Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/May

The Wikipedia article Crocus vernus cites Dr. Peter Jarvis, The Pelagic Dictionary of Natural History of the British Isles, who writes: “Vernus is Latin for both ‘vernal’ and ‘crocus’.” Is there a factual basis for this claim? (I can believe that the term flos vernus (“spring flower”) has been used as a name for the crocus, but that does not make vernus mean crocus.)  --Lambiam 13:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it does not mean mean that in the sense of commonly understood, but clipping is a valid word formation process and it could be a rare poetic epithat. This isn't RfV, what's your point? 141.20.6.200 13:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

RfV is for entries on Wiktionary. This is not about Wiktionary. It is a request for information about the meaning(s) of a term. Perhaps golden has been used as a rare clipping of a poetic epithet to mean chrysanthemum, but that is not a licence to claim that “Golden is English for both ‘gold-coloured’ and ‘chrysanthemum’.”  --Lambiam 14:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

In the infrequent times when I pronounce hasten, it almost always has an audible t, similarly sometimes for often, but never for whistle, chasten, and others. Is that just me? DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

So far I've found only MWOnline has the audible t pronunciation, which they list first. Even AHD ignores that pronunciation. DCDuring (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't say it that way. We are from different regions, however. Vininn126 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I say /ˈheɪ.sən/; no audible t. Tharthan (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Like the above two commenters I don’t have an audible t either. I think I have heard it with a t on rare occasions from native English speakers but I can’t remember the specifics about when and where I’ve heard that pronunciation and which country or region the speaker was from, I just have a vague inkling that I’ve heard it before and thought it to be a bit peculiar. None of the U.K. or Aus speech examples on Youglish are of someone saying it with the t pronounced and the same goes for the first 40 of the 462 American speech examples but I got bored looking after that. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't used enough in my hearing to provide me with a reason not to resort to spelling pronunciation. DCDuring (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

An audible t in hasten is simply incorrect. The t in often appears in the UK to have become pronounced by many as a reading pronunciation after the introduction of universal literacy in the 19th century, but is also prescriptively incorrect. Of'n is the correct pronunciation. DCDuring's post is a reminder that native speakers don't always have good pronunciation.2A00:23C8:A7A3:4801:A966:B4CA:DD7B:F8A4 20:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Any pronunciation that sees significant use is, by definition, one of the correct pronunciations. This is how language works. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 06:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Lol Vininn126 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is falling into error, having had it right in my 1993 print edition of their 3rd International, but now claiming that the 't' ought be pronounced, though it allows the 'silent'-t as a second pronunciation. I checked Google N-Grams on the relative frequency of hasten and hurry in the US. Hastened has been in steady decline since about 1845, at which point its use equaled that of hurried. Hurried nearly matched the absolute amount of decline, but was used almost twice as frequently in 1977, when its use soared, reaching more than six times the usage of hastened in 2019. British English showed almost the same pattern, but with the rise of hurried being delayed until just after 2000. My theory is that because hasten is not much spoken anymore, probably due to the general decline of civilization, that speakers increasingly resort to a spelling-based pronunciation. There are other explanations for the decline of hasten relative to hurry. Maybe we live in an age in which hastening/hurrying is increasingly done transitively, but possible transitive use of hasten has been forgotten. Maybe in the decline of civilization we can't handle a word that differs from its corresponding noun by even a single letter. DCDuring (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Hasten" is in decline, but it is frequently heard in the phrase "I hasten to add". That one phrase may account for the majority of uses in speech. 2A00:23C8:A7A3:4801:8DD7:9064:77A:8731 12:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Relatedly, interesting is intéressant, so the t must have been inserted by analogy. Nobody uses a gerund or participle, cf. vb. interest, "Action films don't really interest me." ≠ "* Action films aren't really interesting _ me". The preposition "to" should be evidence of epenthesis and rebracketing Action films aren`'t really interssentᵊ me" (cp. Ger. interessiert mich nich, interessiert wieder keinen, nicht von interesse), though MLat. shows similar usage, "Qui Matutinis intererit a principio de", "Interesse panis". Imaginably, the insertion is from assimilation to the t in inter- that could otherwise go lost, as I'm sure I heard inneressing often enough. Converesely, I want to say that a morphological explanation from desiderative exponents would of been a possibility. 141.20.6.200 12:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This obviously has a problematic definition. "And they deny that", apart from the poor style of starting sentences twice with this ponderous opening, is no way to expand even in a non-gloss definition; it is also an issue that the categorical subclauses are either dubious (it is widely known that vaccines have side effects) or politically contentious (stating that it is generally true that governments use coronavirus as an expedient to commit abuses violates NPOV).
Additional attestations: ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The definition provided is in fact a gloss definition, not a non-gloss definition. An example of a non-gloss definition would be "Word used to refer to people who deny..."; "A person who denies..." is a gloss, since you could substitute that phrase for the word tragacionista in a sentence.

The edit by Lambiam after this thread was started greatly clarified the meaning, assuming it is correct. One could potentially even simplify it down to "Someone who supports the official account...", avoiding the potentially confusing double negative, but there may be difference if e.g. the term is only used for people who actively argue for the position, against detractors, and not those who passively accept it.

My personal suggestion for improvement would be to add citations of the term that provide context; the current ones don't clarify its usage, but do at least attest to the term's existence. 98.170.164.88 20:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Presumably the term is used by covid/vaccine "skeptics"/conspiracy theorists? In which case, it would be helpful to note that (although I guess "derogatory" sort-of implies it to some extent). - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Worth an entry? PUC – 11:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Meaning? DCDuring (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Usually in reference to drugs, media, etc., meaning it has a stronger/unusual effect on the receiver. Vininn126 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That just seems like different#Adverb. DCDuring (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Which sense of hit#Verb is being used here? Is it sense 12? It can be used for things other than drugs. Further, the person is the object of the verb, not the subject. 98.170.164.88 20:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think its just plain old sense 1, used metaphorically, just as we use metaphors like "it hit me like a ton of bricks" .... as you say it's definitely not just for drugs .... it's for anything that can be forceful, even metaphorically... e.g. "the new hot sauce definitely hits different". —Soap— 22:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Should we add a subsense to cover this metaphorical use? It would not be clear to a non-native speaker, and the label for sense 1 has "physical" which does not apply. 98.170.164.88 01:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about younger English, only that anders is used in an ameliorative(?) sense quite recently, intensive anders geil and eventually just anders. Is that perhaps a calque? ApisAzuli (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to find a definition in our entry for hit, but then it hit me: we may not have all the definitions that other English dictionaries have. AHD has a definition "suddenly arose in the mind of", which seems quite metaphorical, though I'm not sure what literal base definition fits. Most other dictionaries don't have AHD's definition. Some dictionaries have "affect, especially negatively", but we omit "especially": "affect negatively". Perhaps a revised definition like "affect, especially strongly or negatively" would cover this and many other 'figurative' senses. DCDuring (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say we should have an entry at hit different because:

1. hit different means that the experience was better/fuller/more insightful/richer, which isn't obvious at all by the adverb "different". It's not merely unusual, because it can only ever mean the experience was more impactful, not less.
2. Are there any other adverbs that would work with such a sense of hit? While you could probably cite "hit differently", I don't think "uniquely" or "unusually" could be used in the same way ("that hit unusually"), which by rights they should be if this were SoP. As constructions, they go over the line from unusual-but-plausible to non-viable, which makes me think that this is a set phrase rather than a mere collocation.

Theknightwho (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The normal start by a lexicographer adding a new definition is to find cites that illustrate the novel usage. Do we have any of these? DCDuring (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

genius delivers. ApisAzuli (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Most contemporary lyrics are like most contemporary poetry in not providing clear illustrations of the meaning of an expression. DCDuring (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Like almost all language, the difference being whether you allow yourself to be judgemental about it. ApisAzuli (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what to do with this one: it's very rare, but I can find at least two uses, so an rfv would probably be a waste of time. It's definitely SOP, with an infinitely productive vulgar infix, but we don't recognize unhyphenated single blocks of letters in English as SOP according to CFI. Maybe we should just clean up the definition a little. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a "vulgar emphatic form of congratulations" label would suffice for such things. Vininn126 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Strictly requiring cifuckingtations might reduce any pofuckingtential flood of such entries. DCDuring (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You can't be too strict on requiring the citations yet, because Wiktionary is still on baby-level in terms of citing anything. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a matter of discretion. Simply applying our existing rules strictly is a fairly good way of addressing minor problems without adding additional rules. DCDuring (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

An "infinitely productive vulgar infix"? i know American linguists, McWorther e.g., do like to riff on this usage, but isn't the joke in this one that it sounds like -u-fuck-u- as the reduplicated vowel indicates, plausible because congrat- is recognized as a morpheme (in contrast to unaccented ci- or po-), somewhat like a jocular Australian yer counts? Because it licenses emphasis through a repetitive rhythm, "philla-fuckin-delphi-a", it cannot be infinitesimally productive. Stop telling people that, or they will use it even liberallier.

Also, it's remarkable that, surely, you are concerned only because the slur word triggered a warning. How infatuating.

As regards your stance on unhyphenated spelling forbidding the SoP argument, you should make liberal use of the spelling mistake loop-hole. Not that I'm a friend of that, but I really wouldn't know how to read the word with-out. 141.20.6.200 12:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

How would we say I have hundreds of hryvnias In Ukrainian? Our Ukrainian declension chart for сто shows no plurals—and even in Russian, the chart shows no form for nominative plural. I am a very new student of Ukrainian, but when I look at the last part of words like двісті (for which we, unfortunately, do not provide an etymology) and п'ятсот (for which the etymology simply equates сот with "hundred"), I see what look to me like plural forms (nominative and genitive, respectively). Turning to триста and чотириста, we see that ста is a genitive (etc.) form of сто. I assume that is singular, but that seems inconsistent with the convention that the numbers 2, 3, and 4 are followed by a nominative plurals. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Chastain: To express “hundreds”, a nominalised word со́тня (sótnja) used, in both Ukrainian and Russian, eg “сотні гривень” is “hundreds of hryvnias” in Ukrainian. The other words you listed are regular numerals.

As for the endings. Number 1; 2 to 4 and > 5 all have different endings. It’s a bit of grammar with numerals you need to know. I will give you a link or explain later if you need to know more. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Chastain The Wikipedia articles on various Slavic grammars, particularly the numerals, all have pretty good explanations. Vininn126 (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

These are given as "alternative form of ". I can see some sort of gender modifier (?) in the URL but the main form and alt form in each case look identical. So what do these entries mean, and what are they achieving for Wiktionary? Equinox ◑ 15:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

They don't look identical to me - the first is female and the second male on Windows 11. That should probably be explained. Theknightwho (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

To me, 🤦‍♂️ (FACE PALM + ZWJ + MALE SIGN) looks identical to 🤦 (FACE PALM alone). The female version, however, appears different on my screen. I'm sure some fonts distinguish the male and gender-neutral versions, but apparently not the default emoji font installed on my system. 70.172.194.25 20:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

For me, the 'default face palm' shows up as the woman (identical to the 'female face palm') and the 'male face palm' is the different one, so there's some inconsistency between systems. As Equinox says, there are a lot of variants due to the possibility to apply gender and skin-tone modifiers. I'm not sure whether it'd be better to redirect all the variants to the default glyph and mention/show the main variants there like how we handle fullwidth letters, or have separate entries with more information definitions. I can see some marginal utility to being able to look up an emoji and find out what the base emoji is and what modifiers have been applied. - -sche (discuss) 08:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the above: it's possible to use modifier characters to change a picture into a gendered picture on some systems. Is this in our remit? I think not. If they were separate chars (like 0x09 is a boy and 0x0F is a girl) then yes, but if there is a specific "make it male/female" modifier, why is that lexical? Shall I RFD? Equinox ◑ 03:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

We should have policy on this, BTW, because it is probably pretty widespread, or will be, e.g. female Santa with skin-tone-4. That's great, Apple, thanks, but it's not a dictionary entry, OR IS IT? What would OED think? Equinox ◑ 03:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit like upper versus lower case, and roman versus italics. That may or may not have lexical significance, depending on actual use.  --Lambiam 11:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

In general the significance of the skin tone or gender is that it reflects the speaker's; at first blush I might not consider this to be an overly dictionary-entry-worthy thing (like Equinox), but it does seem to have parallels to having different affixes for a woman speaker vs a man speaker, or for one caste or social rank vs another, like some languages do... - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox These modifiers are part of Unicode and are defined as having this effect - it's not system-specific, and support will increase over time. It's just a way of avoiding having multiple codepoints for every emoji (though some gendered emoji do have separate codepoints as they were encoded prior to gender-markers, and I don't think we should only be giving those separate entries simply because of a quirk of Unicode history). Theknightwho (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand of the above: it's probably sensible to use redirects (if possible, automatic redirects that don't require page creation) rather than creating actual pages for these. y/n? Equinox ◑ 05:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I know that crop may be used as a verb, similar to whip, but the article does not mention such use. May it be added (if sourced)? In addition, cropping lacks such a meaning altogether as well.--Adûnâi (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A verb crop is listed, in the sense of snipping off a part. Do you have another verb in mind?  --Lambiam 14:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Presumably they mean a verb based on these nominal senses of crop: "The lashing end of a whip; An entire short whip". So "to crop" would be "to whip". Some uses: , , , . 70.172.194.25 20:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right and it's not BDSM-only: "She cropped the horse into a comfortable canter" (found in some recent shitty romance novel). Go ahead. I've added it. Equinox ◑ 04:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The connotation of girl "cocaine" is quite opaque. If there's no logical explanation at hand, this should be phono-semantic matching from a foreign word, perhaps of Indian English extraction. I'm surprised to find that cream has no Indo-Iranian cognates. Regardless, powder#translations delivers eg. Assamese guri (“powder”), but I cannot confirm a sense of drugs for any of the attractive phono-semantic matches.

At best I can relate that Farsi گل (gol, “rose, flower”) may be "cannabis" in the streets, that's likely hashish more often than bud (viz. flower); a relation to alcohol would have to be rather deep (Fa. gh ~ g are described as allophones, but my informant rejects this). Given the Andean provenience of yay, any Central Asian etymology would more likely have to stem from the Opium trade, surely, and gol happens to be a homonym for "hero". I have more, but I know it's time to stop when I end up in Sumerian.

I could care less about the origin only to deny that the good word is tainted, and a separate section would expose it even more, so I should hope for plausible deniability if somebody knows a good folk etymology.ApisAzuli (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe white girl will help? Equinox ◑ 03:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, doesn't rule out guri possibly having a subsense. ApisAzuli (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Your etymology is really wacky, it's much more likely that it just comes from "cocaine is white" -> "white girl" (maybe some connection to US racial divide) -> "girl". I don't think we need alien pyramid theories about this. Equinox ◑ 03:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, calling it "powder" is reasonable, as the synonyms Bolivian marchingpowder and German Marschierpulver might suggest; India is a probable vector to English. The comparison to gol could be secondary evidence because the etymology of the Sanskrit etymon that underlies Assamese is uncertain. Admittedly, I have confused the Sanskrit d for l because l ~ r is quite common and there is another etymon that shows l, tangentially relevant for the previous gyros thread where Schabefleisch (ie. gyros) could relate to scabs as grind relates to Grint ("scabs") and cream. ApisAzuli (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing you say ever makes any sense. Equinox ◑ 04:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

No, right, and thug means "bandit" and wasn't instrumentalized by the Brittish government to instigate hatred? Might be I misunderstood the counter claim. ApisAzuli (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, in slang, "boy" means heroin. The terms "boy" and "girl" (or whiteboy and whitegirl) are often found juxtaposed in reference to drugs. Your theory doesn't explain this part.

Further, {{R:Partridge New|entry=girl|page=868}} claims a US origin from the 1950s so it would be weird for it to be from Assamese.

Cassell's Dictionary of Slang gives an even more detailed explanation for "boy" and "girl" : the type of thrill given by the drugs is variously seen as "masculine" or "feminine". The list of synonymous slang terms for cocaine ("lady", "her", "missy", various female names) and for heroin ("big daddy", "him", "mister", various male names) also makes me think it's fundamentally about gender, not a phonological corruption of an Eastern language. 70.172.194.25 04:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Right. But have you ever tried taking a bone away from a dog? Equinox ◑ 04:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

So I'm trying to whitewash sexist propaganda now, except I'm not sure which part of it is myth. There's no surprise that synonyms and antonyms will be used if they are readily available, so this is no strong point. It beares mention that hero-ine is precedented to be feminine, but this won't tip the scale. ApisAzuli (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

schizoid, call a doctor Equinox ◑ 06:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This is simply a case of Occam's razor: unlike opium, cocaine has always come from South American sources, and this a term from US urban slang with no reason to assume borrowing from Asia. No one cares about whether anything is "tainted", nor does this involve anything having to do with gender politics. You're obviously just desperately searching for some exotic hidden explanation so you can feel like you discovered something- but sometimes reality is dull and ordinary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Not that it is relevant to the overall point, but just to be pedantic, English heroin derives from German Heroin, originally a trademark. Note that the German noun is of neuter gender. The German suffix -in can be used to create feminine forms of words, but it is also separately used to create (neuter-gendered) names of chemicals.

More to the point, the peer-reviewed article at doi:10.1080/13648470.1999.9964574 contains interviews with actual drug users who describe their gendered model of the two drugs, including reference to the slang words "boy" and "girl". It's not "sexist propaganda"; it's the most plausible and well-documented hypothesis for the origin of the words. And even if you think the idea of explicitly imposing the gender binary onto the two drugs came later, it seems much more likely that the terms originate from the ordinary English words "boy" and "girl" than from Persian, especially considering the social milieu in which the words were historically used. 70.172.194.25 06:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Anything you said is not only irrelevant. It's also what Equinox has said. ApisAzuli (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• For analogy consider Vietnamese, i. bột, "powder", "flour". ii. nàng tiên (I can't parse vi.WT), literally means both C. or H. and is explained as "white fairy", nàng, SV "lady"; we have angel dust, which I thought was PCP. iii. tóc vàng hoe - blond "fair-haired person" – the coda gives it away, vàng, SV "yellow", "gold", like bạch bạc, trắng, "white", "silver", and somewhere there is "gray" in it, too, as well as "small". ApisAzuli (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Cf. Daniel Midgley, "They called it that because it was like, you know, a heroine of a novel or a hero of story." . I'm not making it up. If that's a folk etymology and certainly not from an authoritative source I'd actually I doubt it, because heur, heureux (cf. fr.WT, "Qui rend fortuné, qui procure du plaisir ou qui est favorable et avantageux." "Choses sujettes à quelque danger, lorsqu’elles arrivent sans accident." etc. p. p.), like, dope matches (un peu) d'opium very well as well (pace "dip"). ApisAzuli (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Imagine if all the effort of this total bullshit nonsense discussion had gone into creating new entries, or heating a shelter for poor people. FOCUS, FOCUS. When I have the choice between doing boring entry clean-up that an AI bot will be able to do in 10 or 20 years, versus writing a definition that only a human can understand... Well, don't waste your time, everybody. (You could also totally drop Wiktionary and go out for a nice walk in the park.) Equinox ◑ 06:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The return on simply reading, citing, and correcting our existing entries may be even higher than that on creating new entries. DCDuring (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The entry שלי has the following two definitions:

1. Form of שֶׁל (shel) including first-person singular personal pronoun as object.
2. Form of שֶׁלְּ־ (shel'-) including first-person singular personal pronoun as object.

I'm confused why both of these words are listed since they are essentially the same word. I was about to delete one of the definitions (שֶׁלְּ־) from the list, but I hesitated since they have been there since the beginning of the page, in 2009. Is it okay to delete one, or am I missing something? Thanks! Llama Linguist (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, שֶׁל was not used as a standalone word in the Hebrew Bible, ancient manuscripts, and Talmud; instead שֶׁלְּ־ was prepended to the word that followed. So in the context of the Hebrew used in those documents, שלי could not be considered a form of the former, as it did not exist. Semantically these interpretations are equivalent, though. 70.172.194.25 03:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand now. I'll leave it the way it is. Thanks! Llama Linguist (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There's this page called https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=card-carrying_Communist&action=edit&redlink=1 Thank links to nothing instead of https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Card-carrying_communist Can someone fix it I think they are supoosed to link to the same thing — This unsigned comment was added by 141.157.228.115 (talk) at 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC).

User:Chuck Entz has resolved the issue by removing the link from card-carrying. The term card-carrying Communist would likely be disqualified from having an entry according to our "sum of parts" policy, so this seems like a reasonable course of action. 70.172.194.25 17:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Can someone figure out why געווינס (gevins) is in CAT:Requests for transliteration of Yiddish terms with Hebrew-only letters? I can't find any words with Hebrew-only characters that haven't been correctly transliterated there. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It's coming from the usage example template. The code that is adding it is here. 70.172.194.25 17:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, it is due to {{...}}, which expands to <span class="q-hellip-sp"> </span><span class="q-hellip-b"></span><span class="q-hellip-b"> </span>. This string contains the character q, which it doesn't like. In the output HTML it's even changing the class names to a-hellip-sp, etc. 70.172.194.25 18:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That was it. I replaced {{...}} with the character ⟨…⟩, and that solved the problem. Thanks for your help! —Mahāgaja · talk 19:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:Erutuon or anyone else who might be able to fix the underlying issue, though, since the module freaking out at {{...}} and changing the span-class seems like... not desired behaviour? - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Watching a film called knuckle about bare-knuckle boxing bouts between the feuding Irish traveller/gypsy clans, the Quinns and the Joyces, currently available on NetFlix (at least in the U.K.), I was struck by the way that many of the travellers said the word ‘clan’ as ‘clang’! Has anyone else come across this quirky pronunciation? Would we say it’s a dialect pronunciation or code-switching into Shelta/Gammon/Cant? Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Is щось always neuter, and should we indicate that in the dictionary entry? Peter Chastain (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Example: вони роблять щось нове Peter Chastain (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Chastain: Easily fixed with |g=n. Yes, it's a neuter. Good point. Anything derived from що (ščo, “what”) is a neuter and anything derived from хто (xto, “who”) is a masculine. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems highly likely that this character, instead of having the two independent senses of mulberry and paper, has the single sense of paper mulberry (i.e. the tree). Can an expert in Chinese confirm? 98.110.52.138 04:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Just based on English sources like this one, I agree. The dual definition goes all the way back to its importation by bot from the Unihan database in 2003, and the definitions in that database are notoriously unreliable. For those unfamiliar, this is a tree related to the mulberry whose inner bark is used in East Asia to make a very high-quality paper (it's also the source of Polynesian tapa cloth). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the Chinese Wikipedia has w:zh:楮 as Broussonetia kazinoki (their article about Broussonetia papyrifera, corresponding to w:Paper mulberry, is w:zh:構樹). - -sche (discuss) 06:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We have two "Preposition" senses:

1. (UK, Ireland) Half past; a half-hour (30 minutes) after the last hour.
2. (in some languages but rarely in English) A half-hour to (preceding) the next hour; i.e. 6.30="half (to) seven"

I imagine the second sense is attested in English somewhere, but presumably it needs a regional label. Where in the world is this used? Is it just {{lb|en|NNSE}}? This, that and the other (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of what I can find are explanations of other languages' practices (many, perhaps all, might be dismissed as mentions), or instances of it being put into the mouths of characters who are speaking about (or in) their native region's/language's practice (e.g. "Half eight is 7:30 here"), although it seems to have also been truly used in the dialects of originally-non-English-speaking communities who became natively English-speaking, e.g. the Pennsylvania Dutch and perhaps other German/Dutch/Scandinavian immigrant communities in the US. Citations:half#of_time:_half_an_hour_before. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice how this has the same counterintuitive order as thirteen or two (and) twenty (as German does it), which would imply 7½, not 6:30, unless counting backwards. twelf ("two-left", if the etymology is correct) would match as if acognate, but that explains very little. Perhaps there is no need to blame the Dutch. ApisAzuli (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This might be one of those hyperforeignisms that Americans assume must be used "by the British", helped by the fact that the British do use the phrase, just not with that meaning. And it might be used by L2 speakers. But it makes me think of phrases like vinculate and close the lights, .... are they really English if they're used almost entirely by English language learners? —Soap— 07:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The definition of flatulate says: "Thus flatulate is to fart as urinate is to piss and as defecate is to shit." I disagree with this; in my experience, "piss" and "shit" are more offensive than "fart," although there are certainly people who would be offended by all three. Maybe "pee" and "crap" are closer? 99.197.202.188 20:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"crap" might still be slightly more offensive than "fart", but "poop" is too childish and I can't think of anything else. "turd" could work, but it's a noun. 99.197.202.188 20:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say more "poop". Vininn126 (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a comparison at all? I'd say there isn't a good one. If we're trying to help out English language learners here, I'd recommend they use a multi-word phrase like pass gas instead of this word which I'd think even doctors would find clumsy. pass gas is the polite version, the phrase best suited to complement urinate even if the formation is different. —Soap— 07:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that we probably don't. Vininn126 (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the analogy is useful, but I do agree that pass gas is better. How would I add that to the page, considering the comparison is on the flatulate page? 99.197.202.188 22:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• We need more flatulating audios on the page Zumbacool (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I added an entry have a thirst on to cover the Irish English idiomatic phrase meaning, "to be thirsty". I'm happy with it, and I can provide a bunch of citations beyond the first person transitive formation (which is the most common).

Buuuut... "I've a on me" as a set structure of a phrase can take other s as well:

• A Google Ngram Viewer suggests "I've a head on me" (I've got a headache) as the only other example common enough to mention (and can be cited in the works of Arthur Conan Doyle, amongst others).
• There are several citations for "I've a hunger on me" or "have a hunger on".
• There are a few for "I've an anger on me" or "have an anger on".
• I even found one citation for "have a tiredness on".

What do you think?

1. Delete have a thirst on and completely forget that this idiomatic Irish English phrase exists?
2. Put the phrase structure on another more generic page ("have a property on", perhaps; sounds awful though) and redirect have a thirst on?
3. Keep have a thirst on as the most common formation and redirect other phrases there?
4. Add each CFI-passing phrase ("have a head on", "have a hunger on", "have an anger on") and cross-link via "See Also"?

-Stelio (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a snowclone. Vininn126 (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems like in both English and especially in Irish, the noteworthy phenomenon in those examples is the use of "...on (one)", and "thirst" is just one possible object. I can also find "I got a thirst on me" (which would probably be fine to consider that an ellipsis of "have got..."), "Still with the thirst on me, I...", "She can see the thirst on me", "Christ, the thirst on me", etc, and various citations of "there (is/was) a thirst on me" (and likewise with "hunger", "depression", some of which citations ay not be Irish). So maybe just redirect the most common phrases to a relevant sense of on? (Compare "All of the responsibility is on him.") I take the "snowclones" appendix to be more for memetic phrases rather than just any phrasal verb or prepositional phrase (hence we cover "having me on", "had the radio on", "have a shirt on" in the mainspace at have on, not at Appendix:Snowclones/have X on). - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So you would suggest "have on one"? as the entry? I could see that working. Vininn126 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I considered "have on one", but ... you can also say "there is a thirst on me", "the hunger is on me", etc without have (indeed, that's closer to the Irish phrasing), or even "Christ, the thirst on me!", "she can see the thirst on me", "the cold brings the hunger on me", so maybe the core is just on? (or perhaps on one?) Maybe Mahagaja or Codecat or other editors with some familiarity with Irish English can weigh in. - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What immediately came to mind on reading this from my EXTREMLELY limited knowledge of Irish was the phrase tá brón orm. Do people ever say ‘sorrow on me’ when speaking English? Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

One can say “the sorrow be on me”, or “Shame, and guilt, and sorrow be on him.”  --Lambiam 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For decoding, this term is transparent for at least most English speakers. Is helping someone encode into Irish English a function of a dictionary? Does having an entry, eg, for a snowclone, even help with such encoding? I'm skeptical about how much a dictionary can help with encoding, apart from translation. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an etymological dictionary. So, if there was some etymology involved instead of lumping all up that must be basicly common English, that would be great. I mean, it could be well justified. Can't help but think of German bin am verhunger-n (starvin), einen Harten haben (hard-on; also in other phrases, obviously, cp. golden, or jungen, not sure), so eine Art an sich haben (fairly in-transparent, viz. Art un' Weise `characteristic waysʼ if at all related). On second thought, I would more often use about, he has a certain air about him, cp. ambi-, um, omb, etc. (somebody ping l'ambiam). Otherwise I have obviously no clue about and no opinion on Cletic or ME, me. ApisAzuli (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

In this view I concure it would be good to have such phrases that are idiomatic, and I guess I have to agree with -sche that redirects are formally the correct solution, unless more can be said than surface analysis might suggest. ApisAzuli (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

While creating shrimp chip, shrimp cracker and adding a new definition to krupuk, I realised that the second definition for prawn is a little off. It claims that a prawn is a crustacean sometimes confused with a shrimp but crustacean seems too general as it includes crabs and even woodlice and moreover this definition presupposes that there is a clear distinction between a shrimp and a prawn in the first place. How should we improve this without getting too encyclopaedic? Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Quoting the Wikipedia article Prawn: “The terms shrimp and prawn themselves lack scientific standing. Over the years, the way they are used has changed, and in contemporary usage the terms are almost interchangeable.” The article section Shrimp § Shrimp versus prawn gives more detail. The wording “sometimes confused” betrays a prescriptive attitude. Our definitions should follow how the terms are used. We have a qualifier “(sometimes proscribed)” at the synonym prawn listed for shrimp. Usage notes may be a more adequate medium for noting existing attitudes.  --Lambiam 08:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@217.229.90.174 Hello all. I see these two words as synonyms, not alternative forms of the same word. I see it this way because of the extreme divergence between the intended pronunciation and spelling of the two words in English. If this view is correct, I would like to see this series of edits (starting with ) reverted). If this were Japanese and Mandarin, there would be no question I would be in the right. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

While it's hard to draw an absolute line, this seems like a little too much distance to call them alternative forms. After all, we don't treat Peking and Beijing as alternative forms, even though they also are basically the same word. I wouldn't go so far as to revert everything, though- they cleaned up the formating and replaced {{etyl}}, which we're trying to get rid of. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the combination of different etymologies (coming from different Chinese lects), substantially different pronunciation and different spelling make for too much distance to call them alternative forms, as you both say. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

A similar change to Kalpin and Keping was made here: diff --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The title of this page is a Unicode Han composition sequence. I'm pretty sure that was not intended. I looked at the Unihan link to try to find the right character, but it just goes to a description of an entirely different character (扵). This entry should either be moved to the correct Unicode character or deleted. 70.172.194.25 20:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted it. The content is a bit dubious, and it's best not to create these unless absolutely needed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The modern English entry wretchful is asking for a quotation from the Wycliffe Bible. I managed to track down such a passage:

• c. 1382–1395, John Wycliffe , edited by Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden, The Holy Bible, , volume IV, Oxford: At the University Press, published 1850, →OCLC, Apocalypse III:17, page 646:

There are two versions in the book, presented in columns side-by-side. I want to add a quote from one and fulfill the request, but at the same time, these are actually Middle English, and the spellings are wrechful and wretcheful. How should I proceed? 98.170.164.88 00:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Similar situation with withinforth:

• c. 1382–1395, John Wycliffe , edited by Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden, The Holy Bible, , volume IV, Oxford: At the University Press, published 1850, →OCLC, Mark XV:16, page 135, column 2:
  has "with ynneforth"
• c. 1382–1395, John Wycliffe , edited by Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden, The Holy Bible, , volume IV, Oxford: At the University Press, published 1850, →OCLC, Luke XI:7, page 183:
  has "withynne forth" and "with ynforth"

98.170.164.88 00:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The entries were imported from Webster 1913, which didn't distinguish Middle English from Modern English. If you are really sure the word doesn't exist in modern English (EEBO is a good place to check, although you have to try various spellings, as is OED if you have access), you can move it to the attested Middle English spelling and reformat it as a Middle English entry. You need to create an account to be able to move entries, though.

In the case of wretchful OED only has these two attestations from Wycliffe (1382). So the entry should be moved to one or other of these spellings, and the other can be created as an alternative form.

Withinforth may be citeable in Modern English. If you contest this assertion, you can send the entry to WT:RFVE.

Plenty more like this at WT:Todo/English Chaucer. This, that and the other (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your real question: a Middle English attestation of wrechful should go at a Middle English entry wrechful, not in a Modern English entry. This, that and the other (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev: @Benwing2: The Russian plural of port is пОрты in the normal sense, but портЫ in the sense of "computer ports". The Russian Wiktionary gets this right. But the English Wiktionary has the wrong stress on the npl and gpl in the second meaning. — This unsigned comment was added by 2a00:23c8:a7a3:4801:733e:646c:63da:cf9d (talk) at 07:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC).

@Atitarev, the IP forgot to sign so their ping didn't go through, so I'm re-pinging you for them. - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@-sche, Benwing2, 2a00:23c8:a7a3:4801:733e:646c:63da:cf9d: Thanks. This has been addressed. I can't fully agree that the computing sense uses only stress pattern "b", even if IT people would prefer to use stress pattern "b" (a so called "professional pronunciation"), so I have provided both "a" and "b". This can change if it can be proven otherwise. @Benwing2, this may requiring a rework on inflected form entries. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know you had to sign for the ping to work. 2A00:23C8:A7A3:4801:733E:646C:63DA:CF9D 09:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@-sche, Benwing2, 2a00:23c8:a7a3:4801:733e:646c:63da:cf9d: Update: I've just added stress-pattern "c" (when different from "e") for the main sense (port, harbor) as "uneducated". D. Dmitriyev thinks pattern "c" is normal. (https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dmitriev/3927/порт). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• 
  now playing
• 
  no shirt, no shoes

Which side of the WT:SOP line would this fall? I felt pretty confident it would be considered idiomatic until I saw that no shirt, no shoes, no service failed RfD, a case that I otherwise would have thought to be a bright-line 'prior knowledge test' (industry-specific jargon, in this context for service businesses) example. Arlo Barnes (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely SOP. Vininn126 (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

SoP. A citation or usage example at ] could include the whole expression. Something similar doesn't seem as useful for ] or ]. DCDuring (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for derailing slightly, but while we're on the topic of signs, what about "posted"?

That's only one word, so it's not SOP per se. But is its meaning already covered by the basic meaning of the verb "to post"? Or maybe a new verb sense of "to post" or a new adjective sense of "posted" is warranted? Perhaps even an interjection, since on signs it generally appears outside a sentence, in big text? (I guess the signs aren't technically durably archived, though, unless they're preserved in a museum or the photo appears in a book...) -- special:contribs/98.170.164.88 17:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There might be a legal meaning to posted on such signs that is not 100% obvious and also common to many jurisdictions.

BTW, this is not a BP discussion topic. It might be good for three at Tea Room. DCDuring (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops, my bad; I moved it. I bet it's less a legal thing than a pseudolegal thing (a.k.a. mythical-legal); see discussion offwiki. Arlo Barnes (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Do baccara, pancreata, traumata, puerperia, and residua really end with /æ/? It seems to be really uncommon for English words to end with this sound. For comparison, a search finds 5693 words with final /ə/, 69 with /a/, and 19 with /æ/. 98.170.164.88 12:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

baccara: this case seems somewhat plausible to me (I don't know this word) if a bilingual French-English speaker is trying to approximate French, although if a pronunciation with final /æ/ exists it should probably also be listed at baccarat. Verdict: I'm not sure on this one. The others are clear errors for words which actually have final /ə/.--Urszag (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

As Urszag says, these are wrong. The one in pancreata goes all the way back to Doremítzwr's creation of the entry; he had some peculiar ideas of how Latinate terms ought to be pronounced. Traumata is an interesting case because other dictionaries assert the second vowel (and not just the final vowel) is /ə/, but this seems unnatural; the other pronunciations Urszag added feel more natural. - -sche (discuss) 07:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The closest I can think of would be the Scouse practice of saying the final schwa as ‘e’ or ‘ɛ’ but even that’s not quite an ‘æ’(and it would be daft to add this to every word ending with a schwa or an unpronounced ‘r’). Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The з- page (linked, e.g., by знайти as з-#Ukrainian) contains no section for Ukrainian or any other Slavic language. Peter Chastain (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done for Ukrainian. Voltaigne (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Italian word pudico 'modest', derives from Latin pudīcus, which would have yielded the pronunciation "pudìco", but the word actually shifted the stress on the antepenult "pùdico" due to folk-etymology back-fromation to *pud- (root in common with pudore 'modesty') + -icus (words suffixed with -icus are stressed on the antepenult). This shift is common to all the Romance languages (except French which doesn't have stress) some considering the term with the stress on the antepenult as the standard pronunciation (Spanish púdico, Romanian pudic, Galician púdico) while other languages "borrowed" the conservative pronunciation directly from Latin and treat the "inherited" pronounciation as a common "mistake" (Italian pudico, Portuguese pudico).

The problem that arises in Italian is how to form the masculine plural. The masculine plural of adjectives or nouns ending in -co is usually -chi (/-ki/) if the word is stressed on the penult (cf. ròco, ròchi), while -ci (/-tʃi/) if the word is stressed on the antepenult (cf. mèdico, mèdici). This leads to two possible plurals for the word, pùdici, which is the common yet proscribed one, and pudìchi, attested in all vocabularies and used in the written language.

I don't know how to incorporate these forms on the page pudico which currently only mentions the common proscribed plural.

Catonif (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at my changes and modify them as you see fit. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I had no idea how to make the templates work. I dealt with the pages of the plural forms. Catonif (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we need two figurative senses? I don't really see a difference. PUC – 21:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the usexes illustrate the difference well. The first sense applies to someone who is brutish and animalistic in their behaviour, like the stereotypical caveman. The second applies to someone who is backwards or old-fashioned. A person could be very progressive in their thinking but very slovenly or childlike in their behaviour, which would fit the first figurative sense but not the second. Likewise, someone could have refined tastes and wear tuxedos every day, which doesn't fit with the first figurative sense but is compatible with the second. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. It's possible to distinguish the two kinds of cavemen Andrew mentions, but do uses of the term always fall into one or the other sense, or is there one general idea ("backwards person, who does not think/act like a modern person is expected to") of which "person with backwards brutish behaviour" and "person with backwards opinions" are only two possible manifestations / subsenses? The Clarke citation abou a cavemanish husband always interested in sex, currently under sense 3, does not in fact seem to be about "old-fashioned opinions", but it doesn't seem to be about savage behaviour per se either, it's more like "person with backwards / primitive interests or motives". Someone who is progressive in his view of women etc and non-brutish in behaviour, but who distrusts tech and refuses to get a cell phone, is a technological "caveman" in a way somewhat distinct from either the brutish caveman or the political caveman who wants to roll back women's suffrage. Ehh. What doees anyone think of having a "supersense" and the behavior/opinion senses as subsenses, like this? I also tweaked the definitions a bit, borrowing some wording from Neanderthal. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to add the following sense to change, but I don't know enough about music theory to tell if it's right:

1. (music, chiefly in the plural) A change from one chord to another; a chord progression.

I left citations to support this at Citations:change. 98.170.164.88 03:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

1. I think our definition of chord progression (“a repeating pattern of two or more chords, often chords diatonic to a particular key”) is incorrect. vi–ii–V–I is a chord progression, but not a “repeating pattern”. A simple fix is to delete “repeating”.
2. We should avoid circular references, like the definition of a sense of change using ].
3. IMO a “chord change” involves just two chords; it is the movement from one chord to another, and the vi–ii–V–I progression involves three chord changes, so “a chord progression” is too general here.
4. A possibility is to define the term as {{short for|chord change}}, which however requires a determination that “chord change” is not merely a sum of parts. There is a lemming: Collins. The same definition is found here.

 --Lambiam 08:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The noun sense in campanology is close enough to chords to suspect that the words are etymologically related, inasmuch as the origin is uncertain and coincident with that of chimes. See also onom. twang, maybe imitative tang, and uncertain tune (viz choon). ApisAzuli (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Apis, I understand you're trying to participate, but pointing at words and going 'these look similar; etymologically related?' is not actually helpful (or relevant in this case). Is this the same user as Rhymeinreason? - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

See also the section User talk:Chuck Entz/2021 § Rhyminreason redux? and the earlier thread User talk:Chuck Entz/2021 § ApisAzuli / Rhyminreason, which I had not noticed then.  --Lambiam 20:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

LlywelynII is adding the label "pejorative" to all the senses, but I don't think that either of the sense merits that label. In the quotes and uses, it does not seem pejorative. —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Svartava It's certainly pejorative. If I said your revert without comment was heavy-handed, you'd start thinking if you could put together enough of a case to get the admins to come yell at me to be more polite.

The real argument is is whether it's worth noting pej. for all negative senses of words, which could get unhelpful pretty quick. At the time I was thinking that 2nd language learners and the like might not realize how annoyed people would be when it gets used in their direction (and thanks for demonstrating the idea just now!) but overall it's a fair point. — LlywelynII 10:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI, a literally heavy hand isn't particularly meaningful. A german analogon is mit erhobener Hand, ie. with raised hand, rather than mit dem Holzhammer which indeed suggests crudeness as hölzern "wooden" generally does. . ApisAzuli (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This is tricky. Where is the line between a word being derogatory, vs just meaning something it's bad to be? Is bad derogatory? Is ugly? You make a negative judgement if you say something is bad and ugly, telling a bride on her wedding day that her dress is ugly and bad is outright offensive and someone would probably "yell at you to be more polite", but I don't think we should have a "derogatory" label at ugly, or an "offensive" label at bad, because the derogation isn't coming from the word choice, unlike how e.g. wetback is a derogatory word for something you could express neutrally. (BTW: we need to clean up mojado to indicate if it's derogatory/offensive, or not define it using an offensive word if it is not itself offensive...) Some senses of heavy-handed, e.g. "Excessive, overdone" and its quote "recently I got a little heavy-handed with the red pepper", are not derogatory at all. I am not sure the others rise to the level of pejorative, either, but it's more debatable. I also think we have too many senses. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree with -sche, but I don't think it's so much tricky as simply wrong. The label seems redundant to most of the five definitions. If we want to have categories for headwords that have negative valence definitions, whether or not we want to label them derogatory, that seems like a job for the separate insertion of categories. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that they're redundant. Ultimateria (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Any idea what this gardening machine is called in English? Zumbacool (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean ponchadora? Vininn126 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably not - those guys look very different to the pinchadora Zumbacool (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

When I link to the link provided I first get only items captioned ponchodora for which the English is crimping tool. If I insist on pinchadora, I get images that look like aerators, but I'm just repeating what -sche says below. DCDuring (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Some of those results use pinchadora together with the (more common) word aireadora, this thing, which is an aerator, but I'm not sure if they're actually using pinchadora and aireadora as synonyms or just speaking of items that can serve either function (like in English you might see an "aerator / dethatcher" device). Is a pinchadora the same thing as an aireadora, or is it perhaps a scarifier or dethatcher? - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This site distinguishes between "Las que solo pinchan la superficie (Aireadoras pinchadoras)" and "Aireadoras provistas de saca bocados (Sacan un cilindro de tierra a la superficie)". I think this lines up with Wikipedia's definitions of a "spike aerator" as opposed to a "core aerator". 98.170.164.88 21:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go with spike aerator. Thanks a bunch, guys Zumbacool (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

English Wiktionary contains an entry for "declimb" which I can find no usage of, and which is, on its surface, a ridiculous construction, a sort of bastard conflation of 'descend' and 'climb down'. Can it be removed, and perhaps more importantly, where did it come from in the first place? — This unsigned comment was added by Allermesuffit (talk • contribs) at 14:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC).

Well, someone added it. To be fair, it has a nonstandard label on it, which means "most speakers don't think this is a word". Since the entry has no quotes, you could start a request for verification about it (if no quotes are found, it will be removed). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

A quick glance at Google Books reveals the requisite three cites, though most are admittedly scannos. "any a citizen wishes to climb or declimb these very stoop steps" is very real, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed that the entry "lilac" has a reference to the etymological origin entry in Arabic, which has a list of descendant words in all kinds of languages, but not the Hebrew parallel, "לילך" /lilax/, which most probably comes from the same origin. I do not know how to edit, nor do I know the exact etymological origin, so I'd just like to start a discussion in hopes that, eventually, someone smarter than me would add this information. — This unsigned comment was added by 5.102.233.16 (talk) at 09:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC).

This is a New Hebrew loanword. I can’t tell which was the proximate donor language. Arabic? Polish? Nineteenth-century French?  --Lambiam 14:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

{{R:he:Klein|300a–b|לילך}} says that the chain of borrowing is Hebrew < French < Spanish < Arabic < Persian. 70.172.194.25 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I am seeing this expression for "short" on Duolingo, but have not been able to guess the dictionary form of зріст. Do we have it? Should add a definition for низький на зріст, either under низький or as a separate page? Peter Chastain (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It means height or growth. That would be a collocation. It just hasn't been added yet. Vininn126 (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

зріст (zrist) is there now, with usage examples (including низьки́й на зріст (nyzʹkýj na zrist). Voltaigne (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Peter Chastain (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

In most of the Indo-European languages that I have studied, possessives are treated as adjectives, agreeing in number, gender, and case with the noun that they modify (e.g., Latin meus, -a, -um, etc.). In Ukrainian, we follow this practice for the first and second person (мій, моя, моє, мої), while the third-person possessive is a true pronoun. (Його and її do not change their form to agree with the noun that they modify.) So here are my questions:

• Should we change the entries for мій and твій (which currently call them pronouns) to indicate that they are adjectives? (Or do we just go with more current terminology and call them all determiners?)
• Might it be appropriate to have a note somewhere, calling out the difference between how мій and твій are declined and його is not? (I ask, because this difference has been a source of confusion to me, as a novice student of Ukrainian; OTOH, an explanation might just add to the confusion and this matter might better be left to Wikibooks:Ukrainian.)

Peter Chastain (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Declining like adjectives does not an adjective make. POS is less about declension and more about function and position. There might be a tag on його, її, and іх saying indeclinable (but if you got to the first and last one they have that). Vininn126 (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the terminology has changed since I was a kid, studying Latin. We called meus, etc. adjectives, because we thought they worked like an adjective: my ball and red ball both provide additional information about ball. I see that the Wiktionary entry for meus calls that word a determiner, and I think we should do that for мій and тій, because calling them pronouns is even less accurate than calling them adjectives, IMO.

Calling його, її, and іх indeclinable would not be helpful, IMO, because they are in fact forms of the declinable pronoun я pronouns він and вона. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

pronouns are a type of determiner, and crack open basically any grammar and you'll see them called possessive pronouns. I don't know what weird stuff you learned from where. And these are only considered declined forms of those pronouns when not used as possessive pronouns, i.e. as the object of the sentence. Your suggestions are not very lexical nor are they reflective of how this works. — This unsigned comment was added by Vininn126 (talk • contribs) at 01:54, 2022 May 21.

Possessives in general, eg, my, George's are determinative in function. We don't have a separate entry and PoS section for George's. I don't think the metaphysical question of what PoS my IS (determiner/adjective/pronoun) should govern how we show it in an entry. Mentioning the determinative function in another PoS section for the word would be more than sufficient. We don't usually waste time, space, and user attention including common grammatical phenomena in usage notes.

How do modern Ukrainian grammars and dictionaries present the words/forms in question? DCDuring (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language in 20 volumes calls them possessive pronouns (присвійний займенник):

• ваш (vaš, “your”): Shyrokov, V. A., editor (2010–2023), “ваш”, in Словник української мови: у 20 т. (in Ukrainian), volumes 1–14 (а – префере́нція), Kyiv: Naukova Dumka; Ukrainian Lingua-Information Fund, →ISBN
• їхній (jixnij, “their”): Shyrokov, V. A., editor (2010–2023), “їхній”, in Словник української мови: у 20 т. (in Ukrainian), volumes 1–14 (а – префере́нція), Kyiv: Naukova Dumka; Ukrainian Lingua-Information Fund, →ISBN
• наш (naš, “our”): Shyrokov, V. A., editor (2010–2023), “наш”, in Словник української мови: у 20 т. (in Ukrainian), volumes 1–14 (а – префере́нція), Kyiv: Naukova Dumka; Ukrainian Lingua-Information Fund, →ISBN
• мій (mij, “my”): Shyrokov, V. A., editor (2010–2023), “мій”, in Словник української мови: у 20 т. (in Ukrainian), volumes 1–14 (а – префере́нція), Kyiv: Naukova Dumka; Ukrainian Lingua-Information Fund, →ISBN

Voltaigne (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Chastain, Vininn126, Voltaigne: I agree with @Voltaigne that the current handling is preferred. These are perceived as possessive pronouns by most East Slavic grammarians. However, it is possible to add another category without changing the "Pronoun" headword, as in this revision with |cat3==determiners. Also, if a decision is made one way or another, it should be consistent with other similar languages for consistences. @Benwing2: What do you think about adding a new category on top of existing ones? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Peter Chastain, Vininn126, Voltaigne: Personally, I think we should identify мій (mij), ваш (vaš), etc. as determiners using the "Determiner" headword. This is what is done for most languages in Wiktionary and it's consistent with current linguistic terminology. However, if they stay as "Pronoun" I agree they should have an additional category identifying them as determiners. Benwing2 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Either option is fine by me. I think I prefer pronoun as it's more specific, but there is upside to having it as determiner, which has been seeing more and more use in linguistics explanations. Vininn126 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

How is "pronoun" more specific than "possessive determiner"? Personally, I think these should be both, because of the two completely different uses you can have with them:

• Мой кот заболел - My cat has fallen ill
• Твой кот заболел, а мой нет - Your cat has fallen ill, but mine hasn't

These are two completely different functions and should imo be handled separately. By the way, do East Slavic dictionaries ever use a word equivalent to 'determiner'? Thadh (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Less so than Western linguistics in my experience. Vininn126 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The main text in our entries is supposedly aimed not at linguists, but at more ordinary folks. Categories etc. should suffice for linguists and will make it easier to transition to the Determiner heading when it is recognized by more than a small portion of our target readership. DCDuring (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a mathematical sense that we currently do not have in our entry: see w:Deformation (mathematics). However, the English Wikipedia article is completely beyond me. Wonder if there's anyone who would like to attempt a definition. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Msh210, perhaps? - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

My feeling is that this is insufficiently different from the nontechnical sense “change the form of (something)”. A physical object may be deformed by applying a force. In the mathematical sense, the form of a solution is changed by making changes to the parameters of the problem. As such, it is hardly a technical term. The situation for the noun deformation is entirely different. It does have a quite specific technical mathematical meaning. I do not believe, though, it is possible to give a dictionary definition that is at the same time accurate and understandable for people not already familiar with the concept. We do have definitions, such as, “pushforward: (mathematics) The differential of a smooth map between smooth manifolds.” I can’t see who is really served by this. And, of course, there are innumerable terms that we do not cover, such as e.g. crystalline cohomology, so it should not be a blow to our pride that we are not complete in our coverage of such esoteric mathematical terms.  --Lambiam 10:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, great. Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Following a WT:REE request for "acid-ash" (which defined it incorrectly), I have added quotations for the following terms:

• Citations:acid ash / Citations:acid-ash
• Citations:alkaline ash / Citations:alkaline-ash
• Citations:neutral ash / Citations:neutral-ash

More variations could probably be cited, like "basic ash" or "acidic ash". I'm wondering whether these terms are SOP or not. I guess it could be analyzed as just alkaline + ash (chemistry sense?), and the adjective uses could be seen as attributive uses of the SOP noun phrase. But I don't think the meaning of "acid-ash food" or "neutral-ash diet" is completely self-evident, as shown by the fact that the REE requester got it wrong.

Perhaps these quotations would at least justify an additional sense of "ash" specific to the residue left behind by eating food, but that's technically just a special case of burning/oxidation. 98.170.164.88 05:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The definition doesn't match the quotes, which mean something along the lines of drunk:

1. (colloquial) During a drinking session, the drink that makes a person drunk.

I don't know the usage enough to tell whether this distinguishes between slightly ("just one over the limit") and totally (as a polite or humorous understatement) inebriated. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If you search for "had one over the eight" on Google Books, that may support the current definition better. Most of the results are mentions in dictionaries of idioms, but there are some actual uses. I agree that the present quotations fit an adjective meaning "drunk". 70.172.194.25 18:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there should be adjective and noun sections for this entry and the current quotes should be moved to the adjective sense (which should be defined as ‘drunk’ rather than ‘slightly drunk’). If you search for “have|had|has|having one over the eight” on GoogleBooks then the number of clear uses rather than mentions is well into double figures and demonstrates British but also Australian and Irish usage. As the noun doesn’t literally mean ‘one drink too many’ but simply is a euphemism for ‘too many drinks’, we could perhaps model the noun definition on our current definition for one too many ((idiomatic) One or more servings too many of alcohol, leading to drunkenness.). Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now improved the entry, splitting it into adjective and noun sections and adding quotes. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

witch of Agnesi says it's "a mistranslation of Italian versiera", but versiera's definitions are "witch" and "witch of Agnesi" (as if it's an OK translation). Italian Wikipedia says the maths thing was called versoria by e.g. Guido Grandi before another Italian named Maria Agnesi introduced versiera; they also say the sense "witch" is from avversaria. So, does the entry need to be split into two etymology sections, one for versiera (from versoria?) in maths, and one for versiera-from-avversaria meaning "witch"? Pinging @GianWiki. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears that Luigi Guido Grandi (1671–1742) is responsible for the substitution of Italian versiera for Latin versoria, writing, “quella curva ... che da me suole chiamarsi Versiera, in latino però Versoria.” Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718–1799) apparently merely copied Grandi’s fanciful term. I have no reason to think that Grandi was not aware of the meaning of versoria in Latin, and inasmuch as the transmogrification may be called a “mistranslation”, it appears to have been intentional.  --Lambiam 07:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This source states that Italian versiera is (also) a nautical term for the rope that turns the sail, presumably the mainsheet. If this is correct, Grandi’s substitution was not fanciful at all.  --Lambiam 08:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've split the etymologies. If versiera ("rope that turns a sail") is attested, let's add that sense, too. - -sche (discuss) 08:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I can’t find any confirmation of this nautical sense, for which the common Italian term is scotta, only sources that state that Latin versoria has this meaning, and an obviously confused source stating that versiera is a Latin term with this meaning. So I guess the author of the Spanish book I cited also got confused.  --Lambiam 08:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Who is the "he" mentioned in the etymology of witch of Agnesi? 98.170.164.88 08:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, SRT (sex reassignment typo). Btw, it feels a little weird (though not actually wrong, hence I did it) to say versiera Agnesi's term, if it was also the general and prior term. I guess we could just say "...Italian versiera, the term for them which means 'rope'", or "...Italian versiera, the term for them, from Latin versoria which means 'rope'"... - -sche (discuss) 08:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Catalan pronunciation of o in rajola is in all dialects shown (Balearic, Central and Valencian). The plural form is rajoles de xocolata, not rajola de xocolates (as in "chocolate bars", not "chocolates bar"). Could you correct it? --Enric (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Ultimateria (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Half done ;-) The o in the three dialectal variants is always , but I don't know how to change it! Thanks for the rajoles de xocolata! --Enric (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how old this usage is, but since at least the beginning of the pandemic, I've been hearing "drop" used intransitively to mean "leave the conference call", as in "Am I good to drop?" (Sometimes it'll be "drop off", or "drop from the call".) Anecdotally it seems common to me in American English in business settings at least, and a quick Google for "drop from the call" showed a good number of examples in this sense (along with plenty of transitive uses, e.g. "in order to drop from a call", which I think is covered by sense 25.)

I've never edited Wiktionary before, so I was hoping I might be able to get some feedback on whether or not this is an appropriate addition. — Rusmal (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This usage has been around for as long as I can remember (so it's not new). I can't believe we don't already show it. Senses 6 and 26 come close to this meaning, but they're not perfect matches. I'd say go ahead and add it ! Adding a label for communication, connectivity, etc. might also be a good idea to give context. Leasnam (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

superstition#Noun mentions one of the meanings as "(archaic) excessive nicety; overscrupulousness". I have never heard the word used like this and couldn't find any other sources to support it. Is it accurate? Perhaps User:Equinox can chime in, as they seem to have added it -- unless it's the "totally fake nonsense entry" they mention on their user page :). Turdas (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't remember, but it's not fake. Probably came from Webster 1913 or Chambers 1908. Try to cite before kneejerk deleting. Equinox ◑ 05:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

OED notes the following sense of superstitious: “Punctilious; overscrupulous; extremely careful or particular.” However, at superstition it says that the corresponding noun sense is apparently only attested in dictionaries or glossaries, such as Johnson’s dictionary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could add a definition at the entry hyper-Calvinism that I create a year and a half ago. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: I've made an attempt. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"The virus is one of the most stable viruses known and can remain ineffective for at least 50 years in dead dried tissues and for many months on equipment, greenhouse frames, saw dust, tools, and in the soil.". I assume this doesn't mean "not having the desired effect" or "lacking in ability". DTLHS (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "desired" is essential to the meaning of effective or ineffective. Some dictionaries do include desired in a main definition, but usually in a list linked by or. I'm not sure about the meaning in the citation, but viruses (and other pathogens) seem to be called ineffective when they do not become epidemic. One cite said that the Ebola virus was ineffective, though it was usually fatal. This seems within the scope of normal uses of ineffective, but more cites could prove that wrong. DCDuring (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Another example along the lines of your Ebola example is in the Handbuch der Virusforschung: 4. Band (III. Ergänzungsband), 2013, page 123, which says "It is possible, for example, that “ineffective” viruses, like the capsule virus of C. fumiferana, that do not cause much mortality are mutants of low infectivity." I take this to mean that in this quotation, "ineffective" means that the virus was not effective in causing mortality (or perhaps, as you say, not effective in spreading epidemically). - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's an error (if not a "typo" then a "thinko") for "infectious", it "can remain infectious". The next sentence is "TMV is the most infectious plant virus known and is transmitted mechanically. One of the most common ways the virus is tranmitted from plant to plant is by the hands and implements of the workers in the field". - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes Im almost sure you're correct .... a sentence like "the eggs can remain infective in sediments for six months" is common when writing about parasites and I'd say I'd expect the same when writing about viruses. —Soap— 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, I've never been able to view the page Janus on Wiktionary, even years ago. I thought maybe it was because it was censored, containing the word anus and all, but I can view other pages with anus. I even tried changing browser, but still can't reach it. Any ideas? Zumbacool (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there has to be a problem. My “Avast Online Security & Privacy” browser extension warns me:

I’ll try to investigate a bit more before waking up the Grease pit crowd.  --Lambiam 16:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

(e/c) Fascinating, I can't get to the page in normal-Firefox or Chrome, either; it refuses to load. I can navigate to the history and edit pages via Lupin popups, and see the page's contents via previewing an edit or clicking directly on an old revision of the page in its history, but the 'main' version of the page won't come up, even when I blank its contents (so the problem doesn't seem to be with e.g. a template or module in the page going haywire). This is true in Firefox, which doesn't even show an error message like 'page not found' (the browser just won't go to the page, whether I'm logged in or out), and in Chrome (where it says "This site can't be reached"). I can, however, load the page just fine in Tor. - -sche (discuss) 16:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I can now see it just fine, also using Chrome, which may be because I've told the Avast extension – as behoves a hero – to abandon all caution and let me in. Perhaps there is a hash collusion of the url with that of a shady site.  --Lambiam 16:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It works for me with and without extensions in Chrome, Firefox and Edge. - TheDaveRoss 17:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Works for me too. @-sche: when you blanked the page, was it accessible? Another thing you could try is copying the wikitext to another page title and seeing if it works. Other than that, I think the approach of removing parts until you find the offending portion may be the best way to go, assuming the problem results from some specific offending sequence of bytes rather than as gestalt property of the page as a whole.

One hypothesis I came up with was that it was blacklisted by Google Safe Browsing, but when I used their site status checker, there was no indication of anything unusual.

If the problem is Avast, you can file a false positive report. @Zumbacool, -sche: are you using Avast too? 98.170.164.88 17:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I couldn't see the page even when I blanked it (though I could access the edit window, and the edit itself went through, my browser would not leave the edit page and go to the entry). That, and the fact that I can view the content just fine by previewing an edit or by viewing an old diff (even the most recent diff), leads me to think it's not the content (e.g. a template or module going haywire) that is the issue. The fact that I can access the URL in Tor but not normal-Firefox or Chrome is also weird; one would think if an antivirus software were blocking the URL, it would block it regardless of browser, since it's not a browser-specific add-on doing the blocking, since turning my browser-specific add-ons off or on has no effect on which browsers can vs can't load it. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Tor works differently compared to the normal web, for example not directly making a network connection to the site but rather to a relay (which does so in turn, until finally connecting to the site). I don't think the fact that Tor doesn't block the URL is all that unexpected, even if your computer's Internet setup is blocking it. It can't be an ISP block, since it's on a specific page of an HTTPS site, so it must be something happening at the OS level, such as a system-wide URL blacklist. 70.172.194.25 19:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I disabled and re-enabled the Avast browser extension (on Firefox), and now I am blocked again from navigating right away to the Janus page (Hold on, this website isn’t safe), just as before. I can visit it without issues using Chrome or Safari.  --Lambiam 06:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't access it even if I add an anchor to the URL, e.g. https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Janus#English, but I can access it via https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Janus. - -sche (discuss) 14:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Same for me, which shows this is triggered by a blacklisted url and not by the content. I could not find a contact for Avast that allows one to report false triggers.  --Lambiam 11:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam I linked above to the Avast false positive reporting page. 98.170.164.88 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. I have now reported the issue to Avast.  --Lambiam 07:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And it has been cleared. "From: AVAST Support <[email protected]> — Thank you for reporting this false positive. We have now cleared its reputation in our database based on the findings and removed the detection. .... Please accept our apology for the inconvenience caused."  --Lambiam 14:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Strange, it works fine for me. I'm using Firefox (without the Avast browser extension). — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

From what -sche wrote, I gather that they are not using Avast, so their platform must draw on a blacklist that is also used by Avast. I wonder if this is a confusion that is somehow related to the so-called Janus vulnerability.  --Lambiam 11:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Just curious – do those of you experiencing this issue also experience it if accessing other webpages containing the word Janus, such as "w:Janus", "w:Janus (disambiguation)", "w:de:Janus (Mythologie)", and "commons:Category:Janus"? Maybe this is something that needs to be escalated to the Mediawiki tech team. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it is really specific for this one path, en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Janus (after normalization – I can’t access HTTP://eN.WiKTioNaRy.oRG/https://dictious.com/en/foo/../Janus either). It has to be an issue of the URL being on a blacklist somewhere.  --Lambiam 07:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Cleared. — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 22:31, 1 June 2022.

Is there any evidence that this is actually used as in the example given? The meaning "between" is reasonable given the Unicode and LaTeX name but the example seems nonsensical as you'd just use ∈ in that scenario (interval notation). So, it's most likely it's intended to mean something else (or otherwise used in a different way). See also . Pinging Neel.arunabh as the editor who added this example. Eviolite (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That Tex.SE post indicates that it may have been "well understood" to represent overlapping parentheses used in matrix multiplication, but it seems there are maybe only one or two examples of it, and there are also several other one-off uses listed there. Eviolite (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the lack of reply, I have reverted Neel.arunabh's additions. Neel has been banned from English Wikipedia for similar antics, so it may be worthwhile to review his Wiktionary contributions and revert likewise. Tavix (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the welcome message should include a link and line referring new readers to the language considerations category. We also might want shorten the message a bit otherwise - In my opinion it's too long and not enough people read it. It might also want to include a bit about documentation, but perhaps that's better for the tutorial. Vininn126 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree to the link and to some trimming. Ultimateria (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If we don't get any further input in a few days time, I will go ahead and make some changes pinging you. Vininn126 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Talking about Template:welcome, yes? (Or Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers?) Yeah, some of it is quite redundant; surely we don't need both "If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page." and "If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page." Some of it also seems unnecessary to put in the welcome message (e.g. the glossary, Wiktionary:Wiktionarians, ...). We could also make it shorter just by not having things like "Welcome" vs "Hello, welcome" be on different lines... (I sandboxed one possible truncation, but I may have cut too much, or not enough; please proceed as you see fit.) - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you really hit the major points. I'd still include a link to the language considerations. And have them on separate lines. Vininn126 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Note to self, unless someone wants to work on it before i get around to it:

regurgitation and regurgitate seem to lack Wikipedia's w:Regurgitation (circulation)

173.67.42.107 21:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Russian phonology and Russian wiktionary has the same form... but just to double-check: Is really correct? Looks like an awful long sequence of . Thanks :) 178.1.250.110 01:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither am I, but the consonant cluster isn't as long as it looks. t͡ɕ is an affricate that starts out as a t, so the ɕ is only at the end. Thus you have the tongue moving into position for a t to start the closure, then moving into position for a ɕ as it releases, but the release is either delayed or extended (I'm a bit fuzzy on the details- it's been 3 1/2 decades since my last phonetics class). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The main pronunciation that I've encountered (cf. also Forvo) has «д» as a consonant of its own, not part of an affricate. Nicodene (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@178.1.250.110, Chuck Entz, Nicodene: Pronouncing "д" as a consonant of its own, is not right. The recorders were influenced by the spelling and exaggerated (unnecessarily), failing both to devoice "д" and assimilate with the following "щ" as expected. This is not a regular word in Russian (it's ecclesiastic) but it should pronounced as any other word with the combination "дщ" or "тщ", especially if they belong to the same phoneme ("д" is devoiced, so these combinations are pronounced identically). The cluster is not so uncommon in Russian, e.g. it happens in тще́тный (tščétnyj). You can listen to the recordings at тща́тельный (tščátelʹnyj) or тщесла́вие (tščeslávije). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not an especially common word, yes, and the spelling has a greater influence than it would otherwise, but on what basis - other than prescriptive - can one label that pronunciation 'wrong'? And does Russian actually have 'any other word with the combination дщ'? Nicodene (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nicodene: The assertion on the correct pronunciation of the word comes from the native experience, from how actors, online literature readers or priests (it's mostly religious word but can also be used ironically) pronounce the word. The issues with Forvo and even at Wiki sound recorders, is that when you ask them to record, people may not use their own natural and common pronunciation but try to adjust, thinking on what they perceive as the right pronunciation at the moment of recording. So they articulate the "д" because it's an unusual spelling. There are many other similar examples but you can try searching for cases when the word is used in a context in any real life recitals. I hate to quote propaganda videos but here's the shortest video I could find for you: youtu.be/vMe8cqini8U. The word is pronounced at around 00:09. Listen for "вопль дщери иудейской" (the cry of the Jewish daughter). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all. I have to say the recordings at тща́тельный (tščátelʹnyj) and тщесла́вие (tščeslávije) do not sound like to me. In the former, I'd say perhaps . The latter sounds even shorter, pretty much like simple . But I guess it's just my non-Slavic ears. 178.1.250.110 02:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You may not be able to notice the gemination, it's very light, unless spoken slowly, especially when it's far away from the stressed syllable, as is the case with тщесла́вие (tščeslávije). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Any good reason for having two categories / etymologies rather than one? Am I missing something? (Apart from a screw or two!). -- ALGRIF talk 08:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The category seems a waste. The etymology at -ocracy has the virtue of connecting to -o-. It is relatively easy to use Cirrus search to recover the list of terms ending in ocracy without having the category. DCDuring (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

-cide, -icide and -n, -an are other examples of this issue that was discussed by @-sche at Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/January § How to make Latin suffix categories for -tas and -itas consistent. J3133 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As noted there, this affects multiple languages (and affixes), so we should probably have a general discussion and decision, whether to merge categories like this. I see benefits and drawbacks to either approach, and expect some new users will continue using -ocracy (the superficial form) even if we decide to only categorize as -cracy, while others will continue adding -cracy (perceiving it as the lemma) to -ocracy words even if we decide they should be separate, so it'll be a continual cleanup task either way. Perhaps the best option is to make the module merge the categories, so someone can add either foobar +‎ -cracy or foobar +‎ -ocracy and they'll both categorize into (whichever category we decide should be the "lemma")...? - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The scope of any change could be limited to one or more languages, so that we can have actual experimental results before imposing unproven changes globally. 'Limiting' the experiment to English would give rapid experimental results. We could view this specific matter as an even-smaller-scope experiment. DCDuring (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the definitions for "Chinese" in its adjective sense is "of, from, or relating to the language of China". This seems a little problematic since A. the word "language" can be interpreted a few different ways (does it mean the languages of China in general or just one of them?) B. China isn't very linguistically homogeneous; it's got a ton of languages, both Sinitic and non-Sinitic, and C. languages like Uyghur can be considered "languages of China", but I've never heard anyone use "Chinese" to mean "relating to Uyghur" or any other non-Sinitic language. However, a lot of other country-adjective entries are in the same situation ("of...the Saudi Arabian...language", "Pertaining to Fiji, its language...") so maybe it doesn't need any fixing. Does anyone else think this definition should be clarified? If so, what would be the best way to update it? Manong Kimi (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Manong Kimi

How about "Of or pertaining to those Sino-Tibetan languages descended from Old Chinese, such as Mandarin, Cantonese, and Wu"? 70.172.194.25 01:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

We can have a technically precise definition, but I doubt that there is any evidence that could be marshaled to show that such a definition is how normal folks use the term. The more precise the definition, the harder to show that it conforms to usage. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

We can put such a matter under usage notes or we can refer folks to WP. We can hope that WP covers the matter well. DCDuring (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I do think that normally "Chinese" refers to the totality of Sinitic lects, and not things like Mongolian, Tibetan, or Uyghur. The latter could technically be described as "Chinese languages", but only in a geographic sense (in the same way that Breton could be called "French"). If this information is better presented under a usage note, that is fine with me, as long as it is clarified in some way. 70.172.194.25 19:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Manong Kimi, DCDuring: "The language" rules out interpretations B and C. Inserting the word 'principal' should be good enough for those who don't notice the word 'the'. Adding in 'and related dialects' provides a suitable level of vagueness. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Chinese isn't really one language in any meaningful sense. But I guess we could talk about it like it is since some people treat it that way. 70.172.194.25 16:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

We have to talk about it in our definitions in the way that normal humans talk about it. We can also have one linguist's definition (or, ugh, more than one}. The "normal" definition should not use words like Sinitic or Sino-Tibetan. DCDuring (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there also an issue then with using "Canis familiaris", "Canis lupus familiaris", and "Canidae" in the first two definitions of dog? Or is there some distinction that makes it appropriate to use technical terms to clarify the meaning of words that refer to types of biological organisms, but not words that refer to types of language varieties?--Urszag (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we have some way to represent keysmashing as an entry? It has a few different meanings that are quite specific, which can vary between languages (looking at you, Portuguese). Theknightwho (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe in an appendix or unsupported title. But how do you expect people to find it? 70.172.194.25 19:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's my question, really. I don't think it's appendix material as it is absolutely attestable, but I'm unsure where we would actually put it. Theknightwho (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Snowclones are also attestable and yet we put them there. Keysmashing is like a snowclone in that it is a "pattern" with a practically endless array of possible manifestations.

I should note that we do have asdfghjkl. We could create similar entries for every specific combination of characters with at least three attestations, which I imagine would mostly be those that consist of adjacent keyboard characters. Is that the kind of solution you're looking for? 70.172.194.25 19:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean we could, but I don't think that would actually be completely accurate. It's rather unique in that it conveys meaning by nature of being random. Theknightwho (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about what to call a relationship where children were born to a second husband after the first husband died in battle. I concluded that the first husband could never be considered the stepfather of the children of the second husband (see Talk:stepfather).
But Wiktionary's definition was "The husband of one's biological mother, other than one's biological father, especially following the divorce or death of the father." which seemed to allow that if you don't get too worried about the definite article.
I changed the definition based on my gut feeling.
My new definition emphasized the timing of the relationships involved: "A husband of one's biological mother after her initial marriage to or relationship with one's biological father." I tried to incorporate the possibilities of annulment, abandonment, prolonged disappearance, bigamy, cohabitations, and similar.
But what about a marriage where one person has a child by adultery? In the seminal confrontation with this situation in American jurisprudence, Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989), never is Gerald D. (the husband of the adulterous wife) referred to as the stepfather of Victoria D. (the biological child of Michael H. and the adulterous wife). I submit that Gerald D. may not be a stepfather under some understandings of that term.
If interested, please check over my new definition and make sure it conforms to a more precise view of 'stepfather'. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC) (modified)

As I understand their wordings, different dictionaries would have different views on whether Gerald D. is a stepfather to Victoria D.

Collins: "a man who is not one's biological father but is married to one's parent"--- Gerald D. IS Victoria D.'s stepfather

Lexico: "A man who is the husband or partner of one's mother after the divorce or separation of one's parents or the death of one's father."--- Gerald D. IS NOT Victoria D.'s stepfather

Merriam Webster: "the husband of one's parent when distinct from one's natural or legal father"--- Gerald D. IS Victoria D.'s stepfather

Random House: "the husband of one's mother by a later marriage"--- Gerald D. IS NOT Victoria D.'s stepfather

Heath Baker Law: "A stepfather is married to the biological mother, but is not the biological father of the mother’s children."--- Gerald D. IS Victoria D.'s stepfather

Britannica: "a man that your mother marries after her marriage to or relationship with your father has ended"--- Gerald D. IS NOT Victoria D.'s stepfather

Law Dictionary (1856): "STEP-FATHER. In Latin vitricus, is the husband of one's mother who is not the father of the person spoken of."--- Gerald D. IS Victoria D.'s stepfather

Macmillian: "someone’s stepfather is their mother’s new husband in a second or later marriage"--- Gerald D. IS NOT Victoria D.'s stepfather

I conclude there may be a "narrow" sense and a "broad" sense for stepfather.
What I would like to see (to show a broader sense) is an actual example where:
(1) a man is presently married to a wife,
(2) a child is born biologically of the DNA of the wife during the marriage,
(3) the child is not the husband's child,
(4) and the husband is referred to as the stepfather of the child.
Maybe there are other scenarios outside the scope of the narrow sense that can only fit in the 'stepfather' category if the broad sense holds in some cases?

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC) (modified)

Will stockbreeding examples do? I've added a 1953 example by C.D. Darlington to stepfather, though it's only immediately clear if one knows the word telegony. The example Quick Quentin cut off is the famous case of the Earl of Moreton's mare and its striped foal. I might get a better quote from another of his books, of which I do have a quote. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting question! My take on one point is that, in common usage (descriptive, not proscriptive) a child would never refer to the mother's defunct husband as their stepfather if the current partner is the (perceived) biological father. -- ALGRIF talk 13:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Should internet slangs like OMG and OML be treated as a phrase or interjection? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Same as the full phrase. Both are interjections in your examples. Equinox ◑ 01:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Since the Tirhuta script was added to Unicode, is not the Maithili sense of this letter obsolete? As @Msasag added this sense after Tirhuta was added, he may have something relevant to say on the matter. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@RichardW57 This character is also currently being used by some. There are 3 variants of the "ra" in Maithili, the one selected by unicode to be the display character in the block looks like ব. All three characters are represented by a single code. There isn't any standardised form of the script yet, but ব seems most popular for "ra", followed by ৰ. Noto Sans Tirhuta font also added the other two characters for "ra" in the font as alternative forms. --Msasag (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

What three characters? As you started to say, there are three different families of glyphs, just as English has two different styles of 'a' and two different styles of 'g', which in phonetic notation split into two characters, 'a' and 'ɑ', and two-storey 'g' (once banned from IPA) and open loop 'ɡ'. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The Spanish definition of "Equidiagonal" links to the same word in English; there is no definition listed there. Besenj (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Equinox ◑ 13:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The definition is confusing to read. Can anyone rephrase it more clearly? Equinox ◑ 04:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I reworded it slightly. Even though cloud-to-ground lightning is a redlink and maybe always will be, i wanted it to stand out from the rest of the definition since it might help the reader focus their attention. —Soap— 09:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Better. Equinox ◑ 13:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I reworded it more, to reduce redundant/overlapping/nonessential words and phrases and put the more specific NP first. Also, I eliminated the astronomy label, as the Jupiter phenomenon is even less well documented than the terrestrial one. DCDuring (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this but I wasn't sure. I don't know any Wiktionarians off the top of my head who speak Korean and are still active. I'm posting here because an anon just removed an example sentence from this entry and after I reverted, they reverted my revert. So it has me wondering, is there something wrong with that example..? Acolyte of Ice (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Acolyte of Ice: The part I removed was added by a problematic user known for their subpar and nonsensical entries and example sentences (see the discussion here). Korean editors, including myself, have been cleaning up their mess ever since they left, but there are still many strewn about here and there. The "usage example" you saw at 첩 is a classic example of the type of nonsense they used to add. — 118.156.253.174 11:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Should senses 1 and 2 be merged, or sense 2 turned into a subsense? Sense 2 seems to be going into further detail about sense 1. (The translation gloss "a slightly different cannon" is amusing.) Equinox ◑ 13:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge. DCDuring (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge. 2 is also overly verbose. If anything, you could make it a subsense of 1. Vininn126 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not just delete sense 2? It is encyclopedic in content, not even serving to clarify the lexical definition. The key element in differentiating mortars, long field guns, and howitzers is the range of angles at which they can be fired. Muzzle velocity is a secondary characteristic. The WP article suggests that there is some difference in terminology between the armed forces of the US and UK and possibly historically. DCDuring (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Support. Vininn126 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping sense 2 if and only if it's a technical definition with wide recognition (e.g. in military contexts). Theknightwho (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll RfV it to force the issue. DCDuring (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add IPA(key): /dʰauːt/ to Icelandic dátt ( a requested entry), yet I've little doubt. Is dátt following the same spelling convention ? kátur > kát 💬 islex.arnastofnun.is ICELANDIC >JOLLY, GLAD, CHEERFUL IPA(key): /ˈkʰauːtʏr/forvo r declension Please advice. Flāvidus (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Help:IPA/Icelandic It reads : Diphthongs - ^IPA au sjálfur ^{English approximation} mouth. Flāvidus (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying PUC, Jberkel, Nicodene): The latter one with lowercase 'f' seems standard. We have an entry for the former; frwikt does not. It appears attested (?), but is at an alt form or a misspelling? BTW Wonderfool submitted it for RFD in Apr 2021. Benwing2 (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The Académie française will surely consider it a misspelling. The website of the French presidency spells it consistently with a minuscule ⟨f⟩. However, the French government does not agree.  --Lambiam 13:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

My father, who was for many years a senior manager at the Post Office in the UK, tells me that a pile of sheets of postage stamps was referred to as a "lift". Because the word has other meanings, I have been unable to find evidence of this using Google. Can anyone oblige? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

1. It's June! Should have posted this in the next month's Tea room.
2. I did a search in quotes, but it's all the same citation. Vininn126 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's apparently not limited to stamps. The OED has the following sense: "The quantity or weight that can be lifted at one time. spec. of paper." — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

So it is more a characteristic of a device or technology than of what is being lifted? DCDuring (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I understood the definition to mean the word describes an amount of something (especially paper) lifted in one time, regardless of how the lifting is achieved. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)