Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/December

Given name. Is the IPA, RP /lwɪs/, right? I would've expected a vowel after the /l/ (as in many, though not all, examples at Youglish; sometimes people do use the Spanish pronunciation when talking about Hispanophone people, but then the vowel is /i/). Added by a user who's added other incorrect IPA. - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The entry for this word says it's obsolete, but I hear people use it both as a noun and a verb regularly. 213.226.88.1 08:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, and the OED says the same thing, this is primarily a Yorkshire/Northern English word and definitely not obsolete. I added some citations (apparently the term has been picked up in medicine) and marked it as "chiefly Northern England". The use in pediatrics might be because of the influence of Ronald Illingworth, who was a Yorkshireman—I added a citation from him—but that's speculation on my part. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Defined as "a taxonomic plant genus, within tribe Astereae - the asters"

If that is the sole usage in German, then it is presumably subsumed in Aster#Translingual. It looks like a category/type error: an aster#English is not an Aster#Translingual. Is Aster#German also used to refer to a single aster? DCDuring (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It should probably be rewritten on the lines of the English entry I think but it does look to be used in a non-technical way; see GBooks for "den Astern", "einer Aster", etc., including this example from Goethe: "und sich besonders bei den Astern aufgehalten, die gerade dieses Jahr in unmäßiger Menge blühten" ("and spent a while at the asters in particular, which just this year were blooming in great numbers"). See also the de.wiki entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've tweaked the definition, it's the common name and not technical at all. – Jberkel 21:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This usage example at ава́рия (avárija) looks like a simple mistake: if so, could someone please fix it? PJTraill (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@PJTraill: Good catch! I've changed it to "accident on a vessel", although I wonder if there's a more idiomatic translation into English. Thadh (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There are words which are used only along with certain words. For example, "aback" is only used (in contemporary usage) with the word "take". Such words are called unilexemes. Do we have a category for them? Pirhayati (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend adding these as collocations, perhaps with a qualifier "strict collocation", but there's no categorization for that. Vininn126 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

We have the definition-line template {{only used in}}, but that doesn't seem to add such terms to a category; perhaps it should. (Also worth keeping in mind that there are some words that are almost only used in a certain collocation, but still occur elsewhere on occasion.) 98.170.164.88 21:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we start by having an (attested) entry for unilexeme?

Also, as we are, among other things, a historical dictionary and a dialect dictionary, how should we accommodate aback's use in Parliamentary Papers (1906) (went aback) and in Battles of the US (run aback), in Caribbean English (go aback), and in Indian English (slip aback), in nautical use (when the sails are aback). These usage instances were found in minutes in Google Books and by no means provide an exhaustive list of collocations of aback.

There may indeed by some instances that we should present as unilexemes, but aback doesn't look to be one of them. Also, the category would be applicable to individual senses of a word. DCDuring (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The word unilexeme doesn't seem to pass CFI, being used by one author only. 98.170.164.88 15:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What about cranberry word? PUC – 15:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The other day I read "by dint of" and realised I didn't know what a dint was. Equinox ◑ 07:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster online:
As transitive verb: i-ˈma-skyə-ˌlāt;
As adjective: i-ˈma-skyə-lət
(Some other dictionaries don't distinguish, but Wiktionary should get it right. I don't have the skills or tools to fix it myself; just a passerby.) Milkunderwood (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The distinction is made in the pronunciation sections of articulate, geniculate, matriculate and reticulate.

But the pronunciation sections of ejaculate (verb and noun), vermiculate (verb and adjective) and osculate (verb and adjective) also fail to make the appropriate distinction.  --Lambiam 00:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow -- I would never have thought to search for all those examples. I'm guessing you must have tried "-late". Milkunderwood (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Good work, all, for finding and fixing these (WF fixed emasculate). (excommunicate is another word with this distinction between POS. Perhaps we should look systematically for -ate words with multiple English POS sections...) - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems to have a broken audio file. Do we know of another somewhere or should we just remove it? Vininn126 (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The audio file works for me! Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I switched computers and it works now! Mysterious. I'll go clear my cache then... Vininn126 (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I can hear the audio file on both my iPad and iPhone and I can see the musical notes on my iPad too but I can’t see the musical notes on my iPhone! —Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear co-editors:

It has been brought to my attention by a L2 Ligurian speaker, that the conjugation for the ligurian verb "dâ", given in its respective entry-table in the English version of Wiktionary, is wrong for the imperative of the second person in singular. In other words, the L2 speaker claims that the Ligurian imperative of "dâ" for "ti" is, by no means, "dànni". The person in question went as far as to say that "dànni" actually means "give us! (imperative)"; it is to be noted however that he could not precise nor pinpoint what the correct conjugation should be. I bring this issue to your attention so that it may be looked upon by someone with the necessary expertisse and authority, that a decision be taken, and that the integrity and quality that we strive to provide to all our users here at Wiktionary are kept as flawless as possible.

Best regards. Nacho2048 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking for a better translation for German Knacks, which is currently glossed as quirk. I found crack (“mental flaw”) which looks like a good match (and shares the underlying metaphor), but it's marked as archaic. What's a good current synonym? Jberkel 17:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want something more negative than just quirk then maybe hang-up or foible? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but I think it's even stronger than that. Plus hang-up seems to get used mostly in sex contexts (at least in the UK, where all the current cites are from). – Jberkel 23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There's also the new {{rfeq}}, just to spread the word.

Aside from that, it reminds me of "major malfunction", I wonder if that's attestable outside of the movie. Vininn126 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Duden defines this sense as “physischer oder psychischer Defekt” (physical or psychological defect), giving two examples of use: “ein Knacks am Herzen” (not a broken heart but a physical heart defect) and “sie hat einen Knacks abbekommen” (she cracked ). The German Wiktionary illustrates the non-physical sense with a quotation from the novel Winterspelt by Andersch: “Näher liegt es freilich, zu vermuten, daß ihr Verhältnis in jenem Gespräch am 7. Oktober gestört wurde, einen Knacks bekam.” In an English translation of the novel, this is rendered as: “The rather more likely premise, it must be said, is that their relationship was thrown off course in that conversation of October 7, that it suffered a fracture.”  --Lambiam 12:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion moved from WT:GP.

title was This makes no sense

I had changed the meaning of niner because it was wrong have you ever heard anyone say are you listing to niner when they’re talking about channel 9 or something and after that it tells me I’ve been flagged please explain what I did to deserve this flag

A niner is someone who runs (rolls) with the gang 3x3 because 3x3=9 and that’s why they call themselves 9ers, niners or niner — This unsigned comment was added by 82.2.123.94 (talk).

It means "radio communications" like pilots and ship navigators making emergency calls. Not commercial radio. Equinox ◑ 19:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

For context, their editing attempt ran into an abuse filter. While I cannot view the log entry, I suppose it contained the string “aka” or “also known as”, and perhaps other non-standard formatting.

From a quick Google search, there is indeed a gang called “3x3” based in Edmonton, London. I haven’t looked into whether niner is attested as a term for a member of the gang. 70.172.194.25 19:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think both "3x3" and "niner" are derived from N9, Edmonton's post code district. Not sure they're attestable per Wiktionary standards though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ve been considering how we treat can’t be bothered and the related terms ‘can’t be arsed’ and ‘can’t be asked’. I’ve relabelled ‘can’t be arsed’ as a synonym rather than an alternative form of ‘can’t be bothered’ but there are some other issues. We have ‘can’t be arsed’ as a redirect to ‘arsed’ but can’t be bothered is parsed as a form of be bothered. The only way I could create ‘can’t be asked’ as an entry that makes any sense would be to create be asked first and label it as a verb, otherwise the formatting would be wrong and it would appear that the phrase ‘can’t be asked’ can be conjugated to form odd phrases like ‘can’t be askeds’.

We should probably have entries for all of be bothered, be asked and be arsed and entries for all of can’t be bothered, can’t be asked and can’t be arsed formed out of them. In order to do all of this, then we should remove the redirect of can’t be arsed to arsed.

Any thoughts on doing this? Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's tricky, because there are also times when someone in fact google books:"can be bothered to", or conversely merely google books:"won't be bothered to", which makes it seem like this is just bothered or bother, the same way can't be arsed redirects to arsed. (Certainly, can't be bothered seems to exist on a spectrum that also encompasses things like google books:"won't bother to" i.e. bleeds into simple use of bother.) We in general struggle with how to handle idiomat-ish phrases where the normal form of the idiom is one (longer, potentially negative-valence) phrase but the actually-idiomatic kernel (that can be used in many other longer phrases, or by itself) is something shorter and potentially positive-valence; normally one can't punch one's way out of a paper bag, but we have just way out of a paper bag, whereas we decided to have both rain cats and dogs and then, for use outside that phrase, separately cats and dogs. Personally, given the variability, my initial reaction is that the redirects to arsed, bothered etc are best. - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be right, there is some variability with arsed too as I can find uses of (nor) am I arsed and if I am arsed. We should probably delete be bothered, unless we want to take the alternative approach of keeping it and creating be arsed instead of course (though that seems less logical to me).

As far as can't be asked is concerned there only seems to mentions of this phrase being used in the same way as can't be arsed/bothered rather than durably archived actual uses, so it can be left as a red link for now. It is discussed quite widely in many places such as Reddit, Quora, Twitter, the notoneoffbritishisms.com blog and in Dr. Geoff Lindsay's latest YouTube video about the pronunciations 'ask' and 'ahsk' vs. 'aks' and 'ahks', where several commenters state that the variant 'can't be ahksed' can be heard in London - as some people there say 'ask' as 'ahks' this is a clear sign that they interpret the phrase as being 'can't be asked' in standard speech. They're clearly mistaken in their belief but it's an interesting phenomenon nonetheless. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you can't use it attributively ("he can't be arsed" vs. ??"he's not an arsed person") might suggest having it at be arsed, but we seem to handle this inconsistently: see e.g. be able to vs. sense 1 of fond (be fond of is a redirect). Worth noting also that informally you can get formations like "more arsed to" e.g. "if anyone can be more arsed to reply than I am" (random online example). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Please don't ignore that the search engine is a normal users' friend. If one types "punch my way out of a paper bag" (without the quotes, BTW, and with any possessive pronoun, AFAICT), the first entry that appears on the "failed-search" (actually "no-direct-hit") page is way out of a paper bag. That we don't have a perfect, all-encompassing model of all the 50 shades of idiomaticity is unlikely to be a problem for normal users. The worst result of our efforts would be to have entries that perfectly satisfied theory and didn't help or obstructed normal users, especially language learners in their efforts to understand an expression. DCDuring (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

… with v-finishing stem becoming u in the participle, to give as an example for -tus#Latin -> Usage Notes -> "Stem-final v". Does someone have an example or could give me any advice how to search for it but in my brain? --Utonsal (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. Perhaps the only ones where it is written as such are solvo, volvo. There are also verbs ending in -uo that could be considered to have an unwritten "v" after the "u" (minuo, tribuo, suo).--Urszag (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

How quick and nice the response is. Thanks @Urszag! Utonsal (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it make sense to just move this to "chicken and egg" / "chicken or egg" instead of the current approach of having loads of alternate forms with different hyphenation and nouns on the end? I added the "hen" ones after coming across it in reading (the forms I added are all attested) but it looks a bit silly now and, afaict, this is just an attributive use of "chicken or egg" as a fixed phrase. Wikipedia's article is titled "chicken or the egg" and opens "The chicken or the egg causality dilemma ...". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need an entry for chicken-and-egg, joining MWOnline and even Dictionary.com in including the expression. There are also numerous uses of chicken-egg which refer to the same concept with similar collocations. Also chicken v. egg. Perhaps a usage note could refer to the variety of forms that are not, strictly speaking, alternative forms, so that the search engine would direct users to the core entry. We would need quite a few hard redirects just to cover the forms of the adjective (if it is a true adjective and not a noun used attributively), let alone the NPs of which it can be a part. DCDuring (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I created chicken and egg. The POS is a bit problematic, but in contrast to Collins and MW (OED calls it a "modifier") I've opted to make it an unhyphenated noun with an "attributive" label, because it seems pretty well summed up by Appendix:English nouns#Attributive, which the label links to. A separate hyphenated entry is then probably unnecessary since it's implied by being attributive (from Google Books it doesn't seem clear whether hyphenation is more common), but anyway IMO everything else should be handled by hard redirects. That also leaves the question of reworking the translations: all of the ones I understand seem to be basically equivalent to the English so presumably the table can be ported over with the relevant "question" parts cut off the translations (they are all red links anyway). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(Actually it seems like there are some scattered cases of things like "more chicken and egg" and "very chicken and egg", so not sure... In context these might still be 'nominal' similar to "that's very 'Trump'". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC))

There are plenty of instances of chicken and egg appearing in distinctly nounish roles, eg, as object of a preposition, in uses connected to the conundrum. I can't think of a gloss definition that would be acceptable, though there might be one. It strikes me that a non-gloss definition might work: Used to allude to the (proverbial?) question: "which came first, the chicken or the egg?. (Can a proverb be in the form of a rhetorical question? Mustn't the question have preceded all these collocations?) Perhaps all of the forms involving coordinated chicken(s) and egg(s) should share such a common definition. It would work particularly well if we could have a proverb entry for a canonical form of the rhetorical question. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As to an adjective PoS, many terms that have well-attested noun roles are more often used attributively. Once they are in sufficient attributive use, speakers will often try to use them as true adjectives. Further, one can find an instance of chicken-and-egged, ie, a verb PoS. I wouldn't bother with an adjective PoS, though any cites deserve to be preserved. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The entry three-quarters had its POS as noun, while the alt form three quarters had its POS as numeral. I changed the latter to be consistent with the former. Complicating matters, the usage example on the latter entry is actually adverbial (compare similar usage of half). 98.170.164.88 01:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jberkel This seems like the incorrect entry title to use. To "keep (put, etc.) one's house in order" is not to be parsed as "keep (one's house in order)" (i.e. there's a house in order, and that's the whole of what I'm keeping), but rather as "keep (one's house) (in order)". Suppose it were idiomatic to "put a chair on a table": again, we wouldn't be putting "(a chair on a table)". The entry seems to want to be a noun phrase, but it is two separate components. Equinox ◑ 08:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

MWOnline finds this a good entry title. I don't think that theory of any kind determines which wording should be the main entry for the various collocations that make up all the expressions that embody the concept. It is impractical to have entries, even mere hard redirects, for every attestable embodiment of the concept. One can find instances in which the one(s) putting/setting/getting a house in order is not the person(s) whose house it is, so one's should be replaced by someone's. Words like legal, financial, and own can be inserted before house. Arguably, only in order is worth an entry, but adjectivals (apple-pie, fine, good, poor, etc.) can be inserted even into this expression.

Thus, we need to make practical decisions about what helps a normal user, more specifically, a language learner, interpret an expression found in reading and gain the ability to use the expression fluidly. To accomplish this, wouldn't we do well to follow MWOnline's example, having one's house in order as the main entry, with many citations and usage examples showing how kinds of variations to be found in the wild? DCDuring (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

What about have one's ducks in a row? Seems to be a similar case. –Jberkel 11:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I suppose that, in cases where one collocation is "much" more common than all others combined, the main entry could be for that common collocation. What seems important is to have a main entry with redirects (hard is my usual preference) to it from the most common search terms users would search for. DCDuring (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There are several problems with this entry: 1) obviously, it isn't a noun (it's a resultative construction with a noun phrase and an adverbial, or a fragment of a verb phrase), 2) "one's" implies it's inherently reflexive, which it's not ("someone's going to put your house in order"). Logically it would probably be lemmatised at either just house or maybe someone's house, but I agree with DCDuring that this would make it needlessly obscure: I would just change POS to phrase (MW has it as "idiom" anyway) and move with redirect to someone's house in order. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Noun sense 4 reads "tie, ligature, slur", which does not make sense.

If "tie" and "ligature" are meant in the general sense of "something tied, something for tying", the gloss "slur" does not fit. If instead the sense is specifically musical (senses 4 and 5 at slur, sense 12 at tie, and sense 7 at ligature), then this sense should also be labeled (music). However, the above-mentioned sense 5 at slur states directly that it's "not to be confused with a tie", i.e. they aren't the same thing. 2600:1002:B11C:9E0C:CDBE:E074:F2ED:7977 09:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Since it's Danish rather than English it's possible that bue refers to both a tie and a slur. I note though that the Danish wiki article for Bue (musik) defines it in another sense that isn't at the entry, a bow used to play a string instrument (sense 3 of bow). Hopefully a native Danish-speaker can chime in. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, since the marks are very similar, it wouldn't surprise me if a word existed that covered both, but who knows. Pinging recently-active Danish user @Pinnerup. - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. It is indeed the musical sense that must be intended. The term bue (generally "arc") is used as a cover term for various arc-like symbols used in musical notations, often further specified as bindebue ("tie"), legatobue ("slur"), fraseringsbue ("ligature"). I've added the relevant label :) — Pinnerup (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I recently tried to create a page for the etymology of the Persian word "رای." I was trying to enter my citations but i got an error stating that I was spamming. The error also said that I could get my account banned, which i obviously do not want. Could somebody elaborate why this is? this is the citation I would like to enter:

Qaemmaqami, A. R., & Khatebey, A. (2013, July 9). رای و رأی ( rāy and ra'y). Academia.edu. Retrieved December 9, 2022, from https://www.academia.edu/3992194/%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D9%88_%D8%B1%D8%A3%DB%8C_New_Persian_r%C4%81y_and_Arabic_ra_y_

There is also a Persian word "رای" of Arabic origin, however the words are distinct in their etymology and pronunciation. Maybe Wikitionary thought I was creating another page for a word that already has a page? The page got deleted, possibly because I was not able to finish it and put everything in format and place my sources. I am very confused and would greatly appreciate some assistance MarkParker1221 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@MarkParker1221 Hello. Sorry for the bad first impression of Wiktionary. This site can be very confusing at times. Your edits were obviously in good faith and you certainly won't be blocked. It's just that the edit filters are really annoying, especially for new and unregistered users (I just had to help another user with a similar issue).

I can't view the filter log to see the full wikitext of your attempted edit. Do you still have it? (An admin could recover it from the filter log if needed.) If so, maybe you could paste the full wikitext on https://paste.toolforge.org/ and I can try to fix the formatting and create it for you. In the filter log I see a lot of potential formatting problems being mentioned ("ref no references", "No header for the language and part of speech"). Alternatively, you could try removing the URL, since that was probably the part that led to the edit being disallowed, and creating the page directly, and then we can sort out any remaining issues. 98.170.164.88 20:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I think you may be right about the link. I am going to do more research about the formatting and what is necessary to include in the page before I attempt again. DCDuring gave some useful information as well. This is certainly not a bad impression left on anyones part, as I got the help I was looking for. I went to my filter log and copied the wikitext and pasted it in the past.toolforge site and this is what I got:

from Middle Persian (/rāy/, “wealth, glory, power, sense, intelligence, opinion, reason”) from Old Persian (/rāyō/)

Source:

Qaemmaqami, A. R., & Khatebey, A. (2013, July 9). رای و رأی ( rāy and ra'y). Academia.edu. Retrieved December 9, 2022, from https://www.academia.edu/3992194/%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D9%88_%D8%B1%D8%A3%DB%8C_New_Persian_r%C4%81y_and_Arabic_ra_y_

I was not sure if you also wanted the source, but I included it. If I did anything wrong here please let me know. Once I have done a good amount of research I will attempt again at recreating the page. However, I think I may need to include it as a heading on the page for the Arabic رای and not create a separate page for it. MarkParker1221 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have created a subpage (not sure if this is what its called) for the etymology of رای within the page of رَأْي and I formatted it according to the entry layout page.

Here is the link: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D8%B1%D8%A3%DB%8C#Persian

I am having difficulty changing one thing in the Noun section, but I think everything else should be fine. In regards to the Noun section (in etymology 2), I cannot manage to change رَأْي into رای at the left end of the page. If you could help me with that it would be great, thank you. MarkParker1221 (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Our "main space" pages cannot consist of only etymological information. A well-formatted page starts with the name of the language for the term and the part of speech ("PoS") of the term. Then follows an "inflection line" and one of more definition lines. In the case of رای there would be a heading for each of the two etymologies, and a PoS header, an inflection line, and definition line(s) for each. All of this is laid out in WT:ELE.

Though our main pages cannot have only etymological information, a talk page, eg Talk:رای could. Then, perhaps someone could use that information to create an entry for the word on a main space page. DCDuring (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have placed the etymology on Talk:رای. DCDuring (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will be attempting to add the etymology of this word to the page for the Persian رای of Arabic origin instead of creating a new page. They are spelt the same with the Arabic / Perso-Arabic script but are pronounced differently. This is the link to the page: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D8%B1%D8%A3%DB%8C I will make sure to read through the entry layout page before starting and proceed accordingly. MarkParker1221 (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

In the etymology it is stated...It is a chemical analog of lysine. Does this make sense? There's no WP page for the linked structure analog...Flackofnubs (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the link, it should be to structural analog, not structure. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I really want help editing the page, I don't know but I think this is a wrong way to do the template: Please help me edit the page because it looks strange: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Buettneriaceae The Dictionary Man20 (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done It's Translingual, not English; and a proper noun, not a plural noun (the way we do things here). Equinox ◑ 09:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't even have Wiktionary's terms of service in my ken as you can see.. sorry, but I wonder where to read them. Can you link me the terms of service page?

I want it because I don't want to make any mistakes anymore, I just want to be able to do everything correctly while adding a myriad of words. :) The Dictionary Man20 (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"Terms of service" is not where you would find anything very helpful to editing a Wiktionary page. Try WT:ELE. DCDuring (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Dictionary Man20: We treat taxonomic names as Translingual proper nouns. Not English nouns. I see you've created a bunch of "English" ones which will need to be fixed. Equinox ◑ 09:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's SOP. Seems to be mostly about finishing out some sort of time, i.e. an athlete finishing out a season or a president finishing out a term. Worth an entry? Vininn126 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's just sense 6 of out, "to the end; completely", though I agree that verbs with out can be a bit obscure especially to non-native speakers. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

dry out exists and I'd argue that's the same. Vininn126 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

How much semantic difference is there among finish out, finish up, and finish off when the object is inanimate, non-edible, possibly abstract? All of the verb + particle expressions indicate something beyond bare finish, but they have different, overlapping sets of objects.

Finish out is less common than the others. It is most often used with periods of time, but also with tasks, distances, objects or spaces (rooms) to be worked on. Sometimes the periods of time have well-defined ends, sometimes not (life, career, cycle). DCDuring (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree that they all overlap but there isn't complete overlap - and that it's most common with periods of time and more a synonym with the others but less than the others Vininn126 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the OneLook dictionaries that have this define it very well, ie, in accord with contemporary usage. They don't make explicit the time-period sense. I assume that OED does a better job. DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Could someone with access check? @Theknightwho Vininn126 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126 @DCDuring They don't have anything. Theknightwho (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

In that case we'll have to come up with our own definitions. I propose we model it off of finish off and probably use syn of, but the time sense doesn't use syn of. Vininn126 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd note that while dictionaries generally don't have an entry for "finish out" they do use it as a gloss in other entries, as Merriam-Webster does for round out ("to bring to completion or fullness: finish out"). WordNet also marks "finish out" as a synonym of "round out". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting one.

Also as to them not having it, there's a lot to unpack there. There's the LEMMA principle which I don't like, as in following other dicts, and also does it fit our own CFI. If dry out and its ilk can be there, finish out probably can, too. I bet at LEAST as a t-hub. Vininn126 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's lemming, not lemma.

Having a time-period-specific sense and a more general one seems good for now. This kind of phrasal verb often has some of preferred set of objects/complements for at least some meanings. If one says finish up the semester, that seems (to me, at least) to focus on the effort rather than the simple holding of station. If one says finish off the semester, that seems to bring in the "kill" sense, implying something negative about the semester or the attitude of the subject of finish off toward the semester. DCDuring (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

(I may or may not have been buzzed at the time of writing that message and confused the terms).

For me there is a particular difference between finish up the semester and finish out the semester. To me finish out implies a sort of longer period, whereas finish up implies a shorter amount of time to the end. Is that just me? Vininn126 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I share that general impression, but I'm not sure about whether it is widely shared and strong/distinct enough to warrant a definition. But there might be clever wording or good usage examples to convey that. DCDuring (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I shall opt for a usage note. It may need some tweaking. Vininn126 (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

For me, "finishing out" seems to have the implication of completing something required. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on the collocations I added would potentially point to something along those lines. I still feel the perceived time difference is there. Vininn126 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

We should probably not go beyond the cites we can find. Professional writers might use the subtle distinctions and provide us unambiguous support for these more subtle distinctions. DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Surely "tonne" is not used in darts to mean 100. The more usual form is "ton". SpinningSpark 19:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't find this spelling for darts sense in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 16:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

And as ton has another 4 meanings with a general sense of 'achieving 100', I would say that this sense should be transferred to ton, with:

1. The entry under tonne should be RfVed.
2. The now 5 meanings under ton should be made submeanings.

--RichardW57 (talk) RichardW57 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I forgot this site had RfV. I should have gone there first. SpinningSpark 13:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about the recent discussion on finish out and the fact I added collocations (what other dictionaries provide collocations for phrasal verbs?) English transitive phrasal verbs often put the particle after the object - sometimes it's even required; however my question is for phrasal verbs where that is optional - should we give preference to separate the particle from the verb or keeping them together? i.e. to throw out the trash vs to throw the trash out? Vininn126 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I would think whichever is more common. "Throw out the trash" sounds normal to me, whereas "throw the trash out" doesn't, but ideally you'd look at something more objective to back that up. I'm pretty sure there are collocations where the reverse is true (i.e. where the phrasal verb is "split"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

So each collocation would be done separately? I already check if Polish adjectives come before or after statistically speaking, so this would be similar. (This would be based on corpus linguistics) Vininn126 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I seem to recollect that for English phrasal verbs a "heavy" object will follow the particle, but a "light" object will precede it, with middle-weight objects alternating:

heavy

!  I threw out the books that had been in the attic since his departure.

?? I threw the books that had been in the attic since his departure out.

?? I threw the books out that had been in the attic since his departure.

light

! - I threw it out.

??? I threw out it.

middle-weight

!  I threw the mouse-eaten textbooks out.

!  I threw out the mouse-eaten textbooks.

Do others think differently? DCDuring (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Is the weight metaphor referring to the length? I think I've seen heavy objects before a particle, but there's probably a trend that the longer it is the more likely it is to go after. Vininn126 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think modifying clauses of any length make the object "heavy", but length is a good operational measure. DCDuring (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

To answer your above question, I would personally be in favour of doing each collocation separately (and then perhaps grouping them according to the order, so that the presentation isn't as ugly). Others might disagree and have good reasons for it. My take is that since the purpose of showing collocations is to indicate what words commonly occur together, it doesn't make much sense to not base word order on what is common/normal for that collocation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree (and that's more or less what I've been doing i.e. with Polish adjective/noun collocations) Vininn126 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The most common object collocations for all phrasal are pronouns, eg, "light", which is misleading. It is almost guaranteed that no "heavy" object collocation will be common. Unmodified and minimally modified nouns would almost always be "light" as well. DCDuring (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but looking at the collocations he's been adding and the example used in this discussion ("take out the trash"), there are plenty of counterexamples. I could be mistaken, but I thought splitting these was discouraged at some point by the same sorts of people who discouraged split infinitives, which may have given rise to collocations that don't follow the general rule. For instance, as I mentioned above, "take the trash out" doesn't sound as idiomatic as "take out the trash." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My favorite example of a phrasal verb with unpredictable meaning is see through .... means two completely different things depending on whether it's phrased as see ___ through or see through ___. And the meanings stay the same whether it's a single word like "it", a simple noun, or a phrase that fills in the blank.English really is a language of tricks. I dont think there are too many rule-breakers like this though .... the light/heavy distinction above, which I'd never noticed before, seems to work in almost all cases. —Soap— 09:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the light/heavy distinction is relevant especially for transitive phrasal verbs, for which the object/complement can often be any NP. For intransitive ones adverbial modifiers, which are usually only single words, can appear before or after the phrasal verb, or between the verb and the particle. If a really long adverbial can appear between the verb and the particle, I wonder whether it is really a phrasal verb, rather than Verb + Particle. DCDuring (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The quotation given for the first sense clearly contradicts the definition. Should the definition be revised, or is the quotation representative of an older, perhaps more literal, sense of the phrase? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That's sarcasm, a well-understood pattern of using a word to mean its opposite, for comical or satirical value. It isn't a separate sense. smh. In previous discussions we have agreed not to put "sometimes sarcastic" as a gloss. I hope it's obvious why. Equinox ◑ 06:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was supposed to be sarcastic, because the following sentence appears to argue in earnest for the merit of the marriage: "The gentleman got money to enable him to follow the bent of his genius without anxiety for his daily bread, and therewith a stirring wife to take care of him and his house; the wife got her great desideratum, a husband, and therewith the desideratum of all women, her own way." It's possible that this was also sarcastic; if someone said this today it might be taken as a joke about gender roles or something. But given the overall context (and the date) I think it's probably literal. 98.170.164.88 06:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sarcasm is of all ages. Some instances of Socrates' use of his trademarked Socratic irony are obviously sarcastic, making fun of the ignorance of his interlocutor. The passage from Gladys, the Reaper is IMO clearly written tongue-in-cheek.  --Lambiam 12:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

If it's literal then this discussion is unnecessary because then the citation would not contradict the definition. Equinox ◑ 06:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the "because" clause is wrong and should be deleted. IMHO a match made in heaven is known by its results, not especially by a specific type of cause.

Example: The initially shaky coalition of revolutionaries (the VL) and reformists (the PDS) turned out to be a match made in heaven. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That seems right. To Equinox's point: as pointed out above, it doesn't seem sarcastic, but it also doesn't match the definition, which is, "A relationship, such as a marriage, that is likely to be happy and successful because the partners are very compatible." The quote is explicit in saying that the couple is not compatible, and that therefore it must be a match made in heaven (i.e., a match that must have a supernatural explanation, because a natural one just doesn't cut it). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Generalizing, it appears that the basic sense is “a propitious match”, regardless of why it should be so and whether the speaker’s determination is prospective or retrospective.  --Lambiam 12:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Several years ago the pronunciation みどりいろ was removed from 緑色. Duolingo, Jisho, and Google Translate think that this is a valid pronunciation, so I suspect the deletion was made in error. However I am a novice Japanese student and don't possess a Japanese language dictionary so I didn't want to undo the deletion. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rampagingcarrot: Looks like Nibiko (talk • contribs) removed that portion of the entry in August 2015. Nibiko seems to be inactive since October 2021.

Various reputable resources include the reading みどりいろ (midori iro), including the NKD and the NHK Hatsuon dictionary. Bafflingly, Kojien and Digital Daijisen only list the りょくしょく (ryokushoku) reading, but gloss this as みどりいろ (midori iro), indirectly indicating that this is also a valid reading of the kanji compound, since みどり (midori) is also spelled 緑 in kanji, just as いろ (iro) is also spelled 色. Heck, even the MS IME recognizes the kana string みどりいろ as a single word and automatically converts that to 緑色.

I'll restore the midori iro reading to the 緑色 entry later on, hopefully today if I can find the time. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rampagingcarrot: My schedule opened up briefly. Done. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, in my Japanese class from long time ago we used only "みどりいろ" and I thought it was the only possible or, at least the most common reading of 緑色. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of Japanese is very weak, but it seems like the word Xジェンダー is used as both a noun and an adjective in Japanese, for example at https://ja.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Xジェンダー (which I know isn't a durable source). However, the Wiktionary entry here says that it is only a noun. Could someone with a better grasp of Japanese (like Eirikr), let me know if that is accurate or not (with citations for extra credit)? Thanks! Nosferattus (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: Looking at the JA Wiki article, the word Xジェンダー (ekkusu jendā) appears to be consistently used syntactically as a noun. I see two instances of attributive use with particle の (no) (literal translation → followed by a more idiomatic one):

• Xジェンダーの現象学的心理学 (Ekkusu Jendā no Genshōgaku-teki Shinrigaku, “X-gender's Phenomenological Psychology → A Phenomenological Psychology of X-gender”)
• Xジェンダーの当事者 (ekkusu jendā no tōjisha, “X-gender's relevant person → a person who is X-gender”)

Neither case is using the term in any particularly adjectival way, but if further research reveals such usage (in sources that meet CFI), we should certainly add that POS to the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The attributive grammar was confusing me. Thanks for clearing it up! Nosferattus (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

As I'm not a native speaker, I want to double check: Is "lingo" a synonym of "jargon"?

If it is, we should add it to the list of synonym in the "jargon" entry.

Thanks, Jona (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think jargon is somewhat pejorative when used by normal people. I don't know how linguists use the terms. DCDuring (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that the two terms are not fully synonymous. The term lingo can be used to refer to a foreign language. For example, in the book title Living the Lingo of Linguine, the term refers to Italian. In contrast, the use of the term jargon in a putative book title Jabbering the Jargon of Japchae for a book on Korean cultural terms would IMO be somewhat misplaced. Technical jargon is more common than technical lingo but has usually no pejorative connotation. That said, the terms are often interchangeable, both meaning a form of language that is not understood (attested pleonastically by both “a lingo that nobody can understand” and “a jargon that nobody can understand”), and many of the terms we list as synonyms are not fully 100% synonymous.  --Lambiam 13:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say that "lingo" refers to a system of expression, whether a full language, or the way a certain group speaks, whereas "jargon" refers to particular terminology, and thus a technical vocabulary, rather than a cultural one. But there is certainly overlap in the way the two terms are used. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal feeling: jargon is usually technical and obscure (for example, computerese or the language of Eurocrats), perhaps designed to be so; whereas lingo might just be something that takes a little while to learn, such as the local speech on an island. Equinox ◑ 23:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A possible exception: Chinook Jargon}. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Why does the English section have two verb sub-headings? Is that a mistake? There's no obvious reason for it. SpinningSpark 13:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The second one is a different grammatical form and the head from the first one doesn't apply. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

To expand on the explanation above for the benefit of viewers at home, run is a lemma and has an additional appearance on the main verb inflection line as past participle of the lemma. In addition, run is the past participle of rin. Lemmas rin and run share many elements of their etymologies. In most cases two different verb headings would appear under two different Etymology headings, but in this case rin and run (arguably, at least) have the same etymology.

I would take the other side of the argument I just summarized and would prefer a separate Etymology heading for the past participle of rin. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs).

In reading mathematical history papers about medieval Arabic mathematics, the word "taḥrīr" shows up meaning some kind of corrected version or commentary about a previous work. I don't speak Arabic, know enough about Arabic mathematics, or have enough experience with Wiktionary to feel competent making the appropriate additions here, but taḥrīr does not exist, tahrir does not have an Arabic section or mention this in the English section, and تحرير and تحریر don’t really describe this usage. Can someone who knows more about this topic add to these entries as necessary? It seems like scholars of Arabic mathematics writing in English freely use the romanized tahrir or taḥrīr for this purpose, presumably because the word has a slightly different connotation than available English words such as "commentary" (example). –Jacobolus (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

From the uses, the word seems to be usually part of the Arabic name by which a work is known, and then appears to mean as much as Redacted edition (of). An example is (كتاب) تحرير أصول إقليدس ((Kitāb) Taḥrīr uṣūl li-Ūqlīdis) by Nasīr al-dīn al-Ṭūsī. While al-Ṭūsī was Persian, the book is a translation of and commentary on Euclid’s Elements into Arabic. The term is variously translated as redaction, recension, or revision. In particular redaction appears by itself another reasonable translation of تحرير and تحریر. When the term occurs as a common noun, the uses I saw were in italics and with diacritics (“Avicenna wrote what could be properly called a taḥrīr of Euclid's Elements”), strongly indicative of code-switching. We could add entries for taḥrīr as Romanizations of an Arabic and Persian/Ottoman Turkish term, as we do for Romanizations of Japanese terms. The sense in e.g. Arabian or Iranian music is also often presented as code-switching.  --Lambiam 02:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The current English quotations for tahrir (same Arabic etymon, different sense) look like code-switching to me. 98.170.164.88 03:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

A friend who is a professional Arabic translator tells me that the sense is more or less identical to (a) redaction. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

As an American English speaker, the word "redaction" to me has a strong connotation of a document that has been censored or had chunks removed from it, but perhaps in technical or historical usage the meaning of the English word "redaction" was more like "edited edition" or "commentary"? Do you know which of those senses your friend means? –Jacobolus (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

For that matter, perhaps the page redaction could use more precision in its definitions, especially about scholarly use of the word. –Jacobolus (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Edited reproduction is more or less the technical usage, yeah—see the Wiki articles redaction and e.g. redaction criticism—and what my friend meant. Generally I think a redaction implies more substantial changes than a recension or an edition. The ambiguity might be one reason why Arabists have used the Arabic term. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The connotation of censorship was unknown to me; it is completely absent from the French term rédaction and the German term Redaktion. Is this connotation specific to the US, or more general?  --Lambiam 13:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

In the US, when documents are publicly released, e.g. in response to public records requests or as part of a legal proceeding, but with some sections blacked out to protect sensitive information, this gets called “redaction”, and the hidden sections are said to have been “redacted”. In my experience mentions of this come up much more commonly in speech/writing than discussions of scholarly document editing, but I’m not a historian or religious scholar or the like so YMMV. I’m not sure if it’s the same in other English speaking countries. This isn’t quite the same as censorship, though it can sometimes be used that way. –Jacobolus (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, looking at the first 20 examples of British speakers saying redacted on Youglish, they're all using it in the sense Jacobolus mentions, of blacking out certain information in the way that a censor might, though perhaps not for the same reasons (e.g. a person's name may be blacked out if it should be hidden for privacy reasons, or a dictator may part of a law it'd be more advantageous to him for the public to only have partial knowledge of). Ditto the Australian examples. I find the same thing searching for redaction. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Can this term be also used as a verb, e.g. google:"hard selled" google:"hard selling", or even maybe as an adjective? – Wpi31 (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This book (it's not the only one) has "hard sold", so both "hard selled" and "hard sold" may be attested. 98.170.164.88 04:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Used as a verb, it would more commonly be spelled with a hyphen, as in “Alex really hard-selled those T-shirts.”  --Lambiam 06:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

We have /ˈɡoʊ.tʃu.d͡ʒæŋ/ but Wikipedia's article has /ˈkɔːtʃuːdʒæŋ/, i.e. the first syllable differs in both consonant and vowel. Is this because the WP article is trying to give a Korean-style pronunciation, or is our English entry in error? Equinox ◑ 19:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I added that to our entry because it was the pronunciation I was most familiar with, though Youglish also has /-d͡ʒu-/ and /-d͡ʒɑŋ/:

• /ˈɡoʊ.d͡ʒu.d͡ʒɑŋ/ (as its example 1; speaker says it several times starting 8:55, and ex. 3, 17, and 21),
• /ˈɡoʊ.d͡ʒu.d͡ʒæŋ/ (Youglish example 2, 0:40 - but when the woman says it in Korean she says /k-/),
• /ˈɡoʊ.tʃu.d͡ʒɑŋ/ (ex. 4, 8:14),

  /ɡoʊˈtʃu.d͡ʒɑŋ/ with stress on the second syllable (ex. 7, 1:42),

• /ˈɡoʊ.tʃu.d͡ʒæŋ/ (ex. 6, 2:54),

  /ɡoʊˈtʃu.d͡ʒæŋ/ with stress on the second syllable (https://youtu.be/xetuWpvHe4U ex. 15, 12:30]).

Youglish's 12th example is interesting because it sounds like /ɡoʊ.tʃu.d͡ʒæŋ/ but the transcript has "gochujang ". Example 13 doesn't seem to know how to pronounce it, she has /ˈɡaʊ-/, and 14 has /ku-/ (the only example I spotted with /k-/), 22 gives the j a Spanish-like pronunciation, and 23 has a two-syllable pronunciation similar to /ɡɑt͡ʃwɑn/. (A few other examples give all the syllables approximately equal stress, a not uncommon phenomenon with 2–3 syllable Asian loanwords IME.) - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a template made mostly before {{internationalism}} was a thing; could we get this bot converted? no need for extraneous templates. Vininn126 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(intransitive, US, slang) To travel or live contentedly. Keep on trucking!

(intransitive, US, Canada, slang) To persist, to endure. Keep on trucking!

Are these intended to be distinct? Can we get a clearer usex for the first one? - -sche (discuss) 23:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If it’s helpful, the OED offers the following:

3.

a. U.S. slang. Of a vehicle: to proceed. Hence of a person: to go (by truck or otherwise); to move or stroll.

b. Slang phrase to keep on trucking, to persevere: a phrase of encouragement.

(The only quotations it offers for 3b are uses of the phrase keep on truckin’ itself, both with and without an apostrophe.)

Source: “truck, v.²”, in OED Online ⁠, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press, December 2022. Graham11 (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary has “Slang To move or travel in a steady but easy manner.” I think this conveys the meaning better, on either side of the 49th parallel. But, rather than just generically “easy”, I think the term suggests the lack of a conscious effort to manoeuvre, so “to travel along steadily” is IMO a better def of the slang sense.  --Lambiam 06:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a US use in which the sense is clearly one of endurance, to hang on till better times.  --Lambiam 06:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The "easily" adverb is supported by cites from the 70s like: "Truckin, up to buffalo. been thinkin, you got to mellow slow / Takes time, you pick a place to go, and just keep truckin on." (Grateful Dead (a. 1970), This cite suggests that keep on trucking is probably not the only attestable collocation. We could also use a cite from Mr. Natural (comic), too. DCDuring (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There apparently was also a dance craze in the 1930s: "truckin". Perhaps truckin deserves an entry. DCDuring (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that "endurance" or "persistence" is part of truck in keep on truckin(g), rather than derived from keep on. DCDuring (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

How is 'live contentedly' part of the meaning? The quotes we're discussing only convey a positive mood by using words like 'happy' and 'mellow'. We should probably just stick to the meanings, 'travel' and 'endure'. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

And those only if attestable, of course. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Examining closely the AHD definition ("To move or travel in a steady but easy manner.") in light of the cites I've found so far, I don't see that the usage that does not mean "move by truck" supports "on a steady but easy manner" unconditionally. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I found some additional definitions via FaceAfrica:

• From 1938, Cab Calloway, Hepster's Dictionary:

  Truck (v.): to go somewhere. Ex., “I think I’ll truck on down to the ginmill (bar).”

  Trucking (n.): a dance introduced at the Cotton Club in 1933.

The definitions in this work are mostly quite well-written, though the PoSes need review. I wonder whether the high-school educated Calloway had an unacknowledged collaborator or ghost writer for this, published at the height of his success. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This is currently the featured word of the day but is the definition, "One who intends to become famous or important", actually correct? From looking at uses on Google Books it largely has an objective sense, "someone who will be important": "You can throw money at a wannabe but that won't make him a gonnabe" , "'So you're a wannabe?' / 'Hopefully, a gonnabe.'" , "The difference between 'wannabes' and 'gonnabes' is persistence" etc. Same probably applies to the NYT citation at the entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the usage, which is obviously what actually matters, but a priori it would make sense that if a wannabe is someone who wants to be famous, a gonnabe is someone who is (in fact) going to be famous. 98.170.164.88 11:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the definition alongside the citations above, feel free to revert/edit further if people disagree. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:混話 : which tone number is correct in this Cantonese compound? Thanks.
I have much interest also in Min Nan spelling, I already made a request for audio but Audio and IPA combined is much more helpfull.Thanks.
Check.
|mn=hūn-ōe
|mn-t=hung6 uê7
Flāvidus (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Flāvidus It is simply not used in Cantonese, Hokkien and Teochew. The assumption that the Chinese dialects write everything the same and only pronounce them differently is completely wrong, instead they all have (slightly) different vocabulary. For reference, a Cantonese word for nonsense speech would be 亂噏廿四. – Wpi31 (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wpi31 Even though from time to time I search for words from inside "Dialectal synonyms of ... (“gloss”) ", it never came to my mind to check in it before doing any editing. To be on safe side I'll check on the corresponding dialectal synonyms chart. Thank you for your time.Flāvidus (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be lemmatized at take several seats? 98.170.164.88 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, should there be a figurative sense at take a seat, which I would guess is the origin of the longer phrase? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, even if we want redirects from a form with need(s) to... or even someone..., it shouldn't have a parenthetical someone in the title. I moved it to take several seats and crosslinked the various singular vs plural entries. The singular ones still need the figurative sense, as Andrew says, and the definition on this plural entry may be too specific. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the definition "modified" to be either oversimplified, lazy, or just plain horsecrap. Flackofnubs (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

In the anime known as "My Hero Academia". the main character featured is "Izuku Midoriya”.

Wean117 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should have an entry for this? —Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe an entry on the given name Izuku? Is it used by other people? - -sche (discuss) 01:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think so, but it’s nice to know the etymology of fictional characters with names that are either rare, or plain fictional.

Wean117 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• This does not appear to be a real-world name, as evidenced by the lack of any such entry in the results from ENAMIDIC that we can see here. I think this would thus fail WT:CFI, particularly the WT:FICTION and WT:NSE sections.

Given also the fact that Japanese names can be bewilderingly creative in their derivation, I do not think we can create an entry for this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This term is marked as offensive and, as such, is subject to fast deletion. To whom is it offensive?

If it is offensive to some members of an LGBTQ+ community, is that what we intended to include in the vote taken about offensive terms. To me, it is very hard to see how a term a group self-identifies under that others find offensive, threatening, etc. should be subject to the special rules that the vote applies to offensive terms. DCDuring (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think "offensive" for the purposes of that vote should only include terms that are slurs, insults, etc. People find all kinds of things offensive, but that often has more to do with the person than the word. For instance, pedophile is a perfectly neutral term, but I'm willing to bet money that some people find the word offensive. But I don't think that's what the vote was intended for. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. The RfV was opened on October 21, and ran for almost two months, as opposed to the 2 week expedited period allowed by WT:DEROGATORY. In fact, the entry was never tagged with {{derogatory}}, nor is that template present on the RfV thread. Perhaps you mistook the {{rfv|en|fail=1}} added by AG202 for an expired {{derogatory}} notice? (AG202 has since reverted that, as more quotations have been added.)

If your complaint is just that you don't think the {{lb|en|sometimes|offensive}} label should be there, fair enough. 70.172.194.25 00:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I admit to confusing offensive and derogatory. I suspect that there are a large number of orginary users who are similarly confused. Do we need a template like {{lb|en|inflammatory}} or something? Or does that just run the risk of even more confusion? DCDuring (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A relevant past discussion is Wiktionary:Tea_room/2022/July#is_minor-attracted_person_offensive?, which is sort of a similar case if you squint (and ties into the example Andrew Sheedy gave above). 70.172.194.25 01:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In this case, it's probably clearer to write a usage note based on the many available (e.g. news media) sources about the term (and who uses it and why, and who takes issue with it and why), than to rely on a label. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a brief usage note which hopefully details the problems with the term. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

אביונה, חרצן, and פות are listed as ghost words. Is this right? חרצן seems to have been attested in the relevant meaning, to have cognates and to derive logically from an original root. I wonder if the user who added the category misunderstands what makes something a ghost word? (It isn't just that someone has decided they're going to semantically extend a word from meaning "grape" to meaning "pip, seed", for example, or else the categories would overflow with words like die and go that have acquired slang meanings.) Many Arabic "ghost words" also seem not to belong in the category. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Relatedly, is dood a ghost word, as claimed? Maybe clarification of the intermediate steps between doodwallah and dood would help; if a dictionary mixed up the glosses of dood and ut, printing "dood (“camel”)", and people then started using dood that way because they read it in the dictionary, it'd be a ghost word, but I don't know that people misunderstanding a word on their own (e.g. a norange→an orange) makes a ghost word. Sorry this is such a specialist question. - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I recognize אביונה from the reading I did years ago on biblical plants: it's a hapax legomenon that the Septuagint and Vulgate translate as caper (the plant), but English versions tend to translate as "desire". It's in a rather opaque passage that talks about grasshoppers and capers while discussing the inevitable failure of the ways of the world. Biblical scholars have done their best to reconstruct some kind of metaphorical meaning by comparing to a similar Hebrew root, but it's a bit of a stretch. I can't say much about the others. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@-sche, Chuck Entz: No, I actually concluded that it was no such decision but picked up and used in a mismeaning or misspelling, often when acquaintance with better scholarship could have avoided it—for which German philologists seem to have been better equipped than the founders of Israel. Someone just had better references. Due to popularity of older works one still widely gives meanings and words and texts that don’t exist—the Hebrew standard texts on the internet, to put it mildly, have no similarity with critical editions even of the 1950s, and things passed on as as “Old Hebrew” or “Ancient Hebrew Dictionary” if you ever search for such a thing are a joke and 19th-century stubs, which are of course just as much as theologists need (the list does not talk about the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew in eight volumes, let's think about what that tells us!). For example, I had to deny an occurrence in the Bible to give a consistent answer to the etymology of סֶרֶט, and I managed to do some corrections to make a real representation of סִיר but with Koehler-Baumgartner and a Biblia Hebraica from the 1950s some dead theologist left for me to thrift in Germany, corrections having taken place in the science few souls would be acquainted with, since such things have been done in specialist journals buried by copyright, and textual criticism is the death of religion and therefore of the myths of states or at least peace and order in society, and man is too underpaid to tell the truth often enough for there to be more than just some scarce samples that invite doubt while in reality if someone as a lifetime job were to rummage Hebrew he would dig up these farcical pictures, arising from reviving a dead language based on a limited corpus to which there has been added much fragmented scholarship about more arcane corpora not well perused, all the time. These little inexactitudes that you are not bothered by but, towards a more easily agreeable solution, treat as according to the plan of the Holy Spirit™ if you are at a theological seminary or about to write a political propaganda speech, or if you do anything that in its extent does not strictly require to make your view of the world shattered enough to make you liable to being exposed as an atheist or other kind of nonconformist subtracting from mankind’s grace by showing it discontinously attested—unfortunately a thing that in principle is a target of this project in so much as we investigate whether our quotes were actually “there” or rather already exposed as containing major-scale interpolations (zirbus, anyone?), which often enough has turned out our job.

This exposes a large methodological division we may have in practice in how we balance descriptivism and prescriptivism: so while you man, as in charitable interpretation, tend to think language development as organically grown within a community, with all check marks of social legit checks, I envisage language development as a monstrous red tape of corruption, clew of unresolved disputes led by hazard and cheek, and it’s not even a conspiracy theory since I only apply Hanlon's razor: making use of the arbitrariness of language, they developed language pragmatically by being wrong.

I am also sorry that, in about all cases, I lack the direct observation needed and am not “specialist” enough to report upon words being made—in it they are like sausages and laws. Fay Freak (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

To clarify the Arabic cases—there are no many:

• سَجَنْجَل (sajanjal): Poets read Imru' al-Qais and do not understand him, hence think this is a high Arabic word for “mirror”, and use it as such, but only this hapax is the “real meaning” – Ullmann expands upon all in the treatise cited, I got in print.
• فُرْقَان (furqān) is used in organization names to sound vaguely Islamic though it means jack/uncertain
• قُسْطَاس (qusṭās) meant moneyweigher, and I just assumed there are some hogwash religion treatises employing it formulate some religious rules or similar, at least dependent on the Qurʾān or contextualized by textual reference, and presupposing the meaning as “balance, scales”, so this is as much information as I could give without boringly replicating those texts (not thinking it became a living word either).
• For رِعْي الأُيَّل (riʕy al-ʔuyyal) and تُودَرِيّ (tūdariyy) it is only the taṣḥīf variants, finding repetition in plant and drug reference works, as we frown upon categorizing alternative forms. I mean we had a lot of these cases, tracked by Chuck Entz sometimes on verification pages, where organism names in English-language works are chains of mishaps, but they often were so specific that we seem to not even have bothered to track what is ultimately a mistake, perhaps existing more in reference works than soothfast in the language.
• If the misreading version is true, of course يَحْيَى (yaḥyā) is a ghost word as we have come to understand it. Fay Freak (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a mix of good and bad. There are words meaning "lifeguard" in there. PUC – 15:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Term seems to be real, but is it synonymous with Basenji, or does it refer to a different African breed? 70.172.194.25 23:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This site seems to treat it as synonymous (or perhaps a finer classification, referring to Basenjis from part of Africa). On the other hand, this book includes them as separate entries in a list of "pariah" breeds, implying there's some distinction. This forum post also treats them as distinct. This thingy seems to be a vote within some dog breed association on whether to treat one particular individual Avuvi as a valid Basenji for the purpose of breeding stock, and it ultimately passed but not unanimously. 70.172.194.25 00:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Should thr collocation "finely divided" have its own lemma? I don't think its meanings are obviously compositional. Plenty of quotation evidence already in other entries for at least two senses (one for a hard substance reduced to a powder and another that seems to be about the structure of plant leaves). 207.180.169.36 06:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The collocation is often used in food preparation as well as in engineering and botany.

Are you proposing a verb "to finely divide" or an adjective "finely divided"?

Substances that are finely divided include sulfur, gelatinizing substances, polychromatic light, air space, organic matter, mercury, food, oil, as well as hard substances.

Blood vessels and bronchioles are also collocates.

How would you word a definition for the adjective or the verb? DCDuring (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no evidence for a verb, so it would just be the adjective. I think sense 1 is comminuted; reduced to small particles; and I'm not sure about the other sense(s) — possibly the botanical sense is really the same as the vasculature sense. I'm far from an expert here. 207.180.169.36 05:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about the industrial powdering. About the structure of plant leaves: surely SoP. Equinox ◑ 08:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd consider the application to blood vessels and alveol(es,i ) also SoP.

As to the verb possibility, inflected forms can be readily found:

Flake insulation is composed of small particles that finely divide the air space.

Newton finely divides the argentiferous gold by fusing it with two or three times its weight of zinc,

The process of metallically plating or coating articles, which comprises finely dividing molten metal

I believe that the putative verb is nonetheless SoP. It would seem that the collocation finely divided should appear in cites or usage examples at one or both of finely and divide. DCDuring (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason for the initial apostrophe. 70.172.194.25 07:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Tend has, apparently, occasionally been spelled with an apostrophe, see 'tend (I guess from analysing it, ultimately correctly as it seems, as a shortened form of attend). Hard to search for the specific form for obvious reasons but I found one instance which I've added as a quote at 'tend to one's knitting. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Found two more for the full complement. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Glad we've got cites for this form, but current English would not have the apostrophe. We could just treat this as an alternative form. But I'd be inclined to rely on 'tend ("attend"), which better covers the full range of usage of this transitional (from attend to tend) form. DCDuring (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! 70.172.194.25 18:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Feels like hypercorrection to me, as when people write 'til instead of till. Equinox ◑ 08:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, when I say "ultimately correctly" the shortening happened in Middle English whereas the apostrophe seems to have been a modern fad. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Without great conviction I have added an etymology of 'tend "Shortening of attend or hypercorrection of tend to reflect its etymology". Plausible though it be, I don't have facts to support it. OED? When this discussion goes to Talk:'tend, the conjecture would be noted even if deleted from the entry. DCDuring (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"The ox-eye, a kind of rosemary" is also what Lewis and Short write but the English entry oxeye doesn't mention anything about rosemary, so is this just a case of a word with a coincidentally similar etymology that shouldn't be glossed as such? @Chuck Entz —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo-Apuleius’ Minibus Herbarum Liber lists this as one of several names used by others for rosemary. This being a hapax, there is no other clue relating it to current taxonomy.  --Lambiam 11:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose my question is rather on the English side, whether there is anything currently called "oxeye" that it could plausibly refer to. If not, then the fact that it's "ox" (or "bull") + "eye" in Greek should be treated as purely etymological info and not a gloss. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not yet found rosemary associated with any of the taxa referred to a oxeye or similar. DCDuring (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I would assume that it's just supposed to be the etymology, but it could have been confusion with the other plants called "ox-eye". Do Lewis & Short typically explain what the morphemes mean in entries for other Greek compounds? 70.172.194.25 01:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A rosemary plant does not have any parts that resemble an oxeye or bull-eye. 24.164.189.229 01:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible that Lewis & Short misidentified the species? If Google Translate is right (big if), then the original passage claims the plant doesn't bear stalks/stems or flowers. Rosemary has both flowers and stalks, right? If this is a description of rosemary, it must be a particularly barren kind. The other synonyms given in the passage (psoranthemis, sacatos, aposplenos, hydroselinos, malum lentum) seem to also be hapaxes, with the exception of parthenion and susinum. 70.172.194.25 01:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that Lewis & Short followed what appeared in Pseudo-Apuleius Herbarius, which, judging by the excerpt in WP, had a great variety of names for the plants described. (I don't have the patience to go through the manuscript pages to confirm.) It makes me think the taxonomic names I have assigned to some non-scientific Latin and classical Greek words need to be reviewed. I am not sure whether removing the taxa from the entries is good enough. Perhaps we need to label the definition (eg, "rosemary") as questionable. DCDuring (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ According to this source, p. 211, there was no Old English term for the oxeye daisy. Instead, the transliterated term buoptalmon was used (and presumably variants thereof). Its Greek etymon must be βουόφθαλμον (bouóphthalmon), literally “ ox-eyed”, whereas the literal sense of ταυρόφθαλμον, the etymon of taurophthalmon, is “ bull-eyed”. (I don’t know a justification for our gloss “perhaps also ox” at ταῦρος; it is supported by neither L&S nor Bailly.) If the identification suggested by L&S is based on a translation, it is not a literal translation; on the other hand, the term bull eye is recorded as also having been used for the oxeye daisy.  --Lambiam 08:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Do we agree that it hard to visually confuse what we call oxeye daisy with what we call rosemary?

I think that there is clear continuity in the identity of what the herbals say is rosemary. One can also see why daisies might be called ox-/cow-/bull-eye daisies.

These facts lead me to look hard at the source that L&S cites for use of taurophthalmon, which is this Pseudo-Apuleius Herbarius, which seems like source likely to be transmitting error. IOW, I see no reason to continue what seems to be an erroneous association of this term with rosemary. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's hard to confuse them. But if anything, I think oxeye daisy might be a less likely identification than rosemary, since the only passage in which the term is attested describes the plant as not bearing flowers. And just because English "ox eye" means a daisy, doesn't mean an Ancient Greek word "ox eye" necessarily referred to the same species. (If we are to interpret the passage literally, it would seem to rule out all angiosperms, though this may very well be an overstep. Perhaps the flowers just aren't prominent. Input from someone who can interpret the Latin passage, in the larger context of the work, would be helpful.) 70.172.194.25 23:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the text, and it also says the plant doesn't emit seeds. So maybe this plant is not even a spermatophyte? I'm not sure though. 70.172.194.25 23:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"(Tusci) susinum", given as a synonym, is used in other sources to refer to a perfume made primarily of lilies. Also compare Ancient Greek σοῦσον (soûson). But lilies definitely have flowers. Hard to make sense of this. 70.172.194.25 00:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Could someone check the "translation" of the quotation from The Guardian? I tried my best. 70.172.194.25 23:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I was baffled by the "8 all the ps" thing and thought maybe it was "penalties", but then I found this so it might literally be peas (he was also apparently pretty terrible that season in general). Rest seems right. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Surely it should be pies not peas, as per the famous football chant?. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes more sense, thanks! (Al-Muqanna: As far as his diet is concerned, there's also this.) 70.172.194.25 00:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

There is that lol, but I don't know why it would come up in a recap of the 03 season. Overlord's suggestion makes sense! —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a great example, is it, since it's mocking the textspeak rather than really using it in earnest. Equinox ◑ 08:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I was considering RfVing it because I didn't find anything on Usenet and the two quotations I added were all I found in durably archived sources. But there could be more out there. 1derful is significantly more common. 70.172.194.25 08:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Added a third which is not a 1drful example either. 70.172.194.25 08:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Texts (particularly from the era when text speak was relevant) are inherently not the kind of thing that's durably archived so I suspect it will be pretty hard to attest it in a satisfactory way without some slack (however much it is). Having it as an alternative form of 1derful might make sense if the latter has more usage. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Love it! Flackofnubs (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

One use of "elate" in Wiktionary is as a transitive verb. I have yet to find a representative sentence using "elate" in this fashion. Can anyone help? Thank you for your attention.

Phil Heagy PhilTHeagy (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Heagy: Added a 1700s example. Equinox ◑ 09:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1824, Stephen Pike, The Teachers' Assistant: Or a System of Practical Arithmetic (page 97)

  What is the neat weight of 4 hogsheads of tobacco, each weighing 10cwt. 3qrs. 10lb. gross; — tare 100lb. per hdd.?

The duplicated last letter might just represent a plural, like "pp." for "pages". Could it mean "head(s)"? Equinox ◑ 09:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Appears just to be an alternative abbreviation of hogshead. E.g. "Leavell sold to Spilman a hogshead of tobacco", margin heading: "A hdd. of tobacco ..." , and plural wouldn't work for "per". This encyclopedia gives it as the abbreviation of the UK hogshead (though hhd. looks more common). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

In this example, it's certainly being used for "hogshead" because that makes the units work out. (The answer is given as "39cwt. 3qrs. 4lb", and the math checks out: ((10*112+3*28+10)-100)*4=(39*112+3*28+4).) The more standard abbreviation for that unit is "hhd", which is used elsewhere in the book, including after "per". It wouldn't grammatically make a ton (or even hundredweight) of sense for it to mean heads (plural), because it's preceded by "per", a preposition that generally governs a singular object. But if other sources show that usage, then I guess it's possible. 70.172.194.25 10:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I think hdd may be a typo for hhd.  --Lambiam 10:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The 1811 and 1831 editions of the same book have hhd in that spot: , . 70.172.194.25 11:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, though if it's just a typo it's a pretty common one. (Quite odd if it's only different in 1824 since that suggests it was deliberately changed and then changed back.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

We have "Roman baths" as a singular (which strangely enough appears to be true: I can find "a Roman baths" in plenty of respectable-looking books) but also as the plural. While it can be either singular or plural, I'm not sure that it's (always) true to say that "Roman baths" plural is the plural of "Roman baths" singular. Isn't it the plural of "Roman bath"? Equinox ◑ 09:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is one example of a source using singular Roman bath for a bathing facility and Roman baths for a plurality thereof.  --Lambiam 10:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Would a Roman bathhouse have more than one bath? I venture that Roman baths could refer to what I have just called "a Roman bathhouse". DCDuring (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I’d be surprised if someone used the term Roman bathhouse for a one-bathtub facility, but there might be just one pool.  --Lambiam 23:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Originally, a chorizo was a sausage and you could have a google books:"slice of chorizo" or even put the google books:"chorizo in a bun". Sometimes, the sausage is crumbled for use in e.g. quesadillas, a fact I expanded our definition to mention. However, you can also just buy or make and use chorizo the crumble / ground meat, without it ever being a sausage. I think this has thus become a distinct sense, like hamburger has a definition "# ground beef", but I'm struggling with how to write a definition. Anyone want to help or disagree? Maybe:

1. Ground meat (traditionally pork), spiced and flavoured as it would be for making that sausage, but instead used directly as an ingredient in tacos, quesadillas, etc.

? - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

An analog is sausage, which is the meat in its casing or (metonymously?) the meat (aka sausage meat. Both the meat-in-casing and the meat alone are common retail merchandise here, mostly for both Italian sweet and Italian spiced sausage. It would be interesting to know whether the ground/minced meats ever had another name in any language, but for English, especially, Greek and Romance and Germanic languages.

Most OneLook dictionaries have sausage (and chorizo) defined as the cased-meat item.

MWOnline has sausage as "highly seasoned minced meat usually stuffed in casings ."

MWOnline has chorizo as either a Spanish or Mexican food item, the Mexican "typically sold uncooked either loose or in casings", the Spanish "typically sold dried and cured in casings".

If we try to honor the syntactic distinction between countable and uncountable nouns, we would need to have twice as many definitions as others that don't or have a usage note. I expect that "How much sausage do I need?" (uncountable) is applied to the cased and uncased meat product and sliced forms of the cased meat, but that "How many sausages do I need?" is common for the cased product. DCDuring (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this entry worthy? PUC – 20:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

oral hygiene exists. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

IMO no. It seems obvious from the words, like genital health or dental health (we have neither of those). "Mental health" may be a special case because it is used to pathologise certain types of personality! Equinox ◑ 10:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Worthy of an entry as a synonym for at all? Is there some entry we have containing it already? Vininn126 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems worth having, assuming it's attested, cf. for shit, for toffee. The 1998 quote on pissass uses "for beans" in this way. 70.172.194.25 23:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Found it in an episode of House MD, as well (S1E17 26:50). Vininn126 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It might need a separate sense at beans too, since e.g. "amount to beans" and "not worth beans" have a lot of attestation. Cf. hill of beans. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Added the "insignificant value" sense for beans, but suspect we need for beans too. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Added. Vininn126 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

What does this term refer to exactly? The inner or outer elbow, or something else? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the state of an arm being particularly bent (like a disorder)? Or the act of bending one's arm? The interpretations are truly limitless. And searching for "armveck" didn't help. The Finnish and Hungarian entries have the label "anatomy", which to me suggests that it's something like the elbow, but what specifically escapes me. The entry definitely could use some explanation. 70.172.194.25 09:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The Hungarian refers to the inside of the elbow, although I don't know why the entry is at the dialectal könyékhajlat instead of könyök-. In English isn't it usually called the crook of the arm, rather than bend? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be the same thing as elbow pit, cubital fossa, and chelidon? Maybe also "inner elbow" (informally). I'm not an expert on anatomy, but they seem synonymous. The equivalent for the knee is apparently called the hough, popliteal fossa, poplit, or knee pit. 70.172.194.25 19:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so, and since those entries exist (esp. "elbow pit") it doesn't seem like there's any need for a separate THUB. FWIW the Hungarian word is pretty rare and doesn't seem to come up in Hungarian–English dictionaries, but it does translate German Ellenbeuge which is given precisely "crook of the arm" and "cubital fossa" as translations at dict.cc - . —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Given the existence of full entries with less opaque titles I've opened an RFD for this. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Swedish translation, which prompted this entry, crook of the arm seems to be correct. DonnanZ (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that at least two of the linked translations used "bend of the arm" as their definition, so I went ahead and changed them all to "crook of the elbow". If someone thinks that isn't the best term, feel free to replace it or add another in those entries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"Crook of the elbow" or "crook of the arm", whichever. Elbow pit may be an Americanism, and anatomically different from an armpit. DonnanZ (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it wasn't an Americanism, as the earliest use I can find is from 1897 in the British Vetinerary Journal but elbow pit certainly isn't the usual term. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that elbow pit has found its way in, in preference to crook of the arm or crook of the elbow. The latter two are probably casualties of the SoP policy. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that crook of the arm should be the main entry, perhaps especially as far as translations go, but I’m not sure ‘elbow pit’ is any less SOP than ‘crook of the arm’ (it’s ‘elbow’ + ‘pit’, where ‘pit’ refers to a depression in the body such as ‘arm pit’, ‘knee pit’ and even the occasional ‘shoulder pit’). —Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, elbow pit is technically SoP. Anyway, I have added my "two bob's worth" to the RFD (non-)discussion, which is going nowhere. DonnanZ (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What does this portion of the definition mean? It seems over-wordy and self-contradictory. (A cartoon is not a comic book.) Equinox ◑ 13:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we add citations for this? I didn't find anything on Google Books, Scholar, Issuu, or Usenet. 70.172.194.25 21:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Sense 3 is labelled "rarely proscribed". I'm not super clear on what it's supposed to mean. PUC – 22:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The overwrought usage note appears to explain it but I would probably write "sometimes proscribed" or "occasionally proscribed", or just omit it altogether since we don't need to humour every arbitrary hang-up with a context label. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, "occasionally proscribed" would probably be clearer wording than "rarely proscribed". But I agree with you, my own instinct is also to drop the label and just let the usage note explain, possibly in a more condensed way, the objection and history. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Definitely idiomatic. Entry worthy as "to prod, to test"? Vininn126 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

A Ukrainian and Russian phrase, recently famously used to describe Russia, but predating that (e.g. in 2013 Russia's Dmitry Rogozin said it was instead the West that was behaving like a monkey with a grenade toward the Islamic world). Is it idiomatic enough to add? - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary's pages for big toe, great toe, and hallux all have pictures including 5 toes and a substantial portion of the rest of the foot, with captions that fail to mention that the defined term is only part of what the picture shows. i'm not sure what the captions could say to clarify matters for a reader who does not already know what a big toe is. Maybe edit the images to include, say, a red box or red outline around the big toe, with a caption like, "a hallux (highlighted in red)"? For now, i'm just going to hide the misleading pics and link my edit summaries here. --173.67.42.107 06:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

p.s.--i have made an attempt to correct and clarify the definition that was on the big toe page: The largest of the toes of a human and some other animals means a human with ten toes only has one big toe. Also, is the big toe always the biggest? i've seen other toes longer than the "thumb" toe (especially if we're including other animals besides humans) but i haven't been paying attention to whether the other toes are necessarily bigger. Furthermore, if a reader doesn't already know what the big toe is, how do they know that "big toe" is not a transferable title (if, for example, a bee sting causes the third toe to swell up larger than the "thumb" toe)? 173.67.42.107 06:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Your modification to the definition makes perfect sense. I used to call my big toe my ‘thumb toe’ and I’m pleased to see we have a similar entry at thumb-toe but ‘toe thumb’ surprisingly seems to be the most popular word order on Twitter (it might be difficult to justify creating this entry though.). —Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The anatomical terminology for identifying its relative position among the toes would be that it is on the medial side of the foot.  --Lambiam 11:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

We have two senses for disco: (1) short for discotheque, a nightclub for dancing, and (2) the genre of music. But I have the impression that in British English, it can also mean what Americans call a school dance or maybe a prom. Is that right? —Mahāgaja · talk 11:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We need the sense event where people dance to music, often with a deejay choosing the songs. One can have a disco anywhere. Flackofnubs (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a dance event. (It has a slightly retro sound to me. Are there still real "school discos" in schools, or just the ironic ones where adults dress up in their old uniforms?) Equinox ◑ 10:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no shortage of hits (nearly all British but there is at least one New Zealand usage) on Google Books for 'school disco' alone that support the idea that disco can be used to mean an event involving dancing held at a school which would support adding this definition, though it would be better if we could find at least one supporting cite which isn't preceded by 'school'. There is also the company called School Disco, founded in 1999 in London by Bobby Sanchez, that operates, or operated, School Disco events in nightclubs in various cities of the world (London, Manchester, Dublin, Ibiza and Sydney)but it might prove impossible to disambiguate this from the 'nightclub' definition. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Biblical. Little surprised we don't have this. Thoughts how many defs to include? Vininn126 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems awfully SOP to me: rend (part or tear off forcibly) garments (clothing). —Mahāgaja · talk 10:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I've seen it used as "to wreak havoc, to cause a stink or fuss", but maybe I am reading too much into it. Best not, then. Vininn126 (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you give examples of this usage? 70.172.194.25 18:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Upon searching, no. It's probably just something I heard/miscategorized. Good thing I brought it up here, first! Vininn126 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned below by Lambiam, I can find associations between "rending garments" and "mourning" in various Jewish and Christian sources. But I'm not sure this is lexical. It seems to refer to literal rending of literal garments as part of the ritual of bereavement, cf. Genesis 37:34, probably other verses. Haven't found anything for wreaking havoc. 70.172.194.25 18:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

At least in the KJV, mourners more commonly rend their clothes: Gen. 37:29, Gen. 37:34, Num. 14:6, Josh. 7:6, 2 Kings 5:7, ...  --Lambiam 11:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

"To wreak havoc" etc. is unfamiliar to me, but I have in the past come across "wring one's hands and rend one's garments/clothes", meaning to moan or fret excessively or theatrically. It's not common, but is attestable: "As tempting as it might be for old-timers to wring their hands and rend their garments as scores climb higher, Olin said defense remains a fundamental part of the game" ; "Jews without the benefit of having had a taste of world culture, should wring their hands and rend their garments when anyone applies the method of historical criticism to the Bible" , etc. I also find "rend one's garments" in various similar constructions, though, e.g. "Prick them and they don't just bleed — they gush, they carp, they wail and moan and rend their garments on every media platform that will pay them millions" , so it might be worth having the entry by itself. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

so in that case maybe that's what I misunderstood. I suppose the lemma should be the full form, in that case, it seems attestable, and not SOP. Vininn126 (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I've created rend one's garments with a selection of citations, other alt forms can be added on. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, the citations there seem like strong evidence for idiomatic usage, thanks. 70.172.194.25 23:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

In the culture reflected by the Hebrew scriptures, tearing/rending one's clothes/garments was something one did when overcome by strong emotions like distress or anger- or at least, saying someone did it was the conventional way of conveying the intensity of those emotions. As for modern usage, there are a number of deliberately archaic and grandiose biblical figures of speech that writers use to humorously contrast with the very minor and mundane topic at hand: "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth" is another common one. It seems to me more stylistic than lexical.

I should also mention that the Douay version of the Bible, which is the Roman Catholic equivalent of the King James version, seems to use "garments" instead of "clothes" more than the latter. Besides which, "garments" sounds a lot more archaic than "clothes", which would make it more memorable in biblical contexts. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It's still done in Judaism—usually now in a more figurative manner, but traditionalists still do the literal tearing—see the entry I've just made at keriah. The primary significance is mourning or grief, though it is extended to other contexts (e.g. one kabbalistic source apparently prescribes keriah if a copy of the Sefer Zohar is seen to be desecrated). There are relatively elaborate Rabbinic rules surrounding it in any case. However, I disagree that it isn't lexical in this case: "gnashing of teeth" is a straightforward physical display in the same way as a "baring of fangs", whereas "rending of garments" is opaque without either contextual inference or background knowledge, as indeed Vininn's misinterpretation shows. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

What is this and why should we include it as a translation hub? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It's bullshit, and we shouldn't. Translation hubs aren't free passes to add this. Flackofnubs (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Part of the reason I made it was I was trying to find a translation for these words, with the creation of {{rfeq}} and similar templates, it should be easier to find words like pinery before creating a t-hub. I was trying to at least get more in there, but sadly only Surjection and I regularly fill translation requests. I'm sure there are languages with one word translations for this, and English, too! Vininn126 (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

A heated greenhouse for growing pineapples? Of the two provided translations, the Polish translation is basically pineapple + a suffix for a place; the Finnish translation is completely SOP (greenhouse + pineapple). I think we need at least one more non-SOP translation to justify the THUB; maybe one of the other Slavic languages can provide that. 70.172.194.25 02:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Vininn126. My guess is that it's something along the lines of an orangery, a place where wealthy people in cold climates show off their exotic and expensive indoor gardens. There's also something called a pineapple pit, but I don't think it's quite the same thing. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much. Vininn126 (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

There are various articles relating to much larger and grander (glazed) European pineapple hothouses, but this BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45394047 about a smaller, restored Victorian-era pineapple hothouse or "pinery" in Wales gives a handy overview. The existing pinery wiktionary entry also indicates a pineapple hothouse.DaveyLiverpool (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

If pinery exists, we can probably move it. Vininn126 (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the translations and will delete the page. Vininn126 (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There's been a good bit of drive-by editing on this entry about whether it refers solely to people in India, or to other South Asians as well. That's understandable: it's used mainly by ignorant bigots to pin nasty ethnic/racial stereotypes on people who don't deserve it. People in India want it to be about someone- anyone- else. South Asians outside of India don't want it to be about them.

This definitely started out as being about Indians, but as I said on my talk page, how can we be sure that all those who use it know or care about the distinction between "Indians" and "South Asians"?

It seems to me that we should make the definition (or definitions) as good as we can make them, and then lock this entry down to keep it stable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz In my opinion, this term is 'loosely' referred to as 'South Asians' in general, likely, as you say, by ignorant bigots. But it is mainly used to refer to people of Indian origin, and have seen other South Asiasn use this term on social media, to (offensively) refer to Indians. Perhaps we can have a second definition, relating to South Asians in general, supported with the 'loosely' label? نعم البدل (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Look, it is best to restrict to “India” or “Indians” by reason that this term can also refer to Farther India—and suddenly the extent of the referent is reflected in all its likelihoods. I don’t even know why this geographical understanding has become so uncommon that Farther India is a red link, while Hinterindien is not and dubiously inexactly translated not with it—of course this has to do aught with political correctness as well increasing information exchange in the world removing the concept from consciousness but it is still a term in some academic contexts, and academicizing topics also has a soothing effect on people who come across a thing.

The principal restriction to India geographically is thus sound in my experience (having observed this term since it came out of the bogs), but it does not mean an Indian per se but there is some additional condition needed for someone to be called pajeet (which outsiders miss by generalizing it as a mere ethnic slur in spite of it also trying to grasp a social occurrence). Fay Freak (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

(@Fay Freak: An obvious problem is that, in English, "Farther India" referred to Southeast Asia or "Indochina", not South Asia—as I believe does Hinterindien... —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC))

@Al-Muqanna: Well the western end of “Farther India” is more possibly referred to this than the eastern end (surely not Vietnamese, though who knows). I have understood South Asia as also Southeastern Asia here (as in general something southeastern of a country is the eastern south of it), else there wouldn’t be a problem since Pakistan and Bangladesh are well known to be recent creations and India sensu lato. Meaning South Asia in the “general definition” (see our map) barely makes a difference to “India” here; so it is better not to use “South Asia” for clarity—did someone want to change the term to it for local political correctness, or as a mere euphemism for India? This is what likely happened, rethinking it for Chuck Entz—India is the actual term meant, specifically in the understanding of people who use the term to be defined, some people just loathe to see derogatory terms for their kind in a dictionary and if they can’t delete them they deny the terms’ referents. Anyhow by reason of my obscurifying the definition through a rarely used term opening also a historical dimension, that makes them think, as well giving a hint to the definiendum’s vagueness, people may refrain from edit-warring on this page, so this is greater than I thought. Fay Freak (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be precisely about India the nation vs. "India sensu lato", as you put it, in this case, and if the term is used broadly for people of South Asian ethnicity as Ni'm al-badal suggests above then I don't think it's a wise idea to rely on a broader implied definition of India—given that it's now generally considered offensive to address Pakistanis as Indians, and the term is never, as far as I know, applied to Thais, Burmese, Laotians, Malays, or the others once designated by "Further India" and the like. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It's just Indians, people from Nepal or Bangladesh would not be considered 'Pajeets". — This unsigned comment was added by 173.66.226.161 (talk) at 21:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC).

I have heard Pajeet being used to refer to Pakistanis. It seems to also signify Indo-Aryan and Dravidian people. For example, I’ve seen someone say that Pashtuns in Pakistan weren’t Pajeets but that Punjabis were. 2001:56B:DD17:5C00:5085:E715:4BDD:B7A9 02:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why does it talk about social standing? I’ve never heard it being used with social standing implication, just to mean Indian, Pakistani, Indo-Aryan or Dravidian. The same way I haven’t heard it being used to mean stereotypical Indian person. It’s literally used as a synonym of Indian or by extension anyone who’s Indian, Pakistani, Indo-Aryan or Dravidian. 2001:56B:DD17:5C00:5085:E715:4BDD:B7A9 02:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Pajeet can also be used as an adjective. 2001:56B:DD17:5C00:5085:E715:4BDD:B7A9 02:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

partially unrelated but still so. The term‘Jeets’ - a derivative of ‘pajeet’ is largely used as slang amongst those of the cryptocurrency, web3, blockchain community. It is used to define someone who sold for a loss. Could that be indicative of an implicit national bias towards Indian, Pakistani, Indo-Aryan or Dravidian peoples? 38.42.49.82 03:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Hello, I don't know if this discussion is still being considered, but as you have identified the kinds of people who use this word to be bigots and racists, I made a 4chan post that asks 4channers on /pol/ who is a pajeet. I don't know if anything will come of it, nor if this is a representative way of answering the question of what this word should be defined as; if we can find evidence for any one of these senses, maybe we should just include them all, though? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up: so far I have received three answers that answer the question exactly:

1. "Any person from the subcontinent or Sri Lanka and their descendants."
2. "This is an outdated chart of pajeets that excludes Canada and the UK but it's close." (links to this image; it'll probably be deleted not too long after this thread expires, but it depicts basically most of the global south, including all of America south of the USA, all of North Africa, Spain, Portugal, the Balkans, Turkey, Arabia and the Middle East, the entire Indian subcontinent and parts of China, alongside some regions north of India. The only thing is that most of Africa (who are presumably too dark of skin to be included) is not shaded. I don't know if this is just a meme answer, but it seems to be exceptionally broad and cover basically anyone. And the text of the post itself considers "Canada" and "the UK" to be locations where there are pajeets, perhaps insinuating there are lots of "pajeets" that have migrated there, so probably signifying Indians after all.
3. "Anyone that is more brown then a spic and less black then a nigger"; evidently this person isn't even asking what race they are, the only point is their skin color, apparently. This then supports the idea that the term encompasses no particular ethnicity and can be used to offend anyone of brown skin.

My overall summary, as there don't appear to be many more answers coming in past the initial minutes of the thread, is that this is exactly the kind of blanket term you laid it out to be at the top of this discussion, and can be used to describe anyone who even resembles the original intent of the word. Anyone who even looks or seems Indian is probably covered. I don't know whether this should be taken as a true meaning of the word, however, or just an auxiliary use deriving from humor, or deliberate distortion for added racism. Perhaps we could expand the definition to include, by extension, anyone that is deemed to have dark-but-not-"black" skin. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Pajeet definitely refers to subcontinentals generally, but certainly I wouldn't use it when addressing, say, Maori, Arabs, or 'any dark-skinned person'. That's just incorrect. gay shit (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're using it at all, that'd be incorrect. For the people who do use it, seems like the intended senses are (1) Indians and (2) other nonwhite nonblack people generally, particularly in developing nations / the global south. — LlywelynII 14:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we want this? Also Category:Terms spelled with ️ by language. The character is Variation Selector-16, which is unprintable. If we want to keep this, maybe we should at least change the category names to use "Variation Selector-16" or something, instead of the character itself. 70.172.194.25 19:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Let's back up a step. The category was created because somebody created ni🅱️🅱️a. B-in-a-red-box is the same as B or b. We shouldn't have entries for visual puns like this. Such variations are part of online writing, the same way one might emphasize using ALL CAPS or drop a different font or color in or replace a Latin letter with a similar-looking Cyrillic letter. If I wanted to look it up I wouldn't use the boxes, I would use the letters. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • You are probably right. I have also once created 🅱️ to cover them all (could not figure out by my own thinking why someone moved it to the unemojified version). For a moment I pondered whether we should have such entries even without visual pun since bloods actually do these replacements, what’s the crack? But then again we do add and should add verlan. Fay Freak (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The entry for (English) "peek" as a noun rightly mentions "peeks" as the plural, but when I go to that page it only has the verb. I had imagined that would be noticed automatically somehow and corrected. Where can I find what kinds of missing entries/mistakes get looked for, by the way? Maitchy (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Having come across some, I think there are quite a few cases like peeks where it's not the main entry and a part of speech is missing, because people don't usually search for them and at the main entry all you can tell at a glance is whether the page exists and (if you've turned on the option) if it's the right language. In principle it should be possible to collect a list of e.g. noun entries that link to plural forms that have pages but no "noun" header, but it would probably mean running a bot job. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether Cirrus Search could find these. It might not be easy to correctly add the missing sections by bot. DCDuring (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

For the time being I have manually added the plural at peeks. Leasnam (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I only just found out about this now (when searching for Wiktionary on Twitter), but evidently there has been fervent social media outrage over the last day or two about Google's search results for "jew". One of those is our entry jew, which contains some offensive senses and quotations, as noted on Talk:jew. I'm not sure why the entry jew comes out higher than the much more common capitalization Jew in Google's ranking in the first place; that seems peculiar. Is there anything we can/should do to address these concerns?

Related sources:

• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-search-jew-offensive-slur-dictionary-result/ (not originally about Wiktionary)
• https://twitter.com/marilynnefriedm/status/1607802716038008832
• https://twitter.com/rabbiyitzchok/status/1607878149554970627

70.172.194.25 20:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I (re-)added "offensive" labels before seeing that @-sche had just removed them after moving them to the main lemma—IMO there's no harm, and some good, in having these at the altform entry as well given that not many people will click through to the main one when the gloss is already given alongside quotations. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s only correct to not have these labels at the alt-forms, as the labels are not specific to the alt forms, as you see, Al-Muqanna; there is another option of qualifying/labelling the definition (inside |3= or |t=), but this is not necessary either, normally the bare glosses serve and suffice to make meanings distinct but connotations are too much detail for an altform entry.

As far as I have observed over the years, the verb senses are mostly uncapitalized, so according to our usual logics they are not alt-forms but the capitalized forms are, but it is also less confusing to have jew as all alt-forms and Jew with full definitions, i.e. centralize, and it probably helps incorrect search engine positioning, so I deem it tenable.

Also, we are not responsible for Google’s faulty representation; and we can successfully deny that listing definitions that have been used is incorrect or “controversial”. After all, one has to be intellectually laggard enough to be unable to distinguish the explanation of what Jews are and the explanation what the word Jew or jew is (which is conditioned by its actual employment in the corpus of the language); search engines are frequently used to find out about words, as well as this dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If it's about centralising then there is no need to distinguish the senses in the first place, since the altform applies to both verb glosses, or to split the citations. If these are split, on the other hand, then they should also be labelled appropriately for the reason I mentioned. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This your assertion is correct. Editors were not thinking it in enough consequential a manner in the course of the performed conversion. Fay Freak (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

About the "why": Wiktionary is a high ranked site and searches are not highly case-sensitive. The mindless robots that provide search results consider Wikipedias and Wiktionaries to be important sources, even if the specific morsel of information is not important or was made up by one drunken editor or imported en masse by another robot on the grounds that more entries are better than fewer. (That is not true. Every bad entry potentially hides a good one on a site with competent human management.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Re capitalization, should we move the verb senses back to jew? I only moved them to Jew because that form seemed more common, especially in books (where people pay attention to capitalizing things that should be capitalized, which they often don't on Usenet / the Internet, where I have even seen things like usa or tyler in lowercase, and where one of the cites for jew also has jewish in lowercase). But if it's controversial I'm happy to move it back. Lowercase jew would match gyp, welsh, etc. - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The following sentence is given as an example of a ditransitive use of dovetail: "Through my new project, I dovetail my interests in botany and programming." Is it a correct example, or is this simply an example of transitive use? It seems rather different from the example given at ditransitive verb: "I gave the dog a bone." — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Given the unitransitive gloss “To combine or fit (things) together well”, it is unclear what the ditransitive sense would even be. (Something like, “Can you dovetail me a double cheeseburger? ”?) The examples are all plain transitive uses, but note that the label states “(also ditransitive)”, so the examples need not be ditransitive.  --Lambiam 14:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"I dovetail my interests in botany and programming" is not ditransitive (I've removed the qualifier from the example) since "interests in botany and programming" is a single noun-phrase, "botany and programming" aren't indirect objects, and it would also be odd to interpret "my new project" as functioning as an intransitive object. Regarding whether dovetail in general can be used ditransitively, though, there is disagreement in the literature on how far to push the limits of what counts as ditransitivity: a structure like "I gave the dog a bone" is uncontroversially ditransitive, but often ditransitivity is limited to cases where this type of unmarked form is acceptable, so e.g. "I reminded my husband of my birthday" is excluded since you can't say "I reminded my husband my birthday". Mukherjee, English Ditransitive Verbs, comments, "the inclusion of a very heterogeneous group of prepositional verbs such as compare with, convict of and refer to in the ditransitive type is rather extreme and not very useful". IMO dovetail falls into this category and should not be considered ditransitive. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: thanks for resolving that! — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It's translated as "T-shirt (typically printed with seemingly random English words)". Is that part of the definition, or just a wry poke at the culture? Equinox ◑ 00:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I think (according to the definition) that Italian t-shirt might generally refer to a t-shirt conspicuously printed with English words on it, but not always the word for t-shirt in general, which might be referred to instead as a maglietta Leasnam (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we really be describing a macaron as a type of pastry? Also the wording of the definition, using the phrase ‘based on’ is weird. We should probably define it as an almond-flavo(u)red meringue instead (though this would require changing the title of the translation box). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The definition is far too narrow, this doesn't only pertain to cryptocurrency, see Citations:liquidity pool. Whether an accurate definition would be SOP, I don't know. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The term appears in print in US banking by 1932. Recently, most use seems to be in connection with blockchains, including crypto. But I don't think the core meaning is any different. DCDuring (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added a more general definition. I've put that crypto sense as a subsense, but that may be wrong, especially under current circumstances. Maybe the crypto def. should be RfVed. DCDuring (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

With a current total of 42 entries, this category is woefully incomplete if it's meant to encompass all nouns that refer to intangible concepts. It also doesn't seem to be set up properly within the category structure. Thoughts? 70.172.194.25 20:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have never found use for it. But I have noted that many early-stage language-learner books have insisted on abstract nouns as a category. If that has fallen out of fashion, then maybe the category could be deleted. DCDuring (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)