Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/March

Hi. Is there a reasonable, acceptable possibility for an English noun entry to describe this image? In Spanish it is called a bidón (although even this entry needs to be tweaked). ] -- ALGRIF talk 13:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

In English it is called a carboy; see the photo in Wikipedia’s Carboy article. A name for an older type (a glass bottle) that is also in use for plastic bottles is demijohn.  --Lambiam 20:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is defined as "hemlock" which is ambiguous- so I started looking through Google Books to see whether it's Conium maculatum (the European plant that killed Socrates), or the related and equally toxic Cicuta virosa Cicuta maculata, a North American water plant (it has a European relative, Cicuta virosa). After a while, I realized that all of the hits in the older references were scannos for cowbane, which is Cicuta. The only non-scannos are from the 1970s and later. Most of this recent usage seems to be mentions in the kind of material that gets copied from previous books.

As far as I can tell, the first occurrence is in the index to the 1971 Dover paperback edition of Maude Grieve's A Modern Herbal- not in the book itself, but in the index. This is a very influential book that just about everybody who knows anything about herbs has read (I have a copy in storage somewhere), so I suspect that some typist working for the publisher misread the name, and all current usage traces back to that. That would make this a "common name" or "vernacular name" that has never seen common or vernacular use. I'd rfv it, but I think there's probably enough post-1971 secondary usage for it to just barely squeak by. I'm not quite sure how to deal with it in the entry, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. So it's a ghost word? (...Yeah it's not the clearest name for these things; I would love if a more intuitive / transparent name existed. I think I proposed "terms derived from errors or hoaxes" in a prior discussion, but that has its own problems besides just the length.) Perhaps you could make a note in the etymology like on fesnyng, or even describe it as nonstandard (if applicable). - -sche (discuss) 11:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fesnyng is actually an Old Scots noun, cognate with Old English fæstnung. It occurs in The Bruce, in the line Fesnyng of frendschip and of pess (“Consolidation of friendship and peace”). I wonder how this came to replace Joseph Strutt’s simple 1801 typo, a fesynes of ferrets, for what in The Boke of St. Albans of 1486 was a Besynes of ferettis. Was the change to fesnyng meant to be a correction? Or was it an unlikely confluence in a comedy of typos?  --Lambiam 20:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, that could explain it, if someone knew fesnyng was a word and took fesynes to be an error for it (maybe some stray ink closed the upper right of the s enough to make it look like g in the copy someone was working from) rather than for business, an admittedly much less similar word! - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think an explanatory note in the etymology would be clear enough. And a usage note or label to indicate how common it is. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:21, 59 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not define it as "cowbane (Cicuta virosa)". A usage note could cover use (mostly in fiction?). The etymology could cover the origins and circulation in mentions. I note that no OneLook reference, except us, has it. DCDuring (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a bit bothersome that some of the mentions and uses are of spotted corobane and striped corobane, neither of which seems to be attestable at first look. DCDuring (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I was a bit tired when I wrote the above and repeated myself. Actually, cowbane refers to both Cicuta virosa and Cicuta maculata. The name no doubt originated with C. virosa in Europe, but that species is fairly obscure compared to Conium maculatum, while Cicuta maculata is better known in North America. In the California Indian ethnobotanical literature it's usually called "wild parsnip" or "poison parsnip". As for "spotted corobane", that occurrence in the Grieve Modern Herbal index I mentioned is for "spotted corobane", not plain "corobane". I suspect pretty much all of the usage comes form people who looked up the plant in other references and copied the lists of common names. When referring to the plant in running text, more familiar names are more likely to be used. In fiction, an author is more likely to just arbitrarily pick something that sounds unusual from a list and use it like they know what it means. They might even have changed the name a bit to prevent readers from experimenting with the plant. After all, this is potent enough to be used as an arrow poison, so even handling the stuff is not a good idea.

I should also mention that Conium maculatum and Cicuta maculata sharing the same specific epithet has led to a lot of authors thinking they're synonyms for the same species- it's a real mess all around. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I took a run at it. Would it be best to send a reader to ] or does the error only apply to the one taxonomic name? DCDuring (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Grieve (1931, online) has Circuta maculata as American cowbean! Few other works even mention the name. DCDuring (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

(please let me know if there's a better place to talk about this issue...)Moved from RFV by Metaknowledge.

I think the pronunciation of many Turkish words may be wrong. For instance, Turkish speakers I know (from Istanbul, Bursa and Izmir mainly) do not pronounce şimdi as /ˈʃim.di/ but as /ˈʃim.dɪ/. Same for online examples. Indeed, per Wikipedia: "/i, y, u, e, ø/ (but not /o, a/) are lowered to in environments variously described as "final open syllable of a phrase" and "word-final"."

If I'm right then the pronunciation of many (all?) Turkish words ending in /i, y, u, e, ø/ should be changed to . There may be issue even in the middle of the word, for instance: mutluluk: -> . I don't know Turkish well enough to be sure of this, that's why I do this request for verification.

A455bcd9 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

As long as there's no phonemic contrast between and (and likewise for the other pairs), then the phonemic transcription /ˈʃim.di/ is correct. We may choose also to include the phonetic transcription , but it does need to be in square brackets, not slashes, and ideally should be listed in addition to the phonemic transcription in slashes. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

In my limited exposure to spoken Turkish, what caught my ear was the above-mentioned variation of e and i, plus devoicing of final r to something that I would call sh except it isn't. (I'd be terrible at speaking Welsh, I'm sure.). Redhouse's transcription of Ottoman Turkish has four versions of a, which may have been influenced by people trying to speak Arabic and Persian words properly. Are the patterns consistent enough for a wizard to conjure up a {{tr-IPA}}? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for moving my post here.

I didn't know the difference between phonetic and phonemic transcription before, now it makes more sense but as a "non-expert" user it's very confusing when you read the IPA on Wiktionary and repeat it exactly to a native speaker who doesn't understand or tells you it's wrong...

Yes, I forgot the final r, this is also a recurring issue for me when I consult Turkish entries on the Wiktionary. Per Wikipedia: "/ɾ/ is frequently devoiced word-finally and before a voiceless consonant. According to one source, it is only realized as a modal tap intervocalically. Word-initially, a location /ɾ/ is restricted from occurring in native words, the constriction at the alveolar ridge narrows sufficiently to create frication but without making full contact, ; the same happens in word-final position: ."

Other issue (still from Wikipedia): "In native Turkic words, the velar consonants /k, ɡ/ are palatalized to (similar to Russian) when adjacent to the front vowels /e, i, ø, y/. Similarly, the consonant /l/ is realized as a clear or light next to front vowels (including word finally), and as a velarized next to the central and back vowels /a, ɯ, o, u/. These alternations are not indicated orthographically: the same letters ⟨k⟩, ⟨g⟩, and ⟨l⟩ are used for both pronunciations. In foreign borrowings and proper nouns, however, these distinct realizations of /k, ɡ, l/ are contrastive. In particular, and clear are sometimes found in conjunction with the vowels and ." (for instance: hikaye or belki)

I think most of these patterns are consistent and an algorithm could generate the IPA. A simpler (and/or temporary) solution could a note {{tr-IPA-help}} explaining that the pronunciation given on Turkish entries is the phonemic transcription and that in practice /i, y, u, e, ø/ are lowered to in final and /ɾ/ to /ɾ̥/ in final. A455bcd9 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Actual Turkish pronunciation is full of allophones, like versus , and I sometimes hear this vowel realized as a front vowel , as in and . For many entries the pronunciation section gives a narrow transcription, such as for banliyö, sometimes presented as if broad, like seen for /tɑˈbɑk/ – note that the Wikipedia article Turkish phonology to which we refer as the key for the IPA symbols just has the notation /a/. I also hear with a very frontal vowel. I hear , and not the pronunciation given at kale. There are also regional and register differences, such as the elision of a final /ɾ/ or its replacement by as heard in , and the pronunciation for ne haber). Therefore I actually prefer a broad transcription – in particular when (not contrastive) realizations are entirely predictable. Apart from the stress, generating the pronunciations should be amenable to automation if it allows for the occasional exception – but I fear there are too many exceptions to the usual final stress to make this worthwhile.  --Lambiam 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why; if someone makes {{tr-IPA}} it just needs to take a parameter |1= where the stress can be specified manually if it isn't on the final syllable, along with anything else that isn't predictable from the spelling (like palatalized vs. nonpalatalized realizations of ⟨k⟩, ⟨g⟩, and ⟨l⟩). —Mahāgaja · talk 17:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was not arguing against someone undertaking the effort. Automatically generated pronunciations should have some bit though to signal them as not-yet-checked, which needs to be explicitly set to “checked” by hand. It occurred to me that vowel length is usually short, but that this too has many exceptions. What about the issue of narrow versus broad transcriptions?  --Lambiam 19:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

While finding quotations for on the hoof, I found a couple uses (both from books by Robert Heinlein) that I had a hard time parsing.

• 1959, Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers‎:

  “I just want to remind you apes that each and every one of you has cost the gov’ment, counting weapons, armor, ammo, instrumentation, and training, everything, including the way you overeat—has cost, on the hoof, better’n half a million. Add in the thirty cents you are actually worth and that runs to quite a sum.”

• 1961, Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land‎:

  Jubal settled back in the tub, was surprised to find that he was not tired and his bones no longer ached. Patty was a tonic... happiness on the hoof.

Can anyone (possibly more familiar with the books) make sense of these? My best guess with the first quote is that the Sergeant, by talking about the cost of the men "on the hoof" is demeaning them by talking about them as if they're cattle? The second one I can't even guess at. Colin M (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I read the second as something like "embodied". Ie, Patty was the embodiment of happiness. It could be taken as demeaning these days and may have been so to some extent even at the time. After all, science fiction was written for males. DCDuring (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fairlex Dictionary of Idioms has "Alive, as of cattle that have not yet been slaughtered." as one of their three definitions. That strikes me as an improvement on our first definition, reflecting modern extended use. It still doesn't quite fit the first example, though it is OK for the second. DCDuring (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the first example has nothing to do with talking about the men as if they were cattle. It means "without going into it in too much detail, without studying the numbers too accurately". It means it's just a rough guess or broad-brush estimate. 81.154.42.114 07:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That definition is UK. Heinlein does not seem to have been much influenced by UK speech. Moreover, when did that usage come into being in the UK? Starship Troopers, the novel was published in 1959 (movie loose adaptation 1997); Stranger in a Strange Land was published in 1961. DCDuring (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any use of the "impromptu; off the cuff" sense until after 1980 in the UK. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

On the hoof means "on the fly". The meaning of the second example is what I stated it as. You claim we would need to investigate how long the usage has been in the UK. I don't know how to investigate that, but if this usage is in a book from 1959, wherever that book was published, this usagew must have been around in 1959.81.154.42.114 19:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Find some evidence: unambiguous usage in that sense from before 1960 or a dictionary entry published before 1960. I couldn't. You could try the OED. DCDuring (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

We've found evidence from Starship Troopers. 81.154.42.114 08:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is circular reasoning. In cattle markets, you have a price “on the hoof”, which, by the pound, is considerably lower than for meat after butchering. How can we be sure that Sergeant Jelal does not use the term to emphasize that his high cost quote is actually on the low side?  --Lambiam 18:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In a Victorian novel I found a use of tide over to mean "endure" (as in "tide over a storm", "tide over a crisis"). This seems to have died off in the early 20th century in the west, but I was surprised to find many uses by Indian writers. For example, if you search google for "tide over this difficult situation" or "tide over the issue", basically all the results are Indian newspapers or papers/blogs written by Indian people. Similar situation on Google books. Just wondering if anyone familiar with Indian English can confirm that labelling the sense as such is accurate? (Or conversely, anyone who has this in their idiolect but doesn't speak Indian English?) Colin M (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I created both these with senses such as in "four-stroke engine", "four-stroke principle", "cross-ply tyre" listed as adjectives. I did feel that these were debatable at the time, though Oxford and Collins do list both as adjectives (not that I always trust their judgement in these matters). In contrast, we also presently have two-stroke in e.g. "two-stroke engine" as an attributive noun. What's the view on these? Mihia (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Two-stroke corresponds to the NP two strokes. The loss of the s is arguably a part of English morphology, so perhaps we don't need any entry for two-stroke, but it seems wrong to call it a noun when it does not follow number agreement, which would require two strokes. Something similar happens with cross-ply. It takes at least two plies to make an objective that is said to be cross-ply. IOW, adjective makes more sense to me than noun as word class. But if we, Oxford, and Collins didn't have entries for these, would any users be unable to figure the meaning of the expressions from their components? DCDuring (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

My answer to your last question is yes, very probably, and I feel happy that we should have some kind of entries for all these. I would say that this kind of change of number, generally speaking, is a regular feature of English that occurs because of reluctance to use plural attributive nouns, and can be seen also in cases that are unequivocally nouns, so may not be conclusive in itself, albeit, as you say, "two stroke" is not possible by itself. Going down the adjective route, if you look at, say, "two-stroke principle", one of the present usexes, it is hard to see that a principle can in any sense be two-stroke in a way that an engine can, even allowing for attributive-only adjectival use. But I can't bear thinking about having "two-stroke engine" as adjective and "two-stroke principle" as noun. That way madness lies. Mihia (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that it is attributive-only? I agree that it is unlikely to be comparable or gradable except in exceptional cases. But consider, eg, "whether the Diesel engine shall be two stroke or four stroke."; "In 1975, 42 % of the vehicles on the road were two-stroke, but in 1975, their number rose to 73%."; "A lot of dirtbikes are two-stroke."; "Slow-speed engines, up to 200 rpm, are two-stroke with separate combustion chamber and sump connected by a crosshead, with trunk and system oil lubricants for each.". I rest your case! DCDuring (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you are quite probably right that we should convert the main attributive "two-stroke" sense to adj., but the point is not quite rested, because my (last) point was about "two-stroke engine" versus "two-stroke principle", which is where I started, or at least continued, becoming confused. "Attributive-only" referred to the "principle" example: Yes, an engine can be "two-stroke", but let's look at the example "The majority of modern internal combustion engines are based on the four-stroke principle". Even if we could say that "the principle is four-stroke", it seems implausible to me that "four-stroke" could possibly be an adjective there. So, is "four-stroke" really a different PoS in "four-stroke engine" and "four-stroke principle" (contrary to the present examples at four-stroke)? Perhaps we have to accept that it is? Mihia (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I would very much like to dismiss the 4-stroke principle type of example as metonymy for the first sense. I think that is correct, but usually folks don't accept that kind of simplification. DCDuring (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. We do already have the sense "four-stroke = four-stroke engine" anyway; I wonder if it would be too much of a stretch to assign the "four-stroke principle" example to that? Generally speaking, this whole area seems to be somewhat of a rats' nest. For example, we could also look at something like "hydraulic principle". The principle is not in itself "hydraulic", so is "hydraulic" still an adjective? I would say quite possibly not. Anyway, I'll change the existing "attributive" sense of two-stroke to adjective, as you suggest, to at least cover the main uses as in e.g. "two-stroke engine". Mihia (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The entry for the Swedish noun ätstörning (eating disorder) classifies it as masculine. Is that correct? Terms on -ing, such as bokföring and rengöring, are usually classified as having common gender.  --Lambiam 12:08, March 2, 2021 (UTC)

Nouns are technically not divided into masculine or feminine in Swedish – ätstörning is common gender. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The masculine gender is dying but not yet dead. See Category:Swedish masculine nouns. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Not from a grammatical standpoint – Swedish has only the common and the neuter gender. That category is actually quite laughable ("cottage cheese"? An Anglicism, not even used outside of imported goods and by bad marketers). Practically all of the words in that category have the common gender. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the inflection gamle in the book title Den gamle och havet not grammatically determined by the masculine gender?  --Lambiam 22:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a difficult question: gamle has a common gender, but can only be used to refer to males. We have a grammatical gender and a "physical" gender to consider. --Robbie SWE (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to say "the big eating disorder", would it be den stora ätstörningen or den store ätstörningen? Based on the information I have I would say that it's appropriate to classify ätstörning as masculine if and only if den store ätstörningen is acceptable. Otherwise it should be common gender. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

en store ätstörningen is just not correct in contemporary Swedish – I just don't think you can genderise inanimate nouns. en store mannen – sure. en lille pojken – you bet. en starke spriten – not on your life. –-- Robbie SWE (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to common gender of ätstörning. I guess all of the words at https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Swedish_masculine_nouns should be changed similarly, at least those where masculine -e ending adjectives cannot be used to describe them. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Not all anymore, I added man and pojke to the masculine class for this reason. They follow the crosslinguistic definition of masculine. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathematical definitions are often inconsistent. Although sometimes digrafo/grafo direcionado and grafo orientado are treated as synonyms, some others they represent different objects. A digrafo represents a directed graph in the sense presented in Wikipedia, that is, they are graphs whose edges have direction associated with them. A grafo orientado is a digraph (as defined before and also with the sense presented in oriented graph of the Wikipedia page above), where an (a,b) pair implies there's no (b,a) pair. I would like to add these distinctions but I'm a bit confused how's the best way to do it. How do you think it's the best way to solve this situation? - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The Portuguese Wikipedia treats them as synonyms – although the article Digrafo is solely about the orthographic sense and fails to refer to the graph-theoretical sense. If they are not synonyms, I suggest that you first change this on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where people are more likely to search for the term than here. I think we ought to have an English entry for oriented graph, and then grafo orientado can be redefined as “oriented graph”, perhaps with a brief gloss such as “(a directed graph with at most one edge between any pair of vertices)” to avoid needless link clicking.  --Lambiam 21:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam Problem is that some authors treat them as synonyms and other give distinct definitions for the two. I could open a discussion in Portuguese Wikipedia to try settle terminology, but I don't think this ambiguity goes away with just that. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If both senses are used and attestable in durably archived media such as books or journal articles, we should simply list both: “1. ... / 2. ...”, like we do in general in such cases. For an example, see natural number. If the policies at the Portuguese Wikipedia are like at the English one, the different uses of this term should also be noted there.  --Lambiam 21:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I did my bachelor’s thesis on graphs, and all mentions of digrafo by my professors and texts that I can recall were as a synonym of grafo orientado and grafo direcionado. They never used the term, mind you -- it was only ever mentioned. No distinction between grafo orientado and direcionado was ever mentioned AFAIR.

But I do not doubt that it may exist; this kind of minor semantic distinction that is observed by some and not by others is common in technical terminology. A similar situation is found in camelo vs. dromedário where some speakers treat them as strictly distinct concepts and others treat the latter as a hyponym of the former.

Assuming both ways of using the set of terms pass the criteria for inclusion, the way I’d solve this is by adding a new definition to grafo direcionado along the lines of “(specifically) a graph that has such and such characterisitcs, ” and vice-versa. See also the qualifier to the synonym of mico for how I dealt with pointing to such a state of affairs (poorly perhaps? Suggestions welcome).

Incidentally, I advise against taking anything the Portuguese Wikipedia says about how any term is used at face value. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In both its academic and popular usage, the term "gayphobia" is used to refer primarily to the "Fear, dislike, or hatred of male homosexuals" (See: Your Dictionary, Find Words, Definify, Glosbe; Also: Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology p. 524, University of Lausanne anti-discrimination, The Dictionary of Homophobia, and Journal of Clinical & Developmental Psychology). Currently, both gayphobia and gayphobe privilege a more obscure definition: "Fear, dislike or hatred of gay people" rather than more specifically gay men. This less-used definition is only found in one source, an "Empowerment Series" text by Karen K. Kirst-Ashman. Wiktionary's definitions should match with both all other popular and academic definitions of these two terms. — This unsigned comment was added by RADICALFAIRY (talk • contribs) at 17:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC).

What we're interested in is how the word is actually used, not how other people have defined it. If the word "in the wild" is always used to refer to the fear/hatred of gay men only, then that's how we'll define it. If it's used more generally as a synonym of homophobia, then that's how we'll define it. If it's used in both senses (e.g. in the first sense by some writers and in the second by others), then we'll include both senses in our definition. I would recommend gathering evidence of real-world usage at Citations:gayphobia and seeing what turns up. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I added a few. RADICALFAIRY (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Basically all instances of the term I found "in the wild" refer to gayphobia as "the fear/hatred of gay men only." What now? RADICALFAIRY (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I was going to suggest what I see Mahagaja has already correctly done, which is move the gay-man-specific sense up from being a subsense. :) (Side not, the one "broad" cite we have so far hints at the broad meaning "gay" has long been able to have in some cases, by which it includes not only e.g. bi but sometimes even trans, which is widespread informally when e.g. bi or pan people talk about being so "gay", but which is tedious to find clear cites for. I brought that up on Talk:gay earlier wrongly assuming it was dated.) - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Attributive use of two-stroke and four-stroke is clearly not limited to the specific phrases two-stroke engine and four-stroke engine, and, with the attributive senses covered at the former, the latter are seen to be redundant, and I have made them redirects (which I dislike doing, but that's another story). However, this has thrown up the issue of what to do with the translations formerly at two-stroke engine and four-stroke engine. As it happens, one of the meanings of two/four-stroke is two/four-stroke engine, so in a superficial way the translations can go at two/four-stroke, which is where I have for now plonked them, but to me this seems illogical, since the translations are translations of two/four-stroke engine, not two/four-stroke used in the sense of two/four-stroke engine, if you get my drift. What to do with this? Is it worth creating "translation hub" entries at two/four-stroke engine, or is that overkill? What do you think? Mihia (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• OK, well since there have been no comments, I have reinstated two-stroke engine and four-stroke engine just to host the existing translations. Anyone thinks these articles are redundant, please feel free to refer them to RFD. Mihia (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be more a gloss of the Persian rather than an explanation of how it is used in English.

The OED has two relevant entries:

• "A country with a name ending in -stan; a central Asian country, esp. a republic which was formerly part of the Soviet Union." (for stan)
• "(frequently humorous) Used as the second element in fictitious place names with the sense 'the notional realm or domain dominated by or centred around—', 'a world typified or characterized by—'", giving examples like Somewherestan.

I think the OED's definitions still miss cases like Londonistan, but it's clearly much better than what is currently at -stan.--Tibidibi (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Our definition is poor. Is -stan productive in a serious sense in English? Most of the contents of Category:English words suffixed with -stan are borrowings rather than English formations, e.g. Dagestan can be explained as a borrowing from Turkish داغستان. Londonistan, an English coinage, is informal. If it is part of a pattern it might suggest a meaning "place with people we associate with the stans." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum, somewherestan and whereverstan also seem (if barely) attestable (also perhaps nowherestan), where “-stan” probably means “exotic country”, and there are some back-formations from bantustan as well. In addition, I think most English speakers would analyze e.g. “Afghanistan” as “Afghan-i-stan”, so the geographic “-stan” is an English suffix in a synchronic sense.--Tibidibi (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Middle Low German kunst originally meant knowledge, skill, and related concepts.(1) But its borrowings (Danish kunst, Estonian kunst, Norwegian Bokmål kunst) mean principally art, which I take to mean something artistic as opposed to a fancy synonym of expertise. High German shows a similar development, from primarily about knowledge and skill in Old High German(2) to primarily art in modern German.

(1) "Können, Vermögen, Fähigkeit, geistige Tätigkeit, Beschlagenheit, Wissen, Kenntnis, Gelehrsamkeit, Geschicklichkeit, Fertigkeit, Handwerkskunst, kunstvolles Werk, handwerklich vollkommenes Werk, mechanische Vorrichtung zur Beförderung (zum Wasserschöpfen)" (Köbler)

(2) "Kenntnis, Wissen, Vermögen, Fähigkeit, Können, Fertigkeit, Verständnis, Kunst; knowledge, ability" (Köbler)

Was the art meaning around a thousand years ago, or did it develop in parallel in several languages? (I recall seeing a lot of Plautdietsch translations added but I forget who did it. Whoever added them might have some insight on the inherited sense from Middle Low German.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Latin ars has the same dual meaning, as does Ancient Greek τέχνη (tékhnē). Historically, there was no clear distinction between being an artist and being an artisan. Today's stricter separation probably grew in tandem all over Europe.  --Lambiam 02:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also always the possibility of semantic loans: if τέχνη (tékhnē) develops a second sense, then ars may develop the same second sense, and if ars develops a second sense, then kunst may develop the same second sense, and so on. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

However, in all uses the term referred to the skill, profession or activity, not to the product thereof. A question like “But is it art?” is not translatable to Ancient Greek or Classical Latin because the modern concept did not exist. Cicero would have understood the statement hoc non est enim ars as meaning “this is not really a skill”.  --Lambiam 17:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

2. Without customary restraint or modesty; bold, cheeky, pert, presumptuous or pushy.

4. Ready; prompt; ardently inclined; in a bad sense, eager or hasty.

Anyone recognise #4, as distinct from #2, as being in modern use? Present citations are from c. 1600. If not, I will label it obsolete. Mihia (talk)

• I don't recognize the ready sense (except in military use, where physical forward deployment is associated with being more ready). If you call it obsolete I would remove the part after the last semicolon, which is the same as sense 2. And rearrange chronologically. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I've labelled it obsolete. If a modern use later occurs to someone, please un-obsolete it and add a modern example. Mihia (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a difference between the adjectives perseverant and persevering ? Thx Jona (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

To me, persevering is more specific: it implies a continual effort in the face of adversity. One can be perseverant by being obstinate, not requiring an effort, and also by continuing to work till a problem is solved or the work is done – which does require effort, but not an effort in a context of adversity.  --Lambiam 02:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

The conjugation table for almak gives alıyorlardı as the form for the 3rd person plural of the direct past imperfective. For other persons the forms follows the regular -du + -m, -n, -, -k, -niz. However, another website gives alıyordular. I asked one native speaker (young adult) who also naturally said alıyordular but told me the other one (alıyorlardı) was also possible and more common, and probably more correct.

There's the same thing with alırlarmış vs alırmışlar. As a matter of comparison, Azerbaijani, Wiktionary gives the "regular" form "alırmışlar" for almaq.

In both cases, forms not ending with -lar have way more results on Google:

• "alıyorlardı": About 495,000 results
• "alıyordular": About 1,740 results
• "alırlarmış": About 22,700 results
• "alırmışlar": About 2,980 results
• "ediyorlardı": About 2,050,000 results
• "ediyordular": About 6,330 results
• "yapıyorlardı": About 997,000 results
• "yapıyordular": About 4,250 results

So is alıyordular a "mistake"? A colloquial spoken form? Is its usage rising?

(Also: there's a bug in the conjugation table of etmek for the indirect aorist tense)

Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The nl wiktionary gives both yapıyorlardı and yapıyordular. If both forms are used this could be a solution for the English wiktionary. We could have "yapıyorlardı (formal), yapıyordular (colloquial)" in the table. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The Turkish Wiktionary only gives yapıyordular. Sometimes it gives the two forms: yaparsalar and yaparlarsa for instance. Same for gitmek and gelmek. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Tahir Nejat Gencan in Dilbilgisi published by TDK in 1979 also gives both forms (i.e. "geliyorsalar — geliyorlarsa" and "geliyordular — geliyorlardı" on page 362 but without any explanation... A455bcd9 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

According to an instructional YouTube video for the definite past tense -lardı, -dılar, and -dı are all correct for the third person plural, i.e. -lar is optional and -dı can come before or after. The same flexibility appears to be present here. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Vox Sciurorum. I tried to look at other books and scholar articles. "Yabancılar için Türkçe-İngilizce açıklamalı Türkçe dersleri", by Kaya Can, 1991, says: "In the third person plural 'geliyorlardı' is more frequently used instead of 'geliyordular'" (read online). Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics : 12-14 August 1992, says the same (read online). This article says: "Sometimes person suffix and second tense suffix may interchange their positions in the verbal inflectional structure depicted in Figure 2 (‘geliyorlardı’ = ‘geliyordular’)." but without explaining why. Studies in Turkish Linguistics, 1986, provides a potential explanation: "Cites Turkish examples such as geliyordular, geliyorlardı, geldiydim, geldimdi. Makes an interesting suggestion that the origin of such pairs lies in the ambiguity of the 3rd sg.: geldiydi may be gel + di + di + 0 or gel + di + 0 + di." Anyway based on all these sources and what you said, and as I can't find anything else I suggest to have both forms in the conjugation table. We could add "rare" after the least frequent one (based on aforementioned sources, confirmed by Google). What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Another hypothesis (mine) is that the less regular order of the suffixes seen in alıyordular developed under the influence of such verb forms as sordular (a form of sormak), where this is the obligatory order; *sorlardı is just not possible.  --Lambiam 15:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lewis (Turkish Grammar, p. 109) adds “(alıyordular)” between parentheses below “alıyorlardı”.  --Lambiam 16:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lambiam, is sormak especially relevant or do you just give it as an example? Aren't all direct past perfective forms in -dılar? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing special; I picked it to make the similarity more apparent, with both this specific perfective form and the irregular imperfective forms having an ...ordular ending. But aldılar works as well to make the point (for people knowing some Turkish).  --Lambiam 16:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Betseg.  --Lambiam 15:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi yes it's me native Turkish speaker with an İstanbul accent mixed with a bit of an Aegean accent. Putting -lar at the end (like "alıyordular") feels a bit awkward, and my Firefox puts a red underline on it, though I have noticed that Eastern accents are more likely to use the -lar at the end? I'm not really sure.

Also yes I did a bot and a new Turkish conjugation template that was supposed to be better etc but uni got in the way. If everything is still ok can I do the thing this weekend? --Betseg (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bot vote --Betseg (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, if you have a new Turkish conjugation template that's amazing! Many forms are missing in the current one, especially imperative and "şart" form with "sa"/"if", can't wait to see the result :) The native speaker I asked is of Georgian + Rize descent and the -lar ending seems the most common in Azerbaijani, and you noticed it more among Eastern accents, so it's probably an Eastern feature. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What do Wiktionarians think we should have? I tried to make out a pattern when linking such terms when creating measure names, the last four years. We have unit of measure, weight measure, dry measure, liquid measure. As I speak we do not have square measure, linear measure, field measure, solid measure, area measure, areal measure, which have been good English. I assessed that it does not make a difference whether an adjective or compounded noun precedes the word measure or there is a prepositional expression with “of”, e.g. unit of distance, unit of mass, unit of angle or unit of area, which @Metaknowledge recently unlinked as SOP. Some of these seem more idiomatic, as in better English, than reverse expressions; not only that it is a paradox that we employ in the dictionary the term unit of currency but only have monetary unit.

All can be reckoned as sums-of-their-parts expressions, on the other hand they are necessary idiomatic designations of things, often having not-so-obvious translations, that is to say at least one seeks such entries because one asks oneself or wants to make sure what the idiomatic term in a foreign language is. However there is a bode that owing to measures for specific fields having been so common we may not run out of supply of such names: corn measure, wine measure, beer measure, apothecary weight, apothecary's weight. Delete all or take all attested? For German we have to take all anyway because d'oh it’s written together. More alluringly, there are lemmings for the less specific ones. Fay Freak (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything non-SoP in the present entries for unit of measure, weight measure or unit of measurement, though the definition of the last of these seems odd to me anyway. I guess dry measure could survive if it is specifically a unit of volume (rather than weight) (or maybe in any case?). Mihia (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I accept the transcription as given, as some minor points are not noted in phonological or broad transcription. But when I say this word there is no d.The d assimilates to v by place of articulation, and becomes labiodental. There is an IPA symbol for a voiced labiodental plosive, which is . See https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Voiced_labiodental_plosive . So what I came up with is . I think there are people who don't assimilate - assimilation seems always to be optional in English, as you can always pronounce things closer to the spelling, but in natural, running colloquial English, that is the pronunciation I would use.81.154.42.114 08:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

When I say it, I have the and the labiodental stop simultaneously, so for me, it would be . I don't think this kind of extremely narrow phonetic transcription is of any use whatsoever in a dictionary, though. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As an avid language learner, I disagree. It's very useful to know when certain sounds are assimilated into other sounds, and how. It's tough to find this information too, so having it in entries would be quite useful. If you're trying to sound more like a native speaker, this is one of the things that will make all the difference in the world and is not intuitive to non-linguists. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mahagaja. If anything is certain here, no evidence has been presented that substantiates an even "minor-use" /ˈɑ(ɹ)b̪.vɑ(ɹ)k/ pronunciation like that mentioned in 81.154.42.114's comment. We ought not to list trivial realisations that a tiny number of people (potentially!) may have of a word.

There ought to be a purpose in us listing a pronunciation. Wiktionary might not be a paper dictionary (and thus not limited by said format with regard to how much it can contain) but it is also not an exhaustive library of every possible realisation of every possible word in every language.

In other words, the pronunciation sections of most entries ought not to have loads upon loads of narrow transcriptions following (a) broad transcription(s). Tharthan (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Tharthan, are you saying that I do **not** pronounce the word the way I said? I stated in the opening comment that **that was my pronunciation**. I didn't make wider claims - although living in England, I can tell you for nothing that many/most do assimilate in such environments. It's anecdotal, but the only reason why it is only anecdotal is that all dictionaries have only broad transcriptions, and so you wouldn't know either way by consulting, e.g. the OED. As a broad transcription, you could then infer that many speakers will assimilate "on the fly", and produce an actual realisation that isn't exactly what the dictionary said. Where is my evidence that most speakers say "im bed" and "in bed"? No dictionary says so.... By the way, I **did** agree with Mahagaja that a dictionary should not contain very narrow transcriptions (unless a specialised dictionary aiming to give narrow transcriptions, for which there might be a minor use). I only reply because you here insinuate that I don't have the pronunciation that I do have, or that if I do, no-one else does.81.154.42.114 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@81.154.42.114 My point was that—your own pronunciation notwithstanding—what you describe does not appear to be a dialectal difference or anything of that kind, but rather an incredibly minor pronunciation that would really only occur on an idiolectal level. Thus, not the kind of pronunciation that is fit for a dictionary. Tharthan (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a minor detail that doesn't need to be in a dictionary, but it is ignorant for you to claim that such assimilation is merely idiolectal. Assimilation is normal colloquial pronunciation. Most people in England assimilate in the way I set out, just as most say "im bed" without realising it. I can accept that Mahagaja assimilates in a different way, by combining the d with a labiodental stop, and if so, I doubt he'd be the only one who did that. It is just wrong to keep on implying that I am the only native speaker who assimilates.81.154.42.114 19:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Strange definition given as "A rare surname of Jupiter." What could be meant? I didn't know that the inhabitants of Jupiter had surnames... Oxlade2000 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The OED has a definition (1b), which it says is obsolete: "a second or alternative name". 81.154.42.114 09:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a surname of an inhabitant of the planet Jupiter, it's a "surname" (better: "byname" or "epithet") of the Roman god Jupiter. He was probably called Jupiter Urius when worshiped in a specific location or in a specific function. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I made an ad hoc category for divine epithets in Egyptian a while ago because there’s so many of them; would it be worthwhile to generalize this and throw :Divine epithets or somesuch in the category tree module? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

English resident of Scotland for 10+ years here: I've noticed that particularly when pronouncing some counties, such as 'Aberdeenshire', many speakers rhyme '-shire' as-suffix with 'shire' as-standalone, i.e. /ʃaɪə(ɹ)/ in both cases. There's a couple of online discussions stating this. I suspect there's regional variation here (particularly say NE Scotland, as suggested by responses to this Reddit post). Would be good to incorporate if anyone knows better. Pechark (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Added some stuff. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Inclined to act in a way or enjoy things characteristic of a younger person. With his office cluttered with various cartoon character paraphernalia, Mr. Jones was considered quite young at heart by his co-workers." I think the definition is rather missing the point, and the usage example is misleading. Being young at heart doesn't mean being puerile, or attached to kiddy things; it means having more youthful joy and vitality, e.g. still able to dance and romance — right? Equinox ◑ 15:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Right. Mihia (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Well, I've changed it. Equinox ◑ 20:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Containing stuff like conjugatedst. Should that be there? Was that word ever used? Equinox ◑ 17:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Conjugatedst does not exist according to Google (one mention, no uses). Regular English verbs should not have conjugation tables. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Okay. Deleted. Equinox ◑ 18:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thou deletedst conjugatedst? Mihia (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Meh. I find it strange we have big tables of German or French (etc) conjugated forms, including ones that aren't so common anymore, but are like "lol, if you want to know how a verb in the language we're written in and which we cover most extensively conjugated earlier in the modern English era, like in the era of some of the language's most famous writers like Shakespeare, tough". (Also, I think it's suboptimal from a tracking/organization standpoint for the entries on the inflected forms to not be linked-to from the main entries, when exceedingly rare obsolete alternative spellings are linked to.) I agree we shouldn't give archaic forms of verbs that didn't have them, though. At least we have Appendix:English verbs to document the patterns. (Could we link to this from each verb entry somehow, the way we have that little "dot" link before transliterations to the pages that explain our transliteration schemes? which even veteran editors have said they never realized was there / was a link...) - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• It always makes me chuckle to see the conjugation at give a shit. I added a full conjugation table to fuck someone's brains out too, for the lulz Oxlade2000 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Sammimack (talk • contribs) added these. I think they are rubbish and should be deleted. The headword line is sufficient for all verbs except be, which has special treatment. 120.150.121.92 08:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Presently the exact same usage, as in "some years back" or "many years back", is listed as both a postposition and an adverb at back. Which should it be? ago also has both adverb and postposition sections, but it is unclear how they are supposed to differ, especially given that there are no usage examples for the adverb. Mihia (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

According to WT:AEN#Parts of Speech there's consensus to use "preposition" for all adpositions (though that consensus seems to be based on a thinly discussed post 12 years ago). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language talks about this phenomenon on pg. 632 (in relation to ago and on). Some relevant bits:

it is syntactically highly exceptional... Traditional grammar classifies ago as an adverb, but on the basis that it takes a complement we analyse it as a preposition, in accordance with the criteria given in §2.4.

Colin M (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As much as I like CGEL (2002), I don't think that most normal users view "preposition" as a word class appropriate for words above that are called "postpositions". I also don't believe that normal users view "postposition' as a word class. It is more of a term that would have to be looked up and that they don't recall having seen in other dictionaries or in school. "Adverb" seems good enough. Unique features of the grammar can be addressed in labels and usage notes. Innovation in linguistic terminology does not belong in our header, IMHO. As headwords, in all their novelty, variety, and overlap, we need them. As names for categories, I'm not so sure. as labels, generally not. In usage notes, OK, but the variety of terminology can make the note hard to understand. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Our fundamental goal is to provide explanations useful to a wide variety of users, who, if youngish, may have learned any of a number of groups of novel terms for word classes, but who, young or old, almost always have been exposed to the traditional parts of speech. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your premises, though I would take it even further. I think if you did a survey of Wiktionary readers, maybe 15% would be able to tell you what an adverb is, and 1% would be able to define a preposition. Especially in tricky cases like this where e.g. a word has some properties in common with prototypical adverbs and some properties in common with prototypical prepositions, our choice of PoS header will have almost no effect on what the reader takes away from the entry - it's really all about having good usexes/quotes, and, to a lesser extent, usage notes. So if we take it as given that our choice of header is of no consequence to the average reader, why not break the tie according to what will be more helpful for the exceptional reader who does have an understanding of or interest in the ins and outs of grammar? Calling CGEL "Innovation in linguistic terminology" might be overstating it - it's 20 years old now! According to Google Scholar it's been cited >7,000 times. Colin M (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Has the linguistic community universally adopted CGEL's categories? I think not. There is a steady of terminological innovation, most of which does not take hold in works of general reference. Should we accept one of the CGEL's as a definitive authority? Should we have accepted Jespersen? No one ever followed him terminology. What about Poutsma or {{w|George O. Curme|Curme]]? Which version of Chomsky, or Halliday, or Croft? The newest innovation in word classes that we have adopted is determiner, invented in the 1930s by Bloomfield. Even that has not been universally adopted by all commercially successful dictionaries. DCDuring (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Further, I don't think that dictionaries are a very useful way of learning grammar at the level of word class and phrase, clause, and discourse structure. Dictionaries can be useful in certain ares of grammar: the recording of grammatical features that are limited to unique terms or small (usually closed) sets of terms. DCDuring (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• While we're here, we should probably also review the other members of Category:English_postpositions, as well as other lists of (alleged) English postpositions, such as at https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:English_postpositions. Unfortunately I just don't have a clear feel for this at all -- I mean whether these words are adverbs or some other animal. ahead and before are others not on either of these lists. I mean, is e.g. "a forecast of the average inflation rate for the period five to ten years ahead" (randomly Googled) any different from "ago"? Mihia (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• An important difference is that the "five to ten years" is syntactically optional. i.e.

"a forecast of the average inflation rate for the period ahead"

...is grammatical, but these are not:

"a forecast of the average inflation rate for the period ago"

"a forecast of the average inflation rate for the period back"

It's for this reason that CGEL classifies the "five to ten years" as a complement in the cases of ago/back/on, but as a modifier in a case like ahead. In terms of classification, CGEL describes ahead as a preposition that cannot take an NP complement (alongside many others like upstairs, away, apart, or indoors). It gives reasons for this that I find compelling. For example, all these words can be a complement to the verb to be ("John is ahead", "The party is indoors"), whereas adverbs do not permit this ("John is exceedingly", "The party is naturally"). Colin M (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Where the "important difference" is concerned, I considered that myself actually, but at the moment I don't buy it. Really it is only coincidence, or at least not relevant to the actual comparison that I mentioned, that "the period ahead" also works, since the bracketing in the original case is "the period ", where "five years ahead" is a phrase apparently exactly parallel to "five years ago". On the other, difficult point of "he is upstairs/indoors/etc.", I think presently we avoid or don't know what to do with these, or are not consistent. Could be analogous also to "he is back", below. Mihia (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Another awkward case of back. Presently we list uses such as "now he's back" as adverbial. Dictionaries seem to vary, and some seem to almost skirt the issue, or at any rate not emphasise it. Lexico has e.g. "he loved being back in his normal daily routine" and "sideburns are back" as adverb examples. Cambridge has "having returned to a previous place or condition" as an adjective definition, and M-W likewise "having returned or been returned", though neither with actual examples, these seem to mean the "now he's back" type of usage. Any thoughts? Mihia (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is similar to the issue above. Old-school grammar will analyse these as adverbs, on the theory that prepositions must take a noun phrase complement. But this leads to (arguably) an unnecessary mess where, e.g. down is said to be an adverb in "She went down to the basement", but a preposition in "We went down the mountain". The more modern linguistic take is that prepositions need not license an NP complement, hence CGEL would classify back as a preposition in all these cases.

A good reason to reject the adverb label is that adverbs generally can't be used predicatively with to be. "Now he's back" vs. "Now he's fortunately" / "Now he's again". Also, if something can be modified by "right" or "straight" it's probably a preposition rather than an adverb ("right back to the start" / "right under there" / "straight past the sign" vs. "right totally" / "right aloud").

A good reason to reject the adjective label is that back can't be used attributively ("It's a back hairstyle"), and doesn't accept degree modifiers ("Now he's too back" / "Sideburns are more back than mullets"). Colin M (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree that adjective and adverb are both problematic for "he is back". Unfortunately, for me, preposition is more impossible than problematic, since I see no connection whatsoever with the normal meaning of the term. Mihia (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well if you're able to get ahold of a copy of CGEL, maybe their argument will change your mind, or at least be of interest. Another very readable source is Oxford Modern English Grammar (specifically section 3.7.2 on what they call "intransitive prepositions"). Online sources on this topic are not great, but this short blog post on the topic is pretty good. Colin M (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything there exactly analogous to e.g. "He is back", with the "be" verb. As far as the examples such as "Rivera looked up" and "I saw him before" are concerned, where an "intransitive" word is said to be a preposition, the only evidence they offer is that you can say e.g. "looked straight up" and "saw him right before", but you can also say "shot straight upwards" and "saw him right afterwards", so are "upwards" and "afterwards" also prepositions? Also, look at all the existing adverb examples at back, and see how many of those can take "straight" and/or "right". Are all those prepositions too? Mihia (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Just further on this topic, I think there is more of a case for us to treat these words as prepositions when there is a clear implied object. A case that came up a while ago was "vote for/against", and whether we really need adverb senses separate from the prepositional "vote for/against the proposal". Mihia (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, views sought on PoS of "back" in "I left my keys back at the hotel" and "This is how they did things back in 1900". Is everyone happy that these are adverbs? Mihia (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes these Prep+Prep combinations like "back at" or "back in" are treated atomically as one "complex" (or compound) preposition. We have many examples already in Category:English prepositions, like ahead of, across from, and indeed even back in. Generally prepositions can be mixed quite freely in English (in back of, back under, back with, back before...). Whether it's correct to analyze a given combination as a distinct compound preposition may depend on the degree to which the combination is fossilized. Is it possible to drive them apart, as in "The hotel at which I left my keys back", or "The rest of the family is back at the hotel and at the park"? For wiktionary purposes, another relevant question is whether the combination can still be understood based on the sum of its parts. back under can surely be understood this way, but something like as to is clearly idiomatic. Colin M (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, for sure, some such combinations may be too idiomatic for the meanings of individual words to be easily extracted. To my mind, though, the meaning of "back" in e.g. "I left my keys back at the hotel", "This is how they did things back in 1900", and similar combinations, is surely separable since it adds a clearly identifiable sense to "I left my keys at the hotel", "This is how they did things in 1900". Mihia (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

On this page, someone has stated "дѵна́мо (dinámo) – Pre-reform orthography (1918)". It'd be interesting to know why. The letter ѵ corresponds to the Greek letter upsilon, and in English a "y" often denotes a derivation from upsilon. But in the pre-1918 period the letter was almost entirely confined to мѵрръ and сѵнодъ, "myrrh" and "synod", possibly because they are religious words where use is reinforced by Old Church Slavonic?? There may be a literal handful of very rare words (two or three) that could have rarely had ѵ, but most words deriving from upsilon did not use ѵ. Words like цилиндр "cylinder", are given in Dahl's dictionary (the famous pre-revolutionary dictionary) without ѵ. Динамо itself is not given in that Dictionary, but you can find динамика, "dynamic(s)", without ѵ. See the Wikisource transcription at ТСД2/Динамика/ДО and the image at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Толковый_словарь_Даля_(1-е_издание)._Часть_1_(1863).pdf/page390-1024px-Толковый_словарь_Даля_(1-е_издание)._Часть_1_(1863).pdf.jpg 81.154.42.114 11:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The question is (I think) whether this spelling can be attested as having actually been used. We also have ѵпостась (ipostasʹ), whose historic use can be attested. The archaic use of сѵмвол may be contrived.  --Lambiam 16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It is a question over attestation. Logically, you could, e.g. if the old script was brought back, recommend using izhitsa wherever upsilon was found in Greek, and then the number of words with it would rise substantially. At some point, Russian spelling doesn't dovetail with Greek, partly because some words were taken from French. Eg. гипотез hypothesis - this was borrowed maybe from French, but had it been borrowed from Greek directly it could have been ѵпoѳесисъ. So at some point, the Greek-style spellings break down in Russian.81.154.42.114 20:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we get more eyes/input on Talk:gay? Inqvisitor changed gay from attraction to the same "sex or gender" to just "sex"; I undid this, as it's trivial/routine to find uses of gay for people or relationships where it is gender which is referred to, and indeed, when gender and assigned sex differ, applying gay by sex instead (e.g. saying a trans man dating a cis man is not gay but straight) is offensive. (It also often comes from inconsistent people; men who think a cis man dating a trans woman is gay often also call a cis man having sex with a cis woman gay, if the woman uses a strapon, and famously ask "fellas, is it gay to..." about a other things; other transphobes claim a cis woman dating a trans woman is not gay but straight, but often also say two trans women dating each other aren't gay either; etc. As Colin put it on Talk:gay, most disagreement over whether a cis woman dating a trans woman is gay is not over whether gay refers only to sex or also to gender, it's "upstream" of that, it's over whether trans women are women.)
Inqvisitor argues homosexual contains sex, and that some survey reported most gay people thought they dated by sex and not gender. (Also, some comments against "Anglophiles" I didn't follow given that we were both editing an English entry on the English Wiktionary.) I regard the first argument as etymological fallacy (and not even based on the etymology of gay, but of another, etymologically unrelated word, lol, which can be improved next, it being also offensive to apply it on the basis of sex rather than gender), and the second as accidentally demonstrating that even in a slanted, controversial survey, roughly a tenth of respondants still recognized and told the surveyer they'd date someone of the same gender but opposite sex.
IMO, the most cogent argument for just "sex" might be that most trans women or men respectively (IME) also describe themselves as female or male respectively and list (or, where prevented from doing so, want to list) their sex as matching their gender, etc, so while I think it's much clearer and better to say "sex or gender", if people prefer concision, a usex/quote about a gay trans person or relationship could illustrate the scope half as well. Among lemmings, Dictionary.com has "sex or gender", some other dictionaries have only "sex" (also typically being much less complete than our entry in other ways), and others define gay in a way that doesn't directly use either "sex" or "gender". - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your intention here is not to discuss a dictionary entry, but to push a Woke point of view. Gay men are attracted to real biological men. Of course they're not attracted to women with breasts and vaginas who claim to feel like men. 81.154.42.114 20:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Some gay men are attracted to trans men, even if they do have vaginas; just like some straight men are attracted to trans women, even if they do have penises. Granted, in both cases, the attraction is stronger if the trans person has been taking hormones and has had top surgery so the overall body shape and hirsuteness matches that of the person's gender identity rather than sex assigned at birth, but still, it's true that gay men are attracted to people whose gender identity is male, even if they're AFAB. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Mahagaja, I don't think that is true. I am gay and know what I'm talking about. You are just retailing extreme propaganda there. No gay man who is not bisexual would ever be attracted to a female body. And I do condemn the extremism here - this has nothing to do with a dictionary definition. The logic of your extreme statement is to wipe gay men out of existence entirely. There is no such thing as "sex assigned at birth" - there is real biological sex, which is the basis of the gay identity. 81.154.42.114 15:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Uhhh... you do realize that Mahagaja is (very openly) gay, right? So he could just as easily say: "I am gay and know what I'm talking about." That's the problem with ad hominem (in this case positive rather than negative) argumentation: it pins things on incidental circumstances that may not be as you think they are. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, so am I and I find his comment offensive -and deliberately designed to be so. You say you have a problem with "ad hominem", but say nothing of the posts dripping with insincerity made by people who are using political issues just to advertise presumed "virtue". The virtue signallers have no virtue, of course, but that is another issue. No sex is not assigned at birth. Listening to you, you would ask a father, "was it a boy or a girl?" and he would say, "how could you tell? there was a penis, but what does that show?" This was all cause by sche who tried to veer this discussion into far left cultural war politics - which is not what this board is for. We need to condemn such people as vocally as possible. 81.154.42.114 16:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, can't you discuss this with civism? First, there's no reason for you to be insulted, Chuck Entz rightly pointed out that you being gay and therefore you know what you are talking about is a fallacy (I wouldn't say "positive ad hominem", but an outright appeal to authority). Second, accusing whoever has a different opinion of you of engaging in "far left cultural wars" and other appeals to motive aren't helpful either. You might have a point and you might even be right, but you aren't discussing anything logically, coherently, or with the respect Wiktionary deserves. So please, if you indeed are trying to improve the project, as I believe you are, express your arguments politely and with no insults or fallacies. - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Let be be clear again. If Mahagaja is claiming to be gay and to be attracted to women.... then he is not fully gay. It's that simple. It degrades a dictionary to be re-editing entries with the sole objective of inserting culture war crap. We don't all live in California!81.154.42.114 16:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Too bad we're not all fortunate enough to live in California – if you’ve never been, let me tell you, life would be so much easier and the weather definitely better. Joke aside, the only person politicising this subject as I see it, is you. Sexuality is a spectrum – Wiktionary is neither the place nor the right authority to exclude people and how they choose to describe themselves. Mind you, there are straight people out there who feel a strong sexual attraction to both sexes, but would never describe themselves as being gay or bi. And you know what? That's ok, there's enough space under the rainbow flag for everyone, even you. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase a bard, there are more things on earth than are dreamt of in your ideology. I don't know that people need to disclose their specific sexual preferences—if you want to, sure, but I don't think anyone disputes that some gay people exclude trans people. Some gay people date "no fats, no fems" but I don't think the definition should be "attracted to thin people of the same " or even "attracted to people, especially conventionally attractive people, of ", lol.
As an aside, beyond the lack of awareness that goes into saying nothing against one person repeatedly editing the entry with the idea that it should be exclusionary, but calling edits to conserve an earlier state "culture war"—not much different, I suppose, from the common wiki tendency to think only "the other person" is edit-warring, heh—it's also amusing to see arguments about who is truly gay made in a trans-exclusionary direction, when other trans-exclusionary folks do things like be political lesbians while only attracted to men, or this (hey, it's her life, she can identify and marry how she likes). - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Heavens, how did I miss this whole discussion after my comment from 3 days ago? Anyway, yes I am gay (not bi, not pan, gay), and I am not attracted to women, but I am attracted to (some) trans men, even if they haven't had a phalloplasty. I'm attracted to men, not dicks – maybe this because I'm a top and so am more interested in guys' butts than their dicks anyway, and trans guys' butts are just as nice as cis guys'. Yes, they have to have undergone a certain amount of masculinization (mastectomy, testosterone therapy), but they're still people who were assigned female at birth, and being attracted to them doesn't make me less gay. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The IP is proving Colin's point on the talk page that what is disputed is not really whether gay refers also to gender or only to sex, but whether trans men are men, which is "upstream" of this. (It is also a reminder that we could theoretically side-step the issue by not using "sex" or "gender" and just defining it in terms of e.g. "being a man attracted to other men, or a woman attracted to other women" or the like, if we felt that would be better.) - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a definition like "being a man attracted to other men, or a woman attracted to other women" is something that I've thought about, and I would 100% support it if only it weren't so wordy and awkward-sounding. But my feeling is that when people read "members of the same sex", they will mentally identify that with man+man or woman+woman. In the same way that same-sex is used as a synonym for gay/homosexual, and (at least in my idiolect) would be perfectly natural to apply to a relationship between a trans man and a cis man. To me, the academic meaning of sex (as contrasted with gender) only comes to mind when it's placed in the disjunction "sex or gender". Colin M (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, wordiness is a downside to that, and I do like the existing "...attracted to the same..." format. (Let's for sure avoid "Examples being a male androphile or a female gynephile." LOL.) And yeah, as I said above, I've thought about whether it would suffice to leave "sex"; maybe let usage examples/quotes illustrate things. Maybe so. It makes me think of how certain people chant "woman = adult human female" because they think it excludes trans women, but I don't know any trans woman who feels that such a definition actually excludes them, since they are adult human females. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Meanings of gay, etc., with "sex" replaced by "gender" are neologisms that deserve separate senses. Remember that last generation's radical feminist is this generation's TERF. (See also this month's Twitch womxn controversy.) Essentially everybody in the 20th century, and somewhere from a large minority to a large majority today, does not care about gender in the modern sense when saying gay. They mean men with XY chromosome pairs and penises attracted to and/or physically involved with other men with those. We shouldn't be putting concepts in their mouths. When a man counts as bi vs. gay is a separate issue which I don't think there ever was linguistic consensus on. And whether to call women gay is a third. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The things some people think they use chromosomes for amuse me... most have never had theirs tested to know what they are, and I've never seen someone demand a date or stranger take a chromosome test before deciding if they find the stranger attractive (it'd be weird, and not how attraction works).
I would argue against separate senses. I think more users of the word conceive of the debate as being over the definition of the orientation/word (and it being "changed", "redefined", etc) than as the existence of 2-3+ valid senses only one of which they use, and I think it's sensible to view it like that—as a question of parameters (which differ with regard to only a few people, most having the same sex and gender), rather than as 2-3+ orientations/senses. I don't think senses would be practically distinguishable: for fifty cites along the lines of "as a gay man, I'm only into other men", we track the authors down and ask if they include trans men, and the same sentence and general orientation becomes one definition if they do, a second if they go based on current body / penis, a third if they go on assumed chromosomes and exclude postop trans men, etc? (Why not split based on whether they're "no fats, no fems, no Asians" gays or not, too? Whether they exclude fat people or Asians has a way bigger effect on who they date than whether they exclude trans men.)
Debate over what determines gender/sex extends language-wide, too: do we also split boy, lady, actress, she, etc to not "put concepts in the mouths" of people who don't view (e.g.) Laverne Cox as an actress or she vs those who do? (Do we split Jesus based on if a speaker considers him divine vs a prophet and historical vs fictitious, Christian based on if the speaker excludes Mormons, etc?) Let's not; people have different ideas of the attributes of things (even, as in the religious examples, stridently insisting Mormons aren't true Christians / true Scotsmen, etc) without it requiring lots of sense-splitting. - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Gay is not like Jesus. Richard Dawkins could have a conversation about Jesus with the Pope and each would understand the reference, despite disagreeing. I could talk to somebody about John Henry and we would understand each other, even if one of us thought he was a man and the other a legend. Jesus is not ambiguous. Gay is like dinosaur, which currently has three literal senses. People mean different things, the difference is important to understanding (especially in historical conext), and the difference is important to many writers, hence the rising popularity of the term non-avian dinosaur. And obviously the difference with gay important to you. This is not your first PoV-pushing incident. See Special:Diff/61163383 in which you redefined a term related to second wave feminism in modern culture war language despite having no evidence that anybody used it in that way. "Marginalized genders" is complete nonsense when you're talking about the 1970s. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding politically correct, would you find it better if the entry said something like "...people marginalized on the basis of race, gender, etc"? (Or do you think there simply weren't people who were marginalized on the basis of gender in the 70s? That's a conservative culture warrior claim which is simply mistaken.)
Regarding gay... contrary to the suggestion that "people mean different things", it seems like everyone here means one thing: we all seem to agree a gay man, as each of us would use the term gay, is one attracted to men. I don't think it's sensible to split gay into different definitions based on different parameters of who counts as a man, because for the average use of the word it isn't possible to tell which parameters someone is using; people who are included or excluded by one take on sex-vs-gender or another are a tiny fraction of the people who are included regardless (cis men) or excluded regardless (women), tinier than the fraction of people any individual gay men or gay men in general find attractive or unattractive based on other factors like weight, race, or looks (as mentioned above); in many citations sex-vs-gender doesn't come up, and if those were split as separate senses it wouldn't be possible to tell which is meant. (Your comment suggests you'd handle that by just assuming anything from before recently or which doesn't clearly include gender must be using a "gotta test your chromosomes and peek down your pants before I can tell if I find you attractive" approach and definition, but I don't buy that assumption. A more small-c-conservative way of handling it would be to have "sex or gender" sense for ambiguous citations, as well as "sex" vs "gender" (sub)senses — and BTW, use with regard to gender in explicit distinction to sex is attested by the 70s / early 80s — but again, it seems like it's not 2-3 senses but one sense "of a man; attracted to men / of a woman: attracted to women" where people just disagree on who's a man vs woman.) - -sche (discuss) 00:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I see no problem with "sex or gender" based on the arguments I've seen. The potential for misunderstandings is high as awareness of the distinction between sex and gender grows, but the two concepts remain tightly intertwined; so I'd prefer we be precise about what we're actually referring to. Because even when we explicitly distinguis them there's ambiguity! In this case, not between biological sex and social gender, but between biological sex assigned at birth and biological sex resulting from hormone treatment and surgery. Of course that's in the eye of the beholder, as -sche outlines above, but goes to show the need for precision. Ultimateria (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Late, late and I'm in a hurry, but I see nothing wrong with -sche's approach to the matter. Gender should be included in the definition. English is not a schematic artificial language, so homosexual containing the element sex means nothing. Accusing another user of pushing "a Woke point of view" is poor form at the least. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the Swedish pronouns någon, något, and några. These have genitive forms (namely någons, någots, and någras) for which we currently don't have articles. What would be the appropriate templates for those? Gabbe (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I heard, adding "forms" to the {{head}} template will automatically categorize it into the non-lemmas group (lemmas are the main form of a word, while non-lemmas are the changed forms). For your examples, you have to put {{head|sv|pronoun forms}} right after ===Pronoun=== to do that, I think. ॥ ☼ সূর্যমান ☽ ॥ 10:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting etymologies. Was "cafeteria" involved or not? Equinox ◑ 11:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely based on cafeteria. The other etymology makes no sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if there is call for a regional designation to be entered for this word, the way some words are indicated as US or UK. The word I'm most familiar with in the UK is launderette (pronounced laundrette). I think I would recognise washeteria from US movies, but there may be the odd launderette with a washeteria sign over it in the UK reflecting US influence. Most of those establishments have closed down, so I'm not sure.81.154.42.114 15:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Equinox ◑ 20:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone help me work out the meaning of work out here, which could be relevant to the dictionary? It is from Ch28 of Dickens' Great Expectations: "“And was that—Honour!—the only time you worked out, in this part of the country?”" The full file is at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1400/1400-h/1400-h.htm#chap08 Could it just mean "practise your trade"? I can't find anything in the OED that would have this meaning, and it may not be a modern meaning.81.154.42.114 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• It seems to mean to work outside of the prison. Not sure if it deserves an entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be sure it required an entry, but I see your point. Thank you.81.154.42.114 17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nice find. It seems like it means to work off a debt. Somewhat clearer from a later quote when the convict says "Wotever I done is worked out and paid for". OED has the sense as: "Originally: to discharge (a debt or obligation) by labour instead of a monetary payment. Now also more generally: to earn money to pay off (a debt)." They include a Dickens quote, though from The Old Curiosity Shop, not Great Expectations, so it seems like an expression he was fond off. Colin M (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Colin. Yes, I saw that "worked out" occurs three times in the book, and noticed the OED quote from The Old Curiosity Shop. You may be right on the meaning, but the original quote looks intransitive. But I think sometimes when convicts are quoted in GE, Dickens seems to put slightly unclear words in their mouths, as if to give them the appropriate convict lingo (which Dickens may or may not have been familiar with). I also noticed meaning #7 in Wiktionary, which could fit, but then that is stated as being American only (???). 81.154.42.114 21:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's interesting. Is the speaker of the first quote the same as the other two occurrences of "worked out"? Those two seem to so clearly have the "worked off" meaning, which make me think the first probably does also, assuming it's the same character. It's not so uncommon to use a transitive verb intransitively if the object can be understood from context. e.g. if Alice and I were working for the summer planting trees, I might ask her "Is this your first time planting?". Though I'll grant it feels less natural with a phrasal verb. Colin M (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Could it mean be discharged (from prison)? I looked for some possible referent for an anaphora in the preceding text and found discharged. The discussion of "two one-pound notes" is central to the discourse and to Pip's thoughts. The notes were to have been given to someone when one of the prisoners was released. Release would obviously be a matter of great interest to prisoners. DCDuring (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As you say, the nearest referent is being discharged. I'm wondering if this could be a kind of prisoner slang or cant at the time. It seems clear that the exact meaning is not clear. Of course, as a native speaker, when you come across such passages, you normally just read on, as it is not that important to grasp every word in a book, and it doesn't affect the plot. Strange that none of the notes, Spark Notes, Cliff Notes, etc, for this book actually mentions this passage or seeks to elucidate it. Thanks for your comments, everyone.81.154.42.114 11:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Adv. sense:

Toward, or in, past time or events; ago.

I am finding it hard to see examples to support "or in" and "ago". Does anyone get this? Mihia (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Century has that as, I think, two definitions. The have one citation from a poem. IOW, we can't dismiss it. I wish I had access to the OED to get some more possible collocations to make search more practical. DCDuring (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The old OED here has these time senses:

• 8. Of time: a. Towards the past; b. In the past. (arch.; commonly back.) He bids them look backward .. whole forty years. 1605 Bacon Adv. Learn By a computation backward from ourselves. 1605 Burges Pers. Tithes 55 This Statue extendeth to 40 years backe-ward. 1692 T. Hale Acc. New Invent. 31 For any number of years backward. 1872 Smiles Character xi (1876) 305 It glorifies the present by the light it casts backward.
• 7. Behindhand in respect of time or progress, late. 1693 Luttrell Brief Rel. (1857) III 15 Which will occasion the French to be 6 weeks backwarder in their preparations. A very backward scholar. The inns of Spain are in that backward state in which those of Sicily are. The law is here certainly in a backward condition. If a child was backward in learning to walk.
• 8. Reaching into the past. Pope Odyss. II 122 Far as thy mind thro' backward time can see. 1822 Byron Ch. Har. IL. xxiv. Each backward year.

- -sche (discuss) 20:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that they label "in the past" as "archaic". On that basis I will split it out and mark it obsolete, which seems to me a better label for our purposes(?), though if anyone disagrees, of course please unobsolete it and provide a modern usage example. I don't see any evidence that would support our "ago", at least not in any sense of that word that I can recognise. Does anyone else? Mihia (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, all their cites look to me like "towards" rather than "in", so I might even RFV it if we can't think of / find examples. I'm trying to think of how an adverb "in the past" would be used... "he lived backward, like a caveman of yore"? google books:"(live|living|lived) backward" "in the past" mostly turns up examples where it means "lived in reverse", though some might be the right sense, I'm not sure: . - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

When I looked at it originally, I somehow thought that "This Statue extendeth to 40 years backe-ward" was an example (I assume it should read "Statute"??), but looking again, while it may be possible (perhaps loosely) to say that something "extends 40 years in the past", meaning backward, it seems that "in" in this case really means "into", which would be covered by our sense "Toward or into the past". Also, this doesn't explain the "to", or the fact that it would be archaic, so I dunno. Yes, please send it to RFV if you wish. Mihia (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Adj. sense:

Reluctant or unable to advance or act.

While I am familiar with the "reluctant" sense, not so with the "unable" sense. Does anyone know this? Mihia (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sent to RFV. Mihia (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In the sense of "excessively critical," we currently have this construction as a usage example at hard. Given that it's fairly common, I wonder if we should add this meaning on hard on, or create the separate entry be hard on, or keep everything as is. Imetsia (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't advocate creating separate entries; I think it is just "hard" + "on", not idiomatic enough. However, we could have a helpful "&lit" entry at hard on, and also say something about common collocations at hard if thought necessary. Though "on" may be the most common, noting that you can also be hard with someone, or even hard towards someone. Mihia (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

What Mihia said. It might be useful to have a usage example at the appropriate sense of hard. DCDuring (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, this passes the Lemming test, in that OED has an entry for the phrase "to be hard on", with three distinct subsenses, as in the following examples:

1. The coach was hard on the player who let the goal in. (already mentioned sense of "very/excessively critical or demanding")
2. Dish soap is hard on the skin., Metal utensils are hard on nonstick pans. (causing damage or wear)
3. Christmas is hard on him since he lost his wife. (difficult to endure, stressful)

I can see an argument for these being SoP, but I also think there's enough intricacy here that it wouldn't hurt to help the reader out. For example, it would be hard for someone to figure out from first principles that "hard on" means "causing damage" in "Dish soap is hard on the skin", but that it cannot be used this way if the subject and object are people. How is someone to know that it's not felicitous to say "Alice was hard on Bob" to describe the situation where Alice and Bob got into a fight and Alice left Bob with a black eye and 10 stitches?

There is some amount of substitutability possible, but it's limited ("harsh" and "tough" can be substituted for "hard" in most of these examples, but other synonyms like "difficult", "severe", "critical", "intolerable", "hostile" don't work). The range of replacements for "on" is highly dependent on which of the 3 subsenses above are at play: for 1, it would be "with" or "towards", for 2 there are no clear substitutions (maybe "against"?), for 3 "for" works. Colin M (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost all words have some restrictions on their complements. The normal way of handling this kind of thing is to have labels or usage examples. We certainly don't have to invent new definitions for the combinations. OTOH, examining usage of hard followed by various prepositions (on, for, by, of, in, etc.), particles, and other function words) may be a good way to improve our definitions of hard. Wiktionary has 24 definitions of hard, Oxford 25, AHD has 44, MWOnline 51, so we have some reason to believe our entry may lack good coverage of some usage. DCDuring (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

But if, for example, the "causing damage or wear" sense only applies in combination with "on" (which seems to be the case), wouldn't it make more sense to place it at hard on, rather than having a sense at hard with the qualifier (with on)? Colin M (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, I would personally still argue no, given the nature of the combination. I wonder also whether "hard to" may be feasible, if rare, e.g. I found one example of boots being "hard to the feet", apparently in the sense of "hard on the feet". Mihia (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Tashi believes we should only have cited examples since the topic could be controversial. I think Tashi may be right, but I'd still like to get some views on this. I added the following examples to Tashi's entry:

1. The ideology which holds that the black race is superior to all others.

   Black supremacy is a fringe view among Blacks as the majority believe in peaceful coexistence with their fellow human beings.

2. A situation in which black people are privileged over other people in society.

   Black supremacy remains an abstract concept as, in practice, non-Blacks are rarely denied their rights in Black societies.

Are these examples okay? Must we have cited examples or can we freely generate them for this topic? If we're allowed to think up examples and you're not happy with the examples I provided, what would you change them to? Why? — Dentonius 09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the topic to the Tea room. Taking into consideration that there are tons of black supremacy groups and ideologies such as Nation of Islam or Garveyism, I think we can easily find some examples. Some people even describe "Black Lives Matter" movement as black supremacy including black actor Terry Crews. Yet since BLM has no offcial leadership it is hard to establish anything. That's why I believe the we can find better examples :) Tashi (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Our normal standards require attestation per WT:ATTEST if anyone challenges a definition. It's usually a good idea to show attestation before any challenge for anything that might be considered controversial, especially if it is not covered in other dictionaries. I don't know how controversial this is, but it apparently isn't included in the OneLook dictionaries. DCDuring (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Do the two example sentences offered illustrate usage? Or are they there to instruct anyone who consults Wiktionary as to what political views he should hold? Do you have any other political views that I should unquestioningly accept? 86.142.138.70 20:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@86.142.138.70: From my experience, Wiktionary is not an ideologically partisan dictionary at all except for a tiny, tiny number of entries. Those entries stick out significantly from the other entries in our dictionary, so the average reader with common sense would immediately realise " is clearly partisan. It would be wise for me to consult another source". As such, the damage caused by such rogue entries is very minimal. The discerning reader can easily tell apart the incredibly tiny number of rogue entries from the rest of the dictionary.

 

The entry under discussion, black supremacy, looks like a perfectly normal Wiktionary entry to me. Tharthan (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the anon has a point. We would be well-advised to find actual citations, preferably more neutral or, at least, reflecting a range of evaluative uses, the range, in turn, reflecting what can actually be found. DCDuring (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I had been under the assumption that what the IP address user was referring to were the example sentences given right under the definitions (which remain the same with your edit). With regard to citations, I always thought that it was not required to balance out the opinions presented in works that are cited. They are, after all, merely citations demonstrating usage of the term/sense in question. Of course, if a term is chiefly or solely found in works of a particular bent, that may well warrant a descriptor tag indicating as much.

Am I mistaken? Are Wiktionarians required to balance out opinions presented in works that are cited? Tharthan (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Usage examples should show how a term is used, not explain why the people most likely to use it are wrong to do so. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've added some citations for both definitions and added {{&lit}}. Black supremacy often comes up in books about the Nation of Islam and Rastafari, but I didn't want to place too much emphasis on such religious sects. DCDuring (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Black supremacy should not have been created. It was deleted in RFD (discussion here) in part because it was not considered a set phrase and there were no lemmings. There has been no undeletion request. Besides there must have been a notice with a warning when the page was recreated. In my opinion the entry should be speedily deleted without it going to RFD again. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as more than a sum of parts. Supremacy already has the senses of being superior and being in charge. White supremacy is similarly a sum of parts, but it is more of a cultural atom than black supremacy. Anyway, since it failed RFD it should be speedily deleted after the quotations are archived. The quotations are worth having if it ever gets brought back, or they can be dispersed to other words. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum You are right, the quotations are worth keeping. I have put them on the citation page. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation:

(UK) IPA(key): /dɪˈɹeɪljə/

(US) IPA(key): /dəˈɹeɪlɚ/, /dəˈɹeɪljə/

Is it just me, or is jə a horrible mispronunciation to rank alongside /ˌlɑn.(d)ʒəˈɹeɪ/? Mihia (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's just you. The Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, which aims to be not purely descriptive but also to provide recommended pronunciations to nonnative speakers, recommends /diˈɹeɪljə/ for RP, though not for General American – I think we can remove it from the US line. As for /ˌlɑn.(d)ʒəˈɹeɪ/, that's the standard US pronunciation (again, recommended for learners of US English by Longman). —Mahāgaja · talk 13:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's shocking. Mihia (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not much more so than /luː/ in lieu of /ljø/. And what about /rɪˈvɪər/ compared to French /ʁə.vɛʁ/?  --Lambiam 11:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I grew up in the Washington DC area. The only pronunciations I recall hearing as a kid working in bike shops were /dəˈɹeɪlɚ/ (similar to derailer), and /dɪˈɹeɪljɚ/ (not far from dee rail yer). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Entryworthy or SOP? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Go for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hard to see it as SoP; not even obvious what it is elided from, if that be its origin. DCDuring (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that to me it seems to mean exactly what it says, albeit with a strong set-phrase feel that may justify our including it. May I ask why you feel it does not mean "never" + "a" + "dull" + "moment"? Mihia (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

In use, it seems to mean (sometimes, contrafactually) "a little bit of (surprising) excitement". I have never heard it used to mean "NEVER a dull moment". It is, at least, hyperbole. DCDuring (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're right of course that it is often or usually hyperbolic and/or sarcastic, but I think the same could be said in numerous cases, as a general feature of language. But in any case, I wouldn't oppose its creation as a set phrase. Mihia (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• • OK, I've created it. I'm not great at writing definitions for English entries, though, so additions and corrections from others are encouraged. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Adv. sense:

By way of reflection; reflexively.

Anyone see what this is referring to?

I'm guessing it means that, for example, a mirror can be said to cast an image "backward" (i.e. back toward the source). Here's a quote from George Eliot that seems like it might fit:

It was still possible — perhaps it might be inevitable — for him to accept frankly the altered conditions, and avow Baldassarre's existence; but hardly without casting an unpleasant light backward on his original reticence

(Found by searching Google books for "light backward".) Colin M (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks, you could be right. Mihia (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about all these "back"/"backward" posts. Another one, adv sense:

From a better to a worse state, as from honor to shame, from religion to sin.

• 1700, John Dryden, Theodore and Honoria

  The work went backward.

Do we see this as fundamentally distinct from "In a direction opposite to the desired direction of progress" (an example of which is "This project seems to be going backward")? Mihia (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not see them as distinct. However, "desired direction of progress" is not an ideal definition, because it does not cover contexts that do not involve/envision progress (like deterioration from a formerly stable condition). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I think it is a question of whether to try to tweak/generalise the "progress" definition or keep them separate. Unless I am missing something, I feel the difference may be insufficient for the latter, so I might try the former. Mihia (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia I think you have merged the definitions well. The example in the definition first quoted served little purpose. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a listing for "nonad" in wiktionary. It should not be there, except perhaps in the technical, astronomical photographic sense listed there. The listing says it means "group of nine." I can find no evidence that the word "nonad" exists in English with the meaning of a group of nine. It is not in the Oxford English Dictionary; it is not the Unabridged Merriam-Webster; it is not in the American Heritage, Collins, or Random House dictionaries. I did find a citation at books.google.com in a treatise where the author is clearly making up his own jargon with total abandon. Non- is a Latin morpheme; -ad is a Greek one. This is an unlikely formation. I think this entry should be eliminated. The standard term in the -ad sequence of groups (monad, dyad, triad, tetrad...) for a group of nine is "ennead" using Greek "enne-" and Greek "-ad."

Mixing Latin and Greek is very common, e.g. television. If you think the word does not exist you can use the WT:RFV process. Equinox ◑ 20:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The OED has entries for "octad" and "decad" but, indeed, it does not have an entry for "nonad" - and I think it would fail RfV. Strange. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It's already cited, but I think nonadic is more questionable, with possible confusion with "non-adic" and "nomadic". DTLHS (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Another definition of nonad can be found in the Urban Dictionary - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nonad Literally someone with no gonads, man with no balls.86.142.138.70 07:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You know, I now think it should remain. I'm being annoyingly prescriptive. I have now seen three good faith uses of the word. I think in each instance the authors were in good faith trying to make the ninth "-ad" word in the series monad, dyad, triad, tetrad, pentad, hexad, heptad, ogdoad, ennead, decad. The authors either did not realize that the word "ennead" exists for a group of nind or didn't like it and coined their own word with Latin non- instead of Greek enne- That sort of thing happens all the time.

I didn't realise, but just read on Wiktionary that d(u)odecad(e) was the 16th century word for trillion, 10 to the power of 12. I wonder if a billion could be an ennead or a quadrillion a pentadecad(e)?86.142.138.70 15:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Google Books, Scholar, and other online resources are available to help you in the quest for evidence of such usage and its context and extent. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing on Google Books or in the OED to justify the claim that duodecad/dodecad once meant trillion - it is stated on the dodecad page in Wiktionary, but without citations. 86.142.138.70 21:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I've RFVed that sense of dodecad. (Nonad, for its part, is cited, although some of the citations seem awkward/low-quality: "The nonuply perspective nonads of Milne"?) - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Originally posted here: Talk:I came, I saw, I conquered. If there's no published work in my language with a translation of this, but I have a pretty good idea of what it would be in my language, am I allowed to add my translation to the entry? The language in this case is, of course, Jamaican Creole. — Dentonius 14:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if we have a policy about this sort of thing. As a compromise, I would suggest adding the translation, but linking each word individually (e.g. ] ], ] ], ] ]) so that no one is tempted to add an entry for it. What do others think? —Mahāgaja · talk 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it more urgent to add translations for come and see?  --Lambiam 13:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WT:CFI, Talk:loquerisne anglice. --2003:DE:371C:3D30:4890:BC59:6F39:B6EE 00:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This user has created several pages for Requested Entries, some in quite small languages with few contributors and a few of them do not contain any requests at all. Are all of these pages desirable or should some be deleted? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we can delete the Requested Entries pages that don't actually contain any requested entries. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Recently, I've been adding some George Chapman quotes, for glory more than anything else. I generally have no idea what the guy is jabbering on about. One in particular was at inamorate (His blood was framed for every shade of virtue To ravish into true inamorate fire), which I decided to analyse. To me it means "he was a nice guy until he fell in love". Anyone else care enough to suggest an alternative? Oxlade2000 (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Methinks the referent of "his" is the Earl of St. Anne, a widower who is doting over the embalmed corpse of his late wife. My guess is that it means he was disposed by nature ("framed by blood") to all-consuming, all-encompassing passionate love, probably to the neglect or dereliction of virtue but maybe the chap meant it as the consummation of virtue (even though canoodling a corpse is some dire necro stuff, perhaps Chapman thought it was endearing faithfulness or something). I absolutely have no idea what contemporary beliefs were on the fireproofness of virtue, really. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Vandome is reporting here to Vaumont that the plot, devised to make St. Anne fall in love with Eurione, has succeeded. Vandome sees St. Anne as his friend whom he calls “a sweet brother”; he was trying to help him overcome his obsession. And, clearly, he thinks him worthy of betrothing Eurione, the sister of his very dear friend Marcellina. So I think that St. Anne’s newly found ardent true love is portrayed here as virtuous, and that “every shade of virtue” means “every variety of virtue”.  --Lambiam 11:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I think. So would you summarise and reformulate as: St. Anne is a man with a deeply amorous disposition in whom virtue flourishes in manifold ways? I suppose that aligns with our second sense of ravish? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what the subject of the ravishing is – the Earl’s blood, or his virtues? I guess one could metonymically say that “his blood” was enraptured by love, but if the virtues are doing the ravishing, sense 2 is less adequate. Also, the preposition in ravish into does not fit well with sense 2, so perhaps the meaning is that his manifold virtues were precipitously conveyed into a burning love. However, this appears to require an intransitive sense of the verb, whereas the first, archaic sense appears to be transitive.  --Lambiam 13:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The assumption here seems to be that ‘virtue’ is used with its modern moral meaning, but I don’t think that’s the case. ‘Virtue’ in Chapman’s time commonly referred to power or efficacy rather than necessarily moral qualities. It seems to me that Chapman’s meaning is more along the lines of ‘His disposition was ready for any kind of influence to fan the flames of love in it.’ — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Category:English case citation abbreviations, there are lots of entries that aren't just abbreviated in legal cases. If anyone wants a quick&easy mini-project, they could de-abbreviate a few of them Oxlade2000 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done a few in the past, though I left the usage notes about X being the customary legal abbreviation (assuming that information to be true) and just removed the label since it's not only used legally. Not sure whether that's better than just dropping the note. (Maybe I also tried to tweak the notes to say the abbreviations were not only used in case citations, I don't recall.) - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@-sche: The category does not mention the abbreviations have to be exclusively legal; e.g., Category:British English contains terms that are not exclusively British. J3133 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

True, I see no problem with the category being on entries which are case-citation abbreviations even if they're also general abbreviations; it could be restored to entries Oxlade removed it from. Although, regarding Category:British English containing terms that are not exclusively British, ... as much as I think that's sensible, contrast Category talk:Canadian English and Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/September#Canadian_English where there is objection to the Canadian English category including terms that are used both Canada and the US, even if they are distinctly Canadian and American and not used in Britain, Ireland, Australia, India, etc. - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing the English entry Jesus, the following struck me:

• The final part of definition 1 goes "whom Christians consider to be the son of God and call "Jesus Christ" in the belief that he is the Messiah, and whom Muslims believe to be a prophet". This is all true, but somewhat misleading. Muslims in general also consider Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah and Christians also consider him to be a prophet (in addition to a king and priest, to name the other anointed offices). Mentioning all that may prove unwieldy. What do you say about omitting "prophet" and only mentioning "Messiah" in both instances?
• Definition 2 about western Manichaeism (my doing) is both unspecific (the emanations are not named) and rather noun-like. Jesus the Splendo(u)r and Jesus patibilis/passive Jesus/suffering Jesus may be worthy of subdefinitions or even entries, the other aspects probably not. See also this article.
• The noun section is extremely silly and is not very well supported by the quotations either. It may be a good idea to move the plurals and quotations to the proper-noun section and dispose of it altogether.

←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of that entry appears totally fictional, in particular the alleged plurals "Jesuses or Jesusses or Jesi or Jesii". Are all of these attested? I see that Jesusses is attested on books.google.com, but I would argue that was in a book by someone who didn't know how to spell Jesuses... but Jesi and Jesii? 14:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)86.142.138.70 14:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Using a double s has not become obsolete yet. J3133 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I think very rare / obsolete plurals can be moved out of the headword and into e.g. usage notes if putting them in the headword gives them too much prominence. I only rarely seen entries which have a lot of rare/obsolete forms in the headword line to begin with, so I only rarely see such forms moved, and the examples I can call to mind are all cases where I moved the forms, so take all this with whatever dose of salt you find appropriate as far as whether it's a generally-accepted or acceptable practice. But for example, I moved "laugh'd" and "low" out of the headword-line of laugh following WT:Beer parlour/2013/July#Inconsistent_mention_of_inflected_forms. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam, Rua, Morgengave, Mnemosientje, Vox Sciurorum: In Dutch writings up to the 1950s, the phrase Lesbische liefde with upper-case occurs for "lesbian love, lesbian sexuality", included in some dictionaries of that period, from about 1920 lower-case lesbische liefde becomes noticably more common. Pace the WNT, the spelling strongly suggests that Lesbisch is intended in the topographical sense "Lesbian, of Lesbos" and it clearly predates the meaning "lesbian" (even if that sense is 50 years older than the oldest cite in the WNT; the Kunstwoordenboek of 1847 gives a rather feline definition). So this usage seems idiomatic to me, at least from a historical perspective, not to mention that some older dictionaries include it (many are not really general dictionaries though). Should there be a lemma for the spelling Lesbische liefde or should it be included in some other way? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The appellation Lesbische liefde in the sense of (erotic) love between women is clearly derived from the name of the island, so I do not understand what the issue is.  --Lambiam 23:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it merits an entry or not? I mean, I cannot exactly guarantee there aren't any other similar, amply attested collocations with a similar meaning that predate the general sense "lesbian". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does, in the sense “lesbianism”. Perhaps it should be labelled dated. The later lower-case uses may be a modification of the upper-case term based on the lower-case spelling of lesbisch in the sense of the adjective “lesbian”, but it is more likely they arose independently as a sum of parts (just like the SOP combination homoseksuele liefde). Any idiomatic multi-word term may occasionally arise as an {{&lit}} combination, but nothing suggests that in this case any such uses can be amply attested.  --Lambiam 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What complicates matters is that lesbisch (in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) also occurs in reference to the island and Lesbisch is also used for lesbian sexuality (certainly for the early twentieth century, perhaps earlier). The lower-case spelling lesbische liefde probably predates the sense "lesbian" of lesbisch as well but I am not certain of that. Nowadays it is most likely just intended as a SOP construct though. I think the sense lesbian can be antedated to at least around 1900, perhaps even the late nineteenth century: 1903 (second column, final paragraph of "Uit Bandjermasin"), 1889, 1882 @Lambiam (Also, I strongly suspect that Lesbische liefde, probably in addition to influence from other languages, was pivotal in developing the newer meaning of lesbisch.) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rua, Thadh, Morgengave, Appolodorus1, Alexis Jazz What are your views on SOPness/includibility? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's safe to include the term, since the combination of Lesbisch (toponym) + liefde (love) doesn't seem obvious by itself; I'm more inclined to include the term, even if it historically could be an SOP, than exclude it and have learners or readers misinterpret it as love from Lesbos. As Lambiam pointed out, we can add a label, like archaic or dated. Thadh (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The earliest newspaper quote of "L/lesbische liefde" I could find in Delpher is from 1883 and uses the lower case. I added it but it can be moved of course. I don't think Lesbische liefde would need a dedicated entry, we could explain in the usage notes of both entries that Lesbisch/lesbisch in the sense "of a romantic or sexual act or relationship" coexisted for a while but lower case is now standard.--Appolodorus1 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed the quotation, because the analysis that it is just "lesbian love" does not seem the most common view and there are empirical problems with it. Besides that, the quotation was not that old relative to other attestations. These uses clearly predate the sense "lesbian" of lesbisch: ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo What would the description be? Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz As a definition, "lesbian sexuality" does the trick, maybe adding "lesbianism" (though I find the term clinical) or "lesbian love". The contrast is between upper and lower-case L. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo On WNT I see "Het Lesbisch meiske zwyg': 't vernuft, bestiert door deugt, Wekt eedler driften hier, SPEX 312 ", isn't that an example of the capitalized "Lesbisch" without "liefde"? Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz That is a reference to Sappho; the meaning there is still "Lesbian girl" as in "girl from Lesbos" even though there is a clear reference to lesbian sexuality. I think it is quite certain that Lesbische liefde predates lesbisch ("female homosexual, pertaining to lesbian sexuality") that I suspect dates to the 1880s at the earliest, but if you can find earlier uses, be my guest. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo As search engines are mostly not case-sensitive, I'm not going to try. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Several sources give the term lesbische liefde as dating from “1847, Kramers”. This refers to the first edition of the Algemeene Kunstwoordentolk, where the spelling is lower-case. This pushes the date back, and suggests that lower-case lesbische liefde predates the alternative spelling Lesbische liefde. Delpher newspaper archive has an 1882 use of the noun Lesbische for a lesbian woman.  --Lambiam 19:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems like it rather reflects the unusual practice of the Kunstwoordentolk (which I erroneously called Kunstwoordenboek in the OP) to use minuscules for all derived adjectives, including toponyms. But I do wonder whether the lemma should be at the lower-case spelling; it is less obviously toponymic and idiomatic than Lesbische liefde, but it does seem more common starting from around 1920 and it is a more logical place to describe modern SOP usage.

What is your view on the following chronology? Pre-1840: use of Lesbisch is exclusively toponymic, albeit often with connotations of lesbian sexuality. 1847: first attestation of lesbische liefde. 1880s: increasing lower-case use of lesbisch where the notion of "lesbian" becomes more prominent. (I wonder whether Lesbische in the Java-bode is really "lesbian" or rather "Lesbian; someone like Sappho".) Ca. 1900: a clearly separate sense "lesbian" is consolidated. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam I would still appreciate your comment or revision of the chronology laid out above. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The chronology fits with the known data, but could of course be upset by more early uses surfacing. But I do not see that uses of the term Lesbisch or Lesbische liefde are historically imbued simultaneously with a toponymic and a sexual sense. The sexual sense has a toponymic origin, but only through the implicit reference to Sappho. Until some time, Lesbisch was monosemic, but then it acquired a new meaning and became polysemic. As to the use in the Java-bode, the ladies on Lesbos, and particularly Sappho, were not known for being furies raging against the other sex, so the fact that this is a supposed characteristic of Lesbian women makes it unlikely that the bigoted author intended a toponymic or historical interpretation; he is referring to a class of contemporary Dutch women.  --Lambiam 23:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The entry for the Icelandic word grænn says that it's pronounced , where I'd expect it to be . I think this may be an error, as other similar Icelandic words starting with gr- are given as being pronounced without aspiration, e.g. grafa, græja and græta, but not being an Icelandic speaker myself, I wouldn't want to go ahead and change it without any further input. Does anyone here know Icelandic enough to decide the matter? —Pinnerup (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Icelandic Wiktionary has , even though their IPA help page does not recognize a phoneme /ɡ/.  --Lambiam 00:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It can really only be /k/, which in other analyses is transcribed /ɡ/. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Any idea what 'boue is supposed to mean in the following George Chapman quote? It looks like a preposition, perhaps according to? Oxlade2000 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Tis offerd, Sir, 'boue the rate of Caesar
   In other men, but in what I approue
   Beneath his merits: which I will not faile
   T'enforce at full to Pompey, nor forget
   In any time the gratitude of my seruice.

It looks like an archaic procopic spelling of above to me. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and 'bove contrasts with beneath later on.86.142.138.70 13:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Presently we have give a good account of oneself but no others that I can see, though "excellent", "poor" etc. are clearly also possible. I'm not sure about verbs other than "give". "offer" seems to be occasionally used. Anyway, what do we do with these "template" expressions like "give a ... account of oneself"? Or, alternatively, is the meaning of "account" sufficiently extractable to put at account (with examples) and dispense with the entry(ies) for the expressions? What do you think? Mihia (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

My first impulse is to say that we should give a definition for the "largest manageable unit" (the best phrasing I could come up with). So in this case, I would transfer the definition over to account of oneself with a usage note and possibly a redirect of the most common phases that include it (like give a good account of oneself). Imetsia (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Another similar one, btw, is get off to a good start, where obviously many words can be substituted for "good" (and possibly anyway it is decomposable into "(get) off (to) ~".) I think if I started actively looking for these I might find one or two more (!) Mihia (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What do we think about start off on the wrong foot, get off on the wrong foot, start off on the right foot? Are these redundant to on the wrong foot, on the right foot? Mihia (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think so. We could have redirects from those to on the wrong foot. But even usage examples would get users to the right entry were those expressions typed in the search box. DCDuring (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"To leave a place without telling anyone." Is this definition correct? I saw a Discord user saying something like "I'm gonna dip out now". That doesn't match the definition. Equinox ◑ 07:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I hear it used to mean leave or exit (not just a place but also e.g. a conversation). I don't think it requires not telling anyone. There may be some connotations to it but I can't put my finger on them. - -sche (discuss) 08:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To leave unobtrusively perhaps. Somebody will complain that you can't obtrude by leaving. Equinox ◑ 08:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say to leave quietly, with as little fuss as possible. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, yes. I'd been considering that some of the time it seems mean "leave, especially because you no longer want to be in the place, conversation, etc", maybe even "... e.g. out of resignation or to avoid confrontation" (as in the cites I initially added to the cites page), but that's only true some of the time (maybe even only by coincidence then) as I can also find "I'll have to dip out" and "I have to dip out of ketosis for my daughter's birthday cake". Something like "to leave, especially unobtrusively, with little fuss" (or fanfare?) is much better. :) - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an argument for that entry being redundant. We have the sense "To leave" at dip#Verb, and the current usex demonstrates its use with out: "He dipped out of the room so fast." The out is common but not mandatory. See, for example, Ariana Grande writing "sry I dipped" in the music video for "thank u, next" (as in, "sorry I ducked out of our relationship/engagement"). Colin M (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Can it take words besides out? I only find a handful of web hits like "you might have dip over to the chat", and no hits for "have to dip the party", just Ariana's intransitive use, but my search was far from exhaustive. I noticed we only had head, not head out, but I see now we do have both "enter" at duck and "leave" at duck out, which seems to be used similarly (including: sometimes without out) and might help with writing the definition(s) for dip (out).
I sometimes wonder if we should do like some dictionaries and (soft?) redirect most phrasal verbs to the base verbs, not only to avoid us having to figure out when to house definitions at the base verb vs verb+particle, but also to avoid expecting less-adept readers to figure out that some verbs aren't defined in their entries but in verb+particle entries. Meh. If nothing else, we need to consistently, and IMO prominently, link to phrasal verbs from their base verbs; so dip needs to link to dip out if we keep it. - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Intransitive use without any following prepositional phrase (a la Ariana) is definitely pretty common. e.g. "Probably saw how unprofitable their venture was and decided to dip."

Not sure about prepositions other than "out". Based on a quick Reddit search, "dip away" is reasonably well attested. e.g. "Can I dip away (to order a delivery) / go shopping then cook then catch up with you later?". "Instant gratification, get their fix, and dip away before they get hurt." Can't think of any other likely candidates. Maybe 'outside' or some other narrow locative prepositions in certain contexts ("downstairs", "offstage", "underground").

Definitely agree about prominently linking from dip to dip out if the latter is kept. Colin M (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This term reminds me a bit of bug out and duck out. I could be wrong but bug, dip, or duck don't really mean "leave" without out. Out seems to conveying the leaving and the verbs convey the kind of motion involved. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely similar to duck out. bug out is a new one to me. I haven't looked into it carefully, but I could imagine that the "leave" sense was initially restricted to "dip out" and later "dip" became a conventionalized ellipsis of this. But currently it's definitely commonly used without "out" to mean leave. Browsing some recent Reddit comments containing "had to dip", it actually looks like a majority of "leave" usages are without "out". Colin M (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I started to fix a quotation at verärgern but I think it requires more work there than I'm able or willing to put into it; I don't work on quotes much so I'm not familiar with the intricacies. The issues are: 1) It links directly to a website, no year, author, publisher. 2) The website wants to set cookies on my computer; generally I don't accept. 3) From the tone is sounds like some sort of religious blog. Not that there's anything wrong with religion but it seems like most of the quote is about how young people are immoral and debauched; seems kind of POV. 4) I not sure the quote is under the right entry since it's using the part participle verärgert as an adjective, and there is a separate entry for that. --RDBury (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@RDBury: The quote is in the passive voice, so it's in the right entry, but it should be replaced by an uncontroversial example. I would suggest this: Ihr Mann sagte, sie solle den Mund halten, und sie schwieg, ohne verärgert zu sein. ("Her husband told her to shut up and she remained silent without being annoyed."; from DWDS; please change and correct whatever is necessary.). I think it conveys the meaning of verärgern, even though the pparticiple is used as an adjective. --Akletos (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-durably archived quotes, especially when not fitting/appropriate, can just be moved to the citations page (or deleted, if not useful at all). – Jberkel 08:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Since no one seems to think the quote is worth keeping, my preference is to just delete it. I don't really find quotes useful which is why I don't work on them much, but I won't try to stop someone else from adding a replacement if that's what they're into. --RDBury (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Quraysh is a Proper noun used in two senses: an ancient Arab tribe and a chapter in the Quran. It's exclusively grammatically plural for only the first sense. Based on that, Equinox forked the entry into two different POS: a "plural noun" and a "proper noun". I disagreed about the POS, which should be a "Proper noun" for both senses, even if exclusively plural (e.g. Azores). For that I've been reverted, with Equinox citing that it's a plural only and that he is a great editor (which he truly is). As a reconciliation, I'm proposing this:
===Proper noun===
{{en-proper noun}}
# (plural only) An ancient Bedouin tribe that controlled Mecca at the time of Muhammad.
# (Islam) The 106th sura (chapter) of the Qur'an, named after the aforementioned tribe.

Thoughts? Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How to handle 'collective plural' proper-noun-like people-group names is a tricky issue that's come up before; we really need to agree on a consistent overall approach, because a lot of people-groups' names can be used this way. (Btw, I can find a few citations of "a Quraysh", "Qurayshes" as a count noun, though like with Chinese it doesn't seem to be standard.) (Edit: general issue moved to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/March#POS_of_words_for_"X_tribe/people,_collectively"_like_British,_Chinese,_Cheyenne,_Xhosa.) - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I should move my/the general question to the Beer Parlour... - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
(Edit: done.) - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@-sche: I must firstly express my admiration of your committment to an accurate review of the norms on Wiktionary, which honestly strikes me apropos of Equinox's full-scale assertion. Now I don't think eligible entries lacking coverage of this sense (namely, in your comment, Japanese, Xhosa, Finnish, and Lakota) really carry significance in this discussion, simply because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That is, they might have just not received the appropriate attention yet, for example. Of course, each of those has its own particularities. But notably, Xhosa did include that sense before under a "Proper noun" until Equinox did the same unjustified change and then directly tweaked the def into a common noun.

Proper nouns, being appellations of a more particular nature; and common nouns, being appellations of a more general nature — are surely defined arbitrarily and interdependently. The boundaries in between them would always be subject to the scope of attestation, whose determination is in turn case-by-case. However, my approach to classifying these collective syntactic-plural substantives is rather pragmaticist. It rests upon the following notes:

• An English noun being routinely capitalized while not referring to an instance or a group of instances of a general class (a count noun) is characteristic of proper nouns. (passive definition)
• The notion of weak proper nouns unanimously includes plural proper names, which are mostly collective morphological-plural substantives (e.g. the Beatles; See Rodney Huddleston, Rodney D. Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum with Laurie Bauer (2002 April 15) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language‎, Cambridge University Press, →ISBN, page 517). Those are significantly similar to our subject matter, especially the demonyms, in terms of being always semantically definite, regardless of context, whether by convention (as in Quraysh) or when syntactically supported by the. (active definition)
• The entries now classified under a Noun POS are probable results of the w:principle of least effort (lots of users won't bother check the list of allowed POS or use the most specific term). This is especially evident in the fact that even the Irish and Vietnamese languages, hardly ever a sense contested to be a Proper noun, are also under the same "Noun" header. (confounding variable)
• As Equinox himself had stated, he created "hundreds" of those entries while he has strong feelings about not categorizing them as Proper nouns (nay unilaterally reverting or deleting them, as was the case in Xhosa and Lakota). (confounding variable)

I haven't read the thread at WT:BP yet, and I'll try to do asap. Hope this makes some sense. Assem Khidhr (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your own attention to this! It's true that one reason for inconsistency comes down to different people creating entries with different headers. (For example, almost all languages seem to have been created as proper nouns, but one user in particular re-headered several as common nouns.) My initial inclination is to treat these people-group names (including Quraysh) as proper nouns, like e.g. British, but I concede there are counter-arguments to this (e.g., why should "Quraysh" for the collective of all members of the Quraysh tribe, or "Cheyenne" for that tribe, be a proper noun but "Arabs" for all Arab people collectively be a common noun?). Your input (and that of anyone else, including Equinox, who would like to make a case for considering these to be one POS or another) would be most welcome and helpful in the BP. - -sche (discuss) 02:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay let's be a bit more fair and I think Assem has been admirably sweet with my bad temper. But there is no real reason why any given noun should be a magical proper noun just because it begins with a capital and/or describes an ethnic group. Please see User_talk:Assem_Khidhr#Quraysh. Equinox ◑ 06:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you all heard of proper adjectives? It's like how English is a proper noun, English is also a proper adjective, and English word is a common noun-phrase, with a proper adjective. 119.56.100.135 06:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's because we are stupid but Wiktionary doesn't support "proper adjective" as a header. If you really want it then you could discuss it at WT:GP maybe (because adding a new type of header is a technical issue). Sorry to be a pain, but wikis work on process stuff and you may indeed convince them. Equinox ◑ 08:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I might. I keep in view for now. It looks like someone beat me to it for this specific use. And we have bigger problems about POS than this. Like we can't even be clear on how our entries should be separated based on POS.

On the side, proper adjective is a very English grammarian term. WT aims to cover languages universally, even so the fact that we write in English and English entries make up the largest faction, might have caused us to have a very Anglo(English)-centric approach to assigning POS. 119.56.96.203 06:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We currently have what a pity, what a lovely day, what a way to go, what a shame. I'm thinking at least half of these are SOP based on what#Adjective. --RDBury (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say those are all definitely SoP - no different from what a disaster, what a heavy book, or what a load of nonsense. Any argument for keeping them would probably rest more on their value as phrasebook entries (what a lovely day is currently marked as such) or as translation hubs. Colin M (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of the four may be set phrases with well-established discourse functions. But since we don't really have a good set of criteria for inclusion or exclusion of "phrasebook" entries, I'd not be sad to see them go. DCDuring (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There is already a "what a pity" example at pity. The same could be done for shame. I think that would be enough for those. what a lovely day is just one example of numerous "what a ... day/morning/evening/etc." expressions, and does not merit any entry, IMO (not in the regular dictionary -- I dunno about the Phrasebook). "what a way to go" could be harder to understand from the parts, but it is again subject to numerous ad hoc variants such as "such a terrible way to go" etc., so seems hard to justify. I don't know whether something useful could be mentioned at way to go. Mihia (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think all that's needed to understand what a way to go is go (“die”). I guess the sense sounds a bit archaic outside of the "way to go" constructions, but I think it's still reasonably understandable in contexts like "When I go, bury me with my guitar", or "I hope to see the pyramids before I go." Colin M (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree that the individual components, including "go", are in principle all that is needed to understand this expression, but I'm just wondering whether one could be led down the garden path at way to go. For instance, it might be understood on that basis that "what a way to go" meant "what a course of action" or "what a choice" (existing noun senses at way to go). I think the way to go entry needs looking at anyway, in terms of whether we need an &lit option, or in fact whether the existing noun sense is that "&lit" option, or one example at any rate. Not sure whether it would be making too much of meal of it to explicitly mention the "die" sense there. Mihia (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I just created an entry at overcommittal. It's a word I've heard occasionally from commentators on competitive games (here's an example where it's spoken by both commentators on a match, about 8 minutes apart: a, b). I'm still getting a feel for labels, and wondering whether nonstandard would be appropriate here? Or something else along those lines? I think it could be argued that it's somewhat malapropistic, since its meaning doesn't really follow from the meaning of committal (at least not any of the senses we have recorded). It's also not listed in any dictionaries. But it does appear, somewhat rarely, in published books and other edited works (on the order of 100 results on Google Books, a couple on Google News, and a handful on Google Scholar - the distribution over time suggests it's not especially neologistic). For now I've gone the conservative route and merely labelled it "rare". Colin M (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A sense synonymous (or, occasionally, near-synonymous) with confiscate is given for impound in several notable dictionaries. We lack said definition.

Is there any particular reason for this? Do we for whatever reason not consider it substantially different enough from one of the existing definitions to warrant inclusion? Tharthan (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine it's just an oversight. But do you have any example quotes that aren't covered by the existing senses? Three of the ones we have seem to me very similar to confiscate, just specialized. Colin M (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I’d use the verb in the near-synonymous sense of “confiscate” only if it refers to an act by an authorized official agency, with a defined procedure by which the property holder can get reunited with their property, such as by paying a fine. It is also an almost synonym of sequester. If the property was “seized” or “confiscated”, it is not clear whether one will ever see it again.  --Lambiam 20:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they're https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their Webster mentions both, and it seems like it might as well be added to the Wiktionary listings. — This unsigned comment was added by ClumbusGuy (talk • contribs) at 23:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC).

But is that really a standard pronunciation? It seems (in North America) to be, at best, a very rustic pronunciation that is only used by a small number of speakers. If there is any consistency to such pronunciation at all, I would imagine the same speakers who use that pronunciation would pronounce words such as wear and fair with /ɝ/ as well. And, in that case, it would be an example of the square–nurse merger, which (from my recollection) is not a merger that is usual in any of the more regular and established manifestations of any North American dialects. If you want to list it as an established dialectal pronunciation for some non-North American dialects, I think that that would be perfectly fair as it certainly has noted presence in a number of dialects elsewhere.

But unless there is actually proof (re: North America) that this is anything more than an occasionally found idiolecticism used by some who regularly pronounce their words lazily, presenting it as if it were a standard North American pronunciation ought to be avoided. Tharthan (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe a large quantity of speakers without the square-nurse merger would use this pronunciation because they reduce they're/their under low stress (compare /ən/ for and, /jɚ/ for your/you're, etc.) Because reduction of function words under low stress is common in English, it would be unusual for it to be "an occasionally found idiolecticism". It might be less common than other reductions, but "less common" doesn't necessarily mean "occasional". Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the square-nurse merger does occur in some American dialects; what kind of pronunciation do you think the spelling 'Murica represents? Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

/ðɚ/ as a completely unstressed pronunciation sounds quite natural to me, for example in a sentence like "I think they're talking to their kids" which at a colloquial rate of speech would come out . —Mahāgaja · talk 14:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If citations that pass Wiktionary's usual criteria for what constitutes a good citation can be provided for /ðɝ/ in North America, then obviously we ought to include it. Tharthan (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't have criteria for what constitutes a good citation for a pronunciation. All our citation criteria relate to written language, not spoken language. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If our citation criteria only apply to written language, then I defer to the general consensus of Wiktionarians with respect to which proposed citations on this matter are acceptable and which are not. Tharthan (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This fixation on "standard" pronunciation is a fundamental misunderstanding of linguistics. From the standpoint of linguistics, all native pronunciations are "correct" - if people have grown up speaking a certain way all their lives and they make themselves understood, what is "incorrect" about it? This is why reference books cannot stray too far from descriptivism, or they will become entirely abstract or arbritrary constructs. The question of what pronunciation is entered in a dictionary is more nuanced, as dictionaries have to steer a cause between prescriptivism and descriptivism. There would be nothing objectionable to entering as "colloquial unstressed" in a dictionary of the Wiktionary kind. Tharthan constantly (check the backhistory) alleges that other people's views are just "idiolectisms", and, consequently, Tharthan's pronunciations are all the prescriptive standard.... This doesn't get us very far. English has well over 300m native speakers, and you can't condemn so many pronunciations as mere idiolectisms. I think you could argue that L2 learners need to learn a certain more prescriptive pronunciation in the first instance, and then learn by experience that "in the wild" assimilation and reductions are employed. So, from that standpoint, yes, you could argue that overly descriptive entries would not be helpful either. I'm not familiar with myself, as I'm not American, but I accept it as a real pronunciation. I'm more familiar with as an unstressed pronunciation in England. 86.142.138.70 15:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I liked Mahagaja's pronunciation there - and noticed he has "to" pronounced with a . I think they're talking to their kids could be in England

It can be difficult to find evidence of colloquial unstressed pronunciations, but Youglish is a very useful site. I entered "to their kids", and the very first entry gave multiple instances of the unstressed "their" being discussed here. See https://youglish.com/pronounce/to%20their%20kids/english That link goes directly to the part of the video with the phrase "to their kids", but the following sentences then also have "to their" several times. 86.142.138.70 15:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No, apparently bitter IP user, I do not believe my personal idiolect to be "the standard". I am very much against that sort of mentality being held by anyone.

If you are familiar with Wiktionary, you know that we have standards for what kinds of citations are acceptable and what kinds of citations are not acceptable. If good citations can only demonstrate that a /ðɝ/ pronunciation exists in North America in the speech of square-nurse merger speakers, we ought to consider indicating as much. Of course, if it can be demonstrated to have wider usage aside from such speakers, then obviously the aforementioned indication would not be necessary.

"There would be nothing objectionable to entering as "colloquial unstressed" in a dictionary of the Wiktionary kind."

If reasonable citations can be provided, then I think that including /ðɝ/ / /ðɚ/ as an American English pronunciation tagged with (colloquial, unstressed) would be perfectly all right. Tharthan (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say there's an enormous difference between /ðɝ/ and /ðɚ/, as the former implies a stressed pronunciation, which would only be found in a few regional accents that have the square–nurse merger, while the latter implies an unstressed pronunciation that is widespread in North America and does not imply the presence of that merger. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. FWIW, /ðɚ/ sounds completely natural to me as an unstressed pronunciation for both their and they're. I use it all the time and hear others doing the same. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think not putting it in as a standard pronunciation is fine, and possibly adding a tag of any sort that marks it as an unstressed pronunciation would be good. Also, remember that it's a schwa and not the bet vowel, those are two totally different sounds. I can at least attest on my part that it isn't rustic, I hear it every day here in central Ohio, and given that word isn't exactly a way to get info on Wiktionary I thought I'd dig around and find a dictionary mentioning it, which it does at least to some extent here. I might be able to do some more digging later. -ClumbusGuy (The guy who wrote the first post and is new to this so forgot to sign) 20:36 UTC March 16th 2021.

I often pronounce ‘their/they’re’ when unstressed as ðə, so I agree with listing ðɝ as a possible pronunciation (it’s just the American equivalent of the unstressed form used in England as far as I can see) Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm interested to see whether UK contribs consider this definition adequate for the way I would use and understand who "my gaffer" refers to. -- ALGRIF talk 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably = "my boss"86.142.138.70 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with 86. I would change "A foreman" to something a bit more general, and also label it informal. I don't know any of the other senses at ety 2. Mihia (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not too general, though; I suspect that one’s gaffer is always one’s immediate supervisor, the one who calls the shots and tells you what to do and not to do, and not just any corporate suit. I also expect that uses are confined to male referents.  --Lambiam 13:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I was prompted to this line of thought by watching a re-run UK police series where the female DS refers to her gaffer, who is her unit boss, a female DI. -- ALGRIF talk 16:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Traditionally a "gaffer" would have been male, both by etymology (I think), and also I suppose just because bosses were traditionally male. It is a kind of working-class term. Mihia (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Traditionally is being prescriptive, isn't it? Current usage is what matters here, and I'm trying to get an idea of a good entry. Finding this one rather more elusive than I thought at first blush. -- ALGRIF talk 10:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I was stating a fact, not trying to make a prescriptive point about present usage. Personally, on the gender issue, I think that "traditionally used of males", or similar wording, would be fine, along with a mention that it is (now) sometimes used of women, fsvo "sometimes" which I am not 100% certain of. Mihia (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Usage notes for God state: “Monotheistic Gods are traditionally referenced in English with masculine pronouns”. This is (I think) factually correct and useful information, and does not proscribe a usage as seen in “I met God and she is A Beautiful Black Woman“. — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 21:42, 18 March 2021.

I think that ℞, Rx and r. as used to start a prescription are historically three alternative presentations of the same. Currently, we have:

• ℞: English symbol, with alternative form Rx: (medicine, pharmacy) Prescription;
• Rx: English noun: Alternative form of ℞;
• r.: Translingual verb: (medicical recipes) abbreviation of Latin recipe meaning take (imperative).

The symbol ℞ can be found in older German texts, for medicinal preparations but also for chemical (or alchemist) recipes in general, and likewise in Latin texts. In present-day German, Rx-Arzneimittel means prescription drug, as opposed to OTC-Arzneimittel, but on actual prescriptions the abbreviation Rp. is used.

1. One issue is the best PoS assignment for English ℞ and Rx. If one is an alt form of the other, they should have the same assignment. Can uses of “Rx” be found that are grammatically nouns (like, “the other day I found an old Rx that ...”)?
2. A second issue is whether “℞” should also be classified as translingual (but obsolete). Are there surviving uses in other languages than English?
3. Finally, is “r.” really in use as an abbreviation of recipe? Even if it is historically the abbreviation of a Latin verb form, I don’t think it is reasonable to put it in the category of translingual verbs.

 --Lambiam 12:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. My edits to based and unbased have been reverted, possibly by editors not familiar with online/4chan slang.

I'll trawl messageboard archives for examples if necessary, but I don't really see why it should be. 'Based' is used by online right-wingers (and sometimes left-wingers attempting to co-opt the term) as shorthand for 'I agree with/think this is good because it is in accordance with my beliefs'. Essentially it's become an antonym of woke, and like woke can be used ironically/humorously/apolitically. But really it connotates a particularly hardline or unapologetic stance/expression/action, hence stock phrases like 'insanely based', etc. When someone comments 'based' on something, or calls something/someone 'based', 90% of the time this is what he means, and the Wiktionary entry should reflect that, otherwise we're misleading people. If someone thinks there's a better way to phrase it, that's fine--I tried to come up with the most succinct and neutral way of putting it off the cuff. But the definition itself shouldn't be controversial to anyone familiar with 2010s internetspeak. It is in fact the usual meaning of the term nowadays. The 'unbased' definition follows from this (and I believe was coined based on this sense specifically). I'm aware the political meaning was not the earliest meaning, and it still is used apolitically, but certainly by the time I first became aware of it (a few years ago) it was 'the' primary meaning. So to exclude any mention of the term's ideological dimension/connotation is ridiculous. --Ya hemos pasao (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds more like a pattern in the people who use the term rather than an aspect of the term's meaning. If it actually meant 'praiseworthy for showing right-wing political allegiance' or was an antonym of woke, it would be very strange for left-wing people to co-opt it. Browsing some recent Reddit comments that use the term, I'm seeing some uses in political subs, and yes, they seem somewhat skewed to the right, but certainly not limited to "radical right-wing" politics. I also see plenty of uses that have no obvious political connotation (e.g. it someone saying it would be "based as hell" if a certain stock reached an all time high soon). I think you're on to something but your wording overstated the case. Maybe the definition could just mention that term can be used in response to someone having or demonstrating approved political views, and a usage note could talk a bit about the communities in which the term is popular (and the fact that many are right-wing)? In any case, some quotes would definitely help. Colin M (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "based" does mean "sound, grounded, reliable" on key Dissident Right topics. This word does mean something to the Alt-Right. On the other hand, the definition given for "redpill", which includes slurs of "White supremacy" ignores that fact that hardly anyone on the Dissident Right wants to be "supreme" over others. They large want an ethnostate, not a supremacist state. White supremacy and white nationalism are not interchangeable terms. "I got redpilled on race" = I became a race realist. "Based" is often used of people who might not otherwise be expected to agree with the Alt-Right as in (Google it!) "a based black man", referring to a black person who nevertheless opposes immigration or feminism or whatever. On the other hand, I don't think "unbased" has the same resonance as a word on the Dissident Right. The word is generally used in the affirmative, "based".86.142.138.70 22:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Super common on lefty forums too, especially the more 'dirtbag' left forums and places like leftypol. Also used ironically in basically every political meme board that's not majority-boomer/Gen X. That said I think some kind of indication that this is often used in online political discussions in general might be desirable as it really does get used disproportionately often in political contexts, but probably without a focus on right-wing usage. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Ranks as a plural only entry? E.g. "The ranks of the unemployed" -- ALGRIF talk 17:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

At rank#Noun we have "(typically in the plural) A category of people, such as those who share an occupation or belong to an organisation.".

One can find use of this in the singular in this sense, excluding the military: eg, "the secret grievances of a rank of people miserably under-appreciated for what they do".

As one might expect there are connotations drawn from other usage of the term (as evidenced in our definitions): of persons engaged in conflict, of persons with a certain status (high or low) in society, etc.

Why not just put a usage example in the plural and some citations under the singular definition. To say it is "plural only" is a falsehood, except perhaps to a statistician. DCDuring (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for input. -- ALGRIF talk 17:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that "typical" about covers it. Your example shows that it's not "plural only", but that's not what it says. The word "typical" means that it's the expected case, not that it's the only case. --RDBury (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Does typically mean more commonly than usually. In this case, almost always would be more accurate AFAICT from Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Robbie SWE doesn't believe the example I added to solution in search of a problem is appropriate. I think it's a perfectly good example which illustrates when and how to use the idiomatic expression. Here's the original example:

1. A proposal that does not solve any problem or provide any value, or that is intended to solve a problem which does not really exist.

   The problem could only occur under the most unusual circumstances. Many viewed the proposal as a solution in search of a problem.

What do you think? — Dentonius 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Exhibit A. Not only did you use that precise phrase in an ongoing dispute, you even exaggerated the facts in the usage example, unless you constitute the "many viewed". --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Robbie, I checked if the term existed in Wiktionary because it popped into my mind. I decided to make a more complete entry. It has nothing to do with our ongoing discussion. You're not as good at reading me as you think. Besides, who cares what I think? The entry is just the entry. The question is this: have I made the entry better since Mx Granger created it? — Dentonius 19:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Answer – no, you haven't. The usage example does not make the phrase any clearer. Granted, the phrase is somewhat difficult to explain. But the questions just amount: what kind of problem occurs under the most unusual circumstances? What circumstances? Which proposal was considered? I'm left with more questions than answers after reading that usage example, even if the context was unbeknownst to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's my belief that the definition should explain concisely what it is; the usage example should try to show how you would use the term naturally in context. I've been trying to perfect this art. It isn't easy creating an example which isn't too long (or too short to be useless). I don't think it's a good idea to throw the baby out with the bath water. It would probably be better for the next editor to replace it with something better if s/he can (pending the outcome of this discussion, of course). — Dentonius 19:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• I re-read the entry and I now think the example could have been a little better. I added the words "to fix it":

1. A proposal that does not solve any problem or provide any value, or that is intended to solve a problem which does not really exist.

   The problem could only occur under the most unusual circumstances. Many viewed the proposal to fix it as a solution in search of a problem.

— Dentonius 20:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the usex is particularly informative and support removing it. I've added a quote which I think is a better example. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem with this usex is that it's very abstract. Something more concrete would help the reader anchor their understanding better. e.g. "Some teachers complained that the new online grading software was a solution in search of a problem." The quote added by Mx. Granger is great IMO - concrete, includes necessary context, but not too long. Colin M (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I just came across a piece, in fact a letter to the editor, about jaloezie (“jealousy; window blind”) and jaloers (“jealous”) being pronounced with an initial /ʒ/... or if you're really unlucky with /ʃ/. I do not recall ever encountering these pronunciations (and except in the meaning “window blind” they seem more than a little affected to me) and I was curious if anybody else is familiar with the phenomenon. It may be mainly confined to Northern Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I studied Dutch, and I pronounce jaloers with /ʒ/ indeed, also because it is from French. I also think I heard some people pronouncing it as /ʒaˈluːrs/ ॥ ☼ সূর্যমান ☽ ॥ 21:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The audio file at jaloezie seems to start with /ʒ/. There's also something weird going on with the /z/ in the onset of the final syllable in that recording; it sounds apical or slightly retroflexed or something. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right. The realisation of /z/ seems to have some qualities that mark it as emphatic, it's not really a feature you would hear in normal speech. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It was borrowed in Middle Dutch from Old French. Those words typically have /j/ in Dutch. The pronunciation with /ʒ/ is a relatively late phenomenon (from ca. 1900). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never heared jaloezie with a /ʒ/... It's always /jɑluˈzi/ (with a short ~ ~ though). I believe I'm officially in the Northern Dutch-speaking area (Haaglanden); I wouldn't know what happens in the East though. Thadh (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it likely that these will ever be used in more than one place?

• Template:de-decl-all
• Template:de-decl-anderer
• Template:de-decl-euer
• Template:de-decl-jeder
• Template:de-decl-jedweder
• Template:de-decl-jeglicher
• Template:de-decl-selber
• Template:de-decl-unßer

Hi all, I was recently looking at the page on interwiki because its corresponding page on Wikipedia has been proposed for deletion. I noticed the the noun and verb senses were labelled "Wiktionary and WMF jargon". I don't have strong evidence against for those, but as I noted on the entry talk page the adjective definitively pre-dates Wikipedia.

However, looking at Category:en:Wiki, I notice that a lot of wiki-related terms have the same label - for instance wikilink and sandbox, neither of which originated at Wikipedia / WMF. It seems this was originally a template called "wikijargon", so I suspect at some point somebody confused wiki terminology with Wikipedia terminology, which is not the same thing at all - it's like calling all internet jargon "Facebook jargon". Possibly there should be two different labels for these two cases? - IMSoP (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Some archaeological field work. When the template {{wikijargon}} was applied to the entry wikilink in 2009, it expanded to (Wiktionary and WMF jargon). The entry sandbox was labelled with {{wjargon}} in 2005, which at the time expanded to (Wiktionary jargon). So it was confused from the get-go.  --Lambiam 17:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be missing — This unsigned comment was added by JohnWheater (talk • contribs).

• We have both jerk and Jerk. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I recently found the form ਛੱਡਤਾ | chaḍḍtā in a Punjabi song, and the form is confirmed by a Quoran who claims to know Punjabi. It is not in the inflection table at ਛੱਡਣਾ | chaḍḍṇā. Is it just a variant of ਛੱਡਦਾ or are they different? MGorrone (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone provide attestations for the unspecified On reading ごき (goki) and Kun reading むね (mune)?

The only place I found was the character's Unihan page. I have found Unihan's On and Kun readings problematic in the past, and do not trust it as a sole source. Kotobank, which can usually be relied on for obscure readings, only mentions mune as a Nanori reading, and goki not at all. — 98.110.52.141 03:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a quote at room meat that probably could be better formatted Yellow is the colour (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

User:WingerBot just added a plural to this Spanish term using a template which generates them automatically. But shouldn't the plural be "funciones de densidad de probabilidad conjuntas", with an s at the end? According to my knowledge of Spanish grammar it should, however I do note that the plural without the "s" gets way more hits on Google than the one with... Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It depends which noun the adjective conjunta is modifying. Is it the función that's conjunta? Or is it the densidad or the probabilidad? —Mahāgaja · talk 15:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I don't now actually! I always thought that it modifies the word función, but now that I think about it, I'm not sure at all. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In this case it is probabilidad; probabilidad conjunta = joint probability.  --Lambiam 16:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I recently added a quote to postfix which includes some boring Hebrew grammar. I'll need someone to add a bit of Hebrew to the quote for it to make sense. Also, isn't there a template like {{needs more Hebrew}}? Yellow is the colour (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Like this?

“Verbs with י for the first radical, often drop it in the future, imperative, and infinitive of Kal, to which last they postfix ת‎ (לקח‎ to take, follows this form), and in Niph. and Hiph. they change י into ו.”

Not much clearer, though, with the Hebrew included. It {{needs more cowbell}}.  --Lambiam 16:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the longer, albeit cowbelless, quote Yellow is the colour (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Any idea how this ended up with the intrusive -r-? It's not present in the original Thai name. —Rua (mew) 10:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Not phonetically, but it's there in the Thai orthography and the Sanskrit etymon श्री (śrī). —Mahāgaja · talk 12:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There are two definitions at weetje (etymology 1), "a trivial but useful piece of information, a tip" and "a fact". Neither seems ideal, I think there should be a single definition along the lines of "an interesting piece of information, a trivial fact". I think these are seldom useful except in trivia quizzes, so it seems ill-advised to call it "useful" in the definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure which sense of trivial is implied here. In some uses it is surely a bit of trivia in the sense of an item of unimportant information: “–Met welk obscuur weetje pak je graag uit? —Ik onthoud geen trivia. Maar hier is een weetje over mij: ik ken Grace Jones.” That is (IMO) not “useful information”, so sense 1 does not fit, but the definition “a fact” of sense 2 is too general and bland. Trump lost the election and Biden is president – that is a fact, but not a weetje. Something that seems to fit sense 1 is this: “lle dertig bedrijven uit de Duitse sterindex DAX nu een stuk minder waard dan Apple en Microsoft. Het is maar een weetje“. This is like a tip; potentially valuable information for people who are into investing in the stock market. I wouldn’t call this “trivial”, though. Looking at Google results I have the impression that the senses range from “a piece of trivia that is perhaps interesting but for the rest rather useless” to “a snippet of information that is perhaps boring but potentially valuable”. I see a commonality in that in both extremes it is a relatively simple item of information that the recipient may not have easy access to, as in, “if you didn’t know, now you know”. Does this fit all uses?  --Lambiam 23:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In recent years I've heard young people increasingly talking about "manifesting" things. It seems to mean something like "to will something into existence" by consistently thinking and/or talking about it. I'm not sure how to phrase a definition; does anyone have any ideas? —Mahāgaja · talk 20:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this in a Christian/faith type of context ? Where one prays and then believes in a particular outcome, and speaking about it 'in faith' aids in bringing it into existence ? Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Think Law of Attraction. It is an extension of the main transitive verb sense which deals with creating appearance and perception in others to creating something more tangible, or that doesn't depend on others' perceptions, or achieving one's goals or wants.

• 2011, E. Bernard Jordan, The Laws of Prosperity: Building a Divine Foundation of Success:

  he often floods the ether with barely formed, undisciplined intention that he hopes will manifest something he wants.

• 2011, Tanya Jopson, Human Energy-Body Awareness: How Our Energy Body & Vibrational Frequency Create Our Everday Life:

  By way of example, we originally set out to manifest something: we want to create the authorship of two books within a twelve month period.

• 2015, Karen Downing, Creating your Life Path: One Dream at a Time:

  Until this belief is healed, you will feel unsatisfied with your dreaming process; because even once you have manifested something, your ego will tell you it is not enough. After all, if you think that money means power, what is stopping your ego from thinking more money means more power.

The subtitle of the second 2011 cite is particularly amusing. Perhaps someone would like to manifest a definition from such usage. DCDuring (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of "to will something into existence" is quite apt. It may be worth noting that, though as DCDuring notes, it comes to us via the language of woo woo, the current use you describe is usually somewhat ironic/non-literal. i.e. when someone says "manifesting X", they're usually just communicating "I hope/wish X". It doesn't entail that they actually believe they can bring X into effect by some supernatural force of mind. Colin M (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, it's more new-agey than Christian, though Google suggests Christians can also manifest things. I don't know that I could do better than Mahagaja's definition, beyond maybe adding ", will something to occur" if it can also refer to events. (Urban Dictionary has definitions along the lines of "make something happen, make something real".) I don't think it's definitionally required to "consistently" or repeatedly think or talk about the thing, though it's probably common; a friend joked a couple years ago that I'd "manifested" something after I talked about it (just once) and later in the day it happened. I can find sentences like "I never considered trying to manifest a boyfriend or a new way of being in my relationships until I read something profound on a blog" and google books:"to manifest a partner" (by ceasing to think that one is unworthy of love, or that good partners are too scarce to find, etc, and putting oneself out there to find a partner), comparable to "will a boyfriend into existence", "spoke a boyfriend into existence", "complain a boyfriend into existence", "tweeted her boyfriend into existence" (all attested at least on the web) and a 1981 New York Times article where someone "'magicked' a boyfriend into existence 'out of sheer need.'" I would hope, as Colin says, that most users do not believe they actually brought a person (etc) into existence by supernatural force, though some may and the various synonyms I mentioned suggest it is the denotation of the word. - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Lol, y'all need to do some outreach to younger editors. Explanation of manifest: Millennials were highly influenced by the positive portrayal of witchcraft and magic that permeated popular media during the early 2000s (think Harry Potter, Charmed, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.). Since then, all things occult (tarot, astrology, crystals, magic) have become popular once again and phrases like "I don't have any money, but I think I can manifest some weed" can be heard on college campuses throughout the U.S. The verb was originally woo woo (referring to creating or achieving something primarily via thought/will power/magic), then ironic, now it's just common slang for "produce via will power". I also wonder if it was originally influenced by the phrase "manifest destiny". Nosferattus (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a good citation from the witchcraft context...

• 2019, Jenn Stevens, The Mindful Witch: A Daily Journal for Manifesting a Truly Magickal Life:

  This journal is designed to help you weave mindfulness into your daily practice of witchcraft and to align you with your true desires so you can manifest them in the world.

Nosferattus (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added the definition "to will something into existence" and hope that others will improve on that. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this manifestation of a definition will lead to the further manifestation of citations that unambiguously support its current definition or improved wording yet to be manifested. DCDuring (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Well it's a good thing you put it out into the universe. One thing I noticed when looking for quotes is that sometimes speakers use "manifest X" without the implication that X is actually accomplished/obtained. e.g. Here is a news story about a woman having just bought a house. She's quoted as saying "The crazy thing is I manifested this house in my magic book, two and a half years ago and again a year and a half ago". I was tempted to update the definition to reflect this, but I don't see a natural way to do so. "To will (or attempt to will) something into existence" isn't quite right - when the woman in that article talks about having manifested the house years ago, I don't think she would think of those as failed attempts to will the house into existence. The sense she's using is something like "to make a ritualized wish for something with the expectation that it will be fulfilled in the future by some supernatural force". But I don't see any concise way to say that. Colin M (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps "to will something to exist", as either a replacement for or an addition to the current definition? She willed the house to exist years ago, even though it only now came into existence. That would resolve it concisely, I think.
Actually, the house probably existed / came into existence / was built years ago and only now came into her possession, like the boyfriends mentioned above who are presumably not newborns just brought into the world. However, it may(?) be reasonable to expect readers to figure out that "will into existence"/"will to exist" encompasses this, and other words like "conjure" (up an X), "magick" (up an X) can probably be used with similar disregard to whether X comes into one's life/possession ex nihilo or from elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's a good idea. BTW, re the "occult" label, I was originally also going to qualify it with something like "originally", but while searching out quotes I found this recent NYT article which treats the phenomenon without a hint of irony ("Manifesting sits alongside a smattering of belief systems — astrology, tarot, paganism and their metaphysical cousins — being resurrected by a youthful generation in the name of wellness.", photos of crystals, zoomers who "communicate with ancestors and spirit guides", etc.), which made me think maybe I was misreading how the term is used. But I didn't look into it very deeply. Colin M (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never come across any such uses in the UK. Maybe this is emerging US colloquial and could be cited as such? Any UK examples, anyone? A good proportion of the UK population is adopting US-influenced phraseology, but most still do not speak like this. I think most of the meanings above can be either subsumed under "to make something manifest" or "to manifest itself in". E.g. "floods the ether with barely formed, undisciplined intention that he hopes will manifest something he wants" is equivalent to "that he hopes will manifest itself in something he wants". It is undeniable, however, that there is a trend in English, ultimately inspired by US colloquial, for more verbs to become transitive, deleting clunky prepositions on the way, and for more verbs to acquire a passive meaning 86.142.138.70 00:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A few examples from Reddit: A, B, C. But hard to say how its prevalence compares to comparable US-centric discussion boards. Colin M (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Collins has "(intransitive) (of a disembodied spirit) to appear in visible form."

Now that would seem to merit a label like (UK, occult). DCDuring (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Colin, I wouldn't have even understood the phrases you cited from Reddit, your links A, B and C, if it hadn't been for this Tea room thread. Yes, the first two at least seem clear UK forum posts, and maybe younger speakers are adopting this? 86.142.138.70 03:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This seems to have been popularised (or even introduced?) in The Joy of Sex (1972). Most of our citations are mentions. Is it really in use? Equinox ◑ 10:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

So I've asterisked prefixed an - to the entire entry as I threatened to do here to indicate that the forms weren't in use, and left the only solidly attested form in the table. The result is that the pagename and the headword differ, which is probably against the rules. What do? Move the page to a new name as with -полнить? If yes, what do with the current page, hard redirect or some kind of a note? To be honest, I like the current arrangement as the word appears without asterisks or - prefixes in most paper and electronic dictionaries. Brutal Russian (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We don’t know what to do, and it is not too probable it is against the rules. In needs to be at a place where it will be found and not a random attested form. vēnus and ops are also lingering. Also starrings of inflected forms are overrated. Many a word is not attested in all inflected forms but only by coincidence and generally there is nothing gained by ascertaining which words are how lacking. Here you can contend at least that for most Latin they were unused, but if there is more in Medieval Latin technically it can’t be starred. Fay Freak (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's easy to make sure it's found by using links or redirects. If a user searches for a word that doesn't exist, we can help them to find a similar one that does, but I don't think we should make up word usage for dictionary convenience - in fact that's precisely what we should be careful not to do when we see a grammarian's gloss used purely for illustration, as in the present case. I personally had no idea what vēnus is supposed to be because to my mind it's quite clearly not a word as I'm sure it wasn't for the Romans. I don't think it's such a problem that we couldn't make a template saying something to the effect of "dictionary invention, see lemma at link".

This situation has nothing to do with what you mention, namely forms not attested by coincidence. In this case we're talking about well-known incomplete paradigms. I for one don't see much problem in telling the two situations apart, and I've never seen anyone mistakenly postulating an incomplete paradigm based on insufficient evidence and chance lack of attestations. Certainly it's not a problem with this particular word. I don't understand at all what you mean by "there's nothing gained". Certainly you understand what's gained by a reader who walks away from the website with correct information on word usage as opposed to one who walks away mislead.

The problem with Medieval Latin is that it's bottomless, is anything but a single entity, and 90% of it has not been published in any way whatsoever, with like half the published editions available only to scholars with institutional logins. Trying to account for it is like trying to account for all the non-native speakers of any other international language. There's bound to be things that they produce that won't be accepted even by other proficient non-native speakers as grammatical, and these things cannot be taken as evidence for word usage in compiling a dictionary or a grammar of the language. Brutal Russian (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm also wondering what to do with the already-existing forms of this word. Delete? Help people find them by using a template explaining that they are ungrammatical? Brutal Russian (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If the word does not exist as a word, but only as a second (or later) component of other words, then putting it at -pleo makes more sense than putting it at pleo. If it's only mentioned in grammarians writing that it does not exist, then it's not a word someone would be likely to run across and want to know the meaning of, in the language of CFI, and the utility is marginal. The utility of nonexistent (unused) inflected forms of a lemma that also doesn't exist as a word is vanishing to nonexistent; I think they could either be moved to forms starting with - or deleted; the Russian cognate -по́лнить (-pólnitʹ) seems like a good model for how to handle it. However: If, on the other hand, pleo exists as a standalone word in later (e.g. Medieval) Latin, then it could be defined as a word on the strength of such attestations, with a usage note that earlier Latin grammarians specifically held it up as not a word. - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I notice that besides the one "mention of pleo as a nonexistant word" quote in the entry, there are two more quotes on the citations page (one from the second century and one from 1147). If this is actually attested in use (not just in mentions that explicitly mention it as not existing), even if only in Medieval Latin, then what it needs is a label, not a hyphen before the forms in the inflection table. Who else speaks Latin and could weigh in? User:JohnC5? - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@-sche: This is a tough one. The mention in Festus is not much though the inscriptional form seems convincing. I might have found what looks like plēvit in this truly atrocious piece of 1130 Latin (?), though the Romance admixture makes it hard to be sure. I searched a bunch of other random paradigm cells I'd expect to find, but got nothing all that promising. I think it would be reasonable to move all the unhyphenated pages to their hyphenated equivalents without redirects. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 05:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to make sure we have the meaning "make fundamental changes to" under turn around as in "George, you're going to have to turn your life around if you don't want Sheila to leave you." I've looked through the existing definitions but I don't see a match, so am I missing something, or am I misinterpreting the phrase? I don't want to add a new def is it's already covered or it's not a real meaning. --RDBury (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I see potential for this to be incorporated into sense 3, although that definition currently seems to narrow/specific. But turn one's life around also sounds like such a common expression that it could have its own entry. Imetsia (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think sense 3 needs to be generalized rather than adding another special case. But maybe there's an argument for also having subsenses for sports/business domains. I don't think turn one's life around is sufficiently idiomatic to merit its own entry. You can also turn around a relationship, a career, a dinner party, etc. all with the meaning of righting the course of something that's going badly. Colin M (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

One of the usexes for sense 2 actually uses turn one’s life around. The first usex is IMO actually a use of sense 1 (physical rotation). For sense 2, I don’t understand why it has the label reflexive. After moving the first usex to sense 1 or simply removing it as redundant, reflexive should be replaced by figurative, and the definition can be slightly widened to: “To change to a radically different direction, position or opinion.” Then turn one’s life around is a perfect fit for sense 2, and sense 3 can remain as it is.  --Lambiam 22:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, something like that would work. Though if sense 2 is going to cover uses like turn your life around it should (like 3) mention that it's usually in a positive direction. I don't get the reflexive labels either - I think the first 3 senses should just be labelled ergative. I don't think a figurative label is necessary since all but 1 are figurative. Colin M (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam, @Colin M I mostly agree, generalizing 2 sounds like the best option; I didn't see the quote where it's used in that sense, though it really didn't match the def. given (then). (I still prefer the usex I gave above with Sheila, but perhaps I'm biased.) I think the "changing opinion" usex still belongs under 2; it's the figurative meaning, and it appears that def. 2 is evolving into the figurative meaning of 2 while 1 remains the literal meaning. It seems fairly standard practice to separate figurative and literal meanings when figurative ones become somewhat independent. Hence the figurative label on 2, but 3 & 4 seem more literal than 2, and the rest are already marked idiomatic, so I don't see any inconsistency between having it on 2 but not the rest. On ergative, I mostly agree on 1; it seems a bit jargony to me but that seems to be the style here. With 2 I don't how it would be used intransitively in that sense so I think just delete that label. Similarly, I don't think 3 has an intransitive meaning so the label seems okay as is, though I'm a bit suspicious have having so many specialty labels there. How many specialties do you need before it's considered general? I'll go ahead and incorporate these ideas into the entry.

FWIW, my original plan was to add a link to the entry from umkrempeln. I have seen one used as a translation for the other, though I'm still not entirely sure that there is enough overlap in meaning that a link would be helpful. --RDBury (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we have an entry for call dibs or would that be considered a sum of parts of call (To utter in a loud or distinct voice) and dibs? It's possible to "claim dibs" or "have dibs". Also, "say dibs" would be similar to "call dibs". But somehow, "call dibs" feels disconnected. I think it may even refer to another sense of call: "To request, summon, or beckon". Subjectively, calling dibs feels more like one invokes a "dibs" deity to claim something than literally just calling out the word "dibs". It doesn't feel like SOP to me, but technically I guess it is? Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Took me a while to think of any example, but call shotgun is a similar sense of call. Still not sure about what that sense exactly is, if anything this confuses me more. Alexis Jazz (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, call bullshit, call foul; similarly, cry havoc. DCDuring (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, call shotgun is a good comparison. In my idiolect at least, this use of call is quite flexible. e.g. "I call first", "I call the blue one", "I call goalie". I think we're missing a corresponding sense at call. Something like "to stake a claim to something". Colin M (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Just added that sense with a 1998 quote from The Simpsons. Colin M (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! @DCDuring I think call bullshit and call foul different. Those examples declare something but don't claim ownership. Contrary to what I said above, "say dibs" doesn't quite work. When saying "My co-worker said dibs and that was that", the co-worker just literally said "dibs". I think Colin M is right. I think dibs means "first choice" and call means to lay claim to something. So "I call dibs" means "I claim the right to having the first choice", roughly. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

And with objects bullshit and foul, one is declaring that someone else is doing something wrong. I wonder whether call isn't used as part of a larger number of expressions that are speech acts of one kind or another. Perhaps they all fit under a single non-gloss definition. DCDuring (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty different sense. I just added it as a separate subsense under the heading "To name, identify or describe". Looking at the ngram data, it looks like "call foul" is ancient, but the extension of the pattern to other objects is quite recent, with "call bullshit" only showing up around 2000. I think its use is still mostly restricted to a few particular arguments (particularly foul, bullshit, shenanigans), but I think it's in the process of becoming more flexible. I was able to find a couple instances of "calling racism" (example). "I call shade" is also a memorable quote from a contestant on an episode of RuPaul's Drag Race. Colin M (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could define ‘call’ as ‘happens’ for the currently undefined verb sense 10, as in ‘when trouble calls’. I see why it might be considered a special sense of ‘call’ = ‘visit’ but with the object of the sentence, ‘trouble’, being an abstract rather than concrete noun thoughOverlordnat1 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've cited this and removed the RFV. Now someone questions the attestations. One quote is in a newspaper article that speaks about this word and specifically says it's in wide use, but the user claims "it's just a mention, not actual use". Another citation is questioned because the quote is "Make Fuppes Great Again", so they say it's not German, but English. Is this kind of nitpickery the wiktionarian way, particularly with words that are regional and unlikely to be found in citable texts? I feel that we want to make sure the word is used, which these quotes perfectly well do. Being an IP myself, I don't want to start an edit war, but if a registered user could remove the RFV tag, I'd think that justified. Thank you in advance. 77.13.95.172 00:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

See WT:CFI#Attestation, WT:RFVN#Fuppes, and WT:RFV (especially the "Closing a request" part). Further notes:

• Properly Fuppes should already have been deleted: uncited and discussion sat for 1-2 years.
• There can be good reason to challenge cites: Are they durably achieved? Internet sources often aren't. Are they usages and not mentionigs? Are they in the right language? Dialectal German could for example be "Central Franconian" instead of "German".
• Keine Kunst (transl. from Hungarian) might be a 2nd proper usage: "... Das ist Fuppes, ..." - however, it could also be "that's nonsense" instead of "that's football", some more context is needed.

— This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371C:3D30:4890:BC59:6F39:B6EE (talk) at 09:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC).

“Saarländish” (probably Rhine-Franconian) Fuppes is translated here as Standard German Quatsch. IMO this only means that Fuppes is polysemic. The term appears to have escaped also in this sense from its dialectal confines and migrated regionally into a slangy register of the standard language, as in »Kostüme! Fuppes! Das ist doch eh alles fake, Mann!«. Its use in this one citation might be an instance of code-switching, but the location where the action takes place is Cologne, so for code-switching one would expect Ripuarian terms to be used. I have no opinion on the etymology, in particular the issue whether these two senses sprang from the same etymon.  --Lambiam 08:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/got#English For some reason the usage for "has", as in "I got to go" and "They got a car", is labelled "Southern" when it's found throughout the US. While the form omitting "has", like "He got" vs "He's got" is a bit rarer and more limited, the version dropping "have", like "I got" and "They got" and "We got", are pretty far reaching. -ClumbusGuy, 19:26 UTC, 29 March 2021.

Just to be clear, I believe the "They got a new car." example has the intended meaning "They possess a new car", not "They acquired a new car". Given that the latter reading is so easy to fall into, I think it's not a very good usex. Colin M (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was meaning. A different example could be "They got a few bikes in the back" to mean "They have a few bikes in the back". -ClumbusGuy 21:22 UTC, 29 March 2021.

Or "They got a whole list of stuff they gotta get". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Is that really very widespread? I can imagine that in relaxed speech "They've got a few bikes in the back" can easily end up sounding like "They got a few bikes in the back", but I think most would find it unacceptable if written that way. Colin M (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Once you leave out the explicit "have" it's going to be proscribed, so there's really not much difference between your sentence and my sentence as far as who uses it. My intention was to show contrasting senses of get for this discussion, not to provide the optimum usage example for the entry. If you want a sentence that a teacher would approve, it would be "They have an entire list of items they must obtain", which is notably lacking the word "get". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. I'm talking about the acceptability of the sentence to regular speakers, not usage authorities. I'm saying that just because a form matches an accepted pronunciation doesn't mean that form is standard English - it also needs to be the case that most speakers would accept it in writing. c.f. would of. Colin M (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's actually interesting from a historical linguistics point of view to see the perfect tense of a dynamic verb acquire the semantics of the present tense of a stative verb: just as Proto-Indo-European *wóyde shifted its meaning from '(s)he has seen' to '(s)he knows', so also I've got is in the process of shifting its meaning from 'I have acquired' to 'I possess', and this new quasi "preterite-present verb" have got is displacing both have (“own, possess”) and have to (“be obliged to, must”), leaving have only its function of being the auxiliary verb for forming the perfect tense. Meanwhile, in the U.S. at least, have got is proceeding to drop its perfect marker have to result in "I got", "you got", "he got" (in some dialects even "he gots") meaning "I have", "you have", "he has". That this is felt as a present-tense verb is shown by do-support forms like "I don't got a bike" and "Do you got a pencil?" At any rate, I agree with the OP that sentences like "I got to go study", "They got a new car" (='They have a new car'), and "He got a lot of nerve" are not limited to the South, though I think third-person forms sound less acceptable in colloquial educated speech than first- and second-person forms. I personally will readily say "I got blond hair" and "You got a lot of nerve coming here", but not "He got blue eyes", which sounds uneducated. I wouldn't say "He's got blue eyes" either (that sounds British to me); I'd say "He has blue eyes". —Mahāgaja · talk 23:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd think it'd be okay to put in. Just look at the prevalence of the word "gotta", which is typically used like this. "I gotta go". Similarly, "got" is used alone in things like "Does he got a pen on him?", "You got anything?", and "I got it", etc. -ClumbusGuy 13:08 UTC March 30 2021.

Aside from the issue of whether it's Southern, are "(Southern US, nonstandard) Have He got a lot of nerve." and "(Singapore, colloquial) Have Got problem ah?" really separate senses? (They should at least be moved next to each other, IMO.) Also, is "To be murdered or seriously injured. He got got." really a present-tense verb got? It looks like got is a past tense form there, and potentially attested also in the present tense get: compare get sense 29, "(euphemistic) To kill. They’re coming to get you, Barbara." We should probably have at least two ===Verb=== headers, one for the past-tense verb form and one for use of got as a verb i.e. lemma, no? - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that most speakers who use got in any of the "proscribed" ways under discussion would view their use as erroneous, even when "proscribers" point it out. I further doubt that there is much basis for limiting it to southern US. In my suburb of NYC, I hear it. I suppose it might be called informal, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't used in courtroom testimony, political speeches, etc. I think the usage is more frequent among less educated subcultures, but is not limited to them.

DARE reports usage of got as:

1. present indicative, meaning 'have/have got', 'has/have', with recent usage more or less southern, older usage in northeaster US.
2. "as quasi-infin., equivalent to have, in neg and interrog constrr with aux do" with more southern than non=southern uses.
3. Hawaiian Creole for have got (quoting American Speech)

HTH DCDuring (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't get the semantic distinction between defs. 3 and 4. Is the distinction just a syntactic one: whether got is used with have (3) or without have (4)? Does that syntactic distinction really pondian? DCDuring (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I’d be more likely to change ‘you’ve got’ to ‘you got’ than I would be to change ‘I’ve got’ to ‘I got’, so it’s a bit context-specific and ‘I’ve got to’ is a more formal register than ‘I’ve gotta’ or ‘I got to’ but I think the article overplays pondian and North vs South US differencesOverlordnat1 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I was just now watching the witnesses in the George Floyd trial, and one of them said she was a 'shift lead'. The lawyer goes on to say that 'not many people' would know what that is. I made an entry for it based on two archive.org sources I saw. Is it SOP? I'm not really sure honestly. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a business jargon sense of lead at play which we seem to be missing. Other uses would be project lead, design lead, engineering lead, product lead, tech lead, etc. I believe it's also sometimes used without an attributive, as in "Alice is the lead on Project Foo." Somewhat similar to our existing lead actor/role senses. Colin M (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Added a sense. Equinox ◑ 14:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Watching the same trial, our definitions at shimmy (verb and noun) and offer (I would like to offer exhibit 8) don't seem quite up to scratch. Also, air choke and blood choke could be created. Yellow is the colour (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I recognize this term from work. At Whole Foods, there are (one store level and several department level) supervisors during a shift who assumes the responsibilities of the store or department manager during the shift. When that supervisor is the lead for the store, they're referred to as shifty, which is short for shift lead and more commonly used. When that supervisor is the lead for a department, they are commonly called the lead of shift lead. --Bgmntry (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This is quite well glossed and explained, but no pronunciation is given. I think someone could clarify that the pronunciation is not "and all", but more "n all", where "n" is syllabic n? Or at least nearly always so. Edit: I've just realised there is an audio file, but no IPA offered. The audio file isn't very good - because it is just someone saying the words "and" and "all" in their full pronunciation, and not someone actually saying the colloquialism " 'n all". I think the audio should simply be removed as misleading. The pronunciation is /n̩ ɔ:l/ (often /n̩ ɔu:/). 86.131.224.175 01:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It says it means a member of the KKK, but I think it's more probably a synonym of whitecap, a type of vigilante that pre-dated the KKK. Can anyone confirm/deny? Equinox ◑ 14:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• According to the OED:- "The Whitecaps..modeled themselves partly on earlier terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan... There is no evidence, however, that Whitecaps wore costumes." SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Changed to synonym. Equinox ◑ 14:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this legit? The bit about "defend American values and allies" sounds a bit like propaganda; who would not claim to do that? Equinox ◑ 15:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems SoP. One can find a Lincoln Republican, Grant Republican, Hanna Republican, McKinley Republican, Roosevelt Republican, Harding Republican, Coolidge Republican, Hoover Republican, Landon Republican, Wilkie Republican, Dewey Republican, Taft Republican, McCarthy Republican, Eisenhower Republican, Goldwater Republican, Nixon Republican, Reagan Republican, Gingrich Republican, Bush Republican, Dole Republican, Trump Republican. They all seem SoP to me, meaning something like "a Republican who shares the stated views of leading Republican X". We do have a Reagan Democrat, but that doesn't seem SoP to me, though it's close.

One can find similar personalization of political views for Democrats, though perhaps less commonly. One can also find a Debs Socialist and a Norman Thomas Socialist. DCDuring (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In almost the same mold there's also Rockefeller Republican, probably an extinct species by now, and that entry is not so great either. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the statement about defence is meant to communicate that the McCain Republican is quite hawkish while perhaps stopping short of a Cheney Republican; it may include a little dig at the previous occupant of the White House who saw alliances as a zero-sum game in which the USA lost out. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We do have RINO. DCDuring (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And even GINO. We don't need no stinkin, flamin DINO-RINOs when we have GINOs.
Anyway, I'd suggest to replace "defend American values and allies" with "having relatively hawkish views on defense". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

How are these different? "One who continually makes mistakes" and "a person who fucks up a lot". Fucking up is making mistakes. I don't think we should use the vulgar slang within the definition either, when it can be avoided. Geographyinitiative seems to think I am missing something. Equinox ◑ 17:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering the same, the definitions should be merged. – Jberkel 17:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it a suffix or a compound? Most (all?) of the entries have compound etys, but have been added to this suffix category! Equinox ◑ 17:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Off with their categories. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

One meaning of ‘kali’ is a Midlands and Northern dialect term for the type of sweet/candy also known as ‘sugar crystals’ or ‘sherbet crystals’. The entry for ‘sherbet’ on Wikipedia has a picture of kali from Goodies of Lincoln and I found a Birmingham based company called Pells which also market it as ‘kali’. In the etymology scriptorium here on Wiktionary, someone suggests this as an origin for the term ‘kaylied’, which makes sense as it’s also Midlands and Northern dialect. They suggest it gets its name as a clipping of the word ‘alkali’ because of its resemblance to alkaline crystals found in soda ash, which seems highly probable to me, if we consider that the main species of glasswort once used to make soda ash is called Kali, short for ‘alkali’, and the German name for Potassium is Kalium, as it is found in alkaline potash. Any thoughts regarding adding this definition and etymology to our entry for ‘kali’?Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, alkali, kali, German Kalium, and Latin kalium (not to mention the abbreviation "k" in chemistry for potassium) all go back to the same Arabic term (the "al-" is simply the Arabic definite-article prefix). Several kinds of candy/sweets trace their origins back to pharmaceutical products (marshmallows, peppermint, horehound, etc.) and pharmacists have traditionally used a lot of Latin names for things, so the connection between a Latin term like kalium isn't all that far-fetched. The connection of "kaylied" to the sugar crystals doesn't seem that compelling to me, but I wouldn't rule it out, either.

As far as adding that sense to English kali, you would need to have evidence that meets WT:ATTEST of its being used in ways that meet WT:BRAND. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I’ve found 8 conversations started by 7 different people on Twitter which mention ‘kali’ including one by the celebrity chef Nigel Slater, 2 threads on rootschat.com, and several sweet shop websites using the term online. I could provide sourced quotes, either here or in the article, as I’ve taken timestamped screenshots as evidence. I’m sure it meets attestation and I will add the definition to our entry when I get the chance, unless there are any objections? (I don’t want this to go the way of my definition of ‘gun’ for ‘stick’ though, where I quoted the famous folk song ‘Johnny I hardly knew ye’ as a source and put it in our ‘stick’ article only for it to be summarily deleted, seemingly without good reason).Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a quotation to our entry which is apparently from a 1928 homemakers' periodical from South Africa. The other quote I added is talking about a shop in West Bromwich (in the West Midlands of England) which sold kali. We could still use a durably-archived quote that is a little more explicit about what kali is, beyond being a kind of hard sweet. This, that and the other (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Excellent find, thanks for your contribution. This link tells you a small amount about making kali, I’ll see if I can find something more detailed https://www.monmoreconfectionery.co.uk/pick-n-mix-sweets/sherbet-kaliOverlordnat1 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Overlordnat1, do you happen to know how this term is pronounced? I see it on the internet being transcribed as "Kaylie", which could represent IPA^(key): /ˈkeɪ.li/ or IPA^(key): /ˈkeɪ.laɪ/. This, that and the other (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve heard IPA^(key): /ˈkeɪ.laɪd/ for ‘kaylied’, as in drunk, so I would imagine it’s similar for ‘kali’, especially if there is a connection to ‘alkali’ but I’m not 100% sure tbh (one website even says that ‘kali’ is Northern English and ‘keli’ is Scottish, to confuse matters even more!)Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

According to our article, the Greek Wiktionary article on ἵστημι has these errors:

1. there should be two different columns for medium and passive voice
2. ἔστην is an alternative to ἔστησα: it's active, not medium or passive
3. ἕστηκα, εστήκειν, and εἱστήκειν are active in form and meaning
4. do στήσας ἔχω and στήσας εἶχον exist in Ancient Greek?

--Espoo (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• If these are errors in the Greek Wiktionary entry, they need to be brought up at Greek Wiktionary, not here. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I already did that, but there's a lot less chance of getting a response there. I'm also hoping to get feedback here on whether our entry is correct and whether their entry is incorrect. --Espoo (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)