Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/November

Since last month, we have at it "3. (dated) An affectionate third-person singular personal pronoun" with the quote above. I'm not sure I understand; what is dated or affectionate about this use of it, and how is it different from "9. The impersonal pronoun, used as a placeholder for a delayed subject, or less commonly, object"? - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a thing in early modern literature (expanding the OED's citation from Love's Labour's Lost, Act V, Scene 2: "Enter the Princess, ushered by Boyet, and her Ladies. Berowne: See where it comes!") But I agree that the quotation isn't an example. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No, "it" here indicates "she" (or "you"). So it's not the impersonal pronoun of sense 9. (I added this when reading the novel recently, so the context was very clear to me.) I'll add another example. Equinox ◑ 19:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure your reading is correct. He's claiming (a bit fatuously) that Esther is a habitual good reader of faces, i.e. "to read a face is so characteristic of a Dame Durden". If "it" meant her, it would seem a bit odd or even imply the opposite. Maybe. ("What an Equinox you are, to post a comment"?) But if this kind of disagreement is possible in the first place then it might not be a good example to use. The new one seems fine, though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

My default interpretation would have been Al-Muqanna's. Equinox's reading may also be possible. The example seems unclear at best. 98.170.164.88 08:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain that reading ("it" = the reading of a face) is wrong, and I would hate to lose this sense over confusion. Is there some way we can check for sure, e.g. with a Dickensian scholar? Note I added a second example showing the same thing, where "it" is a fond reference to a girl. Third citation now added. Equinox ◑ 12:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Your and Al-Muqanna's interpretation doesn't even work: "What a Dame Durden it is to read a face!" would be like "What a bully it is to strike a child!" The act of striking cannot be a bully; only the actor/doer can be. Equinox ◑ 12:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither is there any "disagreement" or contradiction as Al-Muqanna suggests. Compare: "you're jumping around instead of walking: what a silly boy you are"! No contradiction here. Equinox ◑ 12:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I am assuming an analogy to e.g. "What a dickens ...", which was used in the 19th century—of course neither of the suggested readings is fluent in contemporary English, so it needs to be read in context. I don't think your last use example is quite comparable, because to me, at least, "What a silly boy you are, to jump around" does not imply that they habitually jump around, just that they are silly for doing so. I say it could even imply the opposite because, for example, you can have something like "What a man you are, to cry like this" (implying "What kind of"). Jarndyce is (presumably) not saying that Esther is a Dame Durden this one time because she happened to read his face, or demanding to know what kind of Dame Durden she is for doing so: he is saying that she's good at reading faces. I did have a quick look at the scholarship on this line—there are a few books/articles referencing it—but they don't say much about the grammar. Anyway, this seems like rather too much exegesis for one possibly dubious quote, I think we have enough from other sources. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In the book, "Dame Durden" is a habitual nickname they use for Esther all the time, because she is a good housewife. (For our purpose here: it doesn't matter whether face-reading is housewifely! It matters that "it" refers to Esther and not to her actions.) Equinox ◑ 13:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I know it is, that's precisely my point: you don't compare someone to their own name unless you're being sarky. But scholars interpret the line to mean that she's good at it, or at least as a coy joke. Like I said, though, even if it were intended to mean her this isn't a good example when it's so unclear. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

But as I said, it's like "you're such a silly boy". This can be said to a person who habitually, normally is silly. They call her "a Dame Durden": it's a sort of archetype. It's not like your "Equinox" example at all. Equinox ◑ 13:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you say, “what a silly boy it is”?  --Lambiam 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the prior posts, which are about whether there is an implied contradiction or comparison or not. Equinox ◑ 19:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Check out the fourth citation from 1890. Very convincing I think. Equinox ◑ 14:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems like such a strange usage to us contemporary readers that even reasonably good evidence is hard to accept. If it is kept, IMHO it should be marked obsolete, not merely dated. DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

OED? DCDuring (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I would put the 'Dame Durden' citation ("DDC") for this sense onto the Citations page. From this discussion it should be clear DDC does not provide convincing evidence of the definition and is all too easily read as an example of another sense. OTOH, this discussion provides commentary that does support DDC's conformity to the definition (still def. 3). This discussion really wouldn't make any sense without DDC being available to a reader of the talk page, so it should not be deleted. DCDuring (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, the 1890 and 1905 citations are clearer, thank you; I see how it is being used affectionately of the second person there. Should that be incorporated into the definition, that a third-person pronoun is used to refer to the second person, in place of a second-person pronoun, like (with a different tone) your grace? Or do we have a sense of whether this could also be used to replace another third-person pronoun, like if Equinox said to DCDuring, about me, "-sche wasn't familiar with this usage? what a silly person it is, not not have understood this"? I hadn't interpreted the Dickens quote as meaning "you", and so hadn't interpreted it as affectionate or dated, because I interpreted it like various "what a (breach of trust / boon / etc) it is to (predict what someone is planning / do some verb)" phrases and didn't interpret it as meaning you. But I see how that's complicated by the comparand being a person (Dame Durden); I suppose one wouldn't normally say "there was another resignation? what a Boris Johnson it is to resign". - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Your BoJo example doesn't seem strange to me, just unusual. DCDuring (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

DCDuring, what, even if it refers to the person? I can only conceivably see it working if we allow "(doing) a Boris Johnson" to stand for the act. Equinox ◑ 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I may be missing the point of some of the discussion. I was only commenting on "one wouldn't normally say ...". That sentence doesn't seem to me to involve the definition under discussion. "Do a Boris Johnson" seems like normal speech, though not a good dictionary entry. DCDuring (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I have zero doubt this sense exists, hence my "we have enough from other sources" comment, my concern was/is just the usefulness or clarity of the "DDC" as a quotation as DCDuring put it. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, let's move the Dame Durden cite to the citations page; there are clearer cites now. - -sche (discuss) 09:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone EVER heard the pronunciation /ˈɑː.bɹə.hæm/ for Abraham? We have it listed as rare but perhaps it should be removed? I suspect if this does exist it’s a Welsh or foreign language pronunciation. See my further musings at Talk:Abraham. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not in Chambers. Equinox ◑ 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s not in any of the OneLook dictionary entries either, nor does it appear in a YouGlish search, though half of the hits you get from searching, as always with YouGlish, are from the same Englishman - the one who does the ‘Top Ten Lists’ on YT. I shall delete the dubious pronunciation if no one convinces me of its validity before this time next week. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not in Century, which sometimes has older pronunciations; for all their Abrahamic, Abrahamite, etc words they have the first vowel as /eɪ/. If it were supposed to be mimicking or derived from the pronunciation of one of the etyma it seems odd that the first and last vowels would be different. - -sche (discuss) 15:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now deleted the odd pronunciation. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The process by which not-loess ground becomes loess ground; the process of loess deposit formation; the transformation of a silty deposit into loess. Loessperson (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve just created loessification using the definition you’ve provided above. It may need tweaking, as we should probably create loessify (and loessifies/loessified), deloessify (and variants), deloessification and non-loess too. Many of these words, including loessification itself, are easily supportable by citations at GoogleBooks. We should probably add an etymology saying that this word comes from loessify but some hits on GoogleBooks say that it’s a Russian theory originally, so perhaps it’s actually a calque of a Russian word. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The Russian word may be облёссование (obljóssovanije). 98.170.164.88 23:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There are a fair few hits when I copy-paste the above word into GoogleBooks and press search but I’ll leave it to a Russian speaker to create the entry, or add it as an etymology (to the loessification page) of loessification if that’s appropriate.--Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Has there ever been discussion as to how maps are treated in terms of attestation? I assume we would disregard as mentions - if there has not been discussion thus far we could establish this thread as precedence. Vininn126 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems worth a discussion. I suppose one's attitude towards entries for geographic entities will determine one's vote on the whether such occurrences are mentions or uses. The precedent might also apply to any term more likely to be found in a table or drawing than in running text. Is a name on a map like a caption on a photo, drawing, or table or, for that matter, an entry in a database? DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally I am of the opinion that it's more a mention - something worth including once other uses have been found. Vininn126 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It is basically a mention I think: it's performing the same function as a glossary, of matching a word to a referent. I could see arguments for a map use counting for attestation in some marginal cases, like ancient towns that are only named directly on a map (a real thing IIRC thanks to medieval maps based on lost sources). But that doesn't seem too different from how glossaries are treated. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Consider a table containing the names of villages and, 1., the county/shire/state/province/department/'elected representative district', 2., its latitude and longitude, or, 3., the average rainfall. Wouldn't any of those be the equivalent of sentences such as "The village X is, 1., in the 16th District, 2., located at 42 north latitude, 1 degree east longitude, or, 3., has an average annual rainfall of 24.5 inches." How different is that from the appearance of the village on a map of one kind or another? Neither appearance in a data table nor on a map seem like mentions to me. DCDuring (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It gets philosophical, but, being precise, it would depend on the data. It's true that a data table is technically predicating something of the place. But it goes back to what I said, I think: is it just matching a word to its referent? "Hobbiton - 20mm of rain yesterday" is an additional predication ("It was rainy in Hobbiton") rather than explaining what Hobbiton is. But, unless the town is moving, a table of longitudes and latitudes is more like a dictionary entry ("Hobbiton is a place at ..."). An ordinary map, at least, is essentially the latter in that sense: a representation of what the word refers to. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The entry has two senses for "to complain, find fault", one under etymology 1 (crustacean), the other under etymology 2 (wild apple). Which one is correct? Jberkel 19:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Etymonline.com seems to say that the verb could derive from the combativeness of the creature, the bitterness of the fruit, or possibly a conflation of both. 98.170.164.88 00:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Even if it's a conflation of both, the same meaning shouldn't be listed in both sections. Collins suggests a back-formation from crabbed, so maybe a new section is needed here. – Jberkel 08:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

On that note, our entry crabbed currently doesn't explain which meaning(s) of crab it's supposed to derived from; it just says "From Middle English crabbed; equivalent to crab + -ed", and the etymology in the Middle English etymology section is similarly ambiguous. However, on the Middle English entry crabbe, it does list the adjective crabbed specifically as a derivative of the crustacean sense. OTOH, Etymonline says that the adjective has multiple senses, some of which are from the animal and some of which are from the plant. 98.170.164.88 09:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The definition is currently given as Seeking infamy. but I don't think that's right. Infamy has to be sought through immoral or illicit means for this term to apply, right? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a difference between ‘seeking infamy’ and ‘seeking fame through immoral or illicit means’? It does seem that there are some subtly different senses we could perhaps add to our entry on GoogleBooks though, like ‘of or relating to arson’/‘criminally destructive’/‘counter-revolutionary’. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

If there's somebody who tries to attain infamy through lying about acts that they've never committed, I don't think herostratic is a fitting adjective to describe them even though they are seeking infamy. They are, however, still potentially doing illicit or immoral things (by spreading falsehoods about themselves) so my originally proposed definition needs some tweaking. Maybe "seeking infamy by and for committing immoral and/or illicit acts"? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is such a term being defined without citations? DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

A second issue: it's not always "seeking infamy", sometimes it's something more like "pertaining to infamy", e.g. when books discuss someone's google books:"herostratic notoriety" or google books:"herostratic renown", the notoriety is not sentiently seeking infamy (what would that even mean, would it be like if your fame was famous for being famous?). So either the wording of our sense needs to be improved, or we're missing a second sense. - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the plurality of these words, they could be uncountable or plural. An etymology and pronunciation could help, too. Pious Eterino (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither of the -s plurals seems to be in general use. I've made them uncountable, as that's what I think I'm mostly seeing in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 20:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The term is undoubtedly from Greek γεμιστά (gemistá), pronounced /ʝe.miˈsta/, derived from Ancient Greek γεμίζω (gemízō, “I fill up, I stuff”). In Greek, the term is plural, the neuter plural of the adjective γεμιστός (gemistós), used as a noun. Apparently, English speakers may be uncertain about the number, as shown by the question, “the gemista was a winner (or should that be ‘were winners’?)”.  --Lambiam 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Pious Eterino (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What's going on here? The two subsenses (strangely formatted as "a" and "b") have nothing to do with their parent sense 5. It also smells like copyvio to me. Equinox ◑ 20:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Originally they were a badly-formatted separate sense, and they got pushed into "subsenses" when someone tried to clean up the formatting. Can't find anything to suggest it's a copyvio, though they've been there for ages so there are plenty of references back to Wiktionary. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I did some cleanup, split them out into separate senses and filled out proper references for the quotations. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Sense 2 is: "(biology, taxonomy) The highest category in the classification of organisms, ranking above regnum. Synonym: domain." This suggests that there could be more than one, and so it shouldn't be uncountable, but should have a plural ("dominiums"? "dominia"?). @DCDuring any idea? Equinox ◑ 20:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Presumably, categorizations are human endeavors, not unique metaphysical entities which would have to be proper nouns, rarely pluralized. If this is determined to be attestable, the attestation might tell us whether it has a plural or is used uncountably. DCDuring (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Equinox, DCDuring I searched for "dominiums" and "dominia". The former exists as a plural to a third sense that I added. I've marked the word as countable and uncountable as the first sense would seem to be uncountable to me. Still not sure about the second sense. Buidhe (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"Much colloquial usage undoubtedly emerges from the humorous hyperbole of declaring something impossibly small, by people aware of the mathematical meaning." Does it? How would we prove this? Equinox ◑ 23:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure we could. I seriously doubt "much" is even a good qualifier, the only situations I could see us being able to prove that is in extremely specific quotes, which is definitely not "much" usage of it. It's probably best to strike it. Vininn126 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the target audience for this (or this kind of) usage note (or, for that matter, the other, longer one? It looks like mere self-indulgence. DCDuring (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Ditch it IMO. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It is plausible that some colloquial usage emerges from the hyperbolic use of the first sense listed (“Incalculably, exceedingly, or immeasurably minute; vanishingly small”), just like people mat say infinite while meaning “very large”, but I question the indubitability of even a modest amount of such colloquial usage being demonstrably ascribable to a nerdish sense of humour.  --Lambiam 14:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Removed. Equinox ◑ 22:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The page on by includes the following meaning: Used to separate dimensions when describing the size of something. (The room was about 4 foot by 6 foot.) Meanwhile, the page on auf does not mention it, although it apparently is used in this context? I wish someone looked into it. Adûnâi (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: I've added it: diff — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What about mal? Can that be used in the same way to describe dimensions? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Overlordnat1: Yes, thanks for reminding me. I've added it as a synonym of auf: diff. I don't think it warrants a separate sense in mal though, I think it's just the multiplication sense. EDIT: To clarify, when describing room sizes, I've heard both auf and mal but when describing matrices/tensors, I've only ever heard mal. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you’ve added a translation section at by too. 👍 --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I have never heard this auf except perhaps on television and have not understood the quote until reading again your message that it equals mal, thinking it may mean bis. Definitely not used here in Ravensberg. Fay Freak (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: FWIW, I would also not use this sense of auf personally (I'd always say mal I think) but it is part of my passive vocabulary. It always sounded very Germany-German to me. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

In Turkish you put the first dimension in the dative; 6 by 8 metres becomes 6’ya 8 metre. How to add this as a translation?  --Lambiam 15:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam: I've added this. Our current translation infrastructure can't really handle these kinds of "grammatical words" so that the result is 100% unambiguous and machine-parsable. There's an article out there somewhere where the translation box is full of example sentences. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): There's this (proscribed? at least at my school) colloquial usage that it reminiscent of って which is included by neither Duden nor DWDS. Examples: Ich so: "Na komm endlich!", Ich dachte mir so: "Wann kommt er endlich?" As already alluded to, I'd call this a quotative particle but the fact that neither of my two go-to dictionaries include it makes me a bit wary that it may just be another sense in disguise without me realizing. Thoughts? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think of it as the German equivalent of "be like", as in "I'm like, 'Come on!' and he's like, 'Where are we going?' and I'm like, 'To the beach, beyatch!'" I see it a lot in youth-targeted advertising (, ). I'm not surprised that stick-in-the-mud dictionaries like Duden and DWDS don't mention it. I agree with calling it a quotative particle. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is relatively "old", there are some 90s hip hop lyrics which make prominent use of this. Maybe it's even older. But Duden is obv not into this sort of stuff :) – Jberkel 14:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It is entryworthy, but what part of speech is this: A “verb” like English be like? Fay Freak (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for the input. I added it now according to how I personally perceive this word but it may need further tweaking. Yes, stick-in-the-mud is very apt, though DWDS is usually more descriptive when it comes these kinds of terms than Duden so I was a bit surprised to learn that it is listed in neither. As for the PoS, I think it can't be a verb for morphological reasons. Further, if we analyzed it as a verb in predicate-less clauses, this means we would need a second sense for the clauses where it accompanies a predicate. Not impossible but my personal Sprachgefühl tells me they're one and the same sense. Feel free to disagree. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's not a verb. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Quotatitive particle" is a good description. A similar (or the same?) thing is also found in formal language (but with notably opposite order), mostly in somewhat old-fashioned news style (e.g. "Entscheidend ist, was hinten rauskommt", so Kohl). Traditionalists would probably consider it an adverb here (with ellipsis from "so sagte Kohl"). –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's not a verb. "Particle" works; I see we treat the somewhat similar sense(s) of like as a particle, too. (Actually, that entry has its own issues, but I'll start a separate section about that.) It's disappointing other reference works haven't covered it so we could see what part of speech they take it to be, because I think a case could be made for it being an adverb, partly because of what Austronesier mentions. - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Are we going to create 6 pages for this? {{R:TDK}} only has an entry for sayesinde but they're all pretty much common words with the meaning like "thanks to, credit goes to me/you/him, etc." Or a new sense for saye with sth like "with possessive suffix and in locative"? --Whitekiko (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The latter is IMO preferable, using a {{non-gloss definition}} and adding one or two illustrative {{usex}}es.  --Lambiam 01:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. But somehow it doesn't feel right. Is it even a noun? What part of speech is that? Looking at the definition on {{R:lugatim}}, it seems way more complicated. If we happy with the way this turned out I can do sth similar for yüz which is more accusative and said more blamingly. --Whitekiko (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Without having read the Lugatim reference, I'd say it has to be a noun because only nouns take the possessive. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The lugatim.com website says, “Opps Sorry! Unexcepted exception”, and I’m currently far away from home and the print edition of the MBTS, so I’ve no idea what the complication might be. These locative noun forms are similar to the English idiomatic prepositional phrases under someone’s aegis and under someone’s umbrella, which we only describe under the nouns aegis and umbrella. A difference is that the figurative senses on which these idioms are based are not obsolete in English.  --Lambiam 15:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

For me, half of the time {{R:lugatim}} works and sometimes it gives a error message which was another issue I wanted to bring up. When it fails, I manually look up the word. Anyway, I don't know their conventions but it looks like sayesinde, along with some other terms is derived from saye salmak.

And the thing I didn't like was how these words are prepositions but they sit under the noun header. I was going to suggest splitting it up but seeing the term "aegis", I'm ok with it now. I'll edit yüz similarly when I can. --Whitekiko (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve made a change to the source code of {{R:lugatim}}. The website wanted to be addressed as ”Sayın www.lugatim.com“, and the honorific “www.” was missing.  --Lambiam 17:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

In English, figurative cast a shadow has a negative connotation, presumably because the English didn’t get enough sunshine, whereas figurative saye salmak has a positive connotation. Disregarding the connotation, if someone operates in the shade of an umbrella offering protection against the harsh sun, it is, obviously, in the shadow cast by that umbrella. So I don’t think the figurative (obsolete) sense of saye is derived from saye salmak; it is just that this is the verb of choice to use when casting a shadow – literally or figuratively.  --Lambiam 17:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we confirm that the conjugation includes "mishas" and "mishad", as stated? Modern "misbehave" obviously doesn't have "misbehas" or "misbehad". Equinox ◑ 22:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The old, out of copyright OED has one 1528 quote with "...had bene þt we had mishad", and a 1560 quote of mishaif and 1562 quote of mischawing, and a 1744 quote of mishaved. (Citations:mishave.) I might guess that -has and -had are obsolete forms, but we need more cites to be sure. - -sche (discuss) 18:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

After more digging, I can find enough cites of the mishaves, mishaved forms, but nothing but that one old Scottish cite of mishas, mishad. I've removed the latter forms, pending more cites. - -sche (discuss) 21:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

First issue: sense 4 of like#Particle says it has to be "preceded by any form of to be" (as if defining be like), but can't you use it without be? "A customer walked in like 'I demand to see the manager!'" (or) "So there was me like 'no, don't!', and John all like 'it's not safe!', and her like 'relax, it'll be fine!'"

Second issue: this use of like seems similar to all in "She was all, “Whatever”", which we cover as an adverb all (and not be all, because you can say "she walked in all 'we're through!' ") Should they be the same POS? Dictionary.com has quotative (be) like and (be) all as adverbial, MW weirdly has quotative like as a conjunction.

Third issue: is that use of all really an intensifier, as claimed? Is sense 2 of like#Particle, "She was, like, sooooo happy", really an intensifier? Fourth issue: I'm not seeing a major difference between "like, sooooo happy", sense 3's "Then he, like, got all angry", and my "customer walked in like..." example, but our entry seems to think they're three different definitions... - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Quotative like can also be used in combination with the verb to think: , , . Perhaps quotative be all started out as a (meaningless) valspeak intensifier of be like (“I was all like ... and then he was all like”), but the like part became optional and when dropped its quotative function jumped to all.  --Lambiam 16:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Re #3: I don't think the "all" is an intensifier. It doesn't make anything stronger. Equinox ◑ 16:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've edited all to drop the intensifier, reassigning its quotes to the sense "wholly" (for "all quiet") and a placeholder sense for the quotative-ish particle (temporarily left under the Adverb header). I've also edited like to fold the "intensifier" into other senses, and to expand the quotative sense so it's not restricted to use with be. How do the entries look now, better? - -sche (discuss) 01:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Old English: Given as an adverb, but defined as a verb. This cleanup job is beyond my pay grade GreyishWorm (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary ("ang:verb") it looks like it might have just been a typo/script misclick. @Hundwine —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's just a mistake. I'll change it to a verb Hundwine (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The ghosting page lists 4 translations for a way to break relationship, including 1 red link (Catalan) and 3 links to pages that do not confirm that usage (ghosting#Polish, gelo#Portuguese, and espantada#Spanish). If these usages are correct, please add them to those pages. If they are incorrect, please remove them from the ghosting page. Thank you. --173.67.42.107 21:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The definition was Does not bias by skill or ability, especially a team or club.. WTF does that mean, right??? GreyishWorm (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There was a TV sitcom in which a no-cut a cappella group made an appearance... this group was audition-free and accepted anyone who wished to join, making for some questionable singing. The allusion is that no-one is excluded (cut) on the basis of (in)ability. The form no-cut (the relevant sense si currently not in our entry) seems much more common; I can't find non-cut anywhere in a cursory search. This, that and the other (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Equinox ◑ 16:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

tééh łį́į́ʼ means zebra not sea horse 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I already explained to you in my edit message here what you should do: provide a durably archived citation where tééh łį́į́ʼ is used to express the meaning of zebra. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

so you donʼt put the right meaning without citation but you put the wrong meaning without citation? or where is the "durably archived citation" for the meaning sea horse? 😕 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The sea horse sense hasn't been challenged, unlike the zebra sense. If you have doubts about the sea horse sense being correct, you can add {{rfv|nv}} to the page and then click on the little (+) in the yellow box and save again. Then, somebody will take care of either adding a durably archived citation for it or deleting the sea horse sense. At any rate, the zebra sense cannot be re-added unless you provide a fitting citation. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It wonʼt let me add anyting 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, my bad, I've protected the entry beforehand because you kept changing it contrary to our policies, so I added a request myself which will be discussed here: Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#tééh_łį́į́ʼ. Let's see what will come out of it. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

ok. I donʼt what you want from me... you donʼt use normal dictionaries here? 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

We do use "normal dictionaries" here if what you mean by that is print dictionaries. Do you know of a print dictionary that includes information about the term tééh łį́į́ʼ? Also, I don't want anything from you, I'm merely telling you that, if you want to make certain changes, you are expected to provide certain evidence, at least in this case where the sense you're trying to add was removed previously. And yes, pointing to a print dictionary is sufficient evidence in the case of languages like Navajo, so if you could refer us to one, that would be helpful. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The Navajo Language page 1069, Analytical Lexicon of Navajo page 497, New Oxford Picture Dictionary page 66, saad ahaah sinial page 63

Is that enough? 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

sinil... sorry 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, that's enough. I've added the first of which to the entry and removed the protection (so you can edit it again). Please don't remove the sea horse sense for the time being. Once some time passes without us being able to find a citation for it, it will be removed. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

that was difficult. I wonder how many people tried to correct something and gave up 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 03:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you found it difficult, but I feel compelled to point out that Navajo is sort of an outlier on Wiktionary in this regard because we've had problems with widespread word inventions in Navajo (you can read more about it here: Talk:Nahatʼeʼiitsoh bikéyahdę́ę́ʼ biyázhí neiyéhé), so now we're extra cautious. If you are knowledgeable in Navajo and want to work on it using real sources such as the ones you've provided, that would be most welcome! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I speak it almost every day and thatʼs an opossum from Australia. I donʼt even need to click on the link I understand what it says. But it really is too much of a hassle to follow all your rules. So no. I just saw something totally wrong here and just had to correct it. 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 03:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're a fluent speaker that'd be even better. In general, it really isn't all that much of a hassle; citations are not required unless the word has been previously deleted, as was the case with the zebra sense of tééh łį́į́ʼ. So for all except these few deleted words, you could just add them directly without any citations: super easy! But if you are still not interested, that's of course totally fine and understandable, too. At any rate, thanks for the correction of tééh łį́į́ʼ. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The meaning "sea-horse" is in the 1980 edition of Young & Morgan, page 705. Of course, if you're a fluent speaker then you are in a better position to say whether this sense is in widespread use. 98.170.164.88 03:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

the link shows that small fish-thing from the zoo. thatʼs táłtłʼááh łį́į́ʼ. maybe some people think of some monster in the ocean or whatever... 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 03:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think there may be a sense missing where el is a contraction for e il (“and the”). On this page, we see "molte volte è successo tra me, el Signor Gio: Domenico de Leonardis", i.e. "many times has occurred between me and Mr. Giovanni Domenico de Leonardis". Neither of the current definitions (il by itself, or the pronoun ello) fit there, it seemingly needs an e (“and”). The word occurs all over the place in the book, in contexts where e il fit. I'd like to check before adding this though because I haven't encountered this previously and I guess I could be interpreting it wrong. 98.170.164.88 07:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct, I've seen this in old books as well. I've added the sense to the entry. Catonif (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Oddly aggressive (and old—it was added by an IP in 2006) usage note here saying "by X-fold" is "grammatically poor", a "misconstruction", and pronouncing that "-fold takes no preposition". No doubt this is a prescriptive rule somewhere but I think this might need to be toned down? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've "softened" it a little. Please have a look and see if it still carries the same message adequately. Leasnam (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As I understand the term, apparently is the adverb for the adjective apparent and shares the almost opposite senses of the latter (see apparent § Usage notes). But among the adverbial senses given, the one best matching the adjective’s sense of “clear; clearly true” is labelled archaic. (However, as I see the term used, “clearly true” is too strong; while the use of the term indicates a fair amount of confidence in the truth of the qualified statement, it leaves the possibility open that this is not the whole story.) The sense of relative certainty is the sense implied in the sentence, “Apparently, we have underestimated the risk.” It appears not to be properly represented.  --Lambiam 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I would, personally anyway, definitely not interpret that example as relative certainty (unless it's comedic understatement), it's equivalent to "It seems we have underestimated the risk". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Understatement in which direction? Could we paraphrase the sentence as, “Although it may seem as if we underestimated the risk, we all know that appearances can be deceptive”?  --Lambiam 19:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

To me, "Apparently, we have underestimated the risk", without context, is an subclass of 3, and means "Somebody has claimed that we underestimated the risk", often (though not always) with an implication of "we're not convinced". --ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not particularly convinced by the current sense segmentation. PUC – 16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... I see the distinction it's making, but I don't know if making that distinction in this entry is the best approach. If in early 2003 John Doe published a study on the effect of some medicine foobar on SARS, that'd be a primary source for information on the effects of foobar in the scholarly and e.g. Wikipedia sense, and if three months later Jane Doe wrote something analyzing John's and other people's studies of foobar, that'd be a secondary source in the scholarly and Wikipedia sense while still being just as much a primary source as John's in terms of being a text that originated during and documented aspects of the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak, as the entry suggests... but arguably this is all SOP (Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com cover this at primary, not primary source, since you can speak of research or studies as primary, it's not limited to the phrase primary source), and it could even be argued the distinction between the two ideas of what's primary is not lexical but just that different sources are original/firsthand depending on what you're studying, like what counts as a large structure differs between mycology and astronomy. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Not easy to do, but someone should. Catonif (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This has a rather odd usage note that is perhaps better suited for the etymology? Vininn126 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it makes perfect sense. It used to have a much broader application to people in all kinds of places, but now if you call someone an inmate, you're implying that they're either incarcerated or have been committed to a mental health facility. Of course, this has been true for quite a while, so it may have been rendered obsolete by complete disappearance of the wider usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

In older texts the meaning is often “ guest”, like Telemachos addressing a disguised Athene as “My inmate” (original Greek: “ξεῖνε φίλ’ ”) in the 1791 translation by William Cowper, or someone biding his farewell to Dublin, saying, “Adieu for ever! I must no more be thy inmate”. The term was also often used figuratively, such as for someone’s traits or dispositions, which metaphorically inhabit a person.  --Lambiam 11:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Spanish. Our definition says:

1. (idiomatic) to face the music, bite the bullet

but the DRAE says: "Sufrir el sonrojo de hacer por fuerza lo que no quería.", which doesn't seem to mean the same thing, though I'm not sure I completely understand the DRAE's defininition. (Notifying Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Metaknowledge, Ultimateria, Koavf): Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this seems like a loose fit, but I've never encountered the phrase in the wild. I'll search for uses in context to see if it means something like being forced to do what you don't want to do or being held to account. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The Big Red Book of Spanish Idioms gives a definition in plain English. Note that next to the definition as a verb, there is also a definition for its use as a (verbal) noun phrase used as the complement of ser. The etymology is rooted in the outcome of the Battle of the Caudine Forks, in which the defeated Roman army had to undergo the humiliating experience of having to pass under a yoke. A few uses in books: , , .  --Lambiam 09:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Bear in mind the entry was created by Wonderfool, which means it was probably crap. GreyishWorm (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I've heard this a couple of times in Italy, passare sotto le Forche Caudine. As Lambiam said it refers to having to undergo a humiliating consequence of one's action. face the music and bite the bullet sound reasonable to me (I don't know the English idioms, I just read the defs we have here), since it's usually about acceptance of the fact that one deserves it, but we could be more specific. Catonif (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

We could probably do with a thesaurus page for ‘be humiliated’ and expressions like eat humble pie, eat dirt, eat crow and possibly pass under the yoke (a phrase I’m not familiar with personally but which seems, intuitively, to be the best translation of the Spanish phrase under discussion) could be included there. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Apart from being my ex-wife's nickname, this entry links to the Reconstruction namespace, especially the translation section. How can this be fixed? GreyishWorm (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears someone used a colon in alt forms on the page star 69 to get around this. Vininn126 (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it works fine with a colon in the code, I've made the change. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Proto Dravidian is a completely reconstructed and speculative language, which means modern linguists created these words, which means there is no 1st source that has Paḷam as a fruit. Matter of fact meaning of Phálam in Sanskrit as fruit is only a part of it (abbreviations according to any model dictionary ; You'll see, in definition of Phála many words such as, Krishna, Ratnava, etc. They're to be prefixed with the main word Phála, i.e. Phálakrishna, Phálaratnava, etc.):-

फ - pha (only L.), mfn. manifest; m. a gale; swelling; gaping; gain ; ^vardhaka; =yak- s/ia-iiiil/iann ; n. flowing; bursting with a popping noise ; bubbling, boiling ; angry or idle speech.

फल् - Phal, cl. I. P. (Dhatup. xv, 9) pha- lati (ep. also A. te; pf. paphala, MBh., 3. pi. pheluh, Bhatt.; cf. PSn. vi. 4, 122 ; aor. aphdlit, Gr.; fut. phalishyati, MBh.; phalitd, Gr.), to burst, cleave open or asunder, split (intrans.), MBh. ; R. &c.; to rebound, be reflected, Kir.; BhP.; (Dhatup. xv, 23 ; but rather Nom. h.phala below) to bear or produce fruit, ripen (lit. and fig.), be fruitful, have results or consequences, be fulfilled, result, succeed, Mn. ; MBh.; Kav. &c. ; to fall to the share of (loc.), Hit. ; to obtain (fruit or reward), MBh.; to bring to maturity, fulfil, yield, grant, bestow (with ace., rarely instr.), MBh.; Kav. &c. ; to give out, emit' (heat), Kir.; (Dhatup. xx, 9) to go (cf. t/pal) Caus. phdlayati, aor. aplphalat, Gt.(cf.phdlita): ^>es,\A.piphalishati,Gt.: Intens. pamphulyate,pamphuliti,pamphulti, ib. [Cf. +/sphat, spkut; Germ, spalten; Eng. split^\

Hope this gets seen. If action is taken then I'll post more words. Yeshehat 2 (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You have presented the same line of argument in Wikipedia before. Why do you care about etymologies at all when at the same time you say that historical linguistic sucks ("Proto Dravidian is a completely reconstructed and speculative language, which means modern linguists created these words")? Do you in all earnestness believe that languages didn't exist before they were first attested in writing? There's no point in messing around in a space that you don't want to belong in in the first place. –Austronesier (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking about how to create a page for the Ukrainian term "так собі", meaning "so-so", "middling", etc. - at least enough to give raw beginners an idea of its meaning.

Trawling around, I have seen it defined as a phrase or an adverb (and once as an interjection), whereas in some of the examples I've seen it has been used as a kind of two-word indeclinable adjective. More commonly I have seen it used as an (adverbial) response to a question...i.e. "How's it going? – So-so, meh, etc".

Any thoughts at all on usage and definitions would be appreciated. A phrase? An adverb? An interjection? An adjective phrase? Or something else entirely? Would it be at least safe to stick with "adverb"?

(I notice that the Russian (direct equivalent?) "так себе" is defined on its en.wiktionary page only as an adverb, although it is included in the translations of the English en.wiktionary page entry for "so-so" as both an adjective and an adverb.) Thanks, all. — This unsigned comment was added by DaveyLiverpool (talk • contribs) at 00:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC).

так собі is defined here on Горох. Of the four senses listed there, the first two look adjectival (because of the juxtaposition to nouns in the usage examples), but there may be a way of parsing them as adverbial. The other two senses are clearly adverbial. See also Polish tak sobie which covers more-or-less the same ground. I would stick with adverb. This covers its use as a response to the question "як справи?" Voltaigne (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

tak sobie Vininn126 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason the page fell should not list simple past tense of fall first?

Does Wiktionary have a policy like Wikipedia uses for disambiguation pages, where a primary topic may be chosen based on what most people usually mean when using the term, even if something else with the same name came first?

--173.67.42.107 05:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it makes sense as a general rule for inflected form entries to be listed lower than the ones that are main lemmas. Also, if someone (at least a native English-speaker) looks up fell in a dictionary, they probably want to know about one or more of the latter, not that it's the past tense of fall. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

As Al-Muquanna said, listing non-lemmas first is generally frowned upon, as they are in essence soft redirects, and lemmas are where all the content is. The information is still there for the reader, they just have to be a little aware of what they are looking for. Vininn126 (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sense 1: "Truthfully; honestly; seriously. She told me straight up she did not want to go." To me, the meaning is instead "directly; in plain or unambiguous terms": at google:"told me straight up not", the remarks are blunt but sometimes not truthful, e.g. "RJ told me straight up not to get my hopes up about a proposal" (then proposed). But Dictionary.com says "straight up" does mean "honestly; truly" in British slang. Are there cites where it means "honestly" and not "directly/plainly", are there two meanings here? Or is our definition just wrong? - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Sense 1: I'd say that "She told me straight up" would usually (always, in fact, in my own experience around the UK) mean an unambiguous statement rather than a necessarily honest or correct one. On the other hand "I'm telling you straight up" or "That is straight up" would definitely mean truthfully/honestly/seriously. The meaning depends more upon who is using the term. DaveyLiverpool (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the senses "honestly" and "directly" tend to blend with each other: "I'm telling you straight up" means both to me, and if you look up examples on GBooks it's hard to disentangle them. The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang glosses it "openly, honestly" . But something like "He was lying, but he said straight up that she was in love with him" also makes sense to me (as a Brit). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we could arguably have two definition lines, I have seen this used to mean both "bluntly" or "truthfully". The semantic shift isn't too hard to imagine, either. There will be quotes that sit on the line, but I believe we could probably find enough quotes to support two lines. Vininn126 (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"Truthfully; honestly" don't seem the same as "seriously" to me. (This is an example of the common problem with the "synonym cloud" approach to our definitions, possibly attributable to the evolution of the definitions of definiens since Webster 1911.)

I don't see 2 definitions for US English. My experience is similar to -sche's: truth or falsity is orthogonal to straight up. It seems synonymous with outright and straight out. Both of those have more to do with the manner of expression than with the truth value of what is said. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What about the use case in e.g. "'Really?' 'Straight up.'"? There's also the problem of truth and frankness being generally conflated throughout conversational English; as our entry there notes "honestly" itself is often used to mean "speaking frankly", i.e. openly or bluntly, as is "to tell the truth", etc. I did notice the "seriously" part of the gloss sticking out, which seems to be the same sort of confusion. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that usage.

That most speakers more or less follow Paul Grice's maxims (eg, maxim of quality) in discourse doesn't change the meanings of the words used to characterize speech. One can find numerous instances in Google Books of "lie(-,s,d) straight up".

Occam's razor, among other principles, would suggest that we are better off excluding meanings supported by ambiguous usage examples, those involving irony, deceit, etc. DCDuring (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(@-sche) I think it's probably worth distinguishing the two senses, but this doesn't quite work to reject the gloss "truthfully, honestly" because the truth or falsehood in question is the speaker's own, not within the narrative frame, hence you can easily find "honestly lied" and even "truthfully lied" too (good example in this transcript, and truthfully). Regarding the isolate usage I mentioned, familiarity not a prerequisite:

1. "'I'm a witness I am.' — 'Yeah?' — The grin was gone. 'Yeah, straight up.'" (1999, British)
2. "'Oh yeah?' I replied. — 'Oh yeah, straight up.'" (2012, American)
3. "'No giving or taking... any craps. Yes?' — 'Straight up.'" (2020, American)

etc. Here it seems fairly unambiguously to relate to truth and not (just) frankness. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, could we redefine sense 1 more like "really, for real"? I think "truthfully, honestly" suggests some somewhat wrong things; if straight up mean "truthfully" I would think it could be used in a sentence like "he told me straight up that XYZ", but I can only see a meaning "frankly" there, not "truthfully"; "really" seems like a clearer definition for the uses above. (Should we fold sense 1 together with the recently-added sense 3, which has the usex "straight up delicious", dropping the "to the utmost extent" part of the definition which I think may not be quite right?)
I'm thinking about straight-up#Adjective, and Equinox's change to it in March 2020 and my change to it just now: it had been defined as "truthful, honest" with cites like "a straight-up patent troll", but while a straight-up patent troll is truthfully a patent troll, "straight-up" doesn't mean "truthful" (it's not "an honest, truthful patent troll" engaging honestly in dishonest practices), it has to do with being actually (unambiguously) X. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me. It has to do with truth (of the speaker), like "indeed", "really", etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Does it ever have that meaning in a narrative? It could be misleading to give it a definition or, worse, a one-polysemic-word gloss that implies it has the meaning(s) in most contexts. I suspect that slang is not restrictive enough. DCDuring (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, having just looked it up in the current OED, they also gloss it as "exact, true, honest, trustworthy; (also as quasi-adv.) truthfully, honestly" with plenty of examples, so while we can't just copy their ones I'm satisfied that the senses we have are correct and can be found if desired. If we want citations it might be worth tuning the search to earlier in the 20th century etc. since it looks fairly clear that the diachronic development was along the lines of straight-up (adj) "upright" > "trustworthy" > straight up (adv) "honestly" > "directly; really". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Do the OED examples include straight-up declarative sentences? DCDuring (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not talking about the mistake of dord but there is a musical instrument called dord, wikipedia:dord (instrument). It might be hard to find cites but it does exist. 210.55.76.111 19:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it doesn't look like the instrument sense has been discussed here before so I created an entry with citations (dord). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This follows a bit from the unethical RFV, and it seems the same IP was responsible for splitting senses in both cases, but I'm stumped on this one. How is sense 2 different from sense 1? What specifically separates conscience and divine law from other immutable principles? If the antithesis is supposed to be natural vs. divine law, what's conscience doing? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I've simply undone the IP's split of the definition. Some dictionaries do have a second sense, but it's for ~"violating sexual norms", like when immoral earings refers idiomatically to income from prostitution/sex work (as opposed to when it refers SOPly to any not-moral income). - -sche (discuss) 02:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I removed the bit about "timeless principles", since I don't think that's relevant to the definition. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion the person says "marina". Or is that an alternative pronunciation for "mariner"? It's not the usual one at any rate. 88.65.40.9 20:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the pronunciation does seem wrong. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• It was recorded by Wonderfool, a long-term vandal. Any edits made by that user should always be reverted mercilessly. Anyway, Wonderfool with a newer account has deleted the audio, and an even-newer Wonderfool account will soon add an improved audio after the present Wonderfool gets blocked. GreyishWorm (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Wonderfool is possibly the worst, least productive editor who has ever wiktionaried. Vininn126 (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  He's actually the worst, most productive editor. 98.170.164.88 05:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Either way, WF is delighted to be the most superlatived. GreyishWorm (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Are these terms derived from the adjective or noun constant? Whatever way, I imagine there are some nerdy "constant problem" puns out there. Does anyone happen to know any good ones, just for fun? GreyishWorm (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The editor who asked for “constant problem” puns was a constant problem.  --Lambiam 19:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Where should such figurative uses of the word "die" (as in, "feel an emotion very intensely") be covered? I cannot seem to find it on die#English anywhere unless I'm missing something. Are these figurative expressions that deserve their own wiktionary entries at die of shame, die of fear, etc.? Buidhe (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this verb sense 7?

7. (figuratively, intransitive, hyperbolic) To be so overcome with emotion or laughter as to be incapacitated.

98.170.164.88 05:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we have both "To be mortified or shocked by a situation. If anyone sees me wearing this ridiculous outfit, I'll die." for negative emotions as well as, right after it, the modern hyperbole which may be used for positive or negative emotions, "To be so overcome with emotion as to be incapacitated. When I found out my two favorite musicians would be recording an album together, I literally planned my own funeral arrangements and died." If these don't cover die of fear, google books:"die from shame", etc. yet, let's improve the wording. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Are senses 6 and 7 distinct enough to deserve separate treatment? I can see a case for it if 6 is supposed to be for negative emotions and 7 for positive ones. Regardless, I would say that "mortified" generally implies "so overcome with emotion as to be incapacitated". 98.170.164.88 05:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Does the definition in its current state make sense to anybody? Could it safely be substituted by a more focused definition capturing the artistic and architectural meaning? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The "before the Romans had existed" stuff is just nonsense—I removed that part and gave it chronological limits, but the definition can probably still be improved. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In the inflection table at stare, the 3rd person m. singular is listed as stà, but it redirects to sta. Both stà and sta indicate that the former is a misspelling. Can the inflection table be corrected? Are there any other mistakes in it? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Those diacritics are there to indicate stress; they are not actually part of the orthography, unlike for example the à in parlerà. It seems like all Italian conjugation tables have them, e.g. on essere we have sóno, sèi, siàmo, siète, none of which are normally written with diacritics, and the same goes for parlare which has pàrlo, pàrli, etc. There's no indication in the tables of which accent marks are supposed to be written.

(Edit: Not all Italian conjugation tables. I went to a few random Italian verbs and found some that didn't have accent marks in the table, e.g. sfuggire, imbrodare.) 98.170.164.88 22:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I mentioned this problem a while ago in the BP discussion about putting accents on all headwords. The head and conjugation templates here display the accent, because usually (in words stressed on the penult) they can display it. On plurisyllabic words stressed on the last syllable they must (which is also in the entry title), and in monosyllables, it sometimes must, sometimes must not depending on the word. The templates should not then display the accent on words like sta, fa, va, ho (“stays, does, goes, I have”) and it must go on è, dà (“is, gives”). There are also words like do (“I give”), which can also be spelled dò. In conclusion, the templates shouldn't put the accent automatically on monosyllables, but rather get that info from the input. Catonif (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine to put those accents in headwords, but why on earth are we including them in conjugation tables? That just seems confusing to me... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The idea I assume is to make the pronunciation of the inflected forms clear (by showing the position of the stress and the quality of E and O) without either wasting space by having an extra line in the table for phonetic transcriptions, or forcing the reader to click through on every separate form to see its pronunciation. Although in the case of monosyllables with vowels other than E or O, such as stà, it doesn't add any meaningful information about the pronunciation, so I guess the only reason for using it is for consistency.--Urszag (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only it doesn't add any information, it gives wrong information. Catonif (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems very confusing to me if it's both an optional or required orthographic feature and, separately, a feature purely of pronunciation. My Italian is pretty basic but based on Catonif's description I would support getting rid of it where it's straightforward and orthographically proscribed. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing, SemperBlotto, would you consider modifying the template so that it doesn't include these proscribed forms? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Curious if usage of these contrasts at all similarly to English fart and poot, where the former is mildly vulgar and the latter is more diminutive? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 02:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Just posting to point out two things .... 1) the quote template on poot isnt working and I dont know how to fix it; 2) i wonder if it's worth comparing with pump as well? Ive heard it means "fart noiselessly" but it could also be a euphemism for farting in general in mixed company. —Soap— 05:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

(I've fixed the poot quote, GreyishWorm had removed the passage parameter from the template but it's not inherited otherwise. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC))

I would say so. pupsen also has a kind of childish, oopsy ring to it. – Jberkel 23:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eirikr: To me, furzen sounds pretty coarse and I wouldn't use it in an official, medical or otherwise specialist context. pupsen on the other hand sounds somewhat childish and/or "euphemistic" (as in, it makes it sound cuter than it is). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the syllabification be æ.nju.əl because the a is actually pronounced in some accents of American English and I don't think is allowed in a closed syllable unless it's the end of a word and even those are weird exceptions. Dngweh2s (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure it is. ant, anti-, anther, and so on. The general rule, although we dont follow it consistently, is that a single consonant after a stressed vowel will pair with that preceding vowel. I think the reason we dont follow it consistently is that it's not fully agreed on by scholars, and can have exceptions, as seen (debatably, of course), in the Florida thread at the Beer Parlour. Hence why all my examples used /n/ .... I would say apricot has /æ/ in a closed syllable as well, but we actually have the syllable boundary before the /p/. —Soap— 05:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely no rule forbidding in a closed syllable: cat, bad, fact are easy counterexamples. Linguists disagree about many aspects of syllabification, including whether a single consonant between vowels is always syllabified with the following vowel in English, or whether stress and the identity of the preceding vowel play a role. In the case of annual, the /n/ is not actually between vowels, but before the consonant /j/: it can be argued that /nj/ does not occur at the start of a syllable in normal American English vocabulary.--Urszag (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Soap, @Urszag Sorry. I was talking about the American phenomenon of a-tensing. In General American English it is always tense before m and n, for example man , manner . However, in most accents with nonstandard a-tensing it is lax before m and n in an open syllable: manner . There are exceptions, and and am (which I think are just a result of artificial annunciation because they are almost always reduced) and some past tense verbs ran, swam, began. I am saying that the reason these accents always keep in words like annual, manual, and January is that the sequence /i̯u/ is being analyzed as a diphthong which leaves the /æ/ in an open syllable. I think this is pretty plausible given the existence of words like new in British English where it is obviously all the same syllable. Dngweh2s (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Got it. I see, that argument makes sense to me, although it doesn't seem completely irrefutable, since you've mentioned that there are some exceptions to the use of in closed syllables. Also, I am not sure it should be regarded as evidence for the syllabification of annual outside of those particular accents. What is a good resource for finding out which words have which vowel in accents with contrastive ash-tensing? I know that in RP a-broadening, which to me seems somewhat similar as a split affecting original TRAP, there are a large number of polysyllabic words where /æ/ is retained, such as ample, trample, antler, cancer, fancy, rancid, pedantic, fantasy (Wikipedia); is there no similarly large category of exceptions to ash-tensing in syllables closed by /m/ or /n/?--Urszag (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article /æ/ raising has a good table with the general rules although it doesn't get into the minutae. It's kind of impossible though because these accents were all on continuums geographically and in terms of markedness. They are also all basically extinct anyway. The exceptions that retain are the words and, an, and am which are probably just a result of being unreduced. The true exceptions are the words ran, swam, began, and randomly exam. The other group is contracted words where the syllable used to be open like family and camera. I've also heard amnesty with probably as a result of the contracted words being reanalyzed as words where the next syllable starts with a sonorant. Anyways, I think it's fair to say words like annual retain the more because of similarity to words with an open syllable than to any of the other exceptions. I also have to say that comes off a lot less marked-sounding than the exceptions which tend to seem more marked. This makes me think it is part of the original open-closed rule because exceptions to dialectical sound shifts require a higher degree of deviancy, at least in situations like this where the exception is actually different from the standard accent Dngweh2s (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Checking examples on Youglish, and Cambridge, Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster, the /n/ is always part of the first syllable; the idea a syllable can't end in /æn/ is mistaken; in fact, quite the opposite, /æ/ typically requires a following consonant, syllables ending in bare are the weird exception. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, dictionaries are less consistent in their analysis of apricot: Cambridge and Dictionary.com say it's /ˈæp.r-/ but /ˈeɪ.pr-/, whereas Merriam-Webster puts the first vowel in a different syllable than /p/ in both cases. To some extent it's an academic distinction; the problem, as Mahagaja put it in a prior discussion, is that there's no convenient way to show ambisyllabicity or ambiguous syllabicity of a consonant when showing that a word consists of multiple syllables. We have entries where a vowel that'd normally attract the following consonant to be part of its syllable, such as /ɛ/, is shown as ending its (mid-word) syllable instead because the consonant is best considered to start its own syllable for etymological/morphological or phonetic reasons. - -sche (discuss) 21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

For me (US, Los Angeles area), the first vowel in apricot is definitely /ˈeɪ/, and if I hear /ˈæ/ I know the speaker isn't from around here. I'm not sure which syllable the consonants in between belong to. In this particular case, it may have something to do with a "long a" vs. a "short a". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, the /ˈæn.jəl/ pronunciation is not rare in the US, so perhaps the distinct line for US pronunciation should be eliminated. DCDuring (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

See . I'll leave this to the gender experts. Equinox ◑ 07:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also Thesaurus talk:effeminate man. 98.170.164.88 11:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, google books:"(unmasculine|unmanly|not manly)" "soy boys" turns up zilch (and one of the two hits for the singular is a book saying "A soy boy (or soyboi) is a man who is woman-like or not manly enough"), vs references to soy boys as effeminate or feminine, though there are google:"unmasculine" "soy boys" on the web. I see no problem with adding unmasculine / unmanly to the def ("an effeminate or unmanly man"), but while there are situations in which it'd make sense to distinguish "unmanly" and "effeminate", an insult based on the idea that soy estrogen feminizes people doesn't seem (based on the cites) to be one of them, lol. We're not so exacting about linking to synonyms, anyway; the connotations of insober and obliterated also differ, but they're reasonably crosslinked as words for drunk... - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Can this is it mean this is the life? PUC – 19:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean this is it ? Leasnam (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. PUC – 20:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Potentially, it can refer to anything, and yes, even the life. However, if this needs a definition, I wouldn't say that's the most common use of the phrase. I imagine this is the end would rank much higher. Leasnam (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this has more to do with "it" than this particular phrasing (look up "this was it") on Google Books). For "it" to be used without a prior referent would require that it would be something that anyone would anticipate, or the epitome of somethings- the something par excellence. That could be the end, or the ultimate of whatever is being discussed. Similarly, the phrase "is this it" can mean "is that all there is?" or "is this the best we can expect?". We do have a sense of it that covers "the end" (currently sense 10 of the Pronoun section).

There was a running gag in Sanford and Son where the character Fred Sanford would feign a heart attack and say "this is the Big One". If memory serves, this was often preceded by "this is it". In war movies, someone will say "this is it" when some anticipated major event like an enemy offensive starts.

I don't know how we should cover it (it seems almost like a matter of pragmatics or philosophy), but I think the entry for "it" is the best place for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve been considering creating ‘this is me’ with a sense defined as something like ‘this is my stop/turning’, such as when alighting public transport or to announce your intention to a group of friends that you’re walking with of stopping and turning into your property. In the process I was considering idiomatic uses of ‘this is it’, which also feels (just about) idiomatic enough to warrant an entry. Do you think we should have an entry for ‘this is me’ or should we cover it under ‘me’ instead? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Your answer reminds me of Lambiam's here. PUC – 10:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

pimpernel definition 5 is:

(figuratively) Someone resembling the fictional Scarlet Pimpernel; a gallant dashing resourceful man given to remarkable feats of bravery and derring-do in liberating victims of tyranny and injustice.

which has an undated quote credited to Hal Lehrman: "Lined up solidly with the Pimpernels and with the persecuted."

I have not found that particular quote. However, Lehrman wrote an article for Commentary (December 1946) -- "Austria: Way-Station of Exodus" in which there's a section titled "Pimpernels of Zion" and it begins:

T—, who gives every impression of being a Salzburg merchant, turns out to be the chief Jewish Pimpernel of this area. He lived through the war in a Latvian village, protected by blond hair, green eyes, and forged Aryan papers. He told me only what he wanted me to know: “Money? When I need it, I have a place where I can get it. . . . Name of our organization? We have many. Names aren’t important. Boris was the name of the man who first handled the movements here. Long after he left, refugees kept asking for Boris. . . . How do they get across all the closed borders before they reach Austria? Look. Here is a frontier. And a guard. So we drive them up to a mile from the guard. Then the people go around him, through a forest or across a river. If they get caught, they get caught. Finally they get sent back. So they try again, on the second night, and the third night, and they get across. Sometimes we have a nice paper with many stamps and we drive right up to the guard . . ."

Lehrman wrote quite a few articles on similar topics for Commentary but I think they are all online so the dictionary quote can't be from one of them or it'd turn up. Maybe he wrote for other publications around the same time? --Levana Taylor (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

monosemy informs us that the derived adjectives monosemic and monosemous "are interchangeable variants", and yet the definitions on their respective entries are different:

• monosemic: 1) Of or pertaining to monosemy; 2) (prosody) Consisting of, or equal to, a single semeion.
• monosemous: Having only one meaning or interpretation.

While savouring the irony of the polysemy exhibited by these entries, may I request clarification from any semanticians out there? Are they truly interchangeable (exact synonyms)? Voltaigne (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

(See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#monoseme. monoseme is defined here as an exact synonym of monosemic (and features on monosemic#Alternative forms)). Voltaigne (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It is immediately clear that McRefugee is from Mc-, but it does not match any of the senses on that entry. Is a sense along the lines of "pertaining to McDonald's" missing? – Wpi31 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Since it's just calquing the Japanese part マック I'd be hesitant to draw an English sense from it. It's not a regular English formation with the Mc- prefix at any rate. Are there any non-calque examples of Mc as "pertaining to McDonald's" in a way that's neither derogatory nor a product trademark? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In a statement like: She's kinda cute, for a librarian. what sense of for does this use ? Sense 17 looks to be the closest I could find, but is it a perfect match (= She's kinda cute despite being a librarian; or for the fact that she's a librarian) ? Leasnam (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is "despite"; "for" makes it a relative statement whereas "despite" doesn't (compare "he's very smart for a child" vs. "he's very smart despite being a child"). This is a separate sense of its own (#27) in the OED (see the 2nd edn. entry free here). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

But it's missing from ours, yes (?) Leasnam (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I originally missed it when reading through the entry but it looks to be covered by sense 15. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I did as well. Somehow I read spry as "spy". I've merged the one I had added with this. Leasnam (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I just added a phonetic pronunciation at thrill, which I think matches both the audio clip and my own pronunciation. Note that it should also be dental, but I couldn't find a way to add both the devoicing and the dental indicators. Is my transcription accurate? Is there a reason the allophone of /ɹ/ after /θ/ always seems to be ? It came as a surprise to me to see it, since I'm pretty sure I don't generally pronounce it that way. But I also think it's possible I just maintain the voicing of /ɹ/ (I can't tell now that I've been thinking about it too much). What do the rest of you hear in the audio example? Because I think that reflects my own pronunciation as well, and it doesn't sound like to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are "niephling"/"niefling" in print . That word doesn't seem to be in the dictionary, only nephling.

"hile writing this book, I thought a lot about the future I hope my nieflings ... will see and help to make." Imagining the Future of Climate Change: World-Making Through Science Fiction and Activism (Shelley Streeby, 2018)

"... your parents, siblings, grandchildren, grandparents, nieflings, the siblings of your parents, and so on ..." Do I Have to Wear Black? Rituals, Customs & Funerary Etiquette for Modern Pagans (Mortellus, 2021)

"'Congratulations on your future uncle-ship.' ... 'Indeed. A half-human niephling.'" novel: The King of Faerie (A.J. Lancaster, 2021)

"Eparch Aranha ... was easier to steer clear of, for they only occasionally attended Rainday culture nights with their niephling Lir ..." novel: Saint Death's Daughter (C.S.E. Cooney, 2022)

--Levana Taylor (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW, it's interesting that Mortellus doesn't know a satisfactory collective for "the siblings of your parents" -- my impression is that hardly anyone has solved that. In Saint Death's Daughter, C.S.E. Cooney uses ommer. --Levana Taylor (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: I have created niefling. J3133 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

(I could not find a third quotation for niephiling.) J3133 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are more quotes for niephling with some nice antedatings, from 2013 and 2014: The first, from December 2013, is "Excitingly, by the time we arrive for Christmas, the newest niephling, who's due in about a week courtesy of my other sister, will also be there." quoted from Françoise Harvey, "Hanky PANKy," Bookworms and Coffee Monsters, December 8, 2013 .

Then, from Barbarella Fokos, "Children, children everywhere," San Diego Reader, October 3, 2014 "Oh, and one important difference with the zoo's kid freebies is that the cutoff is 11 years old. So no tweens here, please. On the upside, parents can now inform their eager 12-year-olds that they are "too grown up" to be considered kids. I know a few of my niephlings would dig that."

There are even earlier web hits for niefling:

"If you have an unborn niece or nephew, and you don’t know their gender, they are your niefling." -- Quoted from a Reddit post by Timmy Parker, "30 Random, Interesting Facts That Will Cheer You Up," Thought Catalog, October 5, 2013.

"I come from a very large family (three brothers, three sisters, about as many aunts and uncles, and loads more cousins and nieflings)" "Penny Arcade" forums April 2013

--Levana Taylor (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

niephling added. --Uh, actually, I created it as a totally separate entry from niefling but should one be a variant of the other? --Levana Taylor (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

According to red#Translations 2, the Latin translation of the English noun 'red' is ruber. However, ruber only shows an adjective. Is Latin ruber also a noun or not? Nosferattus (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, to express an English colour noun in Latin you would write color X, so color ruber in this case (or color rufus, color russus, etc. with other words for "red"). This remained the case in New Latin, e.g. at the top here. I've corrected the translation—the fact that no gender was specified suggests they might have been thinking of the adjective and added it mistakenly. Actually this confusion seems to extend to plenty of other colours as well, e.g. adjectives meaning "blue" have been listed as translations for the noun blue, the adjective viridis for the noun green, etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We say these are pronounced with /ɑ/, which is indeed the only pronunciation I've spotted in other dictionaries, but on Youglish and in my experience more speakers say /oʊ/~/əʊ/ like location, vocation: of 23 videos of locative, 4 have the vowel of lock, 5 have the vowel of location e.g. 43:23, 3:19, 1:08:06, 26:36, 1 is geolocative with /oʊ/ like geolocation, 1 (about Catholics, and which seems to be /oʊ/) may be a different word, 12 are duplicates. Likewise, I find vocative with /oʊ/ like vocation, e.g. 0:36. How should I label this? Just another pronunciation? Nonstandard? - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be distinguished as being a newer and/or "less educated" pronunciation. How that is indicated matters less. I've personally never heard "vocative" with /oʊ/, so I don't think it's a typical pronunciation. Not sure about "locative," since I've encountered it less, though my instinct is to pronounce it with /oʊ/, oddly inconsistent with "vocative". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I’d pronounce either /oʊ̯/, apparently a function of not having lived in an English-speaking environment and speaking with natives about grammar, which, with the position of the vowel to be pronounced, makes man expect this vowel, so these are spelling pronunciations. By which rule in traditional English pronunciation of Latin do we get /ɒ/ anyway, is it regular? (We don’t really learn this “traditional English pronunciation of Latin”, I just pedantically pronounce all muscle names like a Roman, as some English-native nerds living on the internet also do.) Fay Freak (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The traditional English pronunciation of Latin doesn't always exactly apply to words of Latin origin with anglicized endings, but the use of the LOT vowel in vocative and locative can be explained as an example of so-called "trisyllabic laxing": the vowel in the stressed syllable is short because it is followed by more than one unstressed syllable.--Urszag (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Urszag: 🧉 So we have the solution and actual reason why we have this and that pronunciation: A system for native words, wherein the word vocative may have been inherited from Middle English or the still effective trisyllabic shortening applied anew as on a native word, and another (semi-)educated one designed to avoid vowel reduction in Latin phrases (and those of other languages in general), the more likely applied as for a thing that does not exist natively in English-speaking countries, making the terms vocative and locative liable to being reborrowed. Fay Freak (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence: I asked native speakers I know how they pronounce it; the responses so far are two Americans who pronounce both words with /oʊ/, one Briton who doesn't encounter either word enough to know, and no respondents who use the lock vowel. It's not new; I was going to cite William Phyfe's 1914 Eighteen Thousand Words Often Mispronounced, which reports that it was so often pronounced with /oʊ/ at that time that he had to specify it should be "lŏk´-ȧ-tĭv, not lō´-kȧ-tĭv" (with the "ŏ" of loch not the "ō" of locale "lō-kȧl´"), but I notice his 1910 edition says "locative - lok´-ȧ-tĭv. The New Imperial and Stormonth say lŏk´-ȧ-tĭv.", which led me to check the Imperial Dictionary (1883 and 1892 editions) and see it indeed has locative only with the "ō" of location, not the "o" of loch / lock. Seemingly /oʊ/ was accepted before being proscribed but has remained common, an interestingly common linguistic phenomenon. (BTW, Phyfe's book also says logos should be with both vowels like lock.) - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised the "standard" pronunciation is apparently so uncommon; having studied Latin formally in various places in England over the last two decades I've only ever heard it with /ɒ/. The long-o pronunciation might be more of a US phenomenon though I don't see an obvious reason why it would be. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's always been /ɒ/ for me, but, then I never took any classes in Latin so I may have never heard anyone else pronounce it until after my pronunciation was already set. — This unsigned comment was added by Chuck Entz (talk • contribs) at 01:08, 24 November 2022.

• Grew up close to Washington, DC, with parents from upstate NY and the upper Midwest. I pronounce both with /oʊ/ as the first vowel, and have never personally heard either with /ɑ/.

Somewhere along the way, I learned that "open" syllables (without a coda consonant) are more commonly pronounced with the "long" vowel (as in ⟨ō⟩), while "closed" syllables (with a coda consonant) are more commonly pronounced with the "short" vowel (as in ⟨ŏ⟩). I also dimly recall this as an explanation for the "silent E" used in English spelling (like in bite), as a kind of indicator that the preceding syllable, even if it is closed and has a coda consonant, should have the vowel pronounced as if the syllable were open.

Couldn't tell you where I learned this, but perhaps it might be a helpful nugget.

In the context of locative and vocative, my immediate lect members (that use this word) all apparently parse these as 'o·ca·tive, with an open first syllable and accordingly a "long" initial vowel. This stands in contrast to pro·'voc·a·tive, where the second "o" belongs to a closed syllable and is thus a "short" vowel. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

My view is that an explanation in terms of syllable structure would be circular: it would be saying the first syllable has a long vowel because they parse it with an open first syllable, and we know they parse it with an open first syllable because it has a long vowel. That would leave us with the question of why the o in vocative would be parsed as being in an open syllable while the o's in provocative, ocular, velocity, document, jocular are parsed as being in closed syllables. Rather than bringing syllable structure into it, it seems more promising to me to just appeal directly to spelling patterns or to analogy with related words like location and vocation.--Urszag (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I am personally prejudiced against the pronunciations with /oʊ/, but I don't really know how to phrase an objective label describing what distinguishes them from the ones with the LOT vowel. So it might be better to just omit any label. The pronunciations with /oʊ/ come across to me as spelling pronunciations, which are of course not uncommon for less frequent words, but I guess the particular attitude that I have is that they are pronunciations that I would expect to be used more frequently by people who use the words infrequently. But I could be off base here: putting out another speculative scenario, it could be that in e.g. the area of Latin instruction, the influence of Latin's reconstructed pronunciation has caused students and experts alike to shift towards using vowel qualities here that are closer to the ones that they're used to using for the letter O in Latin (or in foreign languages more generally). Compare the use of pronunciations like "PLOW-tus" or "OWE-vid" vs traditional "PLAW-tus" and "OV-id".--Urszag (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Learning Latin in Australia we already pronounced it with the short vowel, VOCK-a-tiv and LOCK-a-tiv. The long o pronounciation strikes me as an Americanism, although I don't know why. This, that and the other (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've always said them with /o/, but the argument that vocative should rhyme with provocative makes perfect sense, since they're the same root, and it would be odd for locative not to rhyme with vocative, so I guess I was just wrong on this one. It certainly wouldnt be the first linguistics term Ive gotten wrong, and I can probably think of a dozen others (velar and alveolar both for example). I guess that happens when I only ever come across the terms in print and never spoken out loud. —Soap— 22:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the previous British and Australian commenters, ‘LOH-ka-Tiv’ sounds distinctly American. I’m surprised that no one’s mentioned the fact that there’s a large group of words that are said with a short ‘o’ in Britain and with an ‘oh’ in America. Most Americans automatically pronounce words of foreign origin using this pattern and say adios, Ayatollah, Rosh Hashanah, cognac, pathos and Tolstoy (and risotto even becomes ‘ri-zoh-doh’ with a flapped t) but they also do the same for many English words such as compost, yoghurt, professorial and even shone (the pronunciation of scone is fiercely debated in England but I’m in the ‘o’ camp and Americans use ‘oh’ for that too). The reverse process is rarer but includes Adonis and codify (and in Scotland and for a minority of people in Northern England project). See the list on Wikipedia (though this is incomplete as it misses ‘risotto’ and it erroneously claims that ‘proh-ject’ is the main British pronunciation of ‘project’). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

As (possibly) an additional wrinkle, I'm used to hearing /ˈpɹɑ.d͡ʒɛkt/ as the noun, and /pɹoʊ.ˈd͡ʒɛkt/ as the verb. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless you’re a thesp over-enunciating his lines, pɹəˈd͡ʒɛkt would be more usual for the verb than pɹoʊ.ˈd͡ʒɛkt. The main difference is in the noun form of the word which, in Scotland and Northern England, many people say as something like ˈpɹoʊ.d͡ʒɛkt rather than something closer to ˈpɹɑ.d͡ʒɛkt (though the exact nature of the first syllable can vary). I can certainly see why it’s tagged as a rare pronunciation in RP as it’s more of a regional British pronunciation, though I suppose there probably are, or were, some Scottish or Northern English people who’ve learnt to sound posh and succeed in every respect other than the way they say certain words like ‘project’. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Should they be kept as they are on the original source? For example, if an Italian source has ꝑ (representing the preposition per), should it be kept as it is, or written as per for legibility? — GianWiki (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In quotations I would "modernize" scribal abbreviations, just like also the long s, the u/v, and apostrophes (’/'), as those are typographic decisions rather than orthographical ones. Catonif (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That's my approach as well, and certainly what you'll find in dictionaries of Medieval Latin and the like. Antiquarianism shouldn't get in the way of readers understanding the quotation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I see. Would you say this M.O. should be extended (another Italian example) to things like the ending -zione being spelled as -tione? GianWiki (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that's an orthographical decision, so I'd keep that as the original, with the -t-. Catonif (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

As an clarification, I believe the -t- should be kept in quotations, but in actual entry titles I think we're safe to normalize it: that is, I wouldn't create definitione as an alternative spelling of definizione, but rather have such quotes under the -z- page. Same thing goes for a -zione noun, that is so old that we can only find attestation with the -t-: I'd say we can make the page under the unattested -zione form. Catonif (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't create definitione as an alternative spelling of definizione

Why not though? That seems like a pretty standard example of an alt/obsolete form.

Same thing goes for a -zione noun, that is so old that we can only find attestation with the -t-: I'd say we can make the page under the unattested -zione form.

I personally don't agree with this policy, but I'm curious what others think. If you're going to do this, at least add {{normalized}} and make it clear what the real form is. 98.170.164.88 16:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What I meant was: a quotation that has definitione can easily go directly under definizione. And also you're right in bringing up {{normalized}}, which I implied. Catonif (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Generally orthographic variants should be reproduced as is (see WT:Quotations#Spelling). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I would keep the text as is, but link to the word, but I think the practice varies on Wiktionary. We don't usually use all caps for Latin quotations, for instance, though I do think it's common to maintain long s. I would suggest leaving an unaltered copy of the text on the citations page, since that's less for your average user and more to document the language as it was written. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Tbf, all caps would only be relevant for inscriptions and I have seen Latin inscriptions on Wiktionary cited in all caps (though I can't find an example off the top of my head). The prose and poetry come to us through a manuscript tradition and aren't going to be in all caps in the source. Anyway, I can see the argument to leave an unaltered copy on the citations page, though if there's a link to the original in the citation I tend to think that's sufficient. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that each language should have it's own rules on what to normalize and what to leave as is. Italian should follow the rules expressed in the Italian Wikisource, that is:

• normalize: spaces before and after punctuation, long s, u/v, scribal abbreviations
• keep as is, don't normalize: spaces between words and apostrophes (or lack thereof), obsolete etymological h- and -ti-, diacritics, obsolete etymological ligatures -æ-, -œ-

I won't express myself on Latin as that is not my field. Catonif (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say it's a matter of readability vs. loss of information. Scribal abbreviations are a big obstacle to readability, while not really conveying information that would be useful to anyone but scholars- who would consult the originals, anyway. The same with obsolete letters like wen and thorn in Old English, that map precisely into specific letters or combinations of letters in the modern alphabet. There are edge cases such as long s that some editors like to use in quotes to give an archaic feeling to old texts. In that particular case, most readers know enough English to be able to figure them out.

Things like -ti vs -zi feel to me like they balance more on the loss-of-information side: I'm sure there are contexts where "ti" doesn't map to "zi". I think we should treat those as alternative spellings.

Another consideration is modern editions of those same texts: how much (unfootnoted) normalization occurs? Would someone be able to easily go back and forth between the same passage in a normalized version and in our version?

I'm not sure if anyone has ever done this, but in some cases it might be nice to have links to both a source with images of the original document and to a normalized modern edition. That way our readers can choose for themselves between authenticity and readability.

As for lemmatization, the practice in other dictionaries should be considered. There again, will someone be able to go back and forth between our entry and entries elsewhere? If all the other dictionaries have lemmas at the normalized spelling, we might want to do the same (but have alternative-spelling entries, as well). Chuck Entz (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In practice, you'll find both approaches: some users think we should be reproducing all the scribal abbreviations and long ſs as much as Unicode allows (and then some), others normalize. If you retain scribal abbreviations, it's helpful to use Template:abbr or put a after to indicate what the abbreviated word is, or at least link it. - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know about {{abbr}}, and I would like to thank you for bringing it to my attention.
This is the quote from St. Francis' Canticle of the Sun that gave birth to my question, as it looks in the source material (you can find the original text here, lines 5–7):

• Laudato ſi miſignore ꝑ ſora luna ele ſtelle. in celu lai foꝛmate clarite ⁊ p̄tioſe ⁊ belle.
  

Now, supposing the original spacing, punctuation and apostrophes (or lack thereof) are to be maintained, which version would you say looks best among the ones below?

1. Laudato si misignore per sora luna ele stelle. in celu lai formate clarite et pretiose et belle.
   
2. Laudato ſi miſignore ꝑ ſora luna ele ſtelle. in celu lai foꝛmate clarite ⁊ p̄tioſe ⁊ belle.
   
3. Laudato ſi miſignore ꝑ ſora luna ele ſtelle. in celu lai foꝛmate clarite ⁊ p̄tioſe ⁊ belle.
   

Also, if you think you can suggest different ones, please do. GianWiki (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Per the Wikisource formatting rules I'd vote for the first one, also because {{abbr}} doesn't work from mobile, and the repeated words in brackets don't grant a fluid reading. Catonif (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I've recently heard the word Kellogg's used with the meaning of "crazy", "off one's rocker" (I believe from a shortening of reference to the Kellogg's slogan "Cuckoo for cocoa puffs"), but I am having a hard time verifying if this exists enough durably to warrant the creation of an entry. Has anyone else ever heard or used Kellogg's in this way, or does anyone perhaps know any more about it ? Leasnam (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There's also fruit loops (from Froot Loops). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention the recreational drug Special K GreyishWorm (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

While we're all on the topic of cereal words, I was disappointed to not see an entry for frosties. I've heard this being used for frost or cold weather - "the frosties are coming so wear a scarf", but perhaps this was just in the Wonderfool household, like gobbler GreyishWorm (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That reminds me of how, in my family, we use the term blockers for the cubes of meat (whether pancetta, lardons, gammon or, in a restaurant, guanciale) or squares of sliced bacon used in ‘carbonara’ (though technically it’s not a carbonara if it isn’t made with guanciale). The idea being that after twirling your spaghetti you stab a blocker with the fork to keep it on there. I doubt that’s attestable either though. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I found no relevant Twitter results for "totally Kellogg's" or "gone Kellogg's". Where did you hear this? Equinox ◑ 18:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I heard this from a YouTuber in the UK. Manchester/Altrincham area. I think what was said was along the lines of "He's proper Kellogg's" Leasnam (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

No video link? (If you misheard the word, I'm not sure what else it would be, but I am smelling XY problem.) Equinox ◑ 09:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: get your nose checked. Leasnam (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to pore over days' worth of watched videos...but I quickly checked Urban Dictionary (for grins) and found this: sometimes my friends can be so flaky. Thier all a bunch of kelloggs. so apparently some form of Kellogg or kellogg(s) is known to mean "flaky" or "crazy"...I'll keep looking. You, DBAD ! Leasnam (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Leasnam I checked and no corn flakes are up there. Justify your term as Madonna sang, oh, she looked good in that video. And (re "DBAD") I'm not fighting with you here (I know we've had disagreements before over some strange Anglish verbs); I'm literally just asking for the most basic reasonable evidence that anybody would require. Good luck. Equinox ◑ 19:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I found it. ] @ 3:01. Leasnam (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Independent of whether this particular word is one person's idiosyncrasy or more general slang, it's somewhat surprising that we don't encounter more personal idiosyncratic turns of phrase, allusions, etc. (I checked Urban Dictionary when you posted this, but the reference to people being flaky like Kellogg's frosted flakes seems like a different thing from the reference to being cuckoo like for cocoa puffs.) - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Got it. I don't think there is enough to go on, which was the goal of my query to start with. I was hoping that this might be a Northern UK thing, but it's not appearing to be turning out that way Leasnam (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

吳 Apparently, the only two characters that have the phonetic 吳 are 吳 and 蜈. 鋘, 麌, 祦, 誤, 悞, 娛, 虞, 澞, 鸆, 俣, and 噳, characters which obviously contain 吳 as a phonetic, are instead listed under the phonetic 吴, which makes no sense as 吴 is a variant of 吳. 俣 is also the simplified form of 俁, which is confusingly is not in Module:zh-glyph/phonetic. 鈆 & 舩 Though the former is also its own character, both are confusingly deemed separate characters in the phonetic series 沿 despite obviously being variants of 鉛 and 船 respectively, both of which are included in the phonetic series with the exact same readings. This does not occur with other variant forms such as 説, showing this is obviously a mistake. 贊 攅 and 攢 are both in the phonetic series 贊 despite being variant forms. This time however, they have different OC readings for whatever reason, being *zoːns and *ʔsaːns, *ʔsoːnʔ respectively. This occurs again with 鄼(OC *ʔsoːnʔ) and 酇(OC *ʔsaːns) for no explainable reason. Middle Chinese even gets in the action, with /t͡suɑnX/ and /t͡sɑnH/ being erroneously attributed to 鄼 instead of 酇 despite those fanqie readings being listed under 酇 in the kangxi dictionary. 濽 also needs to be changed to 灒. 袞 & 衮 Obvious variants of each other with the same reading. In the same phonetic series, 滚 also needs to be changed to 滾. 三河孝達(雝之) (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sabukawa takanobu: I fixed everything mentioned except the 贊s. I can't explain why they have different reconstructions either. The related data is:

• Module:zh/data/och-pron-ZS/攅
• Module:zh/data/och-pron-ZS/攢
• Module:zh/data/och-pron-ZS/鄼
• Module:zh/data/och-pron-ZS/酇
• Module:zh/data/ltc-pron/鄼
• Module:zh/data/ltc-pron/酇

You can check whether they are correct. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Labelling never mind as only a verb is wrong. Needs tagging GreyishWorm (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Having it as "hortative" is a really weird way to do that. Wouldn't it just be better as an interjection? I've never seen it used as "he never minded the issue" or some such. And also the last definition is a preposition, is it not? Vininn126 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say "never minded" is reasonably common—think "he never minded the issue until you complained"—but it's never + mind and not quite the same as "never mind" used as an interjection. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As a hortative it takes an object: Never Mind the Buzzcocks, Never Mind the Bollocks, never mind my forgetting, never mind the other viewpoints, ... . Interjections don’t take objects.  --Lambiam 19:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

True, and it can take an emphatic subject "Never you mind". There's an argument to be made that imperatives are a type of interjection, but I suppose verb does make the most sense. It doesn't change the fact that one of these uses is a preposition, no? Vininn126 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the ordering of this entry makes much sense. I understand that Wiktionary's ordering is often arbitrary, but it seems pretty clear that sense 3 is primary, and that senses 1 and 2 (and I guess 4 and 5 also) are derived from sense 3. (In which case I don't think sense 3 should include the phrase "bulb-shaped"...) 2603:8080:C6F0:1280:7459:4FD2:8BB6:9FDF 05:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Should be rectified now. Graham11 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know what species these terms refer to, or their etymologies? The first word is ostensibly Spanish. I'm guessing the second word is from Nahuatl. They occur here. It looks as if both would fail to meet CFI (whether in Spanish or English). 98.170.164.88 08:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we need such a detailed definition? PUC – 14:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's good for a laugh at least - when I first saw it I almost snorted my coffee through my nasal cavity. I reckon that everything after "vertebrates" could be safely removed. Voltaigne (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Or simply (from Wikipedia article): "a large, air-filled space above and behind the nose in the middle of the face." Voltaigne (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Would be odd to not mention the nose somewhere. And is the term "vaulted chamber" used in anatomy? Just Googling '"vaulted chamber" anatomy' gets me architecture stuff, and some etymological info about other anatomical terms on Google Books. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Too encyclopedic. I cut that sucker down. Vininn126 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The version we had before this edit was better, but you may recognize it from the Wikipedia description (I wonder who copied it from whom?). Chuck Entz (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed better and I don't really have a problem with it being from 'pedia. If we want to tweak that version, that'd be good. Vininn126 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I restored that version basically as was, but kept "in higher vertebrates" from the more recent one as a potentially useful qualification. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Visual dictionary, anyone? An image would be good, especially one that had labels for the various neighboring anatonomical elements. Such terms under "See also" would be an inferior substitute. DCDuring (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria):

It is my understanding that, in 東京弁, verbs and い-adjectives (in their dictionary form) are either 平板式 or 起伏式, and if they are 起伏式 the drop is between the penultimate and the ultimate mora. In this framework, odaka is an impossible pitch pattern. We don't have any odaka い-adjectives: (I fixed the formerly only result 勘定高い just now by adding the missing mora in {{ja-pron}}). As for verbs, it seems like many of our odaka pitches reference Shin Meikai kokugo jiten and were added by @Eirikr. Is Shin Meikai kokugo jiten an authoritative source about 東京弁? If it is, how do we reconcile the fact that it suggests seemingly impossible pitches that are not corroborated by other sources? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it doesn't have any sense to distinguish the drop after the 終止形 coda, because they are at the end of sentence anytime.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think having odaka in a verb is a strange concept, at least in terms of tokyo dialect. Shen233 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Fytcha: I cannot recall any such entries off the top of my head, and reviewing a quick few after searching for Japanese verbs with odaka pitch patterns doesn't find me any that I edited to add the SMK5...

Be that as it may, I did find 伏す (fusu, “to bow down; to lie prostrate”), listed in Daijirin, the SMK5, and the NHK Hatsuon Dictionary as having pitch patterns 1 and 2 (i.e. a downstep after the first or second mora). Likewise for verb 吹く (fuku, “to blow”). Given that various things can follow a verb even in Tokyo dialect, the concept of odaka for a verb doesn't strike me as all that strange. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eirikr: The two I've mentioned in the title are examples for where you've added an odaka pitch based on SMK5, unless I'm mistaken: diff, diff. I also want to make clear that this is by no means a "look-at-what-this-editor-did" kind of post, I'm not even sure whether this is something that needs to be changed at all. I just wanted to open a discussion to find out where editors stand on this. As for your two examples, @Sartma has provided an explanation for why odaka on these verbs is plausible. The explanation doesn't apply to 入れる or 行く. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Fytcha: No worries, didn't take this as any kind of blaming. More interested in understanding my own errors.  :) I'll take a closer look later. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Fytcha, @Eirikr: I've corrected 入れる (ireru) and 行く (iku). None of our reference dictionaries gives irerú and ikú.

  @Eirikr: I saw you added a reference to SMK5. Did it really give irerú and ikú? I have SMK7 (my SMK5 is stored away, can't check it now...), and it only gives ireru and iku. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 09:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Sartma, Eirikr: I went through all of our odaka verbs and these were my findings:

  1. Verbs with an odaka pitch only based on SMK5 while all other references have heiban: 盛る, 笑う, たたかう, 終える, 決める, 決まる, 置く, 亡くなる, 並べる, 死ぬ, 読み切る, 焼く, 纏める
  2. Verbs with an odaka pitch that is either explainable or backed by other sources: 葺く, 吹く, 着く, 就く, 付く, 吐く

  The further steps I see as necessary are the following:

  For the verbs in the first group, somebody needs to double-check what SMK5 says. Given that these are all traditionally described as heiban, I'm tempted to believe that either SMK5 presents heiban pitch in a confusing manner that has led editors to interpret it as odaka or that they have an unorthodox interpretation of the distinction between odaka and heiban. Either way, I'm pretty certain that none of these entries should contain any mention of odaka once we've sorted things out; these verbs don't permit devoicing and thus no pitch shift occurs.

  For the verbs in the second group, we need to think about how to best present this information in a coherent manner. Not every devoicing pattern is compatible with every pitch accent pattern. I think the best presentation with the currently available tools is the one I've implemented here. Tell me what you think. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Fytcha: I'll try and see if I can find my SMK5. But to be honest, I wouldn't wait to change those verbs. If SMK7 and all other reference dictionaries only give them as 平板型, there's no reason to ignore them. As for group two, I do like what you did for ふす. All odaka versions of the verbs in group two can be explained with devoicing of the first vowel, so I would do the same for them. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 23:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Fytcha, Sartma, no disagreement about moving on from SMK5 now that SMK7 is available.

Re: ふす (fusu), our entry only references Daijirin for the pronunciation section. The electronic version of Daijirin that I can access right now doesn't show devoicing at all, not because they claim there isn't any but rather because they just don't record that. I am concerned that our entry now shows the atamadaka pitch pattern with both morae voiced. This disagrees with what I can find in the NHK Hatsuon dictionary, which clearly shows both odaka and atamadaka with the initial fu- devoiced. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: As you explained, no Standard Japanese verb or adjective can by nature have the accent on the last syllable. 平板型 (heibangata) verbs and adjectives can contextually take an accent when followed by particles that add an accent to the preceding syllable, so:

• 入れる (ireru), but 入れるの？ (irerú no?)
• 黄色い (kiiroi), but 黄色いの？ (kiirói no?)
• 大変な (taihen na), but 大変なの？ (taihen ná no?)

etc.

Incidentally, Standard Japanese accent is based on syllables, not moræ. The traditional Japanese way of distinguishing 起伏型 (kifukugata) words between 頭高型, 中高型 and 尾高型 not only fails to capture that, but also put words with the same accent pattern in two different categories. Words like 日本人 (nihonjín) (中高型), phonetically behaves exactly like 明日 (ashitá) (尾高型), since both are accented on the last syllable. I would get rid of those classifications here on Wiktionary. Not only they don't accurately describe Japanese phonology, but they also make the Pronunciation section unnecessarily heavy and complicated for no good reason.

@Eirikr: 起伏型 (kifukugata) bisyllabic verbs accented on a syllable that starts with a voiceless consonant (like the /f/ in 吹く (fúku)) tend to move their accent to the following syllable if the speaker devoices its vowel (a completely voiceless syllable can't carry a pitch accent). So people pronouncing 吹く (fúku) as /fɯ̥kɯ/, will move the accent to the next syllable, and pronounce /fɯ̥kɯꜜ/. Speakers who don't devoice the accented /ɯ/, will regularly pronounce /fɯꜜkɯ/. That's why you find both accents in the Daijirin. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 19:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sartma: I already had the suspicion that words like 吹く are the exception, not the rule. It still leaves the question open why this dictionary would describe words such as 行く as odaka. As to 吹く, would you then say that our current pronunciation information is wrong? We present it as though devoicing happens independent of the pitch. More generally, it is my personal feeling/intuition that we (incorrectly) simplify devoicing on Wiktionary: I think (and I could be wrong) that there is a difference between, say, 舌 and 複雑 in that the former is always completely devoiced whereas the latter is only sometimes devoiced (and perhaps even to varying degrees, I'm not sure). {{ja-pron}} only takes a binary option though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Sartma: My copy of the NHK Hatsuon dictionary shows both atamadaka and odaka with devoiced initial fu, for both 吹く (fuku) and 伏す (fusu). Are they wrong, or are we? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Eirikr: It's not wrong, no. It describes a new trend, apparently. The general rule for Standard Japanese is that the accent tend to move away from totally devoiced environments, but apparently the rule is disappearing in younger generations (who would keep the accent where originally is, even if they devoice the accented vowel. If you google 無声化　アクセント核　移動 you'll get more info, like this, for instance: 母音の無声化とアク セン ト核の移動について — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 02:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Sartma, thanks for checking. I don't have my SMK5 in front of me -- I'll have to check later on. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

English. This is about the sense:

1. Composed of a mix of sand, clay and earth.

First of all, "earth" doesn't really make sense here, because there are many types of earth that contain sand and clay, so I'm not really sure what that word refers to here. Second, what little usage I can find seems to refer to a type of soil with certain qualities. I'm sure there are lots of soils that might fit the definition but don't have the qualities that the usage seems to require. I didn't want to just revert this, since there is a soil-related sense and since this is the first mainspace edit for this account. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

According to the USDA's soil texture triangle, the only type of soil that can mix with sand and clay is loam, which is itself a mixture of those other two types with silt. In other words, either hazelly soil is another word for loam, or it means a mixture of loam with sand and clay. I know that doesnt help much, sorry. The creator states on their userpage that they're adding entries from four different dictionaries, perhaps paper ones that may be out of step with modern definitions. A quick google search for hazelly soil showed me no results more recent than the mid-1800s, though perhaps your search was more broad. Even if we are able to find a precise definition for this term I'd say it is certainly obsolete. —Soap— 07:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I've come across many entries recently which give pronunciations ending in /-s/ where I'd expect /-z/ (examples here). The frequency of it and fact that this one was added by a veteran editor makes me want to double-check: shouldn't this be /-z/? - -sche (discuss) 09:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

According to all standard accounts of the phonology of present-day English, it should be /z/. I have on occasion read things from native English speakers, even including some with experience in linguistics, that indicate that they perceive something like /s/ at the end of plurals that really have /z/. I don't know whether this is related to the spelling, or caused by the allophonic devoicing that can affect word-final obstruents in English (a phenomenon that does not regularly cause a total neutralization of the contrast between underlyingly voiced and voiceless phonemes because they still affect the duration of preceding segments differently--some people argue this means that the "voiced" vs. "voiceless" contrast in English phonology is really something else like "lenis" vs. "fortis", but I am not a fan of those terms). In bachelor's fare, the following voiceless might contribute further to the phonetic devoicing of the preceding /z/. But I am pretty sure it is still /z/ in terms of the actual system of sound contrasts, which is what our phonemic transcriptions are meant to indicate. Admittedly, the functional load of the contrast between /s/ and /z/ is low in many contexts, and nonexistent in word-final position after an obstruent (e.g. in /kɪdz/ or /ɡlʌvz/), and I would say that it is often possible for /s/ and /z/ to not sound very distinct to an English speaker's ear. Some dictionaries do recognize lexicalized examples of phonemic devoicing of /z/ (as in American English has to /ˈhæstu/) in certain expressions, such as newspaper.--Urszag (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Others I've found (and changed): abbas, abelias, abeyances, centres, computers, data records, godfathers, headers, horses, interpreters, listeners, mosses, Muslimas, operators, outliners, phosphorescences, procedures, reconnoiters (present since 2006), toposes. An unusual one was menoroth, also abioses. Several of these are from Sae1962 (who has added other odd or erroneous things), others are Gjprus (others are from other users and IPs). - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

An odd case, which I haven't changed yet, is bellows, where /ˈbɛl.əs/ is marked as "now dialectal". (Another exception is tapas where the /-s/ seems OK, although a version in /-z/ may also exist.) Russias is also odd. Also of note is abayas, where the vowel in the IPA and audio don't match. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The translation section at puree says that the Dutch word is masculine, but the Dutch language section says it's feminine. Which is correct? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As a borrowing from French purée in a time the Dutch were still quite aware of a feminine syntactic gender, the term would then have been seen as feminine. The historical Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal assigns the feminine gender to purée, the official spelling until the publication in 1954 of the “Green Booklet”, which prescribed a new spelling rule for words that until then ended on -ée.  --Lambiam 20:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this true? PUC – 23:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that there are plenty of examples of academic journals using the term in that sense ("conducive to health") I'd say probably not (e.g.: "healthy eating", "a healthy pleasure", "healthy environment", just from titles). The Guardian Weekly quote that's given for the sense atm also doesn't sound particularly informal. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's vehemently proscribed by language purists, who would say that healthful is the only correct way to say it. In the past, that proscription would have limited it to informal usage- but the battle to keep it out of the mainstream has pretty much been lost. I'm not really sure what its status is nowadays. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's even worth mentioning frankly. How to Speak Better English (1948) pronounces (p. 106) that "Modern grammarians maintain that 'Carrots are healthy for you' (in place of healthful) is correct"; Fowler's Modern English Usage limits itself to noting that it's "disliked" by some people. Webster's 1913 presents the sense (#3) without comment, as does the current OED. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't think I've ever encountered healthful. PUC – 21:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say calling it "informal" is inaccurate. My perception is that for the majority of people who don't care about this peeve, there is no difference in formality between using "healthy" to mean "in good health" and using "healthy" to mean "conducive to good health". The minority of people who do care about this peeve would probably be most careful about avoiding that usage in formal contexts, but that's because they consider it a "mistaken" or "illogical" usage—they're against it because they think it means the wrong thing, not because they think it means the right thing but has an inappropriate level of formality. I think people with unrealistic peeves sometimes retreat to the assertion that their disliked usages are "informal" to try to sound less ridiculous than if they were to just baldly say "this word doesn't mean what the majority of people use it to mean". The website of Paul Brians categorizes it as a "Non-error", saying "Logic and tradition are on the side of those who make this distinction, but I’m afraid phrases like “part of a healthy breakfast” have become so widespread that they are rarely perceived as erroneous except by the hyper-correct."--Urszag (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems overly specific, yeah? A ticket machine could get dispense any kind of ticket, not just for travel. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC) A parking ticket machine springs to mind.DaveyLiverpool (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am French and I am discovering to new English word: to jam and to scramble in the sense of blocking/altering telecommunication signal. I have read the definition on enwikt and I am not sure if both verb are synonyms or if one is the hyperonym of the other? If so which one is more general? Thanks in advance. Pamputt (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If a communication channel is jammed, messages do not get through. Messages that are scrambled do get through, but in altered form. This may be done on purpose, where the receiver has the technology needed to unscramble the signal, while an interceptor only hears or sees meaningless noise. As a purposeful method, this is similar to encryption.  --Lambiam 20:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Using typical medical prefixes, a low set ear would then be hypopinnal or malpositioned pinna, subformed pinna or subpinnal This particular issue comes up frequently when fitting eyeglass frames and there is no widely accepted medical term for it. As an eye care physician, I feel there is a need to properly name this issue and create an accepted terminolgy surrounding it, so that both physicians and lay persons can better relate to the conditions impacted by the anatomical position of the pinnaJeffrey D Phillips (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As a dictionary, our job is to record terms and their meanings as they are used. We are not in the business of creating new words. If the question is about suggesting a term that you could use in publications in the hope of making it popular among specialists, I’d suggest catotia, in analogy to microtia but formed with the prefix cata- (“down”).  --Lambiam 20:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"(proscribed, US, informal) Unfazed, unaffected, or unimpressed." — Is this actually still limited to America? Merriam-Webster's discussion has an example of it in the London Times from 2010 and I've definitely heard it used it in this way in the UK. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I changed the US label to "chiefly US" and added an unambiguous cite from a UK newspaper. I also changed the "proscribed" label to "nonstandard"—the Compact OED had been cited as "proscribing" it in the usage notes, but this doesn't reflect what it actually said ("this is not yet accepted as standard usage"). Not sure about the "informal" label, there seems to be a general conflation of "informal" with "disliked by some prescriptivists" that doesn't reflect the register of actual usage (see the "healthy" discussion above). I've left it alone for now though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The etymon and cognate information I made is just my own research. So therefore there is no source. Be aware that the cognates may just be coincidental, due to it's phonetic similarities (picked the one with the best semantics). Chuterix (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that etym section is a bit of a mess.

• 凝る (koru, “to freeze”) has the phonemic root of kor-, whereas you seem to reduce this to *kə-, allocating the final -r of the root to a wholly separate phoneme.
• 転ぶ (korobu) and 転がる (korogaru) indicate different senses of "falling down, falling over", related to adverb ころころ (korokoro, “tumblingly, rollingly”), and probably 車 (kuruma, “car”, older sense of “carriage, cart”), and these are wholly unrelated to 凝る (koru, “to freeze”). Throwing all of these together as comparanda is ... confused, and confusing.
• As I previously edited and you then reversed, the Ryukyuan terms are known cognates, and should come before any speculation.
• There is no known term I can find of the form ōroka, only 愚か (oroka, “foolish”), consisting of root oro- + stative adjective-forming suffix -ka. See also the NKD entry for oroka here at Kotobank, as well as related entry orosoka here, together clearly indicating a root of oro-.
• The connections to PIE terms, Korean, Tamil, and Arabic appear to be wild speculation, with no consistency in sound correspondences or semantics.

I would strongly suggest paring this down to just the Ryukyuan cognates. Anything further doesn't appear to have any solid foundation, from what I can tell. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I would kinda think it would just only be necessary to dumb down to just Ryukyuan cognates. But then any Japanese word with Proto-Japonic entry existing will have Ryukyuan cognate information on nearly every page.

Note: I didn't reverse your edit, just moved the Ryukyuan cognates to a different section, overwritting the Korean cognates and then moving it over. -r- is the generic verb suffix. See NKD entry for ōroka here, from oboroka. Chuterix (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Chuterix: Re: ōroka, fascinating -- my local electronic copy is missing this entry (or at least I can't find it, and it isn't lemmatized at おおろか). Thank you for the link!

Looking just at this term, I would be surprised if this is not the same root as in 朧 (oboro), analyzed as obo- (presumably from this same OJP opo- root as in 大きい (ōkii, “big”) and 多い (ōi, “many, lots of”)) + suffixing element -ro.

With regard to korosu, though, I note that the -ro suffix forms adjectives, not verbs. There are very few verbs that end in -rosu -- in addition to korosu, I can only find just an "o"-shifted causative form in 下す (orosu, “to lower, to put something down”), and an "o"-shifted honorific form in 織ろす (orosu, “to weave”). If adjective-forming suffix -ro + causative / transitive verb-forming suffix -su were a viable verb-forming construction in ancient or Old Japanese, I'd expect to see more than just korosu.

I wonder if you're on the right track with parsing the final -su as the causative / transitive suffix cognate with modern する (suru, “to do”) — thinking of analogy with English to fell someone, and looking at korosu as ころ (koro-, root relating to ideas of "falling" or "tumbling") + this -su. Still speculative, though.

Re: "-r- is the generic verb suffix", I'm not sure I can agree -- this is part of the verb root for 凝る (koru), as evidenced by its conjugation pattern. Same as 切る (kiru, “to cut”), where the -r- is integral to the verb stem: plain kiru, plain negative kiranai, polite kirimasu, etc. This contrasts with 着る (kiru, “to wear”), where the -r- disappears in most conjugated forms: plain kiru, plain negative kinai, polite kimasu, etc.

Or are you suggesting that koru, as an intransitive verb of state, might derive from some root *ko- (or the *kə- in your edits at 殺す) fused with copular verb aru? This would help explain the existence of apparent synonyms with the same initial ko- but no evidence of the -r-, such as koyu or kogoyu (where the final -yu is apparently the OJP passive / spontaneous suffix ゆ). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eirikr Answering the verb conjugation question, if that's the case, then why is almost every action verb (regardless of conjugation pattern, such as なる (naru, “to become”) and 忘れる (wasureru, “to forget”)) suffixed with -r- (this is not the ones such as 急ぐ (isogu, “to rush”))? Also 着る (kiru, “to wear”) conjugates as ichidan, so has -ru suffix only on shushikei and rentaikei (not a godan or ancient -r part of root)

I'll answer other questions regarding the korosu stuff when I have time. Chuterix (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Chuterix: You ask, "why is almost every action verb ... suffixed with -r-?"

I am confused by your statement. It's not "almost every action verb" by a long shot. By way of examples: 買う (kau, “to buy”), 聞く (kiku, “to hear, to listen”), 泳ぐ (oyogu, “to swim”), 挿す (sasu, “to point, to indicate”), 打つ (utsu, “to strike, to hit”), 死ぬ (shinu, “to die”), 拒む (kobamu, “to refuse”)...

For verbs like 忘れる (wasureru, “to forget”) (from older 忘る (wasuru), conjugation stem wasur-), or っ切る (kiru, “to cut”, conjugation stem kir-), or 擦る (suru, “to rub”, conjugation stem sur-), what reason do you have for viewing the -r- on the end as a suffix and not part of the core verb?

I'll happily grant that there are cases where there does appear to be an -r- suffixing element referring to spontaneous / passive / intransitive action, contrasting with an -s- suffixing element referring to intentional / causative / transitive action, such as the verb pairs nar-u ("to become", intransitive) and nas-u ("to make or do", transitive), or kowar-u ("to break", intransitive) and kowas-u ("to break", transitive), etc. But I don't think we can state categorically that all verbs with conjugation stems ending in -r- derive from this suffixing element -- particularly in cases like wasur- ("to forget"), where the original verb was apparently intentional and transitive (c.f. the notes in the NKD entry). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This is also an item of clothing, see e.g. google:"skirts, scooters & skorts". I'm not familiar with it so I can't readily tell how to define it distinct from a skirt or if it's attestable. - -sche (discuss) 01:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Several sources state that scooter, short for scooter skirt, is a synonym of skort. On the English Wikipedia, Scooter (skirt) redirects to Skort. In Google image search, items referred to as scooters seem to be more often pleated, in particular as part of a girls’ school uniform. Websites selling scooters typically describe them as having “built-in shorts”.  --Lambiam 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for figuring it out. - -sche (discuss) 03:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Also spelled skooter, I think. Equinox ◑ 03:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I added a sense for the furniture -- which I think is definitely distinct from the Japanese bed, even if said bed has a frame -- which may need sprucing up. Ultimateria (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a furniture sense is needed. However, I'm accustomed to seeing framed sofa-bed things called "futons" that also have arms and backs. In fact, I cannot imagine what a sofa-bed would look like without a back, as the new sense at English futon describes.

FWIW, I think the key defining feature of a "futon" as opposed to any other kind of "sofa-bed" is that the cushion that one sits on in sofa form is a single piece that unfolds into a flat mattress when the frame is reconfigured from the bent-in-half sofa shape to the flat bed platform. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: When I was in uni in the early 90s, the "furniture" kind of futon was also crudely referred to as a "flop-and-fuck". I see an entry at Urban Dictionary, but google books:"flop-and-fuck" barely gets any hits. Not sure if this merits an entry here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

How about "a piece of furniture with a fixed cushion that forms a mattress when folded down and a sofa when folded up, similar to a sofa-bed"? Ultimateria (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Maybe even "a specific kind of sofa-bed, with a fixed cushion that forms a mattress when folded down and a sofa when folded up".? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds great, I've added it. Ultimateria (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please check this? The only thing that makes me unsure is that the plural verb form "were" is used, but I think it wouldn't be too unnatural to say "the working class were" in general, whereas substituting other plural nouns for the blank sounds quite weird. The page is protected. 98.170.164.88 22:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems adjectival to me. Graham11 (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The use of a plural verb after working class as a collective designation of a multitude of people in British English is normal, as seen here: “the working class are inarticulate, uneducated, and numb to the allure of ‘high’ art.” Think of it as shorthand for “the people comprising the working class”. I’ve moved the quotation.  --Lambiam 17:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Surely the quote for our adjective sense 2 of English is actually misplaced? It's an example which should be moved to our proper noun sense 1 definition. In other words, English is a proper noun in the sentence 'English is a language of confusions' . --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. 98.170.164.88 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand this as a difference (mostly US vs Commonwealth) in verbal agreement when talking about groups of people. US usage refers to groups as a singular entity, some other varieties refer to the individuals plurally. The most obvious examples is how musical bands are referred to -Moogsi (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Can someone check the animacy in Russian? 98.170.164.88 22:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Fixed the animacy. The entry was created and edited more than a dozen times over two days by User:TheWikipedian1250, not known for accuracy. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am going to reconstruct Proto-Japonic on my own; so is there any Ryukyuan resources I can use (besides JLect and Nevskiy Miyakoan Dict.)? Chuterix (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)