MGorrone (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The BBC claims here to antedate this usage to 1920: F Scott Fitzgerald This Side of Paradise, which is a book I've never read, and I know little of US nightlife at that time. Checking books.google, I found 3 instances of wicked, of which only one "Phoebe and I are going to shake a wicked calf" has any possible claim to this meaning. It does show up in the 1921 edition, but only in snippet view, so moving to a later edition, here is the context: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q5vDAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Phoebe+and+I+are+going+to+shake+a+wicked+calf%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEv5vYoZzrAhXVtXEKHX7SCWc4ChDoATABegQIAxAC#v=onepage&q=%22Phoebe%20and%20I%20are%20going%20to%20shake%20a%20wicked%20calf%22&f=false

Reading a page before and several after, I tend to disagree with the BBC. Since it is in a section headed The devil and in the context that one of their party, who seems a bit boring on first acquaintance and is not drinking, is nonetheless repeatedly hallucinating a devil figure, my guess is that it is said sarcastically, suggesting that while some people (including possibly the boring friend) would think that style of dancing by an unmarried couple was sinful, they intend to enjoy it. But I doubt it was intended to say "Look at us, we're going to be the stand-out couple on the dance floor", which would be the meaning the BBC are claiming.

So I don't intend to add it. But I post it here in case someone who knows the book thinks I have misjudged the usage. --Enginear 04:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you have misjudged the usage. It looks like our second adjective definition to me. DCDuring (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. It's hard to say. Either definition could work. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Does this word mean "railway station" specifically, or does it just mean any station? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Nelson's Kanji dictionary gives only "stopping a train" as the gloss for 停車, but for 停車場 it says "railway station; taxi stand". --ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a noun section. The second sense, though uncommon, is attested in various phrases (albeit seemingly always with "the"), and seems to belong where it is, at ]. The first sense seems to principally occur in two phrases (and it might be easier to write definitions for them than to write one for "deep six" as a noun used in both): should it be "moved" to give the deep six and get the deep six? (Can it be attested in other phrases?) - -sche (discuss) 09:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

How can this mean "to take the red pill"? I don't remember ever seeing it used without a direct object. PUC – 12:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(I replied at WT:RFVE.) - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@-sche: Yes, thanks. Sorry for the double post. PUC – 09:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Should this be added? It has more overt connotations than white hunter, is more saliently linked to fictional representations and is also less likely to be used unidiomatically. Of course, a hard redirect or a mention at white hunter could also cover this. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Does it rhyme? @Mahagaja? PUC – 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It can, if you "drop the g", making the first word shaggin’ and if you speak an accent with the weak vowel merger so that shaggin’ is /ˈʃæɡən/ rather than /ˈʃæɡɪn/. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Thanks. Do you think it's a term that appeared in a lect such as the one you just described (and we may thus imagine that it was chosen precisely for the rhyme), or is the rhyme coincidental (it was coined elsewhere, and there just happened to be a lect where it rhymes)?

I'm asking this because I've put the term in Category:English rhyming phrases, but I actually feel uneasy doing that: I think the category should be used only for deliberate rhymes. PUC – 09:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty likely it was coined as a rhyme or near-rhyme, since motor vehicles are not normally called wagons in English. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Here the term is spelled shaggin‘ waggin’, reinforcing the theory this is intended as (or at least perceived as) a rhyme.  --Lambiam 10:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Should the prefixes even be listed as descendants here? According to the Finnish entry at yli-, the prefix derives from the adverb/postposition yli. Thadh (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

At face value, it is composed of what it looks like. But I've seen this term used a lot in Japanese media for many years, and I'm not quite sure how we ought to define it, nor if our current definition is adequate. "punishment game" is not a proper definition for this in English, unless there is some kind of actual regular usage of "punishment game" in my mother tongue (English) that I am unaware of. I have never seen or heard "now for the punishment game", or "it is time for the punishment game" in English, save perhaps in very literal translations of something that was originally in Japanese. Granted, I wasn't familiar with the English phrasing "it can't be helped" for what was more usually phrased (in my experience) "what can you do?", "that's just how it is", "such is life" etc. until I first encountered its usage as a translation of 「しょうがない」, and thought that it sounded a bit unnatural at first (the only things akin to that phrasing that I knew were "one cannot help it" , or "one cannot help but " but those aren't the same thing), so I suppose that it is possible that "punishment game" has some areal usage somewhere in the English speaking world, and I simply have never encountered it.

@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr: Perhaps a native speaker such as Mr. Takasugi might be able to give some insight into this matter. Maybe he and/or Eirikr have some suggestions on how we ought to word our definition. My gut tells me that this is probably some modern Japanese (pop) cultural element that has no perfect English counterpart, with "penalty" or "punishment" being the closest to adequate. But I don't want to edit the current entry, just in case people with more knowledge of this have something to say about it. Tharthan (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article for batsu game. Google Books gives several usages in English. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I see, so it ultimately derives from Japanese game shows. Thanks for informing me of that. That is in line with what I thought about it being a Japanese pop cultural element. Might that be worth mentioning in the etymology section of 「罰ゲーム」, @Lambiam, Eirikr, for the sake of those who look up the term here and do not exactly understand what it is?

With regard to the English citations: usage of batsu game in English would inherently indicate that it is being used with or in reference to the Japanese concept, not as a native or nativised English idea (which attestations of "punishment game" or "penalty game" might potentially suggest). Tharthan (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If uses of the term batsu game in English can be attested so as to satisfy WT:CFI (some of the results of GBS as well as Google News Search seem usable), we can make that an entry and use it as the definition of 罰ゲーム.  --Lambiam 07:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Worth an entry? Found in one lemming, but it may be SOP.

• “get off easy” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman.

PUC – 18:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It is verb sense 12 at get off, to escape. I don't think it needs an entry. (There may be a question around easy vs. easily but I'm not very convinced.) Equinox ◑ 19:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Compare get off unscathed .  --Lambiam 09:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Or scot-free, cheap, or various PPs (eg, with a slap on the wrist, with a warning, with probation, with community service, with a plea). DCDuring (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I recently created resource hog and resource pig with the definition "a process which consumes a large amount of system resources compared to its importance or function". However, I've noticed that hog and pig are used with many other computing terms in a similar manner: CPU hogs/CPU pigs, memory hogs/memory pigs etc. Should we add a computing sense to hog and pig, and if so, how might the definition be worded? – Einstein2 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This is sense 2 of the noun hog, currently defined as “A greedy person; one who refuses to share.” I think this Cambridge definition is much better: “someone who takes much more than a fair share of something, especially by eating too much“. Applying this to a software process, gives something like: “(computing) A process that consumes an inordinate or disproportionate amount of some scarce resource.” — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs).

Yes, these are not technical terms, just a general sense of greed. Equinox ◑ 13:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

See also the #BalanceTonPorc ("denounce your pig") hashtag, another pig in computing. PUC – 08:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a wordsmith expert, but I don't think the four senses given for the word ullage quite get at the way the term is used in the domain of spaceflight. And ullage is used a lot in that domain.

I would greatly appreciate it if a Wiktionary editor (or two) would take a look at the comment I left on Talk:ullage, and help think about the problem. Or maybe tell me its not a problem. Best would be someone who is both a wiktionary wordsmith expert and also somewhat versed in technical English. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

At the Earth‘s poles, the concept of dawn is not well defined. And while riding a roller coaster, a person’s weight is not clearly defined. These are not problems of the dictionary definitions of these concepts. Under micro-gravity conditions there is no free surface separating the liquid from the gaseous state and therefore no clearly defined “ullage” (“empty space”); I do not see that as a lexicographic concern either. Note that Wikipedia has a section Ullage#Rocketry. If I understand this correctly, the whole point of ullage motors is to create conditions (artificial gravity) under which the “ullage” regains definition.  --Lambiam 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment left on talk page. I think the definition as worded is correct. If the definition referred to the top of the tank it would be wrong. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. That is precisely what I was looking for from experience Wiktionarians. N2e (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Entryworthy? PUC – 11:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced it has an idiomatic meaning beyond “awareness of the situation“, although this has a strong connotation of military engagement, the way it is used in the entry fog of war.  --Lambiam 11:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There's actually a US government website called the National Fire Situation Awareness Tool. I think this is one of those expressions that's used to signal a particular register, even though it doesn't mean anything different, like utilize and affirmative. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's note it's been deleted before: see Talk:situational awareness. PUC – 11:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If it hadn't been deleted I'd vote for an entry, but it's the same word it was in 2011 and I don't feel strongly enough to overturn precedent. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems SoP to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (Dept of Commerce) has the following definition from its Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) Glossary:

"Within a volume of time and space, the perception of an enterprise’s security posture and its threat environment; the comprehension/meaning of both taken together (risk); and the projection of their status into the near future."

I'd be embarrassed to have such a definition in Wiktionary, but the focus on 'security' and 'threat' make this seem more specific than situational + awareness. DCDuring (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Same question. PUC – 11:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia the term Social awareness redirects to Social consciousness, a Marxist philosophical concept (in German gesellschaftliches Bewusstsein), of which the essence is that it is a collective consciousness, a shared understanding that we need each other. This – to me – means something very different from how I think the term is more commonly used, which is how the Wikipedia article Awareness defines it: “Social awareness is the information you maintain about a social or conversational context. This is a subtle awareness maintained through non-verbal cues, such as eye contact, facial express, etc.” This conforms to the use here in some definitions, such as 空気よめない. The term has also been identified with social intelligence, which (IMO) is yet something else. Definitions found in the literature include “an understanding of how to achieve ‘social competence’”, where the latter means “the effective and appropriate use of specific social skills in interactions with other”; and “the understanding of a contextual situation at a present time”. These are conceptually and operationally quite different. My conclusion is that there is no clearly delineated shared concept underlying these various uses; a definition that encompasses all will be too vague to be useful.  --Lambiam 12:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Entryworthy? PUC – 11:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems completely SoP to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Entryworthy? PUC – 17:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nah, we're missing the sense of pocket that Lexico perfectly defines as "A small, isolated group or area." Now, how to copy that definition... Ultimateria (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we bother distinguishing the sense of "headfirst jump" (both verb and noun) by whether it's into water? I feel like a dive into home plate in baseball is basically the same as a dive into a pool; you're jumping forward headfirst, just landing somewhere different. Ultimateria (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The etymology strongly suggests that water has long been the prototypical target, with meanings related to other targets emerging by metaphorical extension. A language learner would start with the prototypical definition, no? DCDuring (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The prototypical sense of eat is to consume foodstuff, and yet we relativize this by adding, parenthetically, “usually food” . Take sentences like “I thought rich people just dove headfirst into the piles of gold coins they kept in their money rooms like Scrooge McDuck”, or “I had jammed my weapon, run wildly through kill zones, and dove into a pile of shit.” Shouldn’t we make sure the sense of the verb as used here is covered by one of the listed senses?  --Lambiam 17:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a basic verb and noun definition for this sense. Ultimateria (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this is a word? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it approximately something a shock jock's (Howard Stern's?) followers used to use at the end of prank calls? Also, LA Times 1992-12-16 has a use. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I was wrong, "baba booey" is the Howard Stern nonsense phrase. I started Citations:ooga booga. Good uses are hard to find. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The current definition we have at this entry is "an ending that occurs when the player finishes a video game and is completely successful, as opposed to a bad ending.".

It is true that good endings usually do mean that the player completed the game's main quest or whatever, but mightn't a particular game hypothetically have its "good end" not actually have the player be able to fully complete the main quest?

On this matter, what of games with multiple endings? In that case, there might be multiple "good endings" and multiple "bad endings". So naturally it would not be unlikely that at least one of those good endings didn't result from the player fully succeeding at the main quest. For that matter, why do we not have true ending as an entry yet? That seems just as important an entry as good ending and bad ending. Tharthan (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My immediate thought on reading that definition is "could a game have a 'good' (successful/complete) ending that ends in tragedy, and a 'bad' (incomplete/not 100%) ending that ends in happiness?", as this would make it more than SoP. I don't play modern games though. Equinox ◑ 22:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The audio file says US but sounds off. I think it is using a light l. Dngweh2s (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

At c:User:Neskaya, the person who made the recording says, "I am aware that my accent on some audio recordings is nonstandard"; she has a similar disclaimer at User talk:Neskaya here at Wiktionary. I agree that it sounds a little odd, but it's not wrong, so I wouldn't support removing it unless another audio file with a more canonical pronunciation exists. (Courtesy ping to @Neskaya though she hasn't been here in over a year.) —Mahāgaja · talk 07:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I found a usage meaning porch, but I'm not sure if it's Southern American or African American. Dngweh2s (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, what is the meaning of rintontonire? „E m'arintontonivi de bugìe.“ (Ettore Petrolini, Tanto pè cantà) --84.62.129.92 18:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Do you mean rintontire? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ‘rintontonire’ is rare, but it seems to exist. Or are people using a bad spelling? Did Ettore Petrolini? --84.62.129.92 19:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the pronunciation "bóxìng" used? --沈澄心✉ 09:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Geographyinitiative, who added it based on "a recording made for a Classical Chinese text". Which recording is this? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 10:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

He could be confusing it with 百 as in the toponym 百色, or maybe the 編制單位: 舊讀bo2（伯）。古時軍隊編制單位，百人為佰。 (from Wang Li's 古漢語常用字典). ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The quotes on jukskei ain't good enuff, right? --Emit888 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If the entry were challenged they would not be enough to keep it. Because jukskei exists in the Dictionary of South African English with citations I am not going to challenge it. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit and this comment don't make sense to me. take is transitive, take place is not, be it syntactically or semantically. If we want to explain how the expression is built, we should do so in the etymology section. PUC – 11:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It does look syntactically transitive to me. Place is the object, and take is a verb applied to it. Equinox ◑ 13:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but as SemperBlotto explained below, the phrase as a whole doesn't take an object, so we shouldn't label it as transitive (even "in construction", which to me doesn't mean anything) on its definition line. PUC – 14:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you argue then that a phrase like take the biscuit is intransitive? Equinox ◑ 15:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, though take itself isn't. PUC – 16:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

But a casual non-idiomatic phrase like "can you take this heavy bag for a moment?" is still transitive? Then you're IMO outside the realm of syntax because the meanings of the words are starting to matter. Equinox ◑ 16:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I think it's the exact same thing: the verb phrase "take this heavy bag" is not transitive, but the verb "take" is, and "this heavy bag" is its direct object. PUC – 17:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

But the verb, as a whole, doesn't take an object. It looks intransitive to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I remember raising this before, and at the time the consensus was that such phrases should be taken as a whole. Thus, as SemperBlotto says, while take is transitive, take the biscuit is intransitive (one can't "take the biscuit the "). — SGconlaw (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I find that quite strange (for one thing, "take the biscuit the object" would be ditransitive), but okay. Maybe it's worth a note on a policy page somewhere. Equinox ◑ 15:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The other point that arose from the previous discussion was that perhaps it would be best not to mark such entries as "intransitive". Perhaps that needs further discussion, I don't know. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's not the phrase that would be ditransitive, but the verb only: "give me that" is not a ditransitive phrase, it's a phrase with a ditransitive verb as its head. PUC – 17:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

take place is presented as a Verb, with Verb POS, not as a Phrase. And it is used as a verb, can be substituted into a sentence where a verb occurs. It's obviously verbal! Equinox ◑ 18:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox: Yes, but it can only be substituted into a sentence where an intransitive verb (such as happen or occur) occurs. You'd agree that those are synonymous and have strictly the same syntactic behaviour, right? But if you do, and at the same time argue that take place is transitive, then you're saying that happen and occur are transitive too. Since they aren't, it means "take place" as a whole isn't either. PUC – 18:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Take place" is certainly intransitive. There are plenty of phrasal verbs that can be both, like make up is intransitive when it comes to settling an argument, but transitive when it means inventing something. Ƿidsiþ 10:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The entry for the French word mildiou says it's uncountable, yet there exists on Wiktionary a page mildioux which claims to be the plural. What's more, the French Wiktionary article for the word lists a regular plural mildious instead. Something's wrong somewhere, anyone have any ideas or access to a good French dictionary? Thanks 2WR1 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There are a few examples of both mildious and mildioux on Google Books: , , , . —Mahāgaja · talk 21:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Thanks for checking that, should I make the plural "mildious or mildioux" then? 2WR1 (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@2WR1: I'd say so. It could still say "usually uncountable" if that's the case. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"A psychoactive substance, especially one which is illegal and addictive, ingested for recreational use, such as cocaine."

Doesn't a substance have to be refined or processed in some way to be a "drug"? I believe alcohol is generally not understood as being a drug, nor, say, raw coca or khat leaves.__Gamren (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, alcohol is definitely considered a drug by some people. Consider a Google Books search for "drugs such as alcohol". DTLHS (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

A few years ago, someone at Wikipedia went on an "alcohol is a drug" spree and converted every instance of "drugs and alcohol" he could find to "drugs including alcohol". —Mahāgaja · talk 07:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

An additional sense is probably warranted. In the narrow sense typical of everyday speech neither alcohol nor caffeine is a drug, but inclusion in the category of drugs is common enough that we can't ignore it. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The source linked gives أيش, why do we have إيش instead? Or is this something that cannot be standardised? Kritixilithos (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The source had to put the hamza there because it was writing the long ē as a diphthong ay, which is its historical origin. We have the freedom of dispensing with harakat and instead using romanisation to express that kind of thing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so we simply chose the current spelling. Maybe it is worth having a separate entry for أيش specifying it as another way to spell إيش? Kritixilithos (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

have done should certainly be tagged idiomatic. I'm also assuming it's archaic/obsolete? --Emit888 (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In what sense is it idiomatic? It is derived from the past participle of do in the sense of "finish". Whether it is archaic is an empirical question. Has it been used much in writings of the last 20 or 50 years? DCDuring (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to search for. The GBS results are all pretty old; the most recent one I found may have been penned down in 1941, but most are from the 19th century.  --Lambiam 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No pronunciation for English angle-measure — This unsigned comment was added by 86.8.131.123 (talk) at 11:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC).

I'm not familiar with the word, so I'm not going to add a pronunciation, but I strongly suspect it's pronounced to rhyme with John, i.e. in many accents (but not all) it's a homophone of gone. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

-gon BrE ɡən (also ɡɒn) ǁ AmE ɡɑːn --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That's for the suffix, of course. I assume that the sense "one hundredth of a right angle" is RP /ɡɒn/, GA /ɡɑn/, but that's only an assumption. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the term is in common use in Anglophone nations; it may be hard to find spontaneous utterances by English speakers using it in this sense; they may themselves never have heard the term spoken, and then I guess they are very likely to use the firstcspelling pronunciation that comes to mind, such as one rhyming with on, don, pon or won.  --Lambiam 23:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Why this page is connected to ru:Шаблон:Derksen? And how to disconnect? 217.117.125.72 15:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

User:GregZak added an interwiki link to the {{Template:R:sla:EDSIL}} template outside of the <noinclude></noinclude> part of the code, which caused the link to be transcluded in every page that used the template. I reverted that, but it may take a while for those links to clear from the system for the thousands of other entries that use the template. If you see it in another entry, simply do a null edit for that entry: click "Edit", then "Publish changes" without making any changes to the entry. That won't show up in the edit history, but it will force the system to update the transclusions, categories and links. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sense 4: "to undress to get undressed". Is there a missing semicolon ("to undress; to get undressed"), or is the intended sense "to remove one's clothes so that one is undressed"? This is today's Foreign Word of the Day. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a missing semicolon: It is a reflexive form (to undress someone, namely oneself). I've fixed it. Thadh (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thadh: thanks. Would it be clearer to say “to undress oneself”? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Yeah, that would do the trick. Thadh (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this term offensive? One editor says it is, while online sources range literally everywhere from "no, why would it be?" to "absolutely" with seemingly no consistency whatsoever. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, one option is to put a usage note like "some sources consider this offensive, others consider it inoffensive" or something. Do we have any editors who might have a sense for this or have connections to resources or people that could speak to this? @AryamanA, Sreesarmatvm? - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@-sche, Surjection: Don't think it's inherently offensive (I've heard Malayali people use it to refer to themselves), but it can be used pejoratively. Gujju is the same kind of word, where it can be neutral ("my dad is Gujju", quoting from my university groupchat) or used to make fun of Gujaratis. I think offensive with some sort of qualifier ("sometimes offensive"?) is best. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 19:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. It sounds like it's an informal term (like Gujju is labelled as being). It's not uncommon for informal terms to be OK in self-reference or among friends while also being usable by other people as pejoratives, and conversely, not uncommon for people to use lighter pejoratives informally and in self-reference in affectionate ways. How about "informal, sometimes pejorative"? - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Would someone review my edit of tumble? The quote in question:

Whether he ever thought of it at all, might be a question; but, if he ever did chance to cast his mind that way after a comfortable dinner, no doubt, like a good sailor, he took it to be a sort of call of the watch to tumble aloft, and bestir themselves there, about something which he would find out when he obeyed the order, and not sooner.

I'm not quite sure whether the quote suits the meaning that I described. Methinks to tumble aloft means, in this particular example, to move upwards, to a spar/masthead, hence my decision to create a new definition. Please give me your thoughts.

Jerzy (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looks OK to me - but I would have made it the last, rather than the first definition of the verb. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Page 496 of Collins Cobuild English Usage reads

You form 'yes/no'-questions by putting did in front of the subject, followed by use to: Did you used to play with your trains?
If the 'wh'-word is the object of the clause, or part of the object, you use the auxiliary do after it, followed by the subject and used to: What did you used to do on Sundays?

However, I do not know why used is compulsory in wh-questions, unlike in yes/no-questions --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no established preference between did you use to and did you used to (they are indistinguishable in ordinary speech). See for example MW --ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I am used to the cold and I am use to the cold are also indistinguishable in speech, yet the first is strongly preferred over the second. And Did she walk to the edge? is fine, but Did she walked to the edge? is not.  --Lambiam 00:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If this was copied correctly from the book: their first example does not follow their given rule. I don't know the context, but most 'yes/no'-questions do not involve use(d) to: Did he really say that?; Did you have anything to do with that?; Did we just see what I think we saw?.  --Lambiam 00:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Collins used that as an example. It sounds strained (not strange, though) to me. I would probably say What was it (that) you used to do?. Is it commonly used in British/Commonwealth Englishes? DCDuring (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/August § There is/are a wide variety of patterns.

A plural verb is needed after a/an (large, wide, etc.) variety of… A variety of reasons were given. 
You can use a singular or a plural verb before it: There is/are a wide variety of patterns to choose from.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/variety_1?q=variety

However, I do not know whether this is some wider general aspect of the English language. --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: Constructio ad sensum. Do not do this in most other languages. Fay Freak (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not think this kind of question is supposed to be in the Beer parlour. J3133 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It also depends on whether this concerns an amount of something referred to by a count noun or a mass noun:

 There is still a lot of beer in the fridge.

*There are still a lot of beer in the fridge.

*There is still a lot of bottles in the fridge.

 There are still a lot of bottles in the fridge.

These example sentences may make this more acceptable for the Beer parlour.  --Lambiam 10:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam: I do not think you understand what the Beer parlour is for: “fundamental aspects of Wiktionary—that is, about policies, proposals and other community-wide features”. Questions about terms and phrases in languages do not belong there. J3133 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It was a joke, fer cryin’ out loud. For when the Beer parlour runs out of beer – look in the fridge.  --Lambiam 15:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I like small text —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Original poster, this is the same as the question (the first Tea room question for August) that you posted about "series". I'm British and can't confidently make assertions about American English, but in British English collective nouns take a plural verb. A series of things ARE being done. A number of things ARE under consideration. A lot of things ARE... The police ARE on their way. The loving couple ARE walking hand in hand. It seems to me that in US English this principle is implemented in a more restricted way, e.g. they also have "a lot of things are" and "the police are", but most of rest are used in the USA with "is". Or at least when I read news articles on Bloomberg, they always seem to say "a number of things is..." I don't know the precise reason. It is possible that in Middle English both ways were found, and that US English has standardised on one form and UK English on another, but it could also be that the large number of L2 speakers, German speakers, speakers of Scandinavian languages, etc, in the US has reinforced the tendency to use the single verb with mass nouns? Maybe someone could examine that and write a PhD on it. Note also that there are many nouns that can be used either way in the UK: the government is doing this, the government are doing that, depending on whether you parse the noun as a mass noun or not. England have scored a goal - this refers to the English football team! In colloquial UK English, the tendency to use a plural verb in such instances is more pronounced (McDonalds ARE now selling fruit and veg), but with nouns like "series", "number", "lot", "couple", it is perfectly standard to use the plural verb and odd (in UK English) to find it otherwise. Now, a fruitful avenue of inquiry would be the Celtic sub-stratum in English and possible influence on UK English of migration from the Celtic countries. E.g. in traditional Munster Irish, mass nouns took a plural verb (táid an mhuinntir, not tá an mhuinntir; sin iad an pobal, not sin é an pobal, etc). — This unsigned comment was added by 81.141.8.25 (talk) at 08:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC).

Could someone with the understanding of the problem and the postcatboiler template fix this? Thadh (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You have to add it to the appropriate module. If you go to a category of basically the same sort (in this case I used Category:English circumfixes), it will have a link that says "Edit category data", which opens the module that governs that category. I like to copy the text for a whole item in the module and paste it into the correct place, then replace the parts that are specific to the new item. That way I don't have to worry about finer details of the syntax.

I do find it odd that no one has used that POS before. I wonder if the practice is to lump postpositions and ambipositions together with prepositions. Pinging @Rua, who has worked with Northern Sami and will probably have an opinion on this. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Northern Sami has prepositions, postpositions, and words that can be used as either without a distinction. —Rua (mew) 09:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Are these words (民主化, 現代化, 去極端化, 氧化, etc.) necessarily verbs and nouns? Or are these words just verbs? --沈澄心✉ 04:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@沈澄心: I think most dictionaries would only treat them as verbs. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's right. When it comes to PoS in Chinese, when in doubt treat it as a verb. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Mediation and additional expertise requested from any of our other editors familiar with Ainu, and probably also Japanese (since most material about Ainu is written in Japanese). Pinging @TAKASUGI Shinji, Suzukaze-c, Metaknowledge, Chuck Entz, anyone else with relevant expertise.

Relevant resources:

• Batchelor's 1905 Ainu-Japanese-English dictionary: https://archive.org/details/ainuenglishjapan00batcuoft/
• Foundation for Ainu Culture's 2011 Chitose-dialect intermediate Ainu language materials, for readers of Japanese: https://www.ff-ainu.or.jp/teach/files/chitose_tyukyu.pdf
• Foundation for Ainu Culture's 2011 Bihoro-dialect intermediate Ainu language materials, for readers of Japanese: https://www.ff-ainu.or.jp/teach/files/bihoro_tyukyu.pdf
• National Ainu Museum and Park's Ainu-language dictionary: https://ainugo.ainu-museum.or.jp/

Order of events:

Alves9 (talk • contribs) updated the Ainu-language entry at アイヌ (“person; Ainu person; man”) yesterday:

• Removed {{also}}
• Removed Wikipedia link
• Removed image
• Added ====Antonyms====
• Added ====Synonyms====

Reviewing the changes, various things stood out to me as problematic:

• {{also}} should be included at the top of any entry where the headword may be graphically similar with another.
• Wikipedia links to relevant entries are encouraged.
• Relevant images are encouraged.
• ====Antonyms==== makes no sense to me in this context, and indeed the English man entry uses ====Coordinate terms==== instead.
• None of the terms listed under ====Antonyms==== included glosses, deepening the confusion -- what is "opposite" of "adult male human"? Is it boy, woman, beast, something else?
• One of the items listed as a ====Synonyms====, Ainu ニㇱパ (nispa) with a purported sense of husband, is not corroborated in the three references I have for Ainu.

I thus reverted Alves9's changes and proceeded to update the entry, incorporating as best I could the additional information he had added and that I could confirm as correct. Before I was done, Alves9 had reverted back to his version. I then started a thread on his talk page, at ], and finished my own edits to the Ainu アイヌ entry.

Alves9 reverted me again, without any edit comment. Since the underlying issues I'd identified above were still issues, I reverted that, adding an edit comment regarding the most severe issue: "Alves, your content disagrees with the references." I also added an explanation to the thread on his Talk page. A minute later, he reverted yet again, adding the confusing note that "Yes it does". I reverted, temporarily blocked Alves9 from editing that page, and started this thread here in the Tea Room.

Additional issues:

The thread at ] is slightly more informative, but not by much.

Alves9 blanked his Talk page just a little bit ago with the edit comment "archivin'", however there are no child pages for either his Talk or User pages. I didn't think that "archiving" was a synonym for "deleting", but this is the second instance I've seen recently of a user "archiving" their Talk page as a means of scrubbing or outright deleting threads.

The relevant thread persists in history at Special:PermanentLink/60157345. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Alves9's statements on his Talk page suggest a sloppy approach.

• In his first reply, he claimed the entry was fine and "already has references". Prior to my edit, it only had one reference, Batchelor's 1905 dictionary.
• In his second reply, he claimed that I removed senses. I did not, which a perusal of the diff clearly reveals. He also claimed that "Now it just looks like I added a bunch of loosely connected terms" (emphasis mine), which appears to claim ownership of the entry and display a misundertanding of how open-access wikis work in general. I also fail to see how either grouping is more or less connected; the ordering I listed hews more closely to the references, while Alves9's appears to be a translated copy of the National Ainu Museum's entry here.

• Alves9 seems to either be unfamiliar with, or disagree with, two of the references -- the Chitose dialect intermediate learning materials for readers of Japanese, and the similar Bihoro dialect materials, both published in 2011. Both are PDFs; search for "nispa" to find instances of that term, which in both dialects is glossed in Japanese as 立派な人 (rippa na hito, “excellent or magnificent person”) and as 裕福な人 (yūfuku na hito, “wealthy person”), not as husband.

In addition, he seems to misunderstand the entry in Batchelor's An Ainu-English-Japanese Dictionary of 1905, stating "In fact, Batchelor's material does say that nispa means "husband"." However, it does not. The relevant entry is here, topmost entry in the left-hand column on page 289. In Batchelor's romanization, it's listed as Nishpa, glossed in Japanese as 主人, 富者, 貴下, and in English as Master. Lord. Sir. A rich person. A title of respect. While Japanese 主人 (shujin) can be used as an epithet for husband, the core meaning of the Japanese term is master, with a follow-on usage as a title of respect. The lack of any husband gloss here for Ainu nispa says to me that husband is not the meaning of the Ainu term, as defined by Batchelor.

Lastly, Alves9 pointed to the National Ainu Museum's entry for nispa as evidence for the husband sense. There are a few issues with this:

• This usage may be specific to the dialect spoken in Saru District, Hokkaido, as noted in the entry itself.
• The husband sense is listed last, and glossed in Japanese as あなた，夫，人 (literally “you, husband, person”). Contextually, this tells me that this might mean husband solely when used by a wife to address her husband -- which seems more like an application, or at best extension, of the "title of respect" sense listed by Batchelor.

• Subjectively, Alves9's responses and behavior suggest to me that he is simply insisting that he is right, without really looking at the information about the term, or considering the issues that I've brought to his attention. He has reverted my changes reflexively, almost all without any edit comment, and the one edit comment he left doesn't make sense. Even being generous in interpreting that edit comment, it comes off as "I'm right". I also get the impression that he's taking ownership of the entry in a way that doesn't seem either healthy or constructive.

Request:

I'd appreciate additional eyeballs and feedback on how best to proceed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know any Ainu, so I will presume that I was pinged to offer mediation, rather than linguistic expertise. I will start with the content of the revert war.

1. The {{also}} should not be removed, per usual practice. 2. The Wikipedia link is to en.wiki; it is a matter of valid debate whether it belongs in an Ainu entry, and I support its removal. 3. The (appropriate) image should not be removed; Alves's claim that those people are not ethnically Ainu appears to be false. 4. The definitions and 'nyms were made worse by Alves's reversion. 5. Valid references should not be removed. 6. Alves's evidence for the sense "husband" seems secure, at least for the Saru dialect, but that seems covered in the current version of the entry.

My conclusions: Alves is in the wrong on most of these issues. Even if he were in the right, his behaviour (edit-warring without explanation) is unacceptable. If he continues this kind of behaviour, on this entry or any other, he will be subject to a sitewide block. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Μετάknowledge for your input. I saw your name on the history of the ] page, and I have appreciated your approach to handling other issues in the past. (I have likewise appreciated Chuck's approach, who I'm pretty sure doesn't have much Ainu or Japanese expertise.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I was told to make a discussion here after adding an entry for OnlyFans. Not exactly referring to the brand or platform, but an account on such platform. Such as, "check out my OnlyFans". We already have entries for this for other platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and myspace. What is the stance on this, and what determines which can be made entries? AntisocialRyan (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Are these the same thing? Are they interchangeable? Should we add a trans-see? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No, they are not the same thing. "freedom of religion" has to do with someone being able to declare and/or otherwise make known publicly that they are a follower of whatever religion that they might be following without repercussions (for instance, in a place where there might otherwise be or have historically had a particular state religion).

"religious freedom" has to do with someone being able to live out their faith—including following commitments, rejecting that which is prohibited by their faith, etc.—without fearing that their government is going to persecute them for it.

However, our definition for freedom of religion seems to be much broader than that which I have usually encountered, encompassing elements of religious freedom as well. Maybe we ought to look at which parts of the definition are better in which entry.

Tharthan (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, incidentally, what on Earth is this bit on about?: "Use of this phrase may be subject to controversy"

Who, aside from an antitheist, or an autocrat, actually finds freedom of religion objectionable? Tharthan (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Some (many?) people use the terms without distinction, including Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, whose entry on "freedom of religion" uses "religious freedom" as a synonym in the definition. (Wikipedia also treats them as synonyms, FWIW.) Most dictionaries only have one or the other or neither, not both, so it's hard to be sure if they'd define them the same or differently. For "freedom of religion", MW has "right to choose what religion to follow and to worship without interference", Dictionary.com has "right to choose what religion to follow and to worship without interference", Lexico has "right to practice whatever religion one chooses", and MacMillan has "right to practice religion without being punished or persecuted". AFAICT only Collins has an entry for "religious freedom", and it doesn't have a definition(!). A few books mention them together as synonyms, as in google books:"freedom of religion, or religious freedom", compare google books:"freedom of religion, or religious liberty" using another phrase in this constellation (religious liberty).
  The point about use of the phrase being "subject to controversy" may be extralexical. It may be referring to how some people claim that religious freedom entitles them to infringe on other people's rights (e.g. having "religious freedom" to refuse to issue a marriage license to a 'sinfully' interracial couple, which is controversial), but I'm not sure if that's something for a dictionary to cover. - -sche (discuss) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of a religion that considers interracial marriage sinful, though perhaps there is some cult or obscure religious group out there that thinks that. I can't imagine what their justification for that would be, though. Tharthan (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tharthan: There was a whole lot of religiously based opposition to interracial marriage in the United States before it was legalized, and there is still some, but not as much as there used to be. The same groups (e.g. Southern Baptists) that used the Curse of Ham to justify slavery in the 19th century continued to use it to justify Jim Crow and laws against interracial marriage in the 20th. Nowadays it's probably really only very small fringe groups that openly oppose it on religious grounds, but only 60 years ago probably the majority of white Protestants in the South belonged to churches that did. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. Except for the bit about what Southern Baptists did during the age of slavery, I did not know any of that information. To me, it is quite evident that people like that were actively searching for an excuse to reject interracial marriage, in a desperate attempt to reject the realisation that there was nothing wrong nor objectionable about interracial marriage.

I do think that that is be a good example for what the usage note appears to be referring to. It probably would be best to clean up the usage note if it is decided that it not be excised, and consider adding that as an example. Tharthan (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

How is sense 2 ("a word, symbol, sign, or other referent that can be used to refer to any entity") used? Dictionary.com has an opposite sense, "something signified or represented, as distinguished from a word, symbol, or idea representing it." Several other senses have issues; perhaps I should just overhaul the entry later. We seem to be missing a sense along the lines of "a thought or point" ("just the thing to say", "say the first thing you think of"). - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The entry labels it as archaic but is it? Wikipedia uses it and has a section mentioning “In 2017, the IUCN Cat Classification Taskforce followed the recommendation of the ICZN in regarding the domestic cat as a distinct species, Felis catus.” J3133 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Pinging @DCDuring who added the label. J3133 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Pinging @DCDuring again, who has edited the entry but has kept the “archaic” label. (An explanation would be in order.) J3133 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

After edit conflict.

I don't want to remove the label while there is a discussion (albeit with just two) going on. It usually makes the discussion harder to follow. I agree the label is wrong. Taxonomic treatment of the long-domesticated versions of animals sometimes irregularly oscillates between treatment of the domesticated animals as members of a subspecies of the wild ancestral species or as a distinct species. IRMNG and Wikispecies call it a subspecies; most other sources treat it as a species. We'll see what the next edition of Mammal Species of the World says about preferred taxonomic treatment. You might want to look at the taxonomic designation of all domesticated plants and animals to make sure that all have a taxonomic name, that both types of taxonomic designations are shown in the taxonomic entries and the preferred name (or both) appear in the vernacular name entries. I am suffering from real-world distractions at this time. DCDuring (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The label can be re-added when it is is verified. The entry should not contain unverified information. J3133 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a counsel of perfection. Our entries, especially the definitions therein, are predominantly chock full of unverified, unsourced information. We hardly ever make it clear when we copy a definition from an out-of-copyright dictionary or from WP. Dictionaries generally don't have footnotes. Most dictionaries don't even show citations, the OED being the famous exception among dictionaries of Modern English. DCDuring (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I do not understand how that is related with removing this label until it is verified. Why should an entry contain false information? J3133 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You asserted "The entry should not contain unverified information." in support of your position. Almost ALL of our content is unverified. Thus applying your stated principle generally would require removing almost all of our content. Or, in a more conservative application, any challenge to any unreferenced and/or uncited content would result in the challenged content being stricken within 24 hours of a Tea Room challenge. DCDuring (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

(1) Even if Felis catus is no longer the correct term, it isn't archaic; at worst it's superseded. (2) While it's true our entries have a lot of unverified and unsourced info, we do usually remove something unverified and unsourced if somebody call attention to it and objects to it. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Should that be 1. within 24 hours of the challenge whether or not there is discussion, let alone consensus, or 2. unilaterally and immediately without discussion, or 3. should be have a bot delete or, at least, flag all unsourced content? I am interested in orderly improvement of Wiktionary without invoking misleading, naive, idealistic rhetorical slogans. DCDuring (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Option (1) isn't enough time; I'd give it a month. Option (2) depends on the situation; I often delete unsource info immediately for languages I know that I'm one of very few people working on such as Old Irish, but I would certainly reject doing that for languages a lot of people work on like English, French, or Spanish. Option (3-delete) would be intolerable; option (3-flag) would be impractical. My suggestion is, if it's a language you don't know well or a lot people work on, bring the issue to wider attention and give it at least a month. If it's language you know well, and few if any people other people are working on it, and you're a respected Wiktionarian who can delete things out of process without others suspecting you of vandalism, just delete it. For cases in between those two extremes, use common sense. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. And sources recognizing it as a species date to 2017; so it's better to explain the dispute in usage notes than to label it "archaic", especially if the sources treating it as a subspecies are older (as Wikipedia implies) and more out of date...! - -sche (discuss) 18:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have agreed above that the label is wrong. In fact most taxonomic databases show Felis catus as the preferred species name.

My interest is procedural. We should have as orderly a discussion as possible before deleting the erroneous label. In this case the discussion might help Wiktionary more generally should we determine that such taxonomic mistakes occur in other entries where domestication complicates matters.

The alternative of establishing a precedent of immediate deletion without discussion seems unacceptable without sufficiently broad discussion and consensus. DCDuring (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Keeping the label without discussion and consensus seems unacceptable. J3133 (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to ask about the pronunciation of gular (etymology 1) and our rhymes pages. I have indicated the pronunciation as /ˈɡjuːlə/ (RP) and /ˈɡ(j)ulɚ/ (GA), using "Appendix:English pronunciation" and the OED and Lexico.com as guides. As we have Rhymes:English/uːlə, I added the entry to that page. However, we do not have a rhymes page for Rhymes:English/ulə(ɹ). However, an anonymous editor repeatedly added the entry to Rhymes:English/uːlə(ɹ), claiming at one stage in an edit summary that "/u/ and /uː/ both represent the GOOSE vowel. Wiktionary's rhymes use /uː/ for the GOOSE vowel". Was that appropriate? — SGconlaw (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Our pronunciation sections represent different accents differently, but our Rhymes pages are trans-dialectal. Since General American doesn't have contrastive vowel length, we don't usually mark vowels as long for GA; but GA /u/ corresponds exactly to RP /uː/, and Rhymes pages only use the latter. So any word that has /u/ (the "GOOSE vowel") in GA can go on a Rhymes page using /uː/. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: shouldn't the rhyme page Rhymes:English/uːlə be added as well, as a rhyme for the RP pronunciation? — SGconlaw (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No; as I said the Rhymes pages are trans-dialectal. Rhymes:English/uːlə is for words that end in /ə/ in both rhotic and nonrhotic accents; while Rhymes:English/uːlə(ɹ) is for words that end in /əɹ/ (= /ɚ/) in rhotic and /ə/ in nonrhotic accents. That's why Rhymes:English/uːlə(ɹ) has a note saying "In non-rhotic accents, words ending in -uːlə are also rhymes for words on this page." —Mahāgaja · talk 21:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. I hope I remember this. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the pronunciation of the name for the Chinese kingdom really ə (Not the Chinese pronunciation, but the English)? That doesn't sound English at all. It was added by User:LlywelynII in 2013. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Who might know? @Justinrleung, Mx. Granger, have you ever heard this pronounced? I tried to find e.g. YouTube videos about Chinese history mentioning it but there was too much chaff; I tried to find videos mentioning various people wtth the surname E just to see how that would be pronounced, but couldn't find that, either. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone use this word in English. If I were trying to pronounce it with English sounds, I would probably say /ʊ/ or /ʊə/. The ancient kingdom is obscure enough that a standard English pronunciation may not exist, with most speakers just doing their best approximation of the Chinese sound. I searched Youtube for "Ezhou" (鄂州), which apparently takes its name from E (鄂), and found this vlog from someone who doesn't seem very confident in her pronunciation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heard this pronounced in English, and I agree with Granger. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I imagine most native speakers of English would read it as /ɜː/ like "err" in BrE. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Agree, but this is usually realized as anyway these days (at least in my southern England dialect). Ƿidsiþ 08:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2020/August#Geodesic.

There is some confusion between the Greek-derived noun "geodesic" and the adjective "geodetic". I recently commented on this matter here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, while Wiktionary correctly classifies geodetic as an adjective, the entry on geodesic elaborates an adjectival usage which I dispute as erroneous. I see "geodetic" as the preferable English, along the lines of eidetic from εἶδος. Bjenks (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about the etymology, so I've moved it to the correct forum. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, an adjective geodesic certainly exists (even in clearly adjectival ways), see Citations:geodesic. If there are references calling it wrong, they could be added to usage notes and/or a "proscribed" label could be added. - -sche (discuss) 09:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right about the inexpert usage proliferation. I need to go the OED and other specialised refs for clarification. Bjenks (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Current definition: “ungrammatical version of hens' teeth”. Should it be changed? See the edits and their summaries: 1, 2, 3 and the talk page. 09:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC) @Chuck Entz J3133 (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Undone. This is a descriptive dictionary: we don't "correct" the spelling of widely attested phrases based on our personal grammatical analyses. There are plenty of idioms that the IP would consider ungrammatical: cow's milk, plumber's helper, etc. Also, there was no need to ping me, since I wouldn't have done what I did if I hadn't already seen this. Chuck Entz (talk)

The English entry (as a plural form of lat) has been removed because it was not mentioned in lat. Of which sense of lat is it a plural form and is it used? J3133 (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's the Latvian plural of lats, which is singular in Latvian. It would make more sense as the plural of English lats, the alternative form, but we'd have to look at the usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the usage example suitable? Showing how to play seems more suitable for Wikipedia. J3133 (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Just WF playing around. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sense 3 is "A three-masted vessel, having her foremast and mainmast square-rigged, and her mizzenmast schooner-rigged." But from a 1907 Technical Literature article, top of the right column: "This year the United States will celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of the building of the first American ship, the two-masted bark, "Virginia"...". Is a "bark" only typically three-masted? Is this a use of the poetic sense, but in a technical context? grendel|khan 18:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I can also find google books:"one-masted bark", google books:"four-masted bark", etc. It does not seem like three masts are strictly definitional. Another dictionary I saw has "a sailing ship of three or more masts having the foremasts rigged square and the aftermast rigged fore-and-aft", which fails to cover the one- and two-masted versions, or relegates "two-masted bark" and "three-masted bark" to being/using different senses of the word...which, however, is actually plausible, since it seems like no books mention one- or two-masted barks and three-masted barks in the same book. (If they did, it would suggest "bark" had one meaning and the number of masts was modifying that one basic meaning.) I modified the def a bit: . A one-masted bark is probably the "poetic" (ish) sense, and a two-masted bark could either be that sense or, plausibly, a bark with its sole foremast square-rigged and its other mast schooner-rigged. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The word modernity has definitions for "The quality of being modern or contemporary." and "Modern times.", but I don't think either really capture what's meant in the "reject modernity / embrace tradition" memes. Is there another meaning here? Maybe "modern western culture"? grendel|khan 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Etimo _{pinged as the adder of the cognate} In the etymology, Norwegian våk (“child”) is given as cognate; However, the translation given doesn't seem to be right. Is it still a cognate (from "to roam" > "buzzard") or is it just not a cognate at all? Thadh (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You're assuming that our Norwegian entries are complete. Judging from the Bokmål and Nynorsk dictionary entries linked to in the entries, there are at least three etymologies, of which we only have one. Your first clue should have been that that the gloss in the Albanian entry doesn't match the Norwegian definitions at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this dictionary does give the word for "boy", but it gives the etymology as "sick person" which doesn't seem to match any good sense for "roaming". All in all, I can't as a user understand the whole thought process. Perhaps some expansion would be in order (for example the PIE meaning?) Thadh (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this an idiom? Are longer expressions built on it (like put the hard word on) idiomatic? Even if they are not, don't they merit inclusion as usage examples?

Generalizing from this, do we need to systematically go through red links under Derived and Related terms and add such terms as usage examples to the entries for their leading component words? At this point in Wiktionary's history, the vast majority of such red links are not considered idiomatic and entryworthy. DCDuring (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, we could start by making a list of red links in Derived terms and Related terms of the English section (there will be around 50,000, I bet), and eliminate a few of them or turn them into usexes. --Daleusher (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If we did something like that, it would be handy to have the individual component terms linked as well a clean version of the term in question.

I'd like to hear whether the English-language contributors, especially, think it is worth the trouble at this point in Wiktionary's evolution or whether we should kick the can down the road. DCDuring (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No, "hard word" is not an idiom. I have no idea what "put the hard word on" would mean - other than to say it is clearly a phrase made up by an L2 learner. — This unsigned comment was added by 81.141.8.25 (talk) at 10:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC).

What do you think Boris Johnson's first language was? "Mr Johnson asked them: “Do you think he is tough enough to refuse? Do you think he is tough enough to stand up to Nicola if Nicola puts the hard word on him?" Is the meaning not clear? Does the meaning of the expression follow from the meanings of the constitutent terms? DCDuring (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• hard word is definitely worth an entry (it can also mean "password"), and "put the hard word on" is a well-known idiom in Australian English if someone is asking for money or making some other kind of demand. I'm surprised to hear BoJo using it though, I have to admit. Ƿidsiþ 08:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yup. I had to go through a score or more of ANZ newspaper usage to find a couple UK uses. DCDuring (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  See “hard word”, in Lexico, Dictionary.com; Oxford University Press, 2019–2022.. They have 4 definitions, only one is ANZ. They do not include "password". DCDuring (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a quote by Winston Churchill that we have at courage that goes a bit like this...I think this is a classic example of a quote being so widely quoted that it's assumed to be true. However, I can't find any actually instance of him saying this. Can anyone else dig this up? If it can't be found, naturally it should be removed from this site. --Daleusher (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

1. • Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.

Another one at go through hell (which looks like SOP to me...)

1. • If you're going through hell, just keep going.

I will sometimes write "attributed to" when I can not verify the source. An anonymous quotation can still be useful. For example at stamp collecting,

• a. 1937, attributed to Ernest Rutherford:

  All science is either physics or stamp collecting.

That one is probably real. Offsite, I have also described "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" as "attributed to Stalin" although that one is probably not accurate. I was quoting for the meaning, not to pass judgment on Stalin. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Quote investigator generally does a thorough job looking for origin of quotations, often finding wording differences that are easy to miss in doing such research. DCDuring (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Also Module_talk:hi-noun#कच्चा_लोहा

It seems to be based on grammatically incorrect Hindi. I think it's feminine - छोटी हाज़िरी (choṭī hāzirī), not masculine छोटा हाज़िरी (choṭā hāzirī). The former Hindi spelling gets more Google hits. choti hazri (from Hindi feminine also seems attestable. It may be possible that the grammatical gender of हाज़िरी (hāzirī) is not well established and is also used as a masculine or it may be ungrammatical.

@Benwing2, AryamanA: What do you think and what should be done with English entry? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: From a descriptivist standpoint, as the masculine form does occur in sources, we must keep the entry. The school my father attended had छोटा हाज़िरी every afternoon (in the masculine). Many dialects of Hindi are looser in terms of gender markings, so it's possible it's just a technically ungrammatical yet common variant. I do not think any of them should be deleted. Maybe a usage note is a good idea. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 03:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Thanks. I have now removed the redirect from छोटा हाज़िरी (choṭā hāzirī) and made it an alt form of छोटी हाज़िरी (choṭī hāzirī). So, can छोटा हाज़िरी (choṭā hāzirī) be labelled masculine and छोटी हाज़िरी (choṭī hāzirī) feminine? Pls check both. And हाज़िरी (hāzirī) is only feminine, isn't it or it can also be masculine, based on this? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Added a note explaining on the entry. हाज़िरी (hāzirī) by itself, to my knowledge, is always feminine; this is just a weird exception. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 17:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)