Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/February

This should have another definition along the lines of: ‘To obtain or succeed in something by luck and instinct’ which would make ‘blag it’ a near synonym of ‘wing it’ and ‘fluke it’Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

In the sense given, as a variety of pea, does it make sense to have a plural? "Marrowfat pea" or "marrowfat plant" can be pluralised, certainly. Perhaps a collection of sub-varieties would be "marrowfats"? Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

One marrowfat is one pea (not one variety), e.g. "Marrowfats are considerably larger and of cream color". Equinox ◑ 18:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a definition as seen in this journal and I believe other places, for a "skoot" meaning a small coastal ship. I've only seen it refer to ships from the Netherlands, although it does not appear to be a Dutch word, but an English one. I'd add this definition myself, but I'm clueless on Wiktionary (regular on Wikipedia though).Fyrael (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Could it be related to, or the same as, schuit? Equinox ◑ 21:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That seems likely to me.Fyrael (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Equinox ◑ 13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The earlier conversation about accounts on this talk page got me thinking. We have an entry for ‘book of original entry’ but not ‘book of prime entry’ but on the AAT course I’m doing the official terminology is ‘book of prime entry’ and my lecturer has never used the word ‘original’ in this context. ACCA seems to have similar terminology. We should create an article for ‘Book of Prime Entry’ and link it to the ‘Book of Original Entry’ definition. Also, we only use the word ‘Journal’ to refer to what Wikipedia calls the ‘General Journal’, IOW a book for recording errors and adjustments, and not as a synonym for daybook/book of prime entry; we could include a definition of ‘journal’ and create an entry for ‘General Journal’ to reflect that fact.Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a heading "Examples" on the entry. I assume they can be included using {{usex}}, but wanted to check before doing it myself Pious Eterino (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the present article, this is an adverb:

1. (US) It doesn't matter, it's unimportant, it doesn't make any difference.

   It seems that Doug's coat has gone missing. Oh, well, no matter: we can always buy a new one, now can't we?

   "Did you fail your exam?" "Yes, but no matter. I'll just study harder next time."

Surely not. How do we classify these kinds of things? "Phrase" I suppose? Mihia (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I would probably go with interjection. It's almost interchangeable with oh well, which is classified as such. But I also wouldn't object to "phrase" - either would definitely be better than the current classification, which, as you say, is clearly incorrect. Colin M (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Phrase would not be a good choice, as phrases can function as various parts of speech. You can have a noun phrase or a verb phrase, or indeed a phrase that functions as an interjection, so using the word "phrase" doesn't resolve what part of speech this is. 81.141.8.40 13:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, "phrase" as a Wiktionary PoS heading is not used to mean e.g. "noun phrase" or "verb phrase", which are classified just as "noun" and "verb", but means "phrase" in the other sense. Mihia (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems similar in meaning and form to ‘never mind’, which is surely a noun phrase? ‘Matter’ and ‘mind’ both being nouns.Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"mind" in "never mind" is a verb, not a noun. "matter" in "no matter" is a noun I guess, but I see "no matter" as a reduced form of something like "it is no matter", and indeed that is what the ety section says, so "no matter" would be some kind of reduced clause. The definitions of the relevant sense of "no matter" are complete clauses, not noun phrases. I notice that we treat "no problem", which seems similar, as an interjection, which is what Colin M suggested above. "not to worry" is listed as a "phrase". Mihia (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have changed it to interjection to be consistent with some others. If anyone definitely prefers phrase, please change it to that, as far as I am concerned. Mihia (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

‘Stick’ meaning ‘handgun’ appears in the lyrics to the famous folk song ‘Johnny I hardly knew ye’. http://www.irish-song-lyrics.com/Johnny_I_Hardly_Knew_Ye.shtmlOverlordnat1 (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Good find! You might want to add the lyric to the entry :) Forever in your debt (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just added itOverlordnat1 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Our definition given for this obsolete term is dimness or obscurity of sight, caused by a speck on the cornea. This is almost certainly a real thing, what´s the modern term? Forever in your debt (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently corneal opacity; compare here. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

floater ? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

cataract ? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither of those are in the cornea, though. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Per 2018 ICD-10-CM caligo cornea is "central cornea opacity". In a BMJ article caligo is "dim vision" (a mention). It seems more like a medical sign or symptom than a specific illness. DCDuring (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

keratoleukoma? DCDuring (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Literally, the Latin term caligo cornea means “corneal fog”, or “corneal darkness”. Caligo cornea was a generic medical term that has been replaced in ICD-10 by a multitude of diagnostic terms: central|peripheral|minor opacity of the cornea, left eye/right eye/bilateral. In keratoleukoma, called leukoma in ICD-10, the opacity is specifically caused by whitening of parts of the cornea, usually caused by scarring. The caligo can also occur in the lens, in Latin caligo lentis, in the pupil, caligo pupillae, or in the ocular fluid, caligo humoris. The general medical sense, while the term was in use, was an impairing dimness of sight by an eye defect, regardless of its location in the eye.  --Lambiam 18:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

All the hits for this French bird are in capital letters. Why on earth would that be? Forever in your debt (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean initial capital or all caps? I found initial caps. Apparently Vacher is treated as a proper noun. It's not the usual style I see in English, where you are more likely to find black-capped chickadee or Black-Capped Chickadee than black-capped Chickadee. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments on this edit? I think having a separate attributive sense is not necessary. We wouldn't do so for e.g. "steroid" and "steroid abuse", would we? Should just be one normal noun sense with a "now mostly plural" note. Equinox ◑ 13:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think the singular is OK for the capsule itself (I see discarded ones often enough). The attributive adjective looks wrong. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, I modelled the attributive sense after our entry at trouser. Setting aside the dated singular, the two words follow similar patterns, in that you can't say "a trouser", but can talk about a "trouser store" or "trouser leg". Similarly, in modern usage, I have never seen or heard a reference to "a popper", but one can talk about "popper use" or a "popper high". Colin M (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe you haven't heard it but I showed you it exists. The fact that it may be a little dated doesn't make it a totally separate sense line. Equinox ◑ 02:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's used in books in this millennium, so it's certainly not dated. The "attributive" sense should be folded into the ordinary noun sense. DCDuring (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that follows. Wiktionary:Obsolete and archaic terms#Unfashionable/Dated: "Still in use, but generally only by older people, and considered unfashionable or superseded, particularly by younger people." Colin M (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Provide evidence. DCDuring (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I also don't get why poppers is anything other than the plural of popper. I've RfVed the supposed plural-only sense. DCDuring (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I RFD'd the attributive noun sense because it now seems redundant to the plain sense. Mihia (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need 3 parallel discussions about this? I would much prefer if we could keep the discussion in one place for now. Anyways, for the sake of anyone following the discussion here, I added some evidence for poppers as plurale tantum at the RFV. In particular, the very common phrase "bottle of poppers" does not make sense with our current definition. Most references to "doing/sniffing poppers" are not meant to invoke the use of multiple capsules/bottles of the drug. Colin M (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If specific points are referred to RFD/RFV then yes, we do need separate threads. Mihia (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Tea Room is for discussions that do not involve a specific definition being put up for deletion. In this case two definitions are, but for different kinds or reasons. An RfV challenge can be met by attestation. An RfD can be met by mere argumentation, though often supporting evidence helps. DCDuring (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Defined as: "A percussive musical instrument spanned with a thin covering on at least one end for striking, forming an acoustic chamber, affecting what materials are used to make it; a membranophone." What is meant by the bolded portion? Equinox ◑ 02:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think they're trying to say that the action on the acoustic chamber causes the structure of the instrument to vibrate. It's been the definition since the entry was created 16 years ago, with very little change. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it was meant to say that the acoustic properties of the drum are affected by the materials? Mihia (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done I imagine Mihia is right. I've removed the unclear text as unnecessary. Equinox ◑ 13:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

How are these two senses meaningfully distinct? (Note that both have citations!)

• Constantly complaining, whining; childishly fretful.
• Easily annoyed, especially by things that are not important; irritable, querulous.

Equinox ◑ 13:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

They seem different to me. Note the "peevish voice" quote, which fits "whining" much better than "irritable" (I think). They seem to boil down to "complaining" and "irritable", which are not the same. Sense 1, however ("Characterized by or exhibiting petty bad temper, bad-tempered, moody, cross") seems to me to be the same as "Easily annoyed, especially by things that are not important; irritable, querulous". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this redirect with capital letter and dot goes against policy. "A proverb entry’s title begins with a lowercase letter, whether it is a full sentence or not" (Wiktionary:English_entry_guidelines#Phrases). But the user claims they have "permission" to create this redirect (which I also can't see). ??? Equinox ◑ 16:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Equinox — I must object that this edit summary is problematic lexicographically because natural language is full of polysemy in which many a word has a broad sense that is hypernymous to its narrower sense. Thus dictionaries will have a broader sense 1 and a narrower sense 1a. A famous example off the top of my head is (1) the sense of pistol synonymous with handgun in which revolver is a hyponym and (1a) the narrower sense of the same word that is a coordinate term of revolver under the common hypernym handgun. Should I have presented the narrower senses of murine as narrower subsenses under the broad sense? Please advise how you would convey that "some people use a narrower sense of the word". Thanks Quercus solaris (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

One thing I would say is that if we are to have two definitions (or three if the different subfamilies have to be mentioned in separate definitions), they might read more contrastively like this:

1. Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a mouse.
2. More generally, of, pertaining to, or characteristic of any mammal of the subfamily Murinae/Muridae, which includes mice and rats.

i.e. focus first on the subfamily in the more general def(s). Mihia (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I will implement something closer to Mihia's suggestion. To be clear, taxonomically subfamily Murinae is a subset of family Muridae which is a subset of superfamily Muroidea; they are not interchangeable words. But of course natural language often dismisses precision (whether by leaving things unspecified, or because the speaker does not know the technicalities, or because the speaker considers the technicalities unimportant). To be accurate the definition would have to be tweaked as follows:

1. Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a mouse.
2. More generally, of, pertaining to, or characteristic of any rodent up to the taxonomic rank of Muroidea, most often with reference to mice and rats.

One of the things that many people do not fully appreciate about natural language is that the mental schemas/ontologies behind it are variable but the variability is often obscured behind imprecision/ambiguity via implicitness. For example, this is a big part of why natural language processing is not trivial to achieve. The semantic relations of every word are potentially specific to each of its senses. For example, muroid, murid, and murine are differentiable (with hypernym/hyponym Venn overlap) in precise/narrow/technical senses but synonymous in broad/casual/imprecise/nontechnical senses. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Verbose: the stress marker has changed syllables a number of times (@Equinox). Where is VERbose used?
• Canalise: who uses canALise? Should it be listed before CANalise?

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I just checked 9 different dictionaries (5 American and 4 British) for canalize. All the British and 3 of the American dictionaries list only the pronunciation with initial stress, while 2 of the American ones list both pronunciations. On that basis, I put the initial-stress pronunciation first in our entry. I didn't check verbose. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Native speaker of mid-Atlantic US pronunciation. I grew up with /vɚˈboʊs/ and /kəˈnæl.aɪz/.

I don't recall talking about canalization all that much, but I've never encountered the /ˈkæn.ə.laɪz/ pronunciation, and I'd probably be confused the first time I heard that in a conversation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the word canalis/ze, never used or heard it. I stress verbose on the second syllable. The OED offers Brit and US prons and they both stress the second syllable. Equinox ◑ 11:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I asked three American friends about canalize; two stressed the first syllable and one stressed the second syllable. (I would've assumed the second syllable was stressed, like in canal, but I can see how stressing the first syllable mirrors channelize, etc.) In this video, someone pronunces "canalization" around 50 seconds in, with more stress on the first syllable than on the second. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(BrE speaker) I know only "verBOSE". I don't recall ever hearing "VERbose", and I definitely would not say that myself. While "canalise" is a word that I am familiar with in writing, I would be uncertain how to stress it in speech. Mihia (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

In what sense is 'in funds' formal? It belongs to an old-fashioned / well-educated register, certainly; but wouldn't it really be a colloquialism within that register? Doops (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the level of formality, but I wonder whether this should in fact be labelled "dated". It isn't something I ever hear people say. Mihia (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that it is old-fashioned. I don't think I have ever heard it (outside of novels). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, to me it sounds like something from a novel circa 1920s. Mihia (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Kosher food mark. 1. Is it really English as claimed, and not Translingual? 2. Why are there two separate senses (trademark and generic use) when they appear to have identical meaning? Equinox ◑ 00:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Looks like a common generalisation: google (“1. search with the search engine Google, 2. search with any search engine”), Microsoft (“1. specific company, 2. influental company”), Tempo (“1. tissue paper by Tempo, 2. tissue paper (general/generic, regardless of producer”).

1. Citations can help. With the labels "Canada, US" it could be an English-language (and French-language) North American thing. Maybe it's also, unlike ©, not recognised by any (international) law? Is 🄮 (Warenzeichen) Translingual? --幽霊四 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have changed it to Translingual and merged the two definitions of same meaning. Equinox ◑ 19:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Afghane: Afghane m .. female Afghanin .. 3. a type of black hashish ..
• Benediktiner: Benediktiner m .. female Benediktinerin .. 2. Benedictine (liqueur)
• Kameruner: Kameruner m .. female Kamerunerin .. 2. .. A doughnut-like pastry ..
• Ostfriese: Ostfriese m .. female Ostfriesin .. 2. a breed of horse
• Not present yet, but similar things could occur in: Asperger, Edamer.

Really? How's the gender of hashish, liqueur, pastry, breed determined? --幽霊四 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you not familiar with the concept of grammatical gender? What are you asking about? Is this an etymology question? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The question is when you would use a distinct female form for a word referring to a pastry or other foodstuff. Indo-European languages usually don’t have multiple forms of distinct gender for nouns referring to inanimate objects: instead, such nouns usually have a fixed gender.--Urszag (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In these cases there should really be two or more headwords listed, one for the person, one for the object(s). – Jberkel 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

See User talk:幽霊四 § Homo sapiens (regarding the removal of the declension table; quotations are available where this term is declined; posting here for others’ opinions rather than one user (i.e., 幽霊四 or I) deciding; pinging @Geographyinitiative who supported it). J3133 (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/February § Translingual (@Fay Freak). J3133 (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• It wasn't about a declension table in general, but about the specific table which was used, because:
  • It's for Latin (la) and not Translingual (mul), as already indicated by the template's name: {{la-ndecl}}.
  • It links to Latin Hominēs sapientēs and not Translingual Homines sapientes.
  • It uses macra as in Homō sapiēns, which aren't (at least not commonly) used translingually and don't make sense translingually, as shown by the German pronunciation: (not: ).
  • It's incorrect (or incomplete and hence incorrect), as already shown by the header in Translingual Homo sapiens: "plural .. Homo sapiens". Furthermore, there's Homo sapiens as German dative and accusative and English objective. also has English "the Homo sapiens' life experiences" (gen. sg. or pl.?), "Homo sapiens's greatest cognitive ability" (gen. pl.).
  • The text "Third-declension noun with a third-declension participle" doesn't make sense translingually. Russian 3rd declension, Irish 3rd declension, Lithuanian 3rd declension are different. I know the Latin template is refering to the Latin 3rd declension (which is obvious in a Latin entry), but here we're not talking about a Latin entry, and it's not a text like "Latin third-declension ..".
    • With taxonomic nomenclature having nouns (substantives and adjectives) but no pronouns and verbs, can there really be a participle Translingual sapiens as the generated texts has?
    • A text like "In Latin it would decline thus" (subjunctive/conjunctive, limiting it to Latin) before the template would address some issues, but 1stly such a text isn't present and 2ndly wouldn't address all issues (mostly the links; in other cases there could be issues regarding the hypothetical declension).

  --幽霊四 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's broken. That doesn't justify removing it entirely without discussion. We need to rethink how we handle inflection in translingual entries, and by not bringing it here or to the Beer parlour you missed an opportunity to start that discussion. Please don't appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner on existing practices with general implications. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If it was added without any discussion/vote, then the removal is justified and the discussion would have been needed before adding the unfitting template. Was there any discussion/vote to add it? I didn't see any.
I brought something similar up at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/February#Translingual. --幽霊四 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Don't want to add this if it is a trade mark. Anyone know if it could be added without problem? Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 10:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

(Maybe cp. WT:CFI#Brand names? --幽霊四 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC))

It seems to be a pun used in marketing ("make a skinvestment in your "). A lot of advertising jingles include puns. If not used in general everyday English then they are not usually includable. I doubt this one makes the grade. Equinox ◑ 01:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. In stitch 3 and 9 seem to me to be identical. Can they be melded? -- ALGRIF talk 10:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Sense #3 appears to be a special case (specifying location and cause) of #9. Personally, I only know sense #3, i.e. pain in the side, just below the ribcage. Is the general sense #9 in common modern use? Some dictionaries mention only #3, while M-W says "especially in the side". I also know an uncountable use of #3, e.g. "I've got stitch" as opposed to "I've got a stitch". Mihia (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The senses should at the very least be grouped next to each other, I would think. (I have now done this, so they're now senses 3 and 4 instead of 3 and 9.) I can find citations of stitches in other places, e.g. the neck, the haunch, the thigh, and the head, although so far only in older works. I would probably merge them and handle the side via "especially..." like MW, though. - -sche (discuss) 16:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I dislike the idea of including these myself, personally, but it is hard for the devil's advocate side of me to get this off of my mind. We do exclude individual computer language words, that are not part of human language, such as elif, else if, const, etc., from being added at Wiktionary. But I have found that in many cases people can use words like these as if they are regular nouns. For example: "Put an if, a couple elifs, and maybe an else in that for loop." What (if anything) would explicitly stop a user from creating a bunch of entries, for every word that ever appears in code, if they can attest it being pluralized? An argument like this could revive the entry for elif, for example. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Even worse, the (correct and most to-the-point) definitions for these would just be "An instance of the keyword elif in a programming language." PseudoSkull (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Consider a sentence like "there are 74 סלהs in the Hebrew scriptures". Is that an attestation of "סלה" as an English word? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There're iff (“if and only if”), const (“constant”). Is elif (“else if”) attested, and may it be slang? --幽霊四 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No, don't include them if they are only references to the word (like "there are six notwithstandings in this legal contract"). const and enum etc. are different because they refer to actual types of thing in a computer program, e.g. "this const has the value of 7". Equinox ◑ 18:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we generally exclude "put an if"-type usage, see Talk:selah; Chuck's example with a different script is particularly illustrative, compare Citations:ἄρχων. - -sche (discuss) 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this actually an idiomatic set phrase in sports? Equinox ◑ 18:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks like another (questionable, imo) translation hub. PUC – 20:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Definition is slightly weird too: "Very strong shot to the opposite goal." Mihia (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like crap to me Oxlade2000 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This entry recently had {{rfc}} removed, but I think at least one issue has not been cleaned up.

The following definition appears under the Determiner header:

1. (obsolete) Separate, distinct; particular.

I have no references that both use the concept determiner and cover the grammar of English before the 20th century, but the definition (actually synonyms) offered seems to me to be of an adjective. DCDuring (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that many of those examples look adjectival. I don't think we have a totally watertight method of distinguishing determiners from adjectives in all cases. One principle used elsewhere in Wiktionary seems to be, as far as I have gleaned over the years, that the requirement for an initial article, where it would be required for the noun alone, means that a modifying word can't be a determiner (I don't know whether this is something invented at Wiktionary, or generally believed). So, at least one of the examples, "a several beauty", could not be a determiner by that rule. Mihia (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I note that Category:Middle English determiners does not include several or an alternative spelling. When did several become a determiner? That seems like a job for OED, to which I don't have access as libraries are not open for such use around here. DCDuring (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

CGEL (2002) has criteria for distinguishing determinatives (determiners in our parlance) from adjectives. For quantifiers the criterion is the possibility of use in a partitive construction. DCDuring (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that, as determiner, several is a plural quantifier, so the citations of it modifying singular nouns show adjective use. DCDuring (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have removed two of the definitions from the determiner section and placed them in a new adjective section. I also removed the word "diverse" from the determiner definition, making the definition purely one of a quantifier. Other changes may be necessary, including reallocating citations. DCDuring (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

While you're at it, you might add something that deals with the legal term joint and several liability. I'm not completely clear about which POS and sense that uses. For that matter, we might want to have an entry for the phrase, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I added the legal sense to several#Adjective and also joint and several, with joint and several liability and joint and several obligation in usage examples. It can also be used with duty, responsibility, effect, guarantee, note, debtor, jurisdiction, authority, creditor, etc. I think it is not NISoP because there is an understanding of the rights and obligations of parties involved that goes beyond the several words. DCDuring (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The OED does not have a separate determiner sense, lumping it in with the adjective senses, but its earliest quotations for it are from the early 1660s. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Another possible anomaly here is the determiner example "They had many journals. I subscribed to several." I know we have been here before, about whether a determiner can still be a determiner if the modified word is omitted. Compare e.g. "Get some more plates. There aren’t enough yet." which is listed as a pronoun at enough. Did we ever decide what to do with these? Mihia (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I specifically used that example to illustrate fused-head usage of several. We never reached a decision on the notion of "fused head" usage (of determiners and adjectives) eliminating the need for a pronoun PoS header for those words. But this kind of thing is arguably part of grammar: allowing (or, possibly, requiring) deletion of the head of a noun phrase, when the identity of the head would be a repetition of a noun from earlier in a dialog or writing. If it is a normal part of grammar (as I believe it is), then it need not be mentioned in the lexicon. I could certainly understand and would encourage insereting citations and usage example illustrating such usage for all in the determiner word class (which excludes articles here). DCDuring (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Most probably I am only repeating something I said before, but if the "fused head" with clear implied noun was the only standalone use of determiners, then I think we could happily accommodate it under the determiner section and dispense with the pronoun altogether. However, there are other noun/pronoun-like uses of various determiners, e.g. "We lay awake for much of the night", or the slightly more ambiguous "Many are called, but few are chosen", and if we are to have pronoun sections anyway, it may appear lacking not to include the "fused head" examples under them. I'm really not sure how best to deal with them. Mihia (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not we have pronoun sections for determiners, as long as they do not have too much overlap with the determiner section. Few could be argued to be few (people) unless the context implies other possible nouns to be the reference. Much could be much (time). Some of our weakest definitions are for "noun" usage of adjectives, which could be eliminated if we applied the fused-head syntactic analysis of the use of adjectives like poor (and for that matter, poorer and poorest). DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, overlap is a potential problem. I have a thorough aversion to listing the same usage under two different PoS. If we were to extend "fused head" to cases such as "much of the night" (which personally I feel very unsure about), would we have any pronoun uses left for any determiners? Mihia (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Even according to CGEL (2002) there are some terms that have some usages that are determiner and others that are pronoun. I've been trying to work through CGEL's sections on determiners. I am unsure about whether there is consensus to drastically reduce the role of the Pronoun header, but approaching it one entry at a time with good justification seems appropriate, especially as determiners are so varied in their behavior. DCDuring (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"(colloquial shortening) Had best. It's getting late. You best get on home." This is given as an adverb sense. Is that right? Equinox ◑ 16:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, it's modifying the verb "get on home" so I suppose it's OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Or is it just the omission of 'd? Is it attestable? DCDuring (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is an adverb then "had best" does not seem to be a coherent definition. Equinox ◑ 17:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem to be a lexical item. At most we have a pronunciation spelling involving an omitted phoneme that corresponds to the contraction of had (or, possibly, some other modal or auxiliary verb). Isn't this kind of reduction/omission a very common occurrence in speech. As such, just as we don't have every attestable elision, we don't need to document every possible phonological reduction or omission. Consider "I rather go". "I just as soon go." "I/he/they/she/it/we gonna go". Where should the omission be recorded? At rather, just, gonna. DCDuring (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Same applies to better#Adverb ("you better go before they catch you"). Equinox ◑ 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

After edit comflict\

I don't think we have contemporary wording that fits "I(had|'d) best be going." It should be parallel to "I had better be going." Note too that better is often used without had. "I better be going." The had-less best usage could possibly borrow any suitable wording from better#Adverb. DCDuring (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Do all of these usages seem legitimate? In what register?
  1. I had best go.
  2. I'd best go.
  3. * I best go.
  4. I had better go.
  5. I'd better go.
  6. I better go.

The only one that seems off to me is I best go. I can accept it as an accurate rendering of something spoken. DCDuring (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The first three constructions all sound a bit 'folksy' to me, but I find them all acceptable. There are plenty of Google Books results for "I best go", and ngram counts for the 3 'best' constructions are reasonably close (but with all the 'better' forms being significantly more popular.) Colin M (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have placed the sense of best under a separate etymology, as derived from and meaning the same as had best. In a usage note, I point out that it replaces auxiliary verbs should and ought in much of its usage. Does all that seem right? DCDuring (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why not call it a duck auxiliary verb? If we take a sentence with this best and replace it with should or can or something else from Category:English modal verbs, we'll still have a grammatical sentence. But we can't reliably replace it with an adverb. Suppose Alice asks Bob if he's going to bed. He could answer "Yeah, I better.", or "Yeah, I might." or "Yeah, I best.", but he can't answer "Yeah, I actually". Actually, a better example is with negation. "You better not go" / "You shall not go" / "You best not go" vs. "*You totally not go" / "*You meanwhile not go" etc. Colin M (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Just checked OED, and it classifies this sense as a verb: "colloquial (originally U.S.). An invariable modal verb, normally complemented by the bare infinitive. Had best (see best adj. 4b); should." And a similar modal verb entry for better. Colin M (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't have the courage of my convictions. Best and better certainly seem to behave like modal verbs. Best doesn't seem to me to work in the past tense (???"He best have hidden it before they come back"), in contrast with better ("He better have hidden it before they come back"). DCDuring (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the OED says, I find it a real stretch, I would even say far-fetched, to imagine that "best" and "better" are "modal verbs" in their own right. Is there any evidence that this phenomenon is anything other than people "lazily" omitting "had", or not knowing that "had" is needed, especially on account of its not always being noticeable in speech when contracted to "'d"? Mihia (talk)

That would be how language would change. Clearly the meaning is derived from one of the adverb senses of best (and better), via had best/better. Note that other forms of have don't work and that the past of have is used even the the semantics indicate that the 'advantage' is prospective, suggesting at least fossilization. Once fossilization has occurred, can we still apply normal grammar? I think a structural linguist confronted with this usage would find that best and better fill positions on trees that are typical of modal verbs. That said, the position of modal verbs in such trees can often be assumed by adverbs. DCDuring (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I would better have gone straight to CGEL (2002) instead of reinventing the wheel. They make had better a modal verb and specifically refer to 'd better and better as reduced forms of that modal verb, also pointing out the tense limitation. DCDuring (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree that "had best/better", and then obviously "'d best/better", are modal verbs. I personally disagree that "best/better" are modal verbs in themselves, any more than "the" is a verb in "You the man!". Mihia (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a great comparison. The version without ellipsis would be "You are the man". "the" is clearly part of "the man", the complement of the verb. It's not part of the verb. Whereas with "You better go", "better" is part of "had better", which is acting as a modal verb. It seems sensible to say that an elided form of a modal verb is, well, a modal verb. Colin M (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that it is not the greatest example ever. Perhaps better ones exist. My point really is that when a head element is omitted though laziness/ignorance, it seems far-fetched to assign the PoS to a subsidiary or secondary or subsequent element that is in itself a completely different PoS. Mihia (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-overeducated language users analyze what they hear making it fit what they know or just simplifying. IMHO had best, a fossilized idiom, possibly based on a reanalysis of terms using auxiliary have and adverb best, already doesn't make much sense grammatically. "I best go" does make sense based on one of the definitions of best (adverb). But the choice between word classes adverb and modal verb depends on subtle structural analysis, which I cannot attempt now and may not be able to even on a good night's sleep, but I will try. DCDuring (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

All agree that mistic and cognates refer to sailing vessels in the Mediterranean. After that...

• English mistic is a "coasting vessel having two sails"
• English mistic is "a small lateen-rigged sailing ship"
• English mistic is "rigged partly like a xebec, and partly like a felucca"
• Italian mistico is a three-masted square-rigged ship
• Turkish مستقو (mistiko) (borrowed from Italian) is "a kind of sailing boat used in the Levant"
• French mistique is a square-rigged ship
• Spanish místico is a 2- or 3-masted lateen-rigged ship.
• Catalan místic is the same as Spanish (NED says mestech, but I only found this spelling)
• Arabic misṭeḥ ("flat surface", script not known but must be related to مُسَطَّح (musaṭṭaḥ)) is suggested as the origin by NED, but Treccani says the origin is uncertain.

References:

I would like to believe all these words refer to the same thing, but the definitions do not. Square- and lateen-rigged are different. It is possible that different languages adopted conflicting meanings, but it is also possible that dictionary writers strayed outside their field of expertise. Can anybody help draw meanings from primary sources, or fill in the Arabic origin? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO it is not at all likely that they all do. I compare the situation to that in vernacular names of organisms (megafauna and -flora). Popular vernacular names are not the same as naturalists' 'vernacular' names. Vernacular names across geographically separated languages often correspond at the the genus level, but not at the species level, with the local species being the 'type' of the local vernacular name, when it generalizes to non-local members of the genus. Older names don't necessarily cover all the same items as newer ones. Some names are just vague or mistakenly recorded in references. DCDuring (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In this case, the situation may be worse, since a lateen sail is triangular, so the French term per Hennique and the Italians term refer to something else. That may mean something for the Turkish term too. The MW 1911 definition just seems written by someone without much topical knowledge. Century has both xebecs and feluccas being lateen-rigged. DCDuring (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum: Arabic misṭeḥ is explicitly acknowledged as nonexistent in Kahane, Henry R., Kahane, Renée, Tietze, Andreas (1958) The Lingua Franca in the Levant: Turkish Nautical Terms of Italian and Greek Origin, Urbana: University of Illinois, page 308. They also say the origin of the word needs further clarification; this was 1958 however. You should refer for all nautical terms to that book, especially as it concerns Ottoman ones. Fay Freak (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Thank you for the reference. I will take a look. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it should be lower-case tawe. It was added 7 March 2014. DonnanZ (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice find. I moved it Oxlade2000 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell, "area code" is used in the US and Australia, while "dialling code" is used in the UK. What about Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, etc.? Can anyone help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"area code" is also used in the UK, along with "dialling code". "dialling code" may be "more traditional". My feeling is that there might be some tendency to restrict "area code" to geographical areas within a country, rather than codes for countries themselves, but it probably isn't 100% clear cut. For international prefixes, country code is also used. Mihia (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As Mihia says, "area code" is understood in the UK. I wonder whether "dialling code" is a broader term: for example, 0800 in the UK indicates that calls to the number are free of charge, which is a meaningful prefix code but does not represent a physical area. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

They have also been called "STD codes" (subscriber trunk dialling), in the UK and apparently also at least in New Zealand. Equinox ◑ 01:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In Canada, "area code" is the normal term (and "country code" for...country codes). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In the U.S., non-geographic area codes are still called area codes. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering that yeen mentions it's furry jargon for a hyena, should we have a page for snep? Clipping of snow leopard. -SiberianDante (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If it's attestable to WT:CFI standards, sure. (I dunno about yeen either, but I have rarely dipped my toe in that subculture.) Equinox ◑ 02:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a sense of "daydreaming" removed by DCDuring in 2016. I'm sure it's because it was because it was changed from an adverb to a noun, but I think the sense belongs at the page somehow. I'm just not sure how to get the parts of speech to fit if "head in the clouds" (noun) is a synonym of "daydreaming" (verb) and "lost in thought" (adjective). Ultimateria (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The existing "noun" sense doesn't seem to be presented quite right anyway. Just to take one of the examples, "sat here with my head in the clouds", it seems to me that "head in the clouds" is not a noun phrase there, or indeed any type of phrase, but is instead a fragment. Mihia (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Based on the guidance at Wiktionary:English_entry_guidelines#Parts_of_Speech, I would use the section heading "Phrase", and further categorize it under Category:English non-constituents. Colin M (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Phrase". Mihia (talk)

However, this has created another problem now, which is what to do with heads in the clouds, presently defined as "plural of 'head in the clouds'". Mihia (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it should just be a redirect, per WT:REDIR#Acceptable uses #3: "Minor variants of phrases where there is little or no chance of the entry title being valid for another language, including inflected forms, should be redirected to the main entries." Colin M (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

While I am also guilty of creating them sometimes out of convenience or laziness or want of a better idea, I in principle dislike automatic redirects that dump readers without explanation, and sometimes probably even unnoticed, at an entry different to what they typed in. Mihia (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

What about head in the sand then? Equinox ◑ 02:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's the same issue, i.e. that "heads in the sand" in e.g. "People who deny the inevitable zombie apocalypse have their heads in the sand" (the example given) is not actually a noun phrase. (Disclaimer: I deny that.) Mihia (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Wiktionary says that parking attendant means "a person who issues tickets for parking violations". But according to Oxford Dictionary meaning "A person employed in a car park, especially one who parks other people's vehicles for them." and "traffic warden". That is, the current meaning of parking attendant is synonym of parking attendant. And is missing the meaning of synonym velet valet (US). Am I right? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it will be clear to all anyway, but for the record I believe you mean valet not velet. Mihia (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In the US I don't think attendant is used to refer to parking enforcement personnel. Parking enforcement officer on Wikipedia.Wikipedia has several possible synonyms, some of which seem NISoP, but which differ regionally. For some they have the region of use. For others it is omitted. It would be nice to have the term(s) used in Canada, India, and Singapore, at least. DCDuring (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia:, yes. Thank you. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Thank you for your answer and for editing parking attendant. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Any views on whether "flat" is a noun or adjective in horse-racing phrases such as "flat racing" and "flat season"? In "flat season" it seems more like a noun to me, since the season is not itself "flat", but I'm not sure about "flat racing" (noun interpretation would be like "racing on the flat"). Any ideas? Mihia (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There is an entry for on the flat, but Lexico thinks it's "on the Flat" in horse racing. I have no idea why. DonnanZ (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it is capitalised, considered a proper noun I suppose, e.g. "whenever racing resumes the Flat will be given priority" (https://www.racingpost.com/news/gordon-elliott-maps-out-summer-flat-campaigns-for-talented-jumpers/431475). Mihia (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't help thinking of horses wearing women's shoes, or running up the stairs of an apartment building... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Horseshoes are flat, except when put on one's front door... DonnanZ (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I only ever grew up with to hell with it, and encountered the hell with it later in life. It always struck me as an odd phrase, likely an ungrammatical outgrowth, much like could care less or irregardless.

I find myself now surprised that we don't yet have to hell with it, which I imagine would have been the earlier and original form. Indeed, a quick look at Google NGrams suggests that to hell with it has been around since at least the early 1800s, while the hell with it doesn't really take off until 1920 or so.

Does anyone have any additional insight? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eirikr: We have to hell with. J3133 (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a bit misleading to have an entry for the hell with it rather than the hell with as virtually any noun can follow the expression. We often add some redirects to such entries as I have just done for to hell with, adding redirects from to hell with it, to hell with you, to hell with him, and to hell with her. Usually we stop at the personal pronouns of Modern English. DCDuring (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eirikr The really weird part is the phrase "the hell", which is also used in phrases such as what the hell and the hell you say. It seems to be a sort of placeholder or marker that conveys the attitude of the speaker rather than any real semantic or syntactic information. This probably comes from its role as a euphemistic substitute for more explicitly vulgar terms that are also used that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Adverb sense:

(with units of time, distance, etc) Not exceeding.

1996, Jon Byrell, Lairs, Urgers and Coat-Tuggers, Sydney: Ironbark, page 186:

Dan Patch clocked a scorching 1:55.5 flat.

He can run a mile in four minutes flat.

I am familiar with the sense "exactly", which both of these examples could be intended to mean, as far as anyone can tell, and also a sense like "I got to work in 20 minutes flat!", which may not be exact, in the sense of the precision timing of a race, but is typically used to emphasise fast performance. Is there definitely a sense meaning "not exceeding" (ignoring just for now the potential slight issue with PoS or substitutability)? Mihia (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Good luck finding attestation. The two senses would be nearly indistinguishable in writing. I could argue that the "not exceeding" sense is in "widespread use" colloquially. DCDuring (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• 1957, The Rocket, volumes 16-22, page 7:

  The speedster makes the mileage between the two cities in three hours flat

Could flat in this usage possibly mean "exactly"? Is "exactly" the best wording? DCDuring (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To me, that example is ambiguous between the two senses that I mentioned being familiar with. I can't see it as meaning "not exceeding". When you say 'I could argue that the "not exceeding" sense is in "widespread use" colloquially', do you mean that you really think it is in widespread use, or just that such a claim would be hard to disprove? If you and/or others say that "not exceeding" is definitely a valid sense in your perception, then that would be fine as far as I am concerned, though ideally we could do with examples that are as unambiguous as possible. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

After looking at usage of flat I didn't see anything that unambiguously supported the "not exceeding" definition, but I did see more than three that unambiguously supported the "exact" definition. I think that the "not exceeding" notion may come from the occasional use of flat in promises, as of on-time delivery. We probably should hold out for unambiguous citations. DCDuring (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, in my mind, this sense of "flat" directly corresponds to, say, a "level", as opposed to a "heaped", spoonful or suchlike.

- 2A02:560:425E:8500:24F8:129B:96EF:DB77 00:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That comparison does in fact raise the point that adjectival use apparently also exists, as in "a flat four minutes". Mihia (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I added an adjectival sense of "exact", example "He finished the race in a flat four minutes", but I think it's the same questions again as for the adverb, as to whether everyone understands this to mean "exact", or whether there is an element of signalling impressiveness, and/or whether some people understand it to mean "not exceeding". Mihia (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I brought up the "level-versus-heaped" angle because it sheds some light on how and why the two aspects are quite compatible. The denotation of a "level spoonful" is that it's, near as no matter, the exact amount in question. But "not significantly more than" ("not exceeding") is a far stronger implication than "not significantly less than", because in practice, it's far more typical to contrast this with "significantly more than" ("heaped spoonful") than with "significantly less than". The obvious guess would be that the high-performance sense evolved from "not exceeding" in turn, rather than directly from "exact".

As you say, though, what matters in the end is whether usage bears this out or not, not whether it makes sense or not. :P

- 2A02:560:4267:A100:C413:B946:3306:47F9 22:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be right. I feel confident that the "exact" meaning exists for accurately measured times, such as in sports, and this cannot include "not exceeding" in any measurable sense, other than small rounding, which I think we can ignore for these purposes. I feel relatively confident that the "impressive performance" connotation exists in some cases for approximately measured times. Possibly what we are looking at is whether "not exceeding" is sufficiently explained by the "impressive performance" sense going hand in hand with a "not exceeding" suggestion, or whether there is actually a third sense that specifically means "not exceeding". Mihia (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, even has the same meaning as both adjective and adverb. DCDuring (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think this has connotations beyond "not exceeding". It emphasizes how small the amount is, like saying "barely two minutes, and not a second more". Sometimes the emphatic element leaves the semantic element out: "When I heard that, I was downstairs in 10 seconds flat" doesn't literally mean the speaker was downstairs in 10.000 seconds, but that whatever time it took (perhaps about 10 seconds) was an extraordinarily short period of time to go from where they were to downstairs. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right that the solution lies in somehow combining the "not exceeding" sense with the "impressively quick" sense. Mihia (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have just for now made some attempt at covering the senses that I know, and I will refer the other one to RFV where it can have its chance. Mihia (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• There is also, Found my coat and grabbed my hat / Made the bus in seconds flat, which I have always understood as meaning the same as colloquial “with no second to spare”.  --Lambiam 01:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  Now we're getting somewhere. DCDuring (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Any views on the PoS of "still" in the given example here?

(not comparable) Having the same stated quality continuously from a past time

2007 January 3, Gerry Geronimo, “Unwanted weed starts to sprout from a wayward ponencia”, in Manila Standard‎:

To follow the still President’s marching orders, all that Secretary Ronnie Puno has to do is to follow the road map laid out by Justice Azcuna in his “separate” opinion.

Mihia (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

If we follow the lead of “the then President” and “the now President”, it is an adjective.  --Lambiam 01:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, I "still" feel uneasy that it should be an adjective. Does "still" really describe which president or which type of president? If we look at e.g. "the former president" or "the future president", it is possible to say "Which president?" / "The former/future one", whereas "Which president?" / "The still one" makes no sense. Mihia (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely, "w:The Once and Future King" has sufficient oomph as a use case to establish grammatical equivalence between the likes of "once" and the likes of "future" beyond any doubt - meaning the test you suggest is too blunt an instrument here.

- 2A02:560:4267:A100:C413:B946:3306:47F9 23:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's probably a special case, since it's from a translation of a Latin phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, in the Latin phrase ‘HIC IACET ARTHURUS, REX QUONDAM REXQUE FUTURUS’, the adverb quondam and the adjective futurus are not grammatically coordinated. A more literal translation would have been, “Here lies Arthur, king once and king to be”.  --Lambiam 09:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like an unalterable set phrase. You can't say "once and kind king" or "once and evil king", etc. Mihia (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Some adjectives (e.g. main and utter) can only be used attributively, so the fact that a term cannot be used predicatively is not a watertight non-adjectivity test. Such attribute-only adjectives are often also not comparable, so they also fail another adjectivity test. Many terms can assume multiple roles as parts of speech. The issue is that this set of roles is not immutable. The term above started its life as a preposition, then became also an adverb, and for centuries now has furthermore been used (initially “abused”) as an adjective. One would expect that below can be used in the same ways as above. Indeed, rare uses of below as an adjective can be found, but I think this is generally considered less acceptable. It seems that then and now have successfully assumed the role of an adjective. Whether still is already there is IMO a matter of attestable usage. Within the current PoS framework, there is no other reasonable assignment for its use in the context “the still President”. The only available alternative is to proclaim this use ungrammatical, as one would do for *“the afterwards President”.  --Lambiam 11:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You mention that some adjectives cannot be used predicatively, which I am aware of, but my argument against "still" being an adjective did not make any reference to the fact that it cannot be used predicatively. On the matter of "attestable usage", I don't see how this helps. Yes, such phrasing as "the still president" is used, yes it is accepted as correct, but that does not tell us anything about the PoS of "still". Given the PoS that exist, or that we have to play with, really the only other candidate would be adverb. The argument that "still" is an adverb in "the still president" is that "still" describes the manner in which he is president, and not which president or which type/sort of president he is, though probably that idea would need to be expressed more precisely to be watertight. A comparable example could be "the nearly president". Mihia (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need to have word-class membership to cover every attestable use of a word, no matter how uncommon? Is it really helpful to language learners? DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My feeling is that this usage should be covered somewhere/somehow. I think that we should aim to be complete in our coverage, irrespective of whether any particular entry helps language learners specifically. Mihia (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify that I did not actually add this sense myself. I just came across it and thought the PoS of the example seemed doubtful. Mihia (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to propose merging senses 3 and 4 of English dharma, but it is notable that some other dictionaries have considerably different and more specific definitions: M-W, Oxf, AHD and Col are worth a look.

1. M-W has "conformity to one's duty and nature" for both Hinduism and Buddhism (all the dictionaries save Oxford ignore Jainism), while AHD has "Individual conduct in conformity with this principle." for both, "Individual obligation with respect to caste, social custom, civil law, and sacred law." for Hinduism (corresponding to Wiktionary's sense 2) and "Knowledge of or duty to undertake conduct set forth by the Buddha as a way to enlightenment." for Buddhism (perhaps what Wiktionary's sense 3 intended); Collins has "conduct that conforms with this " for Hinduism.
2. Oxford has "An aspect of truth or reality." apparently for Indian religions in general, whereas AHD gives "The essential function or nature of a thing." for Hinduism and Buddhism and "One of the basic, minute elements from which all things are made." specifically for Buddhism.
3. Collins has "ideal truth as set forth in the teaching of Buddha" and Oxf has "the nature of reality regarded as a universal truth taught by the Buddha; the teaching of Buddhism." for Buddhism.

Provided that these different senses are citable, there may be room to expand the English entry. Also, there is no coverage of the Sikh concept that corresponds to dharam. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

From the Guardian, "Keir Starmer to launch fightback with Labour policy blitz":

The flack taken by the Labour leader has come most notably – but not only – from the left of the party, and has included a number of high-profile rebellions. Several rebels have expressed feelings of being misled by Starmer’s leadership campaign, which, they said, had a more leftwing agenda closer to that of Jeremy Corbyn’s.

“It’s not universal, but there is definitely a sense that this is not what we signed up for,” one leftwing MP said. “Government incompetence gets pretty boring. There’s an element of Covid determinism, which is, let Johnson make a mess of this, and we’ll look competent and reap the benefits. It hasn’t panned out.”

Another senior staffer said: “It does feel reminiscent of the Ed era – it’s a bit of a blancmange.”

The context and transparent original meaning of the term gives a rough idea of the intended meaning, but I was curious whether this was an established figurative usage or an ad hoc metaphor, so I investigated. The wiktionary entry currently offers no such insight, but a OneLook meta search yields these:

vocabulary.com: Occasionally, this word has been a synonym for nonsense, as in, "That's a load of blancmange!"

word-detective.com: used in a figurative sense to mean "nonsense" or "trivial matters."

"Trivial" is closer to what I took to be the intended meaning in the quote. "Weaksauce" might be closer yet, and is temptingly close in its surface meaning - nowhere close in register, though, heh.

But I'm mostly speculating, clearly. Thoughts?

- 2A02:560:425E:8500:24F8:129B:96EF:DB77 00:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

1997, John Horgan, Mary Robinson: An Independent Voice (page 181): " came closer than any public representative to overt criticism of the President when he charged that in the previous two years Irish people had 'lived in a world of coded messages delivered in a script of political blancmange, carefully crafted " (it won't show me any more text). Equinox ◑ 22:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

‘... political blancmange, carefully crafted in soothing words of verbal levitation’.  --Lambiam 11:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

NED has "1790 Burke Corr. (1844) III 157 Whenever that politic prince made any of his flattering speeches.. when he served them with this, and the rest of his blanc-mange, of which he was sufficiently liberal." They add "cf. 'flummery'". (Citation in blancmange References section.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, nice one! That quote ends up leading to the entry for a nativized form, Irish plámás, whose definition is definitely on point. I'll leave whatever copying-and-pasting and/or linking is to be done here in your capable hands, yes? :)

- 2A02:560:4267:A100:C413:B946:3306:47F9 13:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The final verb definition is "Required to resit an examination." with the usex "Smith's marks in the finals were unsatisfactory and he was referred." I could correct the definition to say "To require to..." (presumably an infinitive should be defined with an infinitive), but is the term ever used in the infinitive or should this sense be moved to referred? - -sche (discuss) 08:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually know this sense as distinct, and I can't find any examples (although it is hard to search for). However, assuming it exists, to me it seems unlikely that "referred" in that usex could be adjectival. If it is verbal, then my feeling is that it should be listed under "refer", even if passive only (unlikely?), in which case it can be marked as such. Mihia (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

One definition is given as plural only, which is probably wrong. Also, the Swiss term might want moving Oxlade2000 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• TLFi has the "resources" sense as an invariable noun, singular and plural both fonds. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Examples of grammatically singular uses: “Le fonds sera financé ...”; “Ce fonds n'est pas mis en libre accès ...”.  --Lambiam 11:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I changed the sense from plural to invariable. (More specifically, I set the plural the same as the singular because I don't see an invariable option.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. In Your Honour says in alternative forms that in US is your Honor but with a initial lowercase. But in your Honor has another meaning. I think this is a mistake and in US English is also capitalized. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have the impression that there is no strict rule in US English; I even see both versions inhabiting the same work in peaceful cohabitation.  --Lambiam 15:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Okey. Thank you. @Lambiam: --Vivaelcelta (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So I'm watching Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken, and I hear Morgan Spurlock at his restaurant grand opening say: "These companies say that they're changing...that they're becoming more healthy..." and immediately my mind says, No, wait a minute ! That should be healthier, but actually that changes the meaning to something totally different. So my point is: healthy sense 1 has a different inflection than sense 2. Sense 1 is inflected to healthier and healthiest for comparative and superlative, but sense 2 is: more healthy and most healthy. Has anyone else ever noticed this before ? Are there any other words in English that follow a dual pattern of inflection for comparative and superlative dependent on specific senses ? And how do we handle this ? By showing both forms (as we do for some other adjectives that can be either), and adding a Usage note explaining which pattern pertains to which sense ? Leasnam (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that cut-and-dried. There are tons of search results for "healthier diet". It's also possible to find a decent number of occurrences of "more healthy" related to sense 1, e.g. try searching for "looking more healthy". There may be a statistical pattern where (1) is more likely to use healthier than (2), but it's not obvious. I'm not aware of any terms where different senses have different comparative forms, but it might be helpful to look at medium#Noun and hang#Verb as examples where different senses inflect differently (plural in the former case, past tense in the latter). Colin M (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are on to something, but as Colin notes, it's something more in the vein of a tendency than of a dichotomy. I offer "bouncy" as another example: In the context of a "bouncy ball", say, I'd always use "bouncier", never "more bouncy". But in the context of a "bouncy floor", say, I might use either one. Based on this minimal sample, it looks to me like the more direct sense (the one referring to the thing that has the health/does the bouncing) prefers the affixed forms and the more indirect sense (referring to the thing that promotes health/bouncing) prefers the combined forms. I think there's actually a term for adjectives with paired meanings of this sort, which would be helpful here, but escapes me at present.

- 2A02:560:4267:A100:C413:B946:3306:47F9 20:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I am using an app that has multiple bilingual stories with a text in a foreign language and an audio recorded by native speakers. I have a question regarding the use of epenthetic vowels at the beginning of awkward consonant clusters. For example: كَانُوا يُنَادُونَهَا سْنُو وَايْت. ― kānū yunādūnahā snū wāyt. ― They called her Snow White. سْنُو وَايْت (snū wāyt, “Snow White”) (spelled without the initial alif) but it is actually pronounced اِسْنُو وَايْت (isnū wāyt) and there is no consistency in the spelling. Throughout the story, it's spelled with or without the alif but an initial "i" is always heard. What's the norm here? 1. Should the borrowing have a written alif to allow to break a complex cluster or 2. should a vowel be inserted after the initial "s"? 3. If the alif is not spelled and there is a vowel in the previous word, is it right to add an "i" to the front? I can see that "سنو وايت" is attestable but "اسنو وايت" is probably not.

Is it common to add an alif to a difficult cluster? It's common in Persian and Urdu I've seen adding a vowel in the middle, as in e.g. بِرِيطانِيَا (birīṭāniyā) but adding an unwritten initial vowel doesn't seem common or right. @Fenakhay, Fay Freak, Benwing2, please share what you know. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak specifically to Arabic, but I know from my training in phonology that in many languages, s + consonant clusters behave differently from stop + liquid clusters, and the position of the epenthetic vowel is one of the ways the two types of cluster often differ from each other. There are definitely languages where a borrowed sC cluster gets epenthesized as VsC while a borrowed TL cluster gets epenthesized as TVL (where C = any consonant, V = epenthetic vowel, T = any stop, L = any liquid). Persian, for example, has بریتانیا (Beritâniyâ) alongside استکهلم (Estokholm) (where the epenthetic vowel does get spelled with an alif). So it doesn't strike me as unlikely at all that Arabic would have the same distribution. But I'm not in a position to say anything at all about a word being pronounced with an initial epenthetic vowel while not being spelled with one. It probably depends on how assimilated the loanword is. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I find it pretty irregular to pronounce an epenthetic vowel in that context to begin with. The regular outcome would be /ju.naː.duː.na.ha‿s.nuː/. What's happening here is that the speaker's native dialect is interfering with the treatment of consonant clusters, and he is trying to pronounce the name as if it was isolated (or as إِسْنُو وَايْت (ʔisnū wāyt)). That being said, in modern writings, names with consonant clusters are written without an epenthetic alif since most speakers nowadays don't have difficulties pronouncing them (except monolinguals that speak dialects where it is not permissible; like in Egypt and Hijaz). — فين أخاي ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Yes, due to the impossibility of a syllable beginning with two consonants they have difficulties with consonants clusters. They were usually resolved in Classical Arabic by prothesis of a glottal stop; this may result in a superficially Arabic form of four consonants like in إِسْتَار (ʔistār) and إِقْلِيد (ʔiqlīd). There are sometimes doublets where colloquial, or dialectal forms have anaptyxis after the first consonant instead. But now there is so great an influx of European words, and a loss of vowels in many Arabic dialects on the other hand, that there is little a norm altogether.

You see in the variation ܐܩܠܝܕܐ (ʾaqlīdā) / ܩܠܝܕܐ (qəlīḏā) that Aramaic applied similar rules. But consonant clusters being more frequent, and more regularly appearing in that language – e.g. I added to blackberry: ܣܢܝܐ (sanyā), absolute state ܣܢܐ (sne); ܦܛܠ (pṭal) (indeclinable) –, there was less compulsion to resolve them.

Turkish behaves very similar to Classical Arabic and resolves by either epenthesis or anaptyxis, e.g. Bulgarian щир (štir) gives اشتیر (iştir), γρίπος (grípos) gives ایغرب (ığrıp) – Blau has other examples on the page linked on ایغرب (ığrıp).

Persian has the same objections to clusters and it wasn’t like that in Middle Persian. Middle Persian uštar ‘camel’ is resolved both (in spite of the cluster not even being initial) شتر (šutur) and اشتر (uštur), stūn ‘pillar’ ستون (sutūn), also استن (ustun), a well-known and regular change marking the two language stages.

A majority of languages behaves like that. It’s Indo-European languages that are special by allowing initial consonant clusters particularly with alveolar and postalveolar fricative preceding stop, and especially when with liquid following them. Fay Freak (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to make sense of the last two lines of Template:de-decl-personal pronouns. (Click show to expand.) First, my understanding is that the second to last line (starting with Ihr), refers to Höflichkeitsform, an obsolete form of a address that only exists today in fantasy novels, see this SE question. This is given equal weight with the last line (starting with Sie) which is the form used today. I'm thinking that if it's to be included at all then it should be well marked as not the standard form. Also the second column in these two lines includes "naturally: 2nd person sg. or pl.; grammatically: 3rd person pl.," but I can make no sense of this. Is it explained in an appendix somewhere? One other nitpick, there are some entries marked with a dagger (†) but no corresponding footnote. I assume this means obsolete, and perhaps this is implicit, but I still think it would be good form to include a footnote for this. --RDBury (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be marked as archaic and moved down the table or removed altogether. Probably similar to the way thou is used to give an archaic ring, but it's very rare in modern German. The "naturally/gramatically" is probably there to indicate that the grammatical form is always plural, even when addressing a single person. – Jberkel 08:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to improve it somewhat. I think there's a general problem with such tables on Wiktionary, they start simple but soon obsolete, dated and/or regional forms get added, confusing readers interested in a simple representation of the current state of the language. – Jberkel 10:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is an improvement, thanks. I think a more descriptive word than "polite" should be used for the "Ihr" line, "elevated" perhaps? I think now at least understand what the "naturally/gramatically" is trying to get at; the "naturally" part is how the pronoun is used and the "grammatically" is how the corresponding verb should be conjugated. But I'm still not convinced it's the cause of more enlightenment than confusion. I'm thinking conjugation rules should go in conjugation tables, not here. But seeing as changing the conjugation tables requires Lua (presumably) programming, I don't think that's an option. I'll take a stab at moving these labels around and rephrasing to make them more clear. --RDBury (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

1. (music) The flat symbol (♭)

Don't know what, if anything, to do with this. It appears not to be in widespread modern use, and may need a "rare" or "obsolete" label. Also, it may have another meaning, specifically of B♭ (which is presumably the literal origin of the word). It is not in most English dictionaries, apparently. Webster's 1913 says "(Mus.) The sign ♭; the same as B flat", which I find slightly confusing in terms of use of "the same as". https://gcide.gnu.org.ua adds an "obsolete" label. https://www.wordnik.com/words/bemol quotes The Century Dictionary definition of "In music, B flat, a half step below B natural: the general term in French for a flat on any note.", i.e. not recognising the general "flat" meaning in English. Mihia (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see any uses as an English word, so I suggest sending this entry to RfV. If uses are found, they may help to establish the meaning. I found a single source, a 1834, book using the French spelling bémol in the sense of “flat” (not necessarily specifically referring to the symbol, but in any case to lowering by a semitone) without suggestion (other than the diacritic) of code-switching.  --Lambiam 22:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that it can be verified in English in old books, and sans accent. I will try to dig out the requisite three citations. Some of these may not necessarily be unambiguous whether it means specifically the symbol though, as you mention. Mihia (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

B flat was the first flat note "discovered" in the history of music. The flat sign is an alteration of the letter "b", for this reason. So "bemol" originally meant "B flat" then moved to simply mean "flat" as other flat notes came into use. 2001:8000:1588:B800:C9AC:886A:7895:EE08 00:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The term made this journey in Italian, which borrowed it as a univerbation from Medieval Latin b(e) molle in the 11th century. Did bemol make the same semantic journey in English, first denoting “B♭” and then just “♭”, before being superseded by (B) flat?  --Lambiam 09:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added some quotations and labelled it obsolete, which seems a fairly likely punt. I couldn't find any uses in English to specifically refer to B flat, only to the flat symbol or a flattened note in general. That doesn't mean none exist, of course. Mihia (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Estonian IPA transcriptions are otherwise identical but have a stress symbol in a different place, one of them leaving only the consonant /k/ before it, implying that it's a syllable of its own. The pronunciations differ in the length of the "s", genitive is /ˈkɑsʲːi/ and partitive is /ˈkɑsʲːːi/ with an extra-long palatalised "s". And yes, the palatalisations are also unmarked. I cannot fix the transcriptions as they from a template. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Did You know that these words have no Plural?
I have one Dionaea muscipula. I have 2 Dionaea muscipula, I have many Dionaea muscipula.
I have one D. muscipula. I have 2 D. muscipula, I have many D. muscipula.
I have one Dionaea. I have 2 Dionaea, I have many Dionaea
In all reference books, this word is always singular.

Why Wikipedia Bot created plurals? Damirarta (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Damirarta The plural form dionaeas is in use in numerous published works. See Google Books. You would have a point if you were talking about Dionaeas with a capital D, but as you can see, we don't have an entry there. This, that and the other (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sense 3: "One who prevents interference." Can anyone give examples of this sense, distinct from "someone who protects"? Equinox ◑ 00:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (at least until I see an example to the contrary) that it's not an actual meaning. If interference is harmful then def. 1 applies. If interference is beneficial or neutral then I doubt 'protector' is applicable. --RDBury (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Any idea what we'd call the pictarnie or great tern today? Scots Wikipedia says it's the local term for the Arctic tern. Another suggestion is that it's the greater crested tern, but those sources look rather unreliable. There's a picture here (from 1836) Oxlade2000 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the Scottish National Dictionary, it's either of two species. The taxonomic names they give are still current: Sterna hirundo is the Common tern, which is also known as the great tern. Sterna paradisaea is the Arctic tern. Just to confuse things more, the same dictionary has two more senses: one for the Black-headed gull, Larus ridibundus (now Chroicocephalus ridibundus), and an obsolete one for the Eurasian oystercatcher, Haematopus ostralegus. I'm not sure whether it's a generic term or one that's applied to different birds in different local dialects, or some variation of the two. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic *under meant not only "under" but also "among", a meaning that still survives in Dutch. Neither our Old English nor modern English entries make any mention of it, so was it lost early on, or is it just missing? Are there modern instances of this meaning? —Rua (mew) 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, what of usage like under the heading of XYZ or under the grouping of ABC, etc.? Does that fit your use case at all? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The 1933 OED lists this as "V. †24. Among. Obs. rare." though their only citations are pre-English:

• c 893, King Ælfred, Orosius, IV. X. 196:

  Þa ne mehton þa senatus nænne consul under him findan þe dorste on Ispanie..gefaran.

• c 1205, Layamon, 915:

  "Wet speke ȝe kempen vnder eou alle?"

Eduard Adolf Ferdinand Mätzner's 1874 English Grammar, page 458, also says "The preposition was frequently used formerly in the meanings of the Lat. inter, Engl. among. Comp. Old-Engl. Thow it were twyes so hevy as on, Undyr us foure we xal it reyse (Cov. MYST. p. 236.). Thus Anglosaxon used under directly of being surrounded or comprehended in a multitude: þāt he fàh scyle from his scyppende àscyred veorðan . . tó deáðe niðer under helle cinn (COD. EXON. 99, 1 sq.)." - -sche (discuss) 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bosworth-Toller also has this sense, "where an object is surrounded by others, among", with the quote from Orosius and "Sang se wanna fugel under deoreð-sceaftum" ("Cd. Th. 119, 23; Gen. 1984"), and the MED also has some more citations from as late as the 1400s, including one use by Malory which is retained by some modern editions of his work, "then Sir Dinadan wept and so did Sir Palomides under them both making great sorrow." Fascinating! I haven't spotted any true uses in modern English, though. - -sche (discuss) 02:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The only true use I know of in Modern English is the prefix under- (not the same, I know, but...) in the one word understand (literally “to stand between”). Leasnam (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I added the sense "among" to our Old and Middle English entries based on the cites above. - -sche (discuss) 11:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is one of many attestable lemmas that embody the metaphor. This lemma in principle should have both turn and tide inflecting. Others expressions include forms of tide turn, tide of X turn, turn of the tide (the first two all three with turn and tide inflecting); turning of the tide(s); turning tide(s), and probably some others. I doubt that we should have full entries for all of these and possibly not for any of them, but I have questions about how we can handle such diversity:

1. Can we rely on the search engine with its default setting for this site to find turn the tide for all of these?
2. Should we have redirects for some or all of these?
3. Do we need a usage note, either a particular one for this entry or a generic (templated) one for any entry that is a leading representative of a metaphor that has such a variety of expressions? DCDuring (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't like redirects for all of these. turn of the tide, for example, is a completely different part of speech from turn the tide, so it's more than just a minor variant. Colin M (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Your objection wouldn't apply to redirects from all the 7 inflected forms of turn the tide, though one can make other objections to that.

Which of the potential lemmas don't we need to make reference to? Can any of them be combined? DCDuring (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it seems fairly uncontroversial to have simple inflected forms like turns the tide and turning the tide redirect to turn the tide. This is supported by WT:REDIR and WT:CFI#Inflections. Though I was curious about how this tends to be handled in practice, so I browsed some verb constructions in Category:English multiword terms. Out of around a dozen I looked at, most had red links for their inflected forms (e.g. bust someone's balls). One, burn one's fingers, had a redirect, but only for the present participle. Two, bite one's tongue and bite the bullet, had separate entries for each inflected form of the verb (e.g. bites the bullet). (I don't think the latter approach is actually disallowed by policy. I read WT:CFI#Inflections as saying that inflected forms of multi-word idioms may merely redirect, not that they must.)

Regarding the variations like tide turn, turn of the tide, etc. I'm really not sure which we should cover, if any. I think they're all borderline SoP, including turn the tide itself. Basically, tide is often used metaphorically for things that change, which we describe in definitions 7 and 8 at tide#Noun. These metaphors are often realized with the word turn, though expressions like "the changing tides of public opinion", or "reversed the tide of battle" are also well-attested. In this sense, turn the tide and turning of the tides and so on feel more like collocations rather than fixed expressions.

Here's an analogous situation. water (or waters) is commonly used metaphorically in a similar way. We cover this at water#Noun #6: "(figuratively, in the plural or in the singular) A state of affairs; conditions; usually with an adjective indicating an adverse condition.". murky waters is a common collocation associated with this metaphor, but does it deserve an entry? I would say no. Colin M (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Several dictionaries have real entries for turn the tide. Lexico has "reverse the trend of events". I don't think any reasonable definition of tide fits this. MWOnline's closest is "something that fluctuates like the tides of the sea" and Lexico has "a powerful surge of feeling or trend of events.", but a "trend" isn't a "fluctuation". DCDuring (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We currently have "Tendency or direction of causes, influences, or events; course; current." at tide#Noun (number 8). Colin M (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So, I suppose that the entire metaphor resides in the definitions of tide ("trend", "fluctuation") and turn ("reverse", "divert"). That eliminates to deal with the metaphor at any MWE level. Thanks. All that remains is to RfD turn the tide. DCDuring (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Our skinny #1 says: "(informal) thin, generally in a negative sense (as opposed to slim, which is thin in a positive sense)". Does this mean that the exact same body type can be called either "skinny" or "slim" depending on whether the speaker approves? I thought that a skinny body was more scrawny and unhealthy-looking than a slim one. Equinox ◑ 23:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Unhealthy-looking" is in the eye of the beholder. (I suspect that if we could step into a time machine and show Peter Paul Rubens the images of the emaciated waifs that grace today’s catwalks, he’d see a procession of scrawny and unhealthy-looking women.) So I think it may depend on what the speaker is conditioned to consider the norm. Note that Rubenesque is listed in both Thesaurus:overweight (together with potbellied) and Thesaurus:voluptuous (together with curvaceous). Compare also the pair stingy and frugal.  --Lambiam 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Even "skinny" isn't necessarily negative. When Kate Moss said "Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels", she was being positive about being skinny. And when an overweight person loses weight, their friends often compliment them with "You look so skinny!" (even if that's not objectively the case). —Mahāgaja · talk 07:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

cf. skinny legend, a somewhat facetious term of endearment in stan culture (which we should probably have an entry for - in addition to heaps of web results, it also has some google books results from the last few years). Colin M (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Verb sense 17: "In certain games, to approach near to a concealed object which is sought. You're cold... warm... hot... you're burning!" I don't consider this a true sense of burn. Firstly it's only used (adjectivally?) as burning (you can't say "he burned during that game yesterday when he was really close"). Secondly the cold/hot/burning thing is a facet of the game, where players imagine that the seeker really is changing temperature as they seek. So it's an imaginary application of the normal sense of being very hot. Equinox ◑ 00:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We have this type of sense for warm, hot and cold, which I would agree with. The problem may be where to stop when it comes to other temperature-related words that could conceivably be used. Anyway, if we keep this one, I agree that it should probably be an adjective listed at burning, not a verb. Mihia (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As with the accounting terms, the computing terms too have basic antinomies and nonce definitions, and you can see we have bare red links.

@Dbfirs asked in 2009 on Talk:random access memory whether there is a difference between the two definitions we currently still have, probably rhetorically and tending to suppose that there should not be one.

I think there isn’t, too. The first word arguably only uses the buzzword “dynamic”, without conveying meaning, not relating to anything in the definition of dynamic random access memory. “Each byte of memory may be directly accessed” in every other storage either kind of. And “during operation”, who would have thought one can use such a device without operating it?

I think what was intended with the two glosses was to distinguish RAM as a hardware component and from a software point of view – which failed and is unnecessary, even in spite of the concept of virtual random access memory, which is only virtual i.e. fake, and rarely called so instead of virtual memory (and we don’t define gold as pyrite though the letter be sold as the former). Whereas the first definition tried to make out what is specific to random access memory as distinguished from any memory (the random access), though this specific distinction is of no relevance to most modern uses: what would be modern-day use cases of memory which isn’t random-access? Read-only memory is one, is that all? I doubt memory is defined properly either, it is centered around two hyponyms.

I would have thought, giving that w:en:Random-access memory is linked with w:de:Random-Access Memory and w:en:Computer memory with w:de:Arbeitsspeicher, that the needed definition of memory can be understood by Arbeitsspeicher, but nah. @MrBurns remarked in 2008 on w:de:Diskussion:Arbeitsspeicher#RAM und Arbeitsspeicher after a user posed the titled dilemma – because indeed in German common parlance one says and writes Arbeitsspeicher where English texts use RAM – that the CMOS RAM of a BIOS is a RAM indeed but not an Arbeitsspeicher, which sentence we cannot translate as “the CMOS RAM is a random access memory but not a memory”, apparently because one kind of does not work (Arbeit, this I have already defined well) from it. It’s almost like even this word Arbeitsspeicher is a candidate for Appendix:Terms considered difficult or impossible to translate into English. But no, it is only a translation of working memory (if not the reverse), about which Wikipedia informs us: “The term "working memory" was coined by Miller, Galanter, and Pribram, and was used in the 1960s in the context of theories that likened the mind to a computer.” Another computer term which we miss, only having the transferred psychology sense, a month ago created by German @Jberkel. That is only the correct definition of Arbeitsspeicher, while the current random access memory is the most idiomatic translation but a wrong translation.

I conclude that random access memory should have just one lucid definition, but this depends on the definition of memory, and probably an intricate usage note that in most cases, in home-computing, memory may be used as well, and it means also a specific kind of random access memory in practice, because how do you distinguish that which is usually called RAM from the CPU caches which are technically also RAM? L1–L3 are typically SRAM, and distinguished from system memory, being the RAM sticks you buy separately to build a computer.

The question is left of course what we identify main memory / Hauptspeicher as and whether it is correctly defined.

For a pessimistic view, together with terms store and core which surely leave much to question, we might also opine that most of these are all underdefined metaphors without particular meaning, and common usage is wrong while technical usage does not care because in context it’s clear where the crack is. People use random words for system memory. Anyone giving translations to these terms wasn’t aware of the complications. Accordingly we should host translations at distinct but uncommon terms and distinguish by qualifiers in translations how in popular use cases of the described item the thing is called. Fay Freak (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Re random access memory, it doesn't seem to me that the distinction between an "electronics" term and a "computing" one, per the present labels, is in itself enough to justify separate definitions. The two could be merged into one, with a combined "computing, electronics" label. The other intended distinction may be between the "dynamic" memory that can be "directly accessed" of sense #1, and the "main memory" of sense #2, and this also seems to be reflected in different Finnish translations, but is there actually any type of "main memory" that is termed "random access memory" but does not fit definition #1? While I am not an expert in this field, it seems slightly unlikely to me. Mihia (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

DRAM is not usually byte addressable these days. A larger block of data is transferred and the CPU picks out what it wants. While this is often transparent, the original DEC Alpha did not have single byte load instructions. Software was expected to load a complete word from RAM and extract the bits the program needed. Random here is to distinguish from sequential. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Volatility was the rule in the earliest realizations of RAM and is common in today’s most cost-effective realizations as writable memory chips, but magnetic-core memory, the predominant form of random-access computer memory between about 1955 and 1975, was non-volatile. Conceivably, future technological developments may make non-volatile realizations again predominant. Should we let accidental and epoch-bound aspects of random-access memory be part of the definition?  --Lambiam 16:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Well, the epoch-based aspects, the strictly wrong narrowings of usage, are what make the term not sum-of-parts. That’s why I reckoned this term probably needs a usage note contrasting with a definition, as it appears to have a meaning range not strictly part of any definition. Such as: Why are the RAM sticks where I have my current programs loaded distinguished by calling them RAM, rather than with a specific term, and not the CPU caches though the latter are also RAM. Fay Freak (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The basic sense is: computer memory whose content items are accessible in random order. This is epoch-proof. I think this is random access +‎ memory in any epoch.  --Lambiam 23:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Given as adjectives. Is that the correct part of speech? "Against" alone would be a preposition, wouldn't it? Equinox ◑ 11:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"dead against" must be a compound preposition. I suppose technically it is SoP, but perhaps we can allow it as enough of a set phrase. I have never heard of "death against", but if it is used the same way as "dead against", then it must also be a compound preposition. Mihia (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it is just fine to include such SoP common collocations? Well, there are plenty more where that came from. DCDuring (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

On the basis that we don't very commonly say the likes of "I'm dead for legalising cannabis" or "I'm dead with the others on this issue", I think "dead against" might just scrape in as a set idiomatic phrase. Mihia (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

On the PoS issue, there is also the slightly annoying possibility of its being an adjective if used without an argument. OTOH, we don't have an adj. section for "against", so perhaps it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. Mihia (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this term offensive now? See . Our entry does not mention this. Equinox ◑ 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is news to me. I would not feel the slightest bit offended in being referred to as such. "African Caribbean" on the other hand just sounds odd. — Dentonius 11:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

More salient is the suggestion that the term is sometimes used to encompass both African and Caribbean people. As to usage ngrams disagrees, even though it will be including "..African, Caribbean..." in the counts. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC).

The issue is, specifically, the use of the prefix Afro- to mean “African”. See the Guardian article to which the article linked to above is a reaction. The issue with the prefix, as I understand it, is more that this is deemed outdated, than that it is considered offensive.  --Lambiam 14:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

gimp is a term used for a thicker outline thread in lace (possibly only bobbin lace? I don't have experience with other types). I've found it on p. 84 of this book from 1907, and various modern sources Jo Edkins' website, Antique Lace: Identifying Types and Techniques (Heather Toomer, 2001). I don't have the skills/inclination to write the definition myself and make sure it's up to standards, so I'd appreciate help. --Darklyndsea (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a section Gimp (thread) § In lace. All images given as examples show bobbin lace. While Wikipedia states that the terms gimp and cordonnet can, for the most part, be used interchangeably, the website lynxlace.com, in a page on lace terminology, states emphatically, “The motifs may be outlined in a thick cord, called gimp in bobbin lace, or cordonnet in needlelace. The cordonnet in needle lace is a necessary part of the structure. In bobbin lace neither the gimp nor the raised work are necessary, but are merely decorative.” Also further on that page the term cordonnet is reserved for needle lace, and gimp for bobbin lace.  --Lambiam 15:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this sense of a thicker outline thread in lace not simply the first half of current sense 2: “Any coarse or reinforced thread, such as a glazed thread employed in lacemaking to outline designs, or silk thread used as a fishing leader, protected from the bite of fish by a wrapping of fine wire”? I did not spot uses of gimp as meaning “cordonnet” in a Google Books search, but the converse must have been an issue, as witnessed by the following lament on the use of the term cordonnet in an article on the laces of Queen Margherita of Italy in an issue of The Art Journal from 1895:

This term would gain much in significance were it kept entirely to needle lace, instead of being applied as impartially to pillow laces as to the laboriously oversewn outline of Example III., and the carefully button-holed “bunch of small cords” of Example I. But accuracy of diction finds little favour in these hurried days, and new notions on nomenclature may cause a revolution in the world of lace worse than the celebrated Revolte des Passemens.

Wiktionary does not adhere to “accuracy of diction”; what finds favour here is actual use.  --Lambiam 16:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I parsed sense 2 as referring only to threads wrapped in fine wire, although upon rereading I can see that the wrapped in wire part is only meant to apply to the fishing line. Possibly this has all been brought on by me being tired. --Darklyndsea (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should split this into two subsenses. The (lamentable) use of cordonnet as a synonym does not, I believe, extend all the way to fishing lines.  --Lambiam 16:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The page lists interwebs (and interwebz) as the plural form of interweb. Is this correct? I dont have a source, but I always thought interwebs (interwebz) was singular. I think it goes back to lolspeak where -s (-z) is added onto a word in order to be humourous, not in order to make it into a plural. My guess is, interweb is a back-formation from the already-singular interwebs (interwebz). But I really don't know. If anyone wants to look into it, go ahead. 73.133.224.40 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the point where singular vs. plural becomes a distinction without a difference. However you can certainly haz a plural of internet, even if not, at least naively, of Internet. Rich Farmbrough, 14:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC).

It may be a blend of internets used by George W. Bush in one of the 2004 presidential debates – not meant to be humorous, but widely mocked – and interweb, coined (I think humorously) in 2005 by Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson. And interwebz is the lolz spelling. I see both singular and plural uses, but I have a feeling we are not in Grammar Country anymore. Can we haz sum lattitood plz?  --Lambiam 15:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I can find examples of "interwebs" used with both plural and singular verbs. My very quick impression is that plural verb may be more common. All your interwebs are belong to us! Mihia (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think of interwebs as a plural only noun, but I see somebody cited the singular. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the lolspeak irregularity, interwebs should probably be both: a plural of interweb as well as an alternative form of interweb, which is then both uncountable and countable. – Jberkel 17:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If the alternative form is countable, can I haz two interwebzes plz?  --Lambiam 16:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Hindustani phonology states that «In Urdu, there is further short (spelled ہ, as in کمرہ kamra ) in word-final position, which contrasts with (spelled ا, as in لڑکا laṛkā ). This contrast is often not realized by Urdu speakers, and always neutralized in Hindi (where both sounds uniformly correspond to )». I cross-checked with Wiktionary, and کمرہ is transcribed as /kəm.ɾɑː/, with a long final vowel. Should we reflect this contrast here? 151.36.171.14 17:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The unsigned thing above is by me. MGorrone (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused by sense 7 at act#Verb:

1. (intransitive) To do something that causes a change binding on the doer.

   act on behalf of John

I'm not sure what the "binding on the doer" part means. But I would have read act in "act on behalf of John" as simply the first sense of "to do something". Colin M (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. In particular if Alice acts on behalf of John, she is the doer (the one acting) but the change is presumably "binding" on John, if anybody, because it's done on his behalf. Equinox ◑ 17:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

For information, this sense was added here by @Msh210 as a consequence of the deletion of "act for". I also don't get it. I think "doer" must be just a slip, referring to the wrong person, but I still don't get why it is a separate sense of "act". However, some people at the "act for" RFD thought that a new sense of "act" might be needed to cover it. Mihia (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I must've meant the other person. A slip, as you say. It's a shame it took so long to catch. As for whether this is a separate sense, I was acting on what I perceived as the consensus at the time, and not my own views — or at least that's my impression from the record.​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

One can speak on behalf of someone, or plead in behalf of something, or negotiate on a client’s behalf, or accept an award on behalf of the winner, and so on and so forth. All of these are cases of an agent acting on behalf of something or someone. Most actions do not cause a binding change on anyone, but some may cause a binding change on the agent (or the entity on whose behalf they act), such as signing a contract. This is not a separate sense of the verb act, but totally dependent on the specifics of the action.  --Lambiam 15:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This Vulgar Latin word has both a regular entry and a reconstruction page; obviously, only one of these should exist (a reconstruction if it isn't attested, a regular entry if it is). This isn't my area of expertise, so I wouldn't know; there may be others like it out there as well. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be attested: consuturam--Urszag (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

honest-minded, just-minded, decent-minded, pure-minded, clean-minded, noble-minded

fair-minded, evil-minded, serious-minded, liberal-minded, dull-minded

Are any of the above more than SoP with "X-minded" = "having an X mind"? Mihia (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nitpick: a fair-minded decision isn't a decision that has a fair mind, but one made by a fair mind. Equinox ◑ 09:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that "having an X mind" would not itself cover that usage, but is this not simply another generic sense of "X-minded" that would just as much make the term SoP -- something like "exemplifying an X mind", or however it could best be phrased? You could have a "noble-minded endeavour", "liberal-minded policy", "serious-minded writing" and so on and so forth. I don't see it as anything specific to "fair-minded". Mihia (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The same question can be asked about able-minded, absent-minded, alike-minded, bad-minded, bloody-minded, broad-minded, civic-minded, close-minded, ego-minded, even-minded, feeble-minded, good-minded, green-minded, high-minded, hive-minded, large-minded, light-minded, like-minded, low-minded, midget-minded, narrow-minded, off-minded, open-minded, public-minded, right-minded, same-minded, self-minded, simple-minded, single-minded, sloppy-minded, small-minded, soft-minded, strong-minded, tender-minded, tough-minded, twi-minded, up-minded, weak-minded, well-minded, woolly-minded, and wrong-minded.  --Lambiam 17:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And left-handed, sad-faced, short-legged, etc. But we would need to go through them one at a time. That's were the inclusionists have an unfair advantage. They don't have to prove a thing until challenged and then sometimes we accept and sometimes even provide low-quality citations. DCDuring (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

For better or for worse, many of these may survive on the WT:COALMINE test. e.g. light-minded / lightminded. Colin M (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

So the challenges should be limited to those for which COALMINE does not apply. I would expect that many of the definitions protected by COALMINE would also be idiomatic. We should pick whatever seem to be the weakest candidates for retention and challenge them, whether at RfD or RfV. If the first ones survive, maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. DCDuring (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As I have repeated ad nauseam, "coalmine" is a ludicrous policy that licenses people to look for obscure closed forms in order to defeat SoP rules, while missing the main point that the closed forms are themselves SoP, and should be handled by us in a more intelligent way. Mihia (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Defined as "a liquor fermented from milk, originally by the Turks". Is this distinct from modern yogurt, or just a really old-fashioned definition of the same thing? Equinox ◑ 09:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is of course simply the French spelling of yoghurt, phonetically much closer to the Turkish pronunciation /joˈʊrt/ than English /ˈjəʊɡət/. I wonder if this is a dictionary-only sense. There is a Turkish drink named ayran, which is basically yoghurt diluted with water, with perhaps a pinch of salt added. A fermented milk drink (also, but not specifically, Turkish) is kefir. A rare occurrence in an English text of “yaourt” being drunk is seen here, but in several other occurrences in the same travelogue it means just good old plain yoghurt.  --Lambiam 16:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

or /jɒgəʔ/, as it is in the home of the English language (=England).81.141.8.40 08:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

// is for phonemic transcription; it's for phonetic. Equinox ◑ 08:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Meaning "A temporary seat made by two people crossing their hands". I remember using a different term when I was a kid, but can't recall what it was. Any other synonyms for this? Oxlade2000 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two ways of executing this procedure, which are called here, rather prosaically, a “two-handed seat carry” and a “four-handed seat carry”.  --Lambiam 16:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a modern-day name for handy-dandy, right? "A children's game in which one child guesses in which closed hand the other holds some small object, winning the object if right and forfeiting an equivalent if wrong." Oxlade2000 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

neivie-nick-nack? (I don't know if you win the item though.) Equinox ◑ 11:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice find, Eq. Oxlade2000 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There is also the Welsh game named tippit, played with a coin, also called “penny hiding game”.. Here an old Native American game is called the ”hand game”, although, reportedly, the stakes could historically go as high as horses or lodges, objects one cannot hold in one’s hand, and then hardly a children’s game. Another name is “stick game”. The game was already described (but not named) by Lewis & Clarke. From their description, it appears the game was novel to them. There is evidence this tradition is centuries old.  --Lambiam 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with California Indian cultures, but here the hand game was much more complex: there were usually items held in both hands that were marked in various ways, and the combination of marks resulted in multiple possible outcomes. It was often a team sport, with a neutral scorekeeper keeping a pile of sticks or other markers for each team. A bad guess might mean transferring a marker from one pile to the other, and a really bad guess might mean transferring all of them. Likewise with good guesses. This was often a spectator sport, with gambling for almost anything as stakes. Most cultures had some variation, and very few were exactly the same. In other words, this has very little in common with the children's game. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Does there exist a proper forum/group/wiki project group for labour? I am interested in learning more about standardization/policies/discussions around labor/working related terms, e.g. health worker, sex worker and what reasons there may be to exclude tech worker, education worker etc.. I am in discussion about it in Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#tech_worker Shushugah (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think in Wiktionary there are no topic-specific discussion forums or groups such as you refer to. At least, I have not come across any. The best place to discuss general policy about a whole group of related terms is probably WT:BP, but generally speaking all the terms you mention will come under the WT:CFI, and perhaps particularly the rules about sum-of-parts. Mihia (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Besides those already mentioned we currently also have entries aid worker, brain worker, building worker, camera worker, construction worker, day worker, domestic worker, farm worker, freezing worker, guest worker, hourly worker, itinerant worker, key worker, knowledge worker, lush worker, migrant worker, miracle worker, office worker, process worker, relief worker, replicated worker, shock worker, social worker, steel worker, street worker, threshold worker, track worker, undocumented worker, war worker, white-collar worker, and youth worker. Generally speaking, each entry is judged on its own merits vis-à-vis our criteria for inclusion. It is plausible that several from this list would not survive a request for deletion.  --Lambiam 16:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've got some very good news, however, about office worker ("Someone who works in an office"). Since officeworker is attestable, we simply need to add that, and then we can keep office worker too by virtue of the excellent "coalmine" principle, just as we can keep fair-minded on the basis that fairminded exists. Let joy be unconfined. Mihia (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Some explanations of "focal distance":

1) Focal distance is synonymous with focal length.

2) "'Focal distance' refers to the distance from the lens to the plane of the focused image, regardless of subject distance; 'focal length' is the distance from lens to focal plane when the camera is focused at infinity — a special case of focal distance."

3) "Focal distance is the distance between the subject you are focusing to the camera sensor."

Is (3) an aberration or a valid sense? Is (1) really (2) but just ignoring small detail, or an actual separate sense? Anyone knowledgeable in this field? Mihia (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems an alternative term for snow line. I found it interesting when I encountered the term snow limit being used in an 1881 book about the America western frontier... so I added a Talk page item with a citation to the book on the Talk page for snow line. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Pertaining to differences between English as spoken in the United Kingdom and the United States and or Canada." Is this used alone generally? I see a few Web hits on certain blogs ("a pondian difference" etc.); no hits for "a pondian..." in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• The normal usage is transpondian I believe. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm sure I've seen it on Usenet.​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, finds lots of cites.​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A teakettle; but the entry needs glossing. Where is the word used? Possibly in Russian Jewish communities. Equinox ◑ 17:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Three problems with this entry:

1. I believe that the use of lay about in the example is archaic, and that in more recent use it is always in the form lay about him/them/one. I see that the OED agrees with me: Phrasal verb "†3. To strike out with vigour; = to lay about one at sense 32e. Obsolete" is marked twice as obsolete and glossed in terms of the longer phrase "to lay about one: to deal violent and repeated blows on all sides". I therefore think this entry should be treated an obsolete variant of lay about one (which should be written).
2. This second sense has no example, I do not recognise it, and the only thing it even vaguely corresponds to in the OED entry is Phrasal verb 2 "To contrive, plan, take measures (to do something); to look out or make a search for." which is not a close fit in meaning, and is also marked as obsolete. I think it should either be made to match the OED definition, (and marked obsolete) or removed.
3. The third entry (in a separate "Verb" section) is presented as a tensed form of a red-linked phrasal verb. I'm inclined to think lie about is SoP anyway, and so this should also be removed.

I am happy to work on this, but I'm not yet very familiar with the ins and outs of editing Wikt lemmas, so if my arguments are accepted, I'm also looking for guidance as to how to go about it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

“lay about”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. (Idioms) has 5 definitions, with usage examples. If I were going to do more than minor wording changes to a sense, I would use RfV or RfD on the sense in question and add new!, improved! senses, preferably with at least one unambiguous citation. DCDuring (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

How is in English a person who posts messages ("tweets") on the social networking site Twitter? tweeter, twitterer, Twitterer? Are they all synonyms? Which is more used? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

A tweep? This, that and the other (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think those are all used, but I personally prefer "Twitter user". Tweep I believe is more slangy, used by the users themselves ("my tweeps" = my friends on Twitter, like "my peeps" = people/friends in gangsta-type slang). Equinox ◑ 08:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: Yes. I think the same. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The 2006 film The Wicker Man has an infamous scene in which Nicolas Cage is tortured by bees. Before the torture he yells "No! Not the bees!". (KnowYourMeme has a writeup on the virality of this phrase/scene.)

It seems like this construction is not currently covered at not. Is that fair? I would characterize "Not X!" as indicating something like "X exists in some salient way and I'm not happy about it" (Timmy draws the curtains and sighs "Not another cloudy day..."), or, closely related, "It seems X is about to occur/appear in some salient role but I'm hoping/pleading it does not" (Alice points a squirtgun at Bob. Bob shouts "Not the face!")

X is often a noun phrase, but it can also be an AdvP in expressions like "Not again", or "Not like this" (another memorable movie quote). Interestingly, it seems X cannot be a gerundial clause (*"Not you stealing my watch!"), though it can, in principle, be arbitrarily internally complex ("Not that t-shirt from Old Navy that you spilled ketchup on last week!").

There's also a very interesting extension of this structure that I've seen in informal online communication over the last few years. These examples are all from Reddit, but it occurs frequently on Twitter, or anywhere else you find gen-Z people (I also get the sense that it's mostly used by women and gay men, and may have begun as AAVE):

Lmao not Ed exposing Taylor like this.

Not you thinking you did something smart when you changed the topic randomly and were asked for a reason lmao

LMAO not “‘maybe people turned off the tv”

As an example of its wide use/recognition, the top comment (with ~36k likes) on a recent Instagram post by Britney Spears is: "Not me looking at this like a hidden clue from National Treasure".

UrbanDictionary has actually noted this usage in its current top definition for "not": "notice/look at. used a lot on twitter." That roughly accords with my understanding. I think it further carries some connotation that X is deserving of note because it's shocking, amusing, dramatic, risible etc. An interesting feature is that X is often a gerundial clause (which is not allowed in "classic" not-exclamations). The other most common pattern is X being a direct quote as in the third example, often as little as a single word ("Not Alejandro 😭").

I was hoping to find some writing about either of these phenomena, but it's tremendously difficult to search for. Colin M (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible sources: Language Log: archives of American Dialect Society mailing list; Quote investigator. DCDuring (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I take the first construction for a condensed form of "Let it not be", possibly further prefixed with a vocative like "O Lord".

As for the second, the fact that it gets defined using both "note" and "notice" makes me think it originated as a simple shortening of those words, rather.

- 89.183.221.80 22:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if we can find spoken examples (tiktok?), or just ask(!) tweeters how they pronounce it. I, like Colin seems to, think it's the same word not (rather than note) in spoken language and derives from the other senses and uses of "not" in a reasonably straightforward way (though it might be reinforced or influenced by similarity to "note"); groaning "not another exposé of Taylor by Ed" or "not another random topic change from you" was possible for longer than Reddit has been around for people to make the other, only somewhat different sentence quoted above, and e.g. "not this again!" seems to be a phrase as valid in this context online today as in speech decades (or more?) ago. - -sche (discuss) 00:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example from YouTube: 3:19 "Not them having a whole zoo". And here's an example of the quotative use: 6:56 "Not the fucking 'skinny queens'". (The last example doesn't really show it, but my perception is that in quotative uses the quoted material is often drawn out with a sharply falling intonation - i.e. prosodically focused). But yeah, the not is definitely pronounced like not, and I'm certain is not a shortening of "note" or "notice". Colin M (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Not the !" / "Not that!" type usage, at least, is nothing new; Charles Kingsley's c. 1850 novel Yeast: A Problem (what a title!) has "The only answer I give is John Bull's old dumb instinctive 'Everlasting No!' which he will stand by, if need be, with sharp shot and cold steel—'Not that; anything but that. No kingdom of Heaven at all for us, if the kingdom of Heaven is like that.'" and Harris Dickson's 1903 She that Hesitates has "Then you must send me away; I am only a man," "No, no, not that, anything but that." - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a significantly earlier example of the novel form from a 2013 episode of The Real Housewives of Atlanta: "Not a white refrigerator". Seems like one of many linguistic phenomena that started with black women and later trickled into gay slang and similar niches. Colin M (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We have separate senses for a horseshoe (1) on a horse's foot, and (2) in the game "horseshoes". Initially, the game used the same horseshoes as horses did, and a Google Image search shows "real" horseshoes are still used even as various stylized versions (with parallel arms, and/or smaller than would fit a horse, etc) are also used. The game is not the only place stylized versions may be found: people hang horseshoes for luck, and like in the game these may either be "real" horse shoes or may be e.g. smaller than would be useful for a horse. So do we need a third definition for a horseshoe (3) as a luck charm? Conversely, do we actually need sense (2)? At what point does the possibility of using either a "real" X or a representation of X in a certain setting make "stylized representation of X" a sense of X? (I notice we do have both "A heavy fighting club." and "A ceremonial form of this weapon." at mace.) Google's definition (that they provide if you google "horseshoe definition") covers this by saying "a shoe for a horse or a representation of one, regarded as bringing good luck." Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com only have a sense for a horse's shoe, not the game piece, although they also define the game "horseshoes" and say it can be played either "with horseshoes or with horseshoe-shaped pieces of metal" (MW) / with "horseshoes or other U-shaped pieces of metal, plastic, etc." (Dictionary.com). - -sche (discuss) 05:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday I was frowning at the hotel sense of a Monopoly game piece. Monopoly is a modern manufactured game, so this doesn't feel separate like the knight of chess. Equinox ◑ 07:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And what about "safe" horseshoes games with plastic or rubber "horseshoes"? And for that matter non-metallic horseshoes for horses, eg, leather, plastic. Metal ones have been made of bronze, iron, steel, aluminum and are sometimes glued or even strapped to hooves. There are wooden clog-like shoes for horses. I think at most we can say "typically of metal nailed to horses' hooves" DCDuring (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, other animals are sometimes shod (eg, cows, oxen), though the shapes are often different. DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a definition that encompasses the usually/often attributive use horseshoe to mean shaped like a typical horseshoe, as in horseshoe magnet, horseshoe curve (road, railroad), horseshoe bend (river), etc. DCDuring (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, the Monopoly sense of hotel seems even worse; aren't they just representations of hotels, with their game-specific characteristics being extralexical? I saw an ebay listing for an old WWII-themed board game some years ago, with little (paper) pieces representing tanks, infantry, etc: do we need a definition at tank, "a piece in the board game Blitzkrieg which moves in in contradistinction to infantry"? - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to adapt the "fictional universe" criterion to game pieces: if a given item is only referred to as something in a specific modern game, we don't include it. I say "modern", because there are games such as chess, backgammon, playing cards, and go that have become part of the linguistic landscape. The idea probably needs to be developed further to make it completely rigorous, but I think it's our best way to deal with in-game terminology. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. It seems to me that a game universe falls within the definition of fictional universe without any adaptation, just application. Why didn't we think of it sooner?! DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the new definition -sche came up with is great, even if it's a bit long:

The U-shaped shoe of a horse, now usually made of metal (rarely wood, leather, straw, plastic, etc); by extension, a (potentially stylized) representation of this (of metal, plastic, etc) used to play the game horseshoes, or hung up as a luck charm, etc.

I agree that it's a tricky case. I tried to think of other objects that have highly salient stylized representations to see how we handled them. The best I could think of were rainbow, shamrock, and star (maybe I have Lucky Charms on the brain). Currently nothing about stylized forms in any of those three. Colin M (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

We could shorten it by removing the parenthetical clauses. Or we could remove mention of the stylized representations from the definition entirely, and just add some pictures of stylized representations to show they're covered by the general "shoe of a horse" sense, as I did on eagle with heraldic eagles (see also the RFD of the "heraldic representation" sense of that). Meh. As for other entries, strawberry leaf is an interesting one, currently lacking a literal sense and only covering a representation of sorts. - -sche (discuss) 11:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It does seem long for a dictionary definition. I mentioned all the materials to suggest that we either include the word "typically" before "metallic" in the definition, not that we include an incomplete list.

I think we underuse the fact that most definitions have central, typical referents with a sometimes large group of accompanying, less typical referents. After all, most language users don't have an a priori definition with well defined boundaries. It's really only when a sufficient number of readers can no longer see the less typical referents as part of the definition that we need to have other definitions, subsenses, amplifying phrases and clauses, etc. In taxonomy, there are type species etc. In vernacular names of organisms, there are qualifiers such as "common", "garden", "true" applied to nouns to indicate specific, typical or likely to be observed organisms. DCDuring (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I shortened it to The U-shaped shoe of a horse, now typically made of metal; by extension, a representation of this used to play the game horseshoes, hung as a luck charm, etc. We should examine whether straw sandals for horses (as in China), leather shoes (as in some parts of Indian Country), etc are also referred to as "horseshoes", in which can we might need to also qualify "U-shaped" as "typically", or else have a separate sense for any shoe used on a horse, even if shaped more like a bag tied at the ankle than a half-circle of metal. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

See as a reference to it being used on "The Wire". I've also heard it used on Amazon's "Bosch", which makes two out of three attestations needed for inclusion, and finding others shouldn't be hard. So I'd say it's worthy of a definition in the existing juke entry. But I have no idea whether the etymology is independent of the other meanings and if not what it would be. Also, is the word limited to the US? I'm heard that the practice sometimes happens in the UK but I don't remember if there was a specific word for it used there. --RDBury (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Etymology 3. Those don't seem like durably attested citations. UseNet might have more. DCDuring (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a definition under Ety 3 with 4 cites, one from a book based on The Wire. DCDuring (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Michael Connelly would be impressed. --RDBury (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the word ‘outrigger’ in the following link? It seems to be a technical sense related to construction that’s not included in the Wiktionary entry https://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/files/6DD7555D7818C6A8E4AEB7B9052E2BC8/pdf/W_20_1945-HERITAGE_STATEMENT-1422729.pdf Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the conjugation table for “popłynąć” contains an error:

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/pop%C5%82yn%C4%85%C4%87#Polish.

At first glance, it would seem that the prefix "po" is omitted from all past and conditional conjugations, whereas the other forms in the table are fine.

Or is this just an extraordinarily odd verb? I am a Polish learner, so at this stage nothing would surprise me about this language....

Ben Aaronovitch uses this phrase twice in his w:Rivers of London series:

"Tall and slender, dark-skinned, narrow-faced, flat-nosed and with sly black eyes that pinked up at the corners."

"She'd retained her mother's eyes though, a deep brown colour and pinked up at the corners like a cat's."

However, googling, it looks like he made it up himself - no other occurrences anywhere. What do you think he means? I originally assumed that "pink" had a shape-related verbal sense unfamiliar to me. But now I see that there is an entry for pink up, so maybe it is about colour after all? But looking at some of the somewhat plentiful online pictures of cats, feline eyes are rather less pink than human eyes, corners included, so... help?

- 89.183.221.80 23:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It might just be his idiolect. Maybe he really doesn't know cats or maybe all the cats he knows have pinkeye. DCDuring (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a guess, but you can pinch your cheeks to make them pink, or pink your cheeks for short. So he might be using pink as a synonym for pinch. --RDBury (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Another possibility, though not that compelling: pinking shears are used to make a scalloped or jagged edge on fabric. That's from Etymology 3, having to do with pricking or cutting. Also, there's Etymology 6, having to do with blinking. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I did notice the blinking/winking sense, but can't quite make it fit. On a whim, I looked at the etymology for pinky, which tentatively mentions OE pinca, "point". That fits well enough, so I'm going to adopt it as a pet theory for the time being.

- (OP) 2A02:560:4236:3400:994C:86A:B6CF:8E78 20:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally consider them inflected forms because they behave the same as e.g. stor and stora, but their apparently different etymologies and the existence of the word sen complicate things. Glades12 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Just randomly came across this. esitutkinta listed as translation of fishing expedition in the sense "attempt to dredge up incriminating information", but def of esitutkinta is "pretrial, pretrial investigation", which does not in itself seem to have any of the flavour of English "fishing expedition", so may be wrong translation. I don't know any Finnish. Mihia (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

veterīnārius. This is mentioned in other etymologies, but is not itself listed. Sorry I can't work out how to add it — This unsigned comment was added by 86.8.131.123 (talk) at 12:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC).

Added ☑ Brutal Russian (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I am bothered by the "adverb" designation/analysis; Fowler has it as "compound preposition", which I prefer at least as an optional diagnosis. Any comments or assistance? JonRichfield (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am bothered that we have an undercited entry. We need cites that show usage without following as. I haven't found many that are not either scannos or in writings by authors whose names suggest the possibility that they are not native speakers. DCDuring (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It would also be nice if any cites had the spelled-solid form. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

OneLook dictionaries that have entries for insofar all have it as an adverb. Those that have entries for insofar as show it as a conjunction, as we do. DCDuring (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I am not sure how to create a Wiktionary:Requested entries page, but there are some languages I feel are missing, and I would like to have available: Middle Norwegian, Proto-Italic, Old Saxon and Old Dutch. If someone would like to help create these pages, or at least give a reason not to have them, that would be appreciated. Thank you! Supevan (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added Middle Norwegian, Old Dutch, and Old Saxon. I don't know our policy of having RE pages for reconstruction-only languages, so didn't make one for Proto-Italic.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The entry for leynen mention "Gallo," which I believe should be Gallo-Romance. Is there a language or a dialect called "Gallo"?S. Valkemirer (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

See w:Gallo language. It's a descendant of Gallo-Romance, but then, so is French. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, though in the context of the etymology of לייענען (leyenen), the Gallo language seems awfully unlikely. @Wikitiki89, do you remember your source for the etymology you added back in 2012? Is it really Gallo, the Oïl language (some would say, French dialect) of eastern Brittany? Or is it Old Gallo-Romance, i.e. the language of the 9th-century Oaths of Strasbourg? —Mahāgaja · talk 07:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed as an obvious error. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does the final נ ⟨n⟩ of the verb stem come from?  --Lambiam 00:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)