Wiktionary:Tea room/2025/June

The sense ‘lame, uncool’ should be placed at last because it is homophobic. Please add (offensive)

1. homosexual 2. joyful 3. (offensive) uncool, lame ZZwi (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Which exact page are you talking about? The page I see looks nothing like what you wrote.

Wiktionary (the English one) already classifies it as slang and derogatory, and says it's a pejorative sense. And it's already far from first, though maybe not last; also, words don't go in the order of how much you personally approve of them. If there's any order, it should be how often they're currently used – not how often you personally would like them to be used in the future. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The pejorative senses should be pleased at last and not the second. The meaning joyful is the second place ZZwi (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Which exact page are you talking about? Instead of copying things, please give the address of the page. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the real Wiktionary page for "gay", it looks to me like it has been done very carefully, correctly, and respectfully.

We cannot pretend that the "joyful, happy" meaning is important. It was at one time, but people have mostly stopped using it. (I don't see you complaining that the real meaning of "silly" is "uncomplicated", but that is the type of thing you're doing here.)

Words are explained in the ways people are really using them. Old, unused meanings do exist, but they are less important. And moving offensive words lower on the list is useless. People don't come here to learn to talk; they come here to find out what words mean, and if we tried to hide some meanings then we'd just be making the dictionary worse. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

People may need the "joyful, happy" meaning for reading old books and such. It may no longer be used, but it is still useful. 2600:8800:FF0B:100:B0F3:C2C5:15E0:2674 23:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for sort of a late reply, but I just now had this thought. If a person is the target of this offensive usage of the word "gay", but they don't know what it means, we should make it easy for them to find out what was said - not more difficult. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Homosexual: (of a person) Possessing sexual and/or romanticattraction towards people one perceives to be the same sexor gender as oneself. Cliff is gay, but his twin brother is straight. (strictly) Describing a homosexual man. gay and lesbian people (of an animal, by extension)Tending to partner or mate with other individuals of the same sex. (of a romantic or sexual act or relationship) Between two or more persons perceived to be of the same sex or gender as each other. Although the number of gay weddings has increased significantly, many gay and lesbian couples — like many straight couples — are not interested in getting married. gay marriage gay sex (colloquial) Not heterosexual, or not cisgender: homosexual, bisexual, asexual, transgender, etc. Coordinate term: LGBTQ (of an institution or group) Intended for gay people, especially gay men. She professes an undying love for gay bars and gay movies, and even admits to having watched gay porn. (slang, with for) Homosexually in love with someone. (slang, humorous, with for) Infatuated with something, aligning with homosexual stereotypes. In accordance with stereotypes of homosexual people: (loosely, of appearance or behavior) Being in accordance with stereotypes of gay people, especially gay men. (loosely, of a person, especially a man)Exhibiting appearance or behavior that accords with stereotypes of gay people, especially gay men. A pejorative: (slang, derogatory) Effeminate or flamboyant in behavior. (slang, derogatory) Used to express dislike: lame, uncool, stupid, burdensome, contemptible, generally bad. Synonym: ghey This game is gay; let’s play a different one. (dated) Happy, joyful, and lively. The Gay Science (dated) Quick, fast. (dated) Festive, bright, or colourful. Pennsylvania Dutch include the plain folk and the gayfolk. (obsolete) Sexually promiscuous (of any gender), (sometimes particularly) engaged in prostitution. (of a dog's tail) Upright or curved over the back. (Scotland, Northern England, possibly obsolete)Considerable, great, large in number, size, or degree. In this sense, also in the variant gey. The pejorative sense should be placed at last ZZwi (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Please give the page address that this came from. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I know of two ways to order senses: by commonality, and by derivation. What I see as most common is to write the most common senses first, and the less common ones after, with equally common uses ordered in whatever way can establish a logical progression (like, if a sense came from extension of another, it can be listed after it). The way you changed the page harms users, because it misrepresents how common such usage is (very common!) Polomo47 (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The use of the word gay to mean stupid has been harshly criticised by homosexuals, since the term is associated with homophobia. — This unsigned comment was added by ZZwi (talk • contribs) at 06:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC).

I decided to sort all the meanings by date. The meaning ‘happy, bright, joyful’ is attested in about 14th-15th century, the meaning ‘homosexual’ is from 1950, and the profoundly offensive meaning ‘uncool’ is from circa 2000. Like the word ‘lame’, its use to mean ‘stupid, uncool’ is sometimes seen as offensive to disabled people. The use of the word gay to mean uncool is strongly associated with homophobia and hostility, so it’s best avoided. ZZwi (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This is contrary to Wiktionary guidelines. https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Style_guide#Definition_sequence

"Most users will glance only at the first few definitions in a long entry, rather than searching through all definitions to find the best match. For this reason, it is important that the most common senses of a term be placed first, even when this may be contrary to the logical or historical sequence." Dresdnhope (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

There's already a good entry for the Portuguese word "coisar", a verb that acts as a placeholder for some other verb the speaker can't remember or doesn't know. I'd just like to suggest that, at least informally, a literal translation into English can make sense as a way of demonstrating the word. For example: "My keyboard quit, but Jan thinged it and now it's working again". TooManyFingers (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. Made changes to the entry. Polomo47 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Although the use of this word is not offensive when reference with animals. However to describe culture, it use’s attitudes has been changed and now generally considered offensive unless when used in historical contexts. ZZwi (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the first point. In 1989 I called a she-coyote savage, and she was indeed offended. Jin and Tonik (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There are entries for 'fived' and 'fiving' but no "Verb" on the 'five' page?? 58.107.209.44 12:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably citeable meaning to high-five Woopingkoff (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Then they should link to the high-five page, not the five page?? 58.107.209.44 12:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

"Any part of the global Earth system that can be seen in a single view." What is meant by "global Earth system" here? How does it differ from sense 2? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C010:9B98:7D9B:BE0F 20:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The reference at the bottom is this article, which makes it sound like a pedagogic jargon-y way of saying "landscape" (the idea being that it makes students think about the geological processes that led to the creation of the visible landscape). I thought this would be hard to cite, but it's surprisingly easy. I'll reword to make it clearer. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there a technical term for the spelling style that uses diaeresis to indicate that consecutive vowels should be pronounced separately, where standard forms would use a hyphen (coöperate instead of co-operate, for instance)? While creating reëat, I thought it would be helpful if we had a category and a sense line template for these forms, but I don't know what we'd call it. I've heard it called the "New Yorker style", since that magazine is the best-known user, but that's not really a term we can use here. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

(In fact, could we simply call this "Diaeretic form of ..." or "Diaeretic spelling of...") Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Could we find something that doesn't look like it is pronounced like diuretic? DCDuring (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Although the homophony is unfortunate, Smurrayinchester's suggested wording is not wrong; but another option, which would address DCDuring's concern, would be "Diacritic spelling of..."). Quercus solaris (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That would be a much broader category, encompassing e.g. café and animé. I'm interested in the narrower case of just collecting terms created under the spelling convention that marks diaeresis, so they're all categorised together – much as we have Category:Oxford spellings for that chiefly-academic variant of British English that uses the -ize suffix for words like colourize. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Quite true. That's more than enough reason to use the more precise word (i.e., the hyponymous adjective). I support it. In the end, natural language speakers can't run or hide from homophony and near-homophony, but that's OK; we humans are contextuality lovers anyway. Quite true that "diaeretic spelling of" would naturally/logically be a subcat of "diacritic spelling of". Quercus solaris (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, if we're going to have a specific template/category for these, "diaeretic" seems like an OK word to use. Regarding whether to use "spelling of..." or "form of...": the theoretical distinction (which I have periodically proposed we should either revise our templates to explicitly mention, or else give up on) is that if it's pronounced the same, it's a "spelling of..." and if it's pronounced differently, it's a "form of...". So I think these would be "spelling of"...? - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I note that our main entry is at dieretic though Google NGrams shows diaeretic more common after 1960 and much more common since 1990.

Now dieretic is an alt form of diaeretic. DCDuring (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the unfortunate homophony is a fatal flow. DCDuring (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Given that our main entry for diaeresis is at the -ae- spelling, and as you say, that seems to be much more common, I think it makes sense to follow suit with diaeretic as the main form. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Why not "spelled with diaereses", so at least those who know what a diaeresis is don't have to look anything up. The fact that we had to discuss whether it's diaeretic or dieretic looks like a red flag to me. Or maybe even "spelled with diareses (¨)". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Heavy metal form. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4DAD:D984:45D8:8494 20:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on a latin source that uses the verb form "resilivit". After some research, I found that this is a valid alternative to "resiluī". See the complete conjugation in the active perfect tense below. I believe this alternative should be included in the wiktionary entry for the latin word resilio alongside the more common conjugation as resiluī, etc. I don't know how to do this, as currently the article is using a template to render the conjugation.

resilīvī resilīvisti resilīvit resilīvimus resilīvistis resilīvērunt

Any support is appreciated. Joshua Lutz (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Lutz Use

{{la-conj|4.pass-impers|resiliō|resilu//resilīv|result}}

which will add forms for every perfective active tenses on the root resilīv-.

If you otherwise only want to add perfect active indicative forms, you will need to do it manually and for both forms as doing so overwrites templated ones. Now is how to do it:

{{la-conj|4.pass-impers|resiliō|resilu|result|1s_perf_actv_indc=resiluī//resilīvī|2s_perf_actv_indc=...}} and so on...

Further documentation at Template:la-conj.

Oh, and you want to ask such things at Wiktionary:Information desk, not here. Saumache (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

PS. In "Georges: Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch" (a Latin-German dictionary) it is noted: "Perf. gew. resiluit (jetzt auch Claud. Quadrig. ann. 6. fr. 56 bei Prisc. 10, 51); zuw. resilivit, wie Sen. contr. 1, 3, 4“ See http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/resilio

Thanks. This is what I used. I don't understand why one would use // to separate forms instead of / so that's what I used.

Noun senses 3 and 5.1 describe the same thing, the short string at the end of a whip that produces a cracking sound. Shouldn't these senses be merged? BillMichaelTheScienceMichael (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe so. I recommend these senses merge under the current 5.1 sense (to become 4.1, if done). Although it can specifically refer to the end of a whip that generates the sound, it seems to me that it is an instantiation of the current 5. sense (person or thing that cracks). TranqyPoo (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I find it very hard to readily grasp the different definitions. They could stand re-ordering and possibly sense-subsense structure. One structure would group the definitions by whether the reference was a thing that cracked intransitively (eg, the baked good, firecracker, Christmas cracker) or was a thing that cracked something else (eg, catalytic cracker). I don't think there is necessarily a single useful supersense, especially for the intransitive definitions. Some senses that don't directly fit that binary categorization might be located by connecting them with other definitions from which the sense developed. Also, MWOnline usually has useful sense-subsense structure, as does AHD. DCDuring (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@BillMichaelTheScienceMichael, TranqyPoo: After going through the senses, most of them are derivatives of either the the "noise-making" crack or of the "breaking" crack. I have re-ordered the senses. The transitive sense in "crack a whip" then doesn't fit the transitive-intransitive division I suggested. I don't get how some of the senses relate to either of these groups, eg, "pintail duck" and the derogatory sense "poor (or racist) US Southerner. DCDuring (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've merged the two whip-tip senses. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Any idea on what the other definitions are? Inpacod2 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on the citations, “Relating to the use of scissors, or, more generally, to the act of cutting.”  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

While investigating this term, I came across the roll planisher. Is it the same thing, or, more likely, the planishing roll is a part of the roll planisher? 90.160.107.82 08:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

As used here, here and here , a roll planisher is a planishing device that uses rolls (or rollers) for planishing.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've already asked this before but, in Pannonian Rusyn, there exist the imperative forms гибай (hibaj) and гибайце (hibajce, “come here”). These would theoretically come from the verb *гибац (*hibac), but the verb itself is completely obsolete, unattested even, other than the imperative forms which are in Rusyn dictionaries. (Even in the Old Slovak dictionary, the imperative forms are listed as separate entries to the actual verb itself.) Should I still classify their parts of speech as "verb form"? Or should I just refer to them as interjections or particles? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The definition for 'geiod' "at zero elevation" is in direct contradiction to the rest of the definition and the quotations. The whole point of the geiod is that it goes up and down to maintain a given gravitational potential? 58.107.209.44 12:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This term is archaic, meaning A spore borne at the extremity of the cells of fructification in fungi., per Webster 1913. These things exist, but aren't called acrospores today. Trying to find the term... sporangium probably not, conidium perhaps... any takers? Lfellet (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

An acrospore is just a spore formed at the end of a pedicel, sterigma, or filament. I don't think the term is necessarily obsolete, it's just not very useful or necessary. I don't think there is a synonym or modern equivalent AFAICT. Acrospores are usually asexual spores (conidia), but not all conidia are acrospores. Nosferattus (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

This seems overspecific for an entry. Couldn't it be used with any famous person's name, like Bill Gates, Epstein, Musk, etc. to make the same kind of joke? Compare AICMFP. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2548:2416:405A:FF48 19:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen this used with various other people; offhand I can find "nice try, Ramone" (used the same way, to imply Ramone is behind a certain post) and "nice try, Elon" (also often used in a somewhat more general way, to imply Elon tried to do something sneaky/shady, not necessary just post). RFD as extralexical? - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

A case can be made for adding a snowclone entry nice try, X.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, I have brought this up for discussion (and potentially deletion) at WT:RFDE#nice_try,_Diddy. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Wiktionary community,

I am seeking input and consensus regarding a new term I recently created and added to Wiktionary: perpetuing. This word is a coined spiritual term derived from perpetual + -ing, describing a state of continual communion with God beyond ordinary meanings.

• The term arose from spiritual revelation and is currently used in teaching, writing, and worship contexts.
• It has been officially released in a song titled Perpetuing: Living Beyond The Fray by the artist Blessing Others, publicly available on YouTube Music since June 2025.
• I am also including the term and its meaning in an upcoming published book of Prayer, Praise, & Worship Songs on Amazon, expected within days.

• Song: Perpetuing: Living Beyond The Fray – Blessing Others
• Upcoming book publication (print media)

I understand Wiktionary’s guideline WT:CFI requires durable, archived sources, and I am working to provide these through the book publication and additional third-party references.

I would appreciate the community’s thoughts on the entry’s suitability, any suggestions for improvement, or guidance on how best to document and validate this new term for Wiktionary inclusion.

Thank you very much for your time and help!

--BlessingOthers (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Our CFI also requires that these attesting uses are from three or more independent instances spanning at least a year.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this valuable feedback and clarity. We will continue forward with the public use of the word "perpetuing" as the extension of "perpetual" with an "ing" ending used for positive lifestyle and an elevated state of being and proceed once appropriate attestations have been obtained. Have a great week ahead! BlessingOthers (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This can very well be attested and get an entry... but not with the meaning you coined. It’s a misconstruction by native Portuguese (and Spanish?) speakers. It’s the same confusion that leads to, e.g., adaptate, aprimorate, admirate, but going the opposite way. Polomo47 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing these document reference points. This information is very helpful and greatly appreciated.

It seems that the English translation of "perpetuing" within these documents is not the widely accepted translation from Spanish and Portuguese. However, I believe that as our word gains more public usage in English, coupled with our specific definition, it will become less confusing over time.

Our definition of "perpetuing" is indeed rooted in the word "perpetual," expanding into a positive state of being that embodies a continual flow and lifestyle, living beyond the fray.

While "perpetuando" is a term in Spanish and Portuguese that translates to "perpetuating" in English, I believe "perpetuing" can develop a unique meaning through widespread usage that aligns with our definition.

Additionally, "perpetuar" is the Spanish and Portuguese verb that translates to "perpetuate" in English, which does not convey the same sense of continual flow that we aim to express with "perpetuing."

Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to further discussion on this topic. BlessingOthers (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Although the use of this word is not completely accepted, in some cases, it may be considered to be profoundly offensive if used incorrectly in slang. However, the terms spastic colon and spastic paralysis is not offensive because the uses have no relation to people. Like the term retard, the meaning foolish person is considered offensive (not profoundly) because of the derivation of the meaning ‘person with learning difficulties’. Only use the word spastic in relation to muscles or medicine. Only use the word retard to mean delay or slow down but not used to describe people. ZZwi (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Our entries already put "offensive" only on the offensive senses. Nothing needs changing. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4DAD:D984:45D8:8494 09:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this to make the changes, but I see that there is a zerum entry for the noun but there is no corresponding zerus entry for the adjective/numeral (cf. Latin Wikipedia's zerus article: https://la.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/0 ) which apparently also has ordinal forms: zeroticus, zeresimus, zerensimus

This also raises the question: is zerum derived directly from zephirum (as the entry currently says), or is zerum simply the neuter form of zerus (which I presume is a Latinized re-borrowing of the word "zero" from other languages)? 2601:49:8400:392:AC9F:2CB0:442A:7C5A 11:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

According to the article in the Latin Wikipedia, the term zerus has been used in recent Latin books. No source is given for this statement, but it strongly suggests that zerum is older. We are not adverse to including newly coined Latin terms, such as aeriportus and televisio, but they need to satisfy our usual criteria for inclusion. It is not clear that zerus does meet them.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this entry is either incorrect or incomplete.

1.) I think it is not so much used to express whether something has worked, but more whether the person has put effort into doing the thing.

2.) Usually if something has worked, what we usually say is "good job", not "nice try". (I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where somebody would ever say "nice try". The very use of the word "try" strongly implies a lack of success.) So I think the first part of the definition is just wrong.

3.) The entry is missing the non-sarcastic use of the phrase "nice try" when something does not work. Like suppose the kids are playing basketball and one of them shoots the ball and misses. The coach might say "nice try" but clearly he isn't being sarcastic. 2601:49:8400:392:AC9F:2CB0:442A:7C5A 11:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it was totally wrong. I've improved it a little. Maybe more can be done. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4DAD:D984:45D8:8494 13:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The non-ironic use is IMO SOP.  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the English section for tait should be deleted. There's no citation, no etymology, and no quotation. A honey possum? Banaticus (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Banaticus: It's real, but hard to find outside of reference works. See the Wikipedia article on the Honey possum, which mentions the name and says it comes from some Aboriginal language. It's also mentioned here, here and here, and a borderline use here. Of course, those aren't enough for our Criteria for inclusion in themselves, but you would have to go through Requests for verification/English to get it deleted, and it's entirely possible that there would be enough of the right kinds of usage in the right kinds of places to save the entry once people look for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Our usex says many is not capable of being employed alone as a term (but that man is). Is this correct? Maybe it is thinking of determiner many needing to qualify something, but pronoun many doesn't need to... is there a more clearly non-categorematic word we could be using instead? The? - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

In the sense "-ass", this was moved in February, based I guess on the argument that suffixes should be written with a hyphen rather than a space. I think in practice, it's normally spelled with a space rather than a hyphen, and so I'd prefer to return the suffix to ahh and just have -ahh as an alternative form. Or at minimum, ahh should be listed as an "alternative" form of -ahh, since I'm not sure the 'See also' is prominent enough to redirect people effectively. For example, recently ahh was edited to add Diddy ahh blud as a "Derived term", which I expect is really from the "ass" suffix. Urszag (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

So this character "" (pronounced as huáng, ㄏㄨㄤˊ in Mandarin) is really fascinating.

It's a 漢字 (Chinese Character) that contains a whopping 172 strokes and is currently regarded by many as the most complicated character in existence.

's meaning and etymology are unknown. Some believe it to be an ancient talisman, others believe it to be a modern internet invention.

Regardless, I think is a really good candidate for a wiktionary article because it has become super famous. (there are literally thousands of videos on Chinese social media featuring it. Just search "huáng字 172画" or similar & you'll get tons of content about .

There are a couple challenges that need community consensus before article creation would be possible.

First, is not yet in Unicode. Non Unicode characters provide a real challenge for languages like Chinese and Japanese because many local, shorthand, name characters or other variants may be used without a good way to represent them in computers.

Regardless, there are many Chinese Characters not in unicode that have wiktionary articles. The standard procedure is to use an ideographic description sequence (IDS) as a way to use subcomponents to "spell out" the Character.

A few examples:

⿱𡩧⿺進⿰貝招

⿱爫夫

(And many more)

The are a few problems with this system however. It is cumbersome, and furthermore, these articles are often targets for deletion by users unaware of wiktionary consensus. In the case of a complicated 漢字 like , the ideographic description sequence is ⿺辶⿳⿳雨⿲田田田⿲土土⿲土土土⿲⿱回云⿹⿱⿹飞土⿹飞土⿰⿸⿺升土土⿵鳳龍⿱回云⿲山⿱⿲風鹿風⿴土⿰鹿鹿山 (Very long lol), and I have no doubt that it may cause confusion for some users. (therefore it may warrant a special title?)

Although using ⿺辶⿳⿳雨⿲田田田⿲土土⿲土土土⿲⿱回云⿹⿱⿹飞土⿹飞土⿰⿸⿺升土土⿵鳳龍⿱回云⿲山⿱⿲風鹿風⿴土⿰鹿鹿山 would probably be fine as that is Wiktionary procedure at this point

Would love to hear everyone's thoughts

-cheers HanziKanji (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I would put it under huáng字. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 14:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a really good solution & very practical. I'll go ahead and & make the article. If at some point someone wants to change the title then that's fine. But at least we'll have a general consensus to fall back on.

-Cheers HanziKanji (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@HanziKanji: is this character properly attestable under our CFI rules? — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: It's pretty strongly attestable, I was a little surprised it didn't have an article tbh. It's a very well known character in China. Searching "huáng字 172画" or "世界上最難的漢字" or other searches yields thousands of pieces of content featuring . This constitutes attestation by widespread use in my opinion.

-cheers HanziKanji (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@HanziKanji: can you provide links to at least three quotations? Note that these have to be actual uses and not mentions: see “w:Use–mention distinction”. Quotations which merely describe the character and its meaning rather than using it in an actual sentence are insufficient. I suspect that a source which talks about “世界上最難的漢字” (“the world’s most complex hanzi”) would not be an actual use. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw You bring up a great point. If a 漢字 is used, but it is used for its compositional novelty rather than for its inherent meaning, does it exist? Lol it's an interesting philisophical question. I suspect, you are correct that 's usages may all be "hey look at this thing" (mentioning it). That said, there are indeed plenty of 漢字 with wiktionary articles which may even lack pronunciation, much less any definition or known use. So in some senses, may have precedent. Regardless, I'll do some digging for you, I'm a quite busy with work for now, I may have to put this on the back burner for a few days. I'll see what I can do

-Cheers HanziKanji (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It says: "English Wikipedia has an article" but the link goes to the French Wikipedia. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F011:6299:36E5:8A05 08:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Updated. Vininn126 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

In English, I see mugolio used to mean a syrup made from sugar and pine cones. In Italian, our entry currently defines it as an oil (which does fit the etymology better). So does mugolio refer to different substances in English vs Italian, or are the English and Italian definitions both trying to describe the same substance? Pinging a few Italian speakers, @Catonif, GianWiki, to check that mugolio refers to an oil in Italian: can it also refer to a (sugar+pinecone) syrup in Italian? (Can it also refer to a pine oil in English?) - -sche (discuss) 15:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging a couple more Italian speakers: @Imetsia, Sartma. - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I had never heard this word before. I only know mugolìo, the sound. Mugòlio seems to be what it says at face value, i.e. "olio di mugo". The Zingarelli dictionary says it's an essential oil extracted from the fresh leaves of mountain pine, so it appears to be an oil. If you google it, though, you find people using mugòlio to refer to a syrup made with mugo's pinecones and sugar. I guess the proper meaning of the word is the essential oil, then people, as it often happens, went on using the word to indicate what would otherwise simply be "sciroppo di pigna di mugo". I see why one would want to use 'mugòlio' instead, being just one word. I'm not against giving both meaning. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 21:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Should sense 1 be moved to boondocks? Singular boondock seems rare outside of "attributive"-or-adjectival use a la backwood (which we currently list as an adjectival, but which might be better defined as the attributive form of backwoods?). - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I can feel the effect that prompted this question, which is that the term is almost always plural. But as for "always plural" versus "almost always plural", really the latter, because I have heard someone say "God, what a boondock" in reference to one particular town. I'm going to tweak the label. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I found this passage in a book published in the United States in 1945: "In Albany , class lines were sharp. Democracy was so little known that a veteran of the Revolution might be refused a seat on the Albany-Troy stage because he was shabbily dressed." Does the word "stage" mean a legislative body here? Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Almost certainly it means stagecoach. DCDuring (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess so. The word "democracy" threw me off. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the meaning. See the following link for typical examples of usage: https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22took+the+stage+from%22&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1750,cd_max:Dec+31_2+1900&num=10. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC) You could compare this to the theme of "no shoes, no shirt, no service", but more extreme. The operators of the stage (which would have almost certainly been a private business in that era) were being class snobs and refusing to let the shabbily dressed man ride. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

From Albany to Troy is about 7 miles, which took two hours by stage (according to The Encyclopedia of New York Sate)). The rail line between Albany and Troy was built ~1841. Before 1804 the trip included a ferry ride across the Hudson. The early Dutch land-owning settlers long held on to their superior status (ancestors of 3 US presidents). DCDuring (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Etymology 1_Noun, sense 4...shouldn't that be at Etymology 2_Noun ? Leasnam (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

One would think, but no, it's correct as given, because the origin of the term in typesetting comes from the days of metal type (both letterpress and hot metal composition), when strips of lead (Pb) were the spacers that inserted more space between the lines of type. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you ! Leasnam (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

In the Video "Building a LattePanda Mu Cyberdeck" at YouTube, what in Thunder and Lightning was "cyberdeck" meant in that Video?

Thanks for reading. -- Apisite (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be just some retro-futuristic DIY computer inspired by the cyberpunk decks, without the brain-interface. Jberkel 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Recently (poorly formatted) adjective sections were added to both of these entries, defined respectively as first and second. It's true that the letters are used as numerals, so I wouldn't be surprised if the spelled-out names of the letters were used the same way, but would that really be adjectival use? One could just as easily argue for attributive usage of the nouns. The nouns are uninflected, so I suspect that inflectional morphology won't be there to help, either. I'm not really sure how to fix these. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I can think of four of these off my head in usage, but I do not know their origins historically, other than that they are not number values from ancient Greek. One is star order names, such as alpha Centauri, beta Centauri, etc. which use the received alphabetical order, and also in climbing the term "beta" is used for secondhand (technique) information, though that might be from Betamax (as in quality of). The Magic the Gathering card game used "alpha" and "beta" as release order of original card sets and of course there is rank of genotypes in Brave New World that uses this. It's like saying "A league" and "B league." 172.110.168.243 19:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

But are these words used that way in Ancient Greek? —Mahāgaja · talk 22:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to remove it. But the category page says only actual weekday names like "Monday" should be included. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:CEA:192D:11B6:D5E6 16:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

 That's fixed now (diff, diff). They were being categorized there by {{list:days of the week/en}}. Voltaigne (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. More generally I'm not sure it's a good idea to have these list templates auto-categorize like this. I revamped them a few months ago and there is a |holonym= param that specifies the holonym (like "week"), and the code tries to exclude such terms from the categories, but this system is fragile and it might be better just to require that all terms be categorized separately using {{C}}. Note that I have already removed auto-categorization from all geographic lists, as the categorization is handled by {{place}}. Benwing2 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The presence of a plural is odd (though attestable). Wikipedia makes it feel like a proper noun, but we have it as a generic-sounding common noun. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:817A:6836:1F94:BEBC 09:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

One can find both San Andreas Faults (very few instances) and San Andreas faults (very many instances). Only the first group barely support the idea of a plural proper noun. Geologists often refer to the San Andreas fault system, implying multiple related faults (common noun NP). It is hard to find attestation for a San Andreas fault (apart from attributive use). I conclude that the proper orthography is San Andreas Fault, which should be the main entry, not an alt form. I don't think that the "plural forms" should exist at all as any proper noun can be nonce-pluralized. I doubt that San Andreas fault should be an alternative form, rather than a hard redirect to San Andreas Fault. IMHO, the only reason it should exist even as a hard redirect is to protect our users' delicate sensibilities from the shock of confronting the failed-search page. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Synonym of porcelainite? 213.143.49.129 13:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Dunno becuz I'm remedial in minerals (wish I knew the average mineral specimen from a hole in the ground), but I'm going to cross-post the see-also, as that's a logical and desirable minimum response. (I don't doubt that they're related and synonymous , but placing a see-also link is duly agnostic until someone who knows with certainty improves upon it.) Quercus solaris (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

"An ambitious or hard-working person" (i.e. someone who arises at the 'crack' of dawn).

Is this distinct from: "(slang, chiefly British, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand) A fine, great thing or person (crackerjack)."?

The "crack of dawn" phrase looks like a folk etymology to me, possibly because crackerjack is not in much current use except as the US brand name Cracker Jack. DCDuring (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Could be somebody who cracks on (continues to get work done). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:DA1:7B6C:C597:1E84 18:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Could be someone who really gets cracking. As for the other sense, that could be by way of comparison to a firecracker rather than crackerjack. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This user keeps re-adding his own coined word, citing himself. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:DA1:7B6C:C597:1E84 18:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I create-protected the page itself after it was deleted, but this person is very persistent in addition to being shameless about self-promotion. I've now create-protected the Citations and Talk pages (Surjection already took care of the deletion). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I have never heard this phrase before to mean "bladed weapon". It is not in the OED either. Has anyone here heard the phrase? If so, is it more likely to be found in some geographical areas or some time periods of the English language?

Never heard of it before, but I pinged the Google Books corpus and found an interesting hit that suggests that it is a little-used calque from a French term: "military cutting or piercing weapons (in French: white arms) (in Russian: cold arms), such as bayonets, swords, daggers and lances." I'm betting that white arm as an English-language synonym of cold weapon and edged weapon is known only by (some) people who are really into weapons as a deep interest (avocational, vocational, academic, etc), as contrasted with the rest of us who just keep a few pointy and bangy things around in case we ever badly need one. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Very interesting. 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 22:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Spanish has arma blanca --90.167.177.172 15:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for that. Giving it some more thought prompted me to check whether or not I would find arme blanche (fr) in en.Wiktionary, and I see that indeed it is there. Quercus solaris (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this an improvement? I keep seeing entries that ramble at length about metonymy etc. in a way that probably doesn't help people seeking actual meanings. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C419:4F5D:14F1:3AEF 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the urge, but what's there just states the facts (the actual meanings); one could remove the label itself so that a user needn't encounter any Big Word at all (not even when linked to glossary help), but this opens up the counterobjection that then some other people would ask why or how one word means three things, and why those are not presented as three senses instead of one. The label helps someone to understand why that (simpler presentation) is, if they can be bothered to click it. If they can't, who can help them to learn anything anyway? Adding usexs can show (instead of tell) how OHC can mean a cam, a valvetrain, an engine, or a car. I will add usexes. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem right to have Allah snackbar listed without comment in Alternative Forms. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C419:4F5D:14F1:3AEF 17:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone has now added a qualifier, but I'm going to go a step further and move these from "alternative forms" to "derived terms", because they don't have the same meaning, which I think is (in general) a necessary requirement of being an "alternative form". Allahu akbar could be defined in a non-gloss way as ~"a thing Muslims say, praising or thanking God"; Allah snackbar can't, it is ~"a thing certain non-Muslims say to mock Muslims". I am open to arguments to the contrary if other people think these do count as "alternative forms" instead of "derived terms" or something else. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. I agree (i.e., properly described as derived, not alternative, for exactly the reason you explained). Quercus solaris (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

"Forming the common names of taxons ending in the suffix -ia"?

E.g., Phytosauria -> Phytosaurian. Inpacod2 (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Just an adjectival suffix. 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 13:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Phytosaurian is a noun, though. Inpacod2 (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

A lot of words in -n are both adjectives and nouns. As an adjective, it relates to phytosauria. As a noun, it refers to a member of the Phytosauria category. 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 13:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Inpacod2 (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a Wiktionary entry for this. What interests me is that a certain US politician (with a t, r, u, m and p in his name) likes the phrase "stone cold loser". Ngrams viewer shows no hits for this in the British English corpus and none in the American English corpus - or the number of hits is too low to plot in both cases - but if you choose the English corpus, there are some hits. The phrase is almost entirely unattested in Ngrams, apart from a flurry of hits in 1982 and a flurry of hits in 2019 (possibly comments made by the president in his first term about the mayor of London). I don't actually recall hearing this phrase ever in British English. I would be familiar with "total loser". Is this a purely US term? Also, I think stone-cold would be hyphenated referring to a cup of tea being cold, but possibly not in "stone cold loser", right?

The adjective stone-cold is popular in colloquial AmE and in American culture. When you read at Wikipedia about the circus character called Stone Cold Steve Austin and the actor who plays him, you read that "in the WWF, Austin was repackaged as a short-tempered, brash and brazen anti-establishment antihero named "Stone Cold" Steve Austin," and perhaps that whole sentence tells you a lot about the kinds of people who especially love to (over)use the adjective stone-cold, lol. But in fairness even the rest of us use it too, on occasion. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

rox#English says:

Alternative spelling of rocks (“in sense of excelling, being great”)

Is that usage of quotation marks incorrect? Is a word missing? Should the page say:

Alternative spelling of rocks (in the sense of “excelling, being great”)?

i tried to fix it, but couldn't figure out how the quotation marks got there at all. Does that incorrect usage of quotation marks happen every time someone uses the Template:alternative spelling of?

{{alternative spelling of|en|rocks|rocks|in sense of excelling, being great}}

displays

Alternative spelling of rocks (“in sense of excelling, being great”)

Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --70.22.1.45 14:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the template adds the quotation marks, which is how it should be when used as intended. Just leave out  ‘in (the) sense of ’, which is already implied, and also turn the gloss into an active verb form to get ‘Alternative spelling of rocks (“excels, is great”)’.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The definitions here are very grandiloquent, often to such an extent as to be indecipherable. Also, as someone mentions on the talk page, it is unclear which definition refers to the sin of pride. 90.167.177.172 15:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I've revised the first two senses so that "the quality or state of being proud" is the first sense and then "reasonable self-esteem" and "haughtiness" are distinct subsenses; they had been muddled together. More work may be needed. Some dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster, also consider pride in oneself ("he felt pride as he held the trophy") and pride in others ("his family felt pride as they watched him hold the trophy") different senses. - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Doubting the utility of the usage notes here: they seem to have been "written for the joy of writing" rather than to help anyone with anything. Look at page edit history for some fun. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:681F:5455:5502:BA83 20:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No, what prompted it was to help with the descriptive defense against the fussy proscription. I was just annoyed when I was writing that earlier draft. I've fixed it by cutting it back to pure NPOV. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

E.g. here or

• 2012 May 1, Liam Houlihan, Return To The Badlands: Twelve Enthralling True Cases Of Crooks, Cults And Crackpots, Melbourne Univ. Publishing, →ISBN:

  I can say what I like now because I am mental and I can't get done for it.

meaning, as best I can tell, "can't get in trouble for it". Do we already cover this somewhere? If not, where should we cover it? - -sche (discuss) 23:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Green's slang dictionary has a number of senses of done that we don't have, with citations/examples. You can get at it via “done”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. One sense is "punished". DCDuring (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Inpacod2 (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The easy way out is to classify it as Phrase.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

A common usage that makes more sense of Latin meaning would be "incertae sedis in family/order/class/phylum X" rather than what we have as usage example. Even when used without such an explicit qualifying phrase, it is usually clear what higher taxon is meant.

'Adjective' would be more consistent with, for example, the PoS of Translingual specific epithets (eg, eponyms, host organisms), that have the form of Latin genitives. DCDuring (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe label it as "attribute"? Imbricitor (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Lots of Old/Middle English quotes here needing rehousing... Phacromallus (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this diff all right or too confusing? Inpacod2 (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Separately, I wonder whether this is right: "body parts used in sexual reproduction or sexual stimulation" would seem to include, say, hands. (But we have much the same wording at sex organ!) Is there a way this could be worded better? - -sche (discuss) 06:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I changed "used in" to "responsible for". Slightly clearer, although could still be criticised along the same lines. This, that and the other (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Can someone provide evidence that this word actually means the same as english evict (fourth signification)? Imbricitor (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Imbricitor it's best to place requests for evidence at WT:RFVI. Gaffiot has "4 évincer, déposséder juridiquement qqn de qqch" with a reference to Ulpian's Digesta. This, that and the other (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

(Notifying Benwing2, GianWiki, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma, Catonif, Trimpulot, Emanuele6): What, if anything, is the difference between etiologia and eziologia? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

None, first one is slightly less common now. Catonif (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say that etiologia simply represents an obsolete spelling of eziologia, as with all the Latin -ti- sequences which evolved into -/t͡sj/- sequences. GianWiki (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it, but that's not the case. The ti spelling was most common until the 1940s. It's an attempt to be closer to the Greek etymon's pronunciation which we recently ditched. Catonif (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I was wondering whether the general sense and the medical sense of aetiology were distinguished in Italian. But apparently not. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this really phonemically distinct from /ˈfluːɪd/? I know some systems treat /uː/ as /ɪw/ or something similar, but it's unclear what /ˈflɪu̯ɪd/ is supposed to represent and I don't think it matches the usual phonemic transciptions we use. Horse Battery (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

is a dialectal variant of /juː/, not /uː/, for example in new york

most british dictionaries give /uː/ after /l/, even when historically it was /juː/, as in lewd, but in conservative dialects outside rp you'll still find /juː/

you'll need an older dictionary to determine whether /ˈfljuːɪd/ is an established pronunciation, but i suspect that it is kwami (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

There are accents, including I think conservative varieties Welsh English, where the "ew" vowel is pronounced /ɪu̯/ even in contexts where most accents (including RP) have merged it with /uː/. Such accents distinguish chews /t͡ʃɪu̯z/ from choose /t͡ʃuːz/, which are homophones in most accents of English (even the most stodgy, old-fashioned RP). Such accents would then also have /ˈflɪu̯ɪd/ and /flɪu̯t/ for fluid and flute. See w:Phonological history of English consonant clusters § Yod-dropping. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the information, I've added some pronunciation labels Horse Battery (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

i grew up pronouncing this as 'lin', however i just saw a math video where it was pronounced 'lon', which i don't think i've ever heard before.

i've looked it up in multiple dicts, and none give a pronunciation.

i'm curious now how widespread my pronunciation is, and how many others may be out there. do we have sources for pronunciation? kwami (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: when I was studying maths in school, it was pronounced /lɔːn/ (a homophone of lawn). — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Sgconlaw, do you have the caught-cot merger? kwami (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: don't think so … — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have never heard any pronunciation besides "L-N," but wouldn't be surprised if there were many idiosyncratic local pronunciations of these mathematical abbreviations. Hftf (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a video on YouTube by Professor Hafner, a prof at Rice University, who's running a channel offering free freshman physics courses, where he even went into some drama about this, and tried to explain. Basically he said the same as @Sgconlaw, initially high school math teacher thing, yet he was adamant ever since about sticking to it himself. So it's probably not as "correct" as just folksy, but continues to haunt people, including actual physicists. His channel has literally hundreds of videos, don't ask me which it is, guess I only remember because it's the first time I heard about it myself. As for regionality: can't say whether Hafner is a Houston or Texas native. -2001:9E8:6AA7:C800:A2BF:28C0:9A01:A41D 14:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

on youtube, besides -- or in dialects with the pin-pen merger, -- i'm finding , , and once in what sounds like a northern UK accent. i wonder if the ~ variation is a US ~ UK thing. kwami (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

I just added an entry for reading nook. However, it's my first entry written from ground up - please, can somebody look at this and tell me what I did wrong? I suspect I could do wrong a thing or two, but I dunno which ones? ;-)

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a very cute and nice entry. You may only be at risk of the "SoP" (sum of parts: that is: a type of nook, used for reading, in the same way that we might not have an entry for, say, a "baseball basement"). Can't be fcked with it really. Best of luck lol. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1D1B:AB3B:282E:BA18 09:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Where or by whom is this pronounced IPA^(key): /-paʊ/? It's closer to the Chinese pronunciation, but my understanding based on prior discussions was that at least in the West, English exclusively uses spelling pronunciations (or, pronunciations that re-map aspiration distinctions to voicing) in which pinyin b is pronounced /b/. - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a passage in a book published in 1945 that explicitly calls a word obsolete:

When Horace Greeley failed to join in the clamor, pointing out that the farmers had grievances, his own party turned on him. His espousal of Free Soil and Anti-Rentism made him guilty, in the opinion of the Whig New York Express, of "Fourierism, agrarianism and infidelity"—meaning denial of God. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You're misreading it. The word infidelity has a number of senses, so it would be natural to gloss it to be clear which sense was meant. That's not to say that the sense in question isn't obsolete- just that the quote you gave doesn't explicitly say so. Determining whether a term is obsolete is tricky: it can be obsolete in some regions or parts of society, but alive and well in others. This is especially true of closed groups with their own in-vocabulary, such as some religions or professions. Think about all the times you've seen or heard someone using a term you never knew existed- for you, it might as well be obsolete, but for the people using it, it's definitely not. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. On the other hand, can we show that any contemporary dialects use this word in this way? The third meaning has a quote from the seventeenth century, not the twentieth or twenty-first. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could get the original citation from the New York Express from, say, Google News or Hathitrust. That would have a relevant date. It would help also to have a citation that unambiguously supports the plausible "denial of God" meaning, which this one does not quite do. It is only by noting facts such as that Greeley was a universalist and that he had questioned the appropriateness of having a chaplain for the US House of Representatives that one can infer that the infidelity might well be to God not his wife. DCDuring (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

By the end of the 19th century, the term in the sense of lack of an approved religious belief is still easily found in published books. After that, it is hard to find. Unfortunately, the "Custom range..." time-range feature of GBS has stopped working, making an intensive time-focused search impractical.

The term is used in the title of the book The foundation of God: or, The Bible versus infidelity. While it has no publication date; WorldCat dates it as 19—, and archiv.org has 1948. A listing on Biblio.co.nz has "No date, about 1950 or so." Based solely on the typography, I'd say this is post-WWII. It may have been a last gasp.  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

So, label as dated or obsolete? Were those reprints or new editions of older works? DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Several of the late 19th-century uses I found were in what seemed to be original publications, but I ave not thoroughly investigated this. Interestingly, The foundation of God: or, The Bible versus infidelity contains this sentence:

“Infidelity is dead and damned,” we are told, and these men and women look upon such a title “The Foundation of God,” or the “Bible Versus Infidelity” as not alone being obsolete, but a title that is so out of harmony with modern thought that it is well nigh antediluvian! 

So perhaps not label as dated or obsolete, but as well nigh antediluvian?  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

7. (informal, real estate) A townhouse.

I've never heard this. It sounded to me like jargon used by real estate agents/realtors, so I added a "real estate" label. But the two quotations are from Toronto. Is it a Canadian usage? This, that and the other (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I live in the US, and I've heard it here. Leasnam (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

We define this as:

1. (now archaic, historical, often plural) A border region, especially one originally set up to defend a boundary.
2. (historical) A region at a frontier governed by a marquess.
3. Any of various territories with similar meanings or etymologies in their native languages.

   Juan's companion was a Romagnole, / But bred within the March of old Ancona .

Is sense 3 really a different sense from sense 1? - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparently not. From Wikipedia’s March of Ancona:

The March of Ancona (Italian: Marca Anconitana or Anconetana) was a frontier march centred on the city of Ancona and later Fermo then Macerata in the Middle Ages.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 20:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

SOP put as a phrase. I smell bullshit Worm spail (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're arguing. I added this entry when I encountered it in normal English text and saw our dictionary was missing it. Hftf (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm from the school of thought supporting the statement "a phrase is more than one word" Worm spail (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

ruok? mego – afaict we have plenty of one-word phrases, dafuq? (YOLO, MAGA, etc.) So your argument: vacat, nonconstat, and idgi. Q.E.D. elmo, dayenu, and goodnight, gnomesayin? Hftf (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Chang'd to prepositionWorm spail (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you want the acronym POS (part of speech) there instead of SOP (sum of parts) Horse Battery (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The second etymology of miosis looks suspiciously like the first meaning of meiosis. Is "miosis" just a variant spelling of "meiosis"? Jan R Müller (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It was a variant spelling in 1642, when the citation quoted at miosis#Etymology_2 was written (English spelling standardization was young and incipient back then), but today it would be viewed as a homophone error in formal writing, as judged by most teachers or editors, who would uphold the spelling difference reserving the (now conventional) spellings to the respective homophones, which I've no doubt is why it was entered at miosis#Etymology_2 as "doublet of meiosis" at the etymology rather than "alternative spelling of meiosis" at the def line. From this viewpoint it is a formerly alternative spelling of meiosis, not a currently accepted one. Meanwhile, though, myosis is today still held to be an accepted spelling variant of miosis (but not of meiosis, though). These conventions are inherently arbitrary, but then so is lead (Pb) versus led (pp), which is likewise routinely enforced today albeit perhaps not so much in the 17th century. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia article on Jack Teixeira, which claims without evidence that his name is pronounced (/teɪˈʃɛərə/ tay-SHAIR-ə) is edit-protected, presumably so that a coterie of editors in favour of war in the Ukraine can control the context, I looked at Wiktionary, where the pronunciation in Portugal (similar to what is stated in Wikipedia) is given, but no attempt at showing the US pronunciation was given until I added it. I don't think it is necessarily the case that everyone of Portuguese descent with this surname in the US will have the same pronunciation, as some people adapt to American English more than others. But at https://abcnews.go.com/US/pentagon-leaker-jack-teixeira-speaks-prison-1st-time/story?id=122050062 there is a news report on his interview with ABC News from behind prison bars. The broadcaster pronounces his name with a /ks/, and the clip also shows at 00:31 that Teixeira himself was asked by the prison phone system to state his name - and it is /'tɛksɛərə/, with the accent on the 1st syllable by the way. Amazing how Wikipedia is controlled by people who simply don't know.... I have inserted the correct pronunciation on Wiktionary, but don't know how to do the formatting correctly. If anyone can correct, please do.

The recording you provided is actually accented on the second syllable. Have a listen to it again. Hftf (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

corrected, but this isn't a conspiracy - articles like this attract a lot of trolls kwami (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, thank you for changing that. But you have to be extremely blinkered to say "this isn't a conspiracy - articles like this attract a lot of trolls". The thing is, there is often a divergence of views on current affairs. That is in fact how it should be. The people you regard as trolls are people you disagree with. Wiktionary is controlled by people who can charitably be described as left liberals, insisting on their narrative on everything. This is not exactly an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. And neither is it the case that only extreme views are banned. The views enforced on that site are themselves fairly extreme - of the DEI, woke, transgenderist variety. 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 19:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. I've changed the stress in the Wiktionary article. 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 19:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Quite a few speakers referring to quite a few different Teixeiras (occasionally themselves) say the name at Youglish; I've added all the pronunciations that seemed common (or at least, not uncommon). - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It says that passive in "impassive" means "to express the suffering or feeling". However, "passive" is not a verb, and we have no sense of "passive" anything like this. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:207D:EC02:C47E:6554 19:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

One of the meanings of Latin passivus is “subject to passion or emotion”. Presumably, English passive had also still that meaning at the time impassive was formed.  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the etymology, which incorrectly defined passive as a verb rather than as an adjective. @Lambiam is correct; among the meanings of passive mentioned in the OED (and not yet in our entry) are the following: "which is, or is capable of being, acted on; (obsolete) which suffers, or may suffer, pain, death, etc." These no doubt derive directly from the Latin word passivus. Thus, something which is impassive is incapable of being acted on or incapable of suffering, so to speak. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

is this really jukujikun? for something to be labeled as jukujikun, I'd expect it to at least make some sort of sense — and this doesn't. the characters 甲 'shell, no. 1' and 斐 'elegant' don't feel like they're chosen for their meaning here — at least not at first, maybe 'no. 1' and 'elegant' does make some sense as 'worth (to do something)'.

I think this isn't jukujikun though, but ateji. 甲 is こう now, but it used to be かう. 斐 is ひ, and the old pronunciation of 甲斐 was かひ. (this feels similar to 由比ヶ浜, which is ゆいがはま, or 難波, read なにわ.) mati ★ (talk · contribs) 22:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

On the page for Odisha, the IPA transcription for the Indic pronunciation is written as /oː.ɖɪˈʃaː/. However, can we verify this? Neither Hindi nor Odia (the languages whence the English word Odisha comes) have stress on the final syllable or a retroflex voiced plosive for their respective terms of Odisha. Wouldn’t it be something closer to /oː.ɽɪ.ʃaː/, or /oɽisa/ (as found on ଓଡ଼ିଶା)? Sumxr (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

A few years ago, I got in a conversation with a drunk on the street. The fentanyl crisis came up, to which they replied, "Yeah, but if you think fentanyl is bad, boxazin is worse", but I haven't found anything about it on Wikipedia, search engines, or otherwise. Of course, I must have heard or spelled it wrong, but in any case, if anyone can help me, you can. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Shushimnotrealstooge: pentazocine? propoxyphene? (less likely) viloxazine? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:449D:665:DCB5:1EC 17:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe they were saying that Boxazin (a brand of aspirin) is worse in the sense that it doesn't relieve their pain, whereas fentanyl does. DCDuring (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The latest edition of Green's Dictionary of Slang came out in 2010. While it has entries for "douche" and "douchebag", it doesn't have an entry for "liberal douche" as distinct from an apolitical, insufferable person. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Surely it's SOP as liberal + douche. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yup, agree. @Shushimnotrealstooge: we don't include entries for terms which are sum-of-parts. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure? Know Your Meme of all websites documented an idiomatic meaning from as early as 2009! http://web.archive.org/web/20120329095628/http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/liberal-douche-garofalo You would expect someone to call a person a liberal douche, but not a "conservative douche" or even a "Democratic douche". Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The existence of that meme does not imply that the meaning of "liberal douche" isn't deducible from the meanings of "liberal" and "douche". And I can find plenty of examples online of people calling someone "conservative douche" or "Democratic douche". —Mahāgaja · talk 17:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

RfD'd at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#liberal_douche. Voltaigne (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted @JMGN's edit on as because the user's sentence example was ungrammatical. The sentence example was "I'm working. But at the same time as I work, I'm exercising too," and the definition was "at the same time that, during the same time when: while." Substituting "at the same time as" with just while or as alone sounds better; substituting the word as in that sentence with its entered definition makes obvious the sentence's ungrammaticality: "I'm working. But at the same time I work, I'm exercising too." I understand substitution tests don't always work, but I think it's a good rule of thumb. When I reverted the user's edit, I gave a reason; when they reverted mine, they did not.

They also made an ungrammatical sentence example on the same page before, when they entered "I know you don't like it, as I don't either" (we talked about this on my talk page and on the talk page of as). As and either don't sound so well together in that sentence example. On so, a different page, some example sentences also suffered from this issue: they were either ungrammatical or did not use the word in a way that neatly matched the definition provided in the entry. And some were probably added in by @JMGN. My personal opinion is that if @JMGN is not entirely sure how a word should be used in example sentences, they should not be adding any to its entry page because naturally, it'll confuse a future searcher who would want to see how the word is used.

The following is somewhat off-topic, but I've also noticed that the user adds large amounts of topics to the talk pages of entries, most of which are either questions that've already been covered in the definitions of the main page (or on some other page), or are not questions about the entry but are instead just them saying some grammatical point. Take the talk page of return, for example. Here, they just post some grammar info, but it doesn't seem like they're trying to point out something wrong with the main page. On the same page, they ask the meaning of the usage of return in many happy returns, but they also link the entry page in the topic title, which would've answered their question. (It's a noun becuse many is a det. and happy is and adj.) On some talk pages, the user has been making topics for years, also confusingly signing themselves as @Backinstadiums, for example in the talk page of well.

Am I just overreacting with the talk pages thing? Am I wrong about those sentences' grammaticality?

Edit: Noticed that they added more sentence examples since they reverted my edit...
23:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

My two cents (native AmE speaker): in fairness to the "as I work" example, it is not unidiomatic, even if it's not someone else's preferred phrasing. It could be replaced with a still-better choice, but it's not wrong, descriptively. The example with "as I don't either" is weak, though, because it's not really how a native speaker today would express that thought. Not gratingly so; but a native speaker today would sooner say "and neither do I", or "and I don't either", or "and I dislike it just as much". Best for WT usexes to be comfortably/well within the range of modern idiomatic norm rather than at the edge. For anyone editing en.WT as an ESL speaker, please keep in mind that if the usex you added gets edited by someone else, you should err on the side of deferring to a good-faith edit rather than being miffed and reverting it. As for the talk threads: as long as they're not hurting anything, best just to let them lie there unanswered, I'd say. The critique above offers JMGN a chance to take it under consideration for the future. HTH. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This user has been problematic for quite a long time. They've been trying to learn English by doing massive amounts of research in authoritative sources, which only goes so far.

Explaining English syntax completely is a major unsolved problem in linguistics that has attracted some of the best minds in the field. A lot of good work has been done- but even the best and most recent is still a work in progress. English represents the collision of Germanic and Romance languages and the loss of a great deal of inflectional morphology accompanied by the reworking of the entire syntactic structure. The influence of substrata in many regional varieties worldwide and extensive social changes mixing up the sociolinguistics has compounded this. The language is notoriously difficult for non-natives to master well.

This person is very proud of the work they've done, and takes every opportunity to show it off. They ask a lot of questions on entry talk pages that are pointless for native speakers and confusing for non-natives. They add lots of material from their sources that doesn't make much sense outside of its context in those sources, and they add the usage examples at issue here.

The unavoidable fact is that, for all but a few special people, near-native competence in speaking another language only comes from lengthy exposure and a lot of practice with good feedback from others who know the language. Passive comprehension is much easier, but still has its pitfalls.

This user just doesn't realize how far they are from that goal, and their insistence on showing off what they've learned has led to many embarrassing gaffes on their part, and their participation on talk pages and in discussions can be grating and annoying. Recently, Equinox responded to one of their pointless talk-page queries by asking if they were autistic. It would be inappropriate to try to diagnose, but- whatever their problem may be- they need to realize how far they are from near-native competence in English and stop embarrassing themselves with failed attempts like their usage examples to show it off. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Well put. I had not realized the magnitude of the problem with this user, JMGN, in particular. JMGN, you should consider collecting these thoughts in your userspace first, by default, then thinking twice or thrice before taking them anywhere else. You don't have to not jot them down — not at all — instead, merely first put them in a place specific to you alone, and then filter them such that only their best highlights escape that holding pen. Quercus solaris (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, JMGN ought not be reverting edits (even reversions and deletions) of their contributions to running English text, whether in definitions or usage examples. Both definitions and usage examples are (the only) outposts here of prescriptivism with respect to grammar and word choice. The justification is that adhering to a contemporary standard will make it easier for the broadest group of normal users to understand the definition or usage. DCDuring (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Since the revert, they've added on as, "the flight might be late, as happened yesterday, so I've brought snacks and drinks for as many people as need it," with the odd "as need it" part at the end. Can a literal native speaker not override the opinion of a (supposed) non-native? (I mean, it says their L1 is Spanish.)

Another criticism to them is it seems that other people have commented on their large additions to talk pages and their edit-warring on the user's own talk page and they just delete it after. I don't know if you're allowed to do that, but it makes it harder to see any criticism that someone might have had against them. That doesn't seem fair to me.

Finally, the user has thousands of edits on various pages. Who knows how may erroneous definitions or usexes they've put because they might've not had a native understanding of the entry.

01:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring food for as many people as want it. https://i.imgur.com/3Q8iPvQ.jpeg JMGN (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 But at the same time as... https://imgur.com/SrfIllD JMGN (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"But as ..." or "But while". DCDuring (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring At the same time as is used used 5 times in the CGEL:

Sheep and goats turned up on Timor at the same time as/*that did the dingo

I left at the same time as Pat (did/left)

the eating and reading were taking place at the same time as each other

taking place at the same time as something specified

in the same way / at the same time as that

JMGN (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

So? In the example given, it seems stilted, as does the eating and reading were taking place at the same time as each other, for which I'd say, for at the same time as each other, simultaneously or at the same time. That the meaning and grammar are correct does not mean that the expression is natural to a native speaker. I'm sure I could eventually find a quote somewhere in CGEL (2005) to that effect. DCDuring (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring BTW,the Anglosphere and its native speakers do not own the English language any more: plurilingualism. JMGN (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Then don't bother citing authorities like OED and CGEL (2005). DCDuring (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe these are the cases where it is "grammatically correct" but "unnatural" for a native. There are tons of cases like that. Anyway, if it's unnatural, it's best not in the dictionary, I think.

The sentences here that you've put still sound odd to me though. Sentence 1 doesn't need the verb at the end; same with sentence 2. Sentence 3 is just oddly formed. Yes, it's totally grammatical, but no one would form the sentence like that unless there's special emphasis on the act of eating or drinking in context. I think it'd be much natural to say, "they ate and drank at the same time." The "as each other" bit, sure, but again, kinda redundant.

It seems "at the same time as" sounds okay when the complement of as is a (pro)noun but not a clause. So "same time as him" is okay, but *"same time as he did" is not. As for why they're being used in the CamGEL or in Swan (2017) or in English WordReference instead of more natural-sounding sentence, honestly I don't know.

Also, I think the word is lingua franca, not plurilingualism.

14:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"They ate and drank at the same time and both nearly choked." There are so many ways to create garden-path sentences or merely ambiguous ones. DCDuring (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

How can we stop this... 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5D6:19D8:A6C5:35CB 20:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Now an extent is a point? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5CB5:B3CC:2D66:8AC5 12:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Confident to the point/extent of being fatuous. JMGN (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Point works; extent doesn't. These at least aren't exact synonyms. 13:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 Literary? Granted, it's been a century

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+the+extent+of+being%2C+to+the+point+of+being&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true JMGN (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 Yet again

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+the+extent+that%2Cto+the+point+that&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 JMGN (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

...Or not. Idk. I was wrong I guess. Where do we put the new entry, because maybe it's true that to the extent and to the point are similar, but the word point and extent on their own are almost opposites. It'd be misleading to say that these words by themselves are synonyms. 13:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Man, I was just about to edit to cross out what I said to replace it with "Actually, the two might be valid, just that I'd say point instead of extent. Somebody else might say extent," but you edited while I was editing and it gave me a edit merge page when I pressed submit. Anyway, the suspicion is confirmed: they're both "correct", but one is used far more than the other. I'm wondering what page we'd enter this in.

13:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I hate to pile on, but I don't think equate and comport are really synonyms, either. I can see how someone would read our definitions as being somewhat synonymous, but to my understanding something like How ill this dullness doth comport with greatness. is about dullness (not) being compatible with greatness, whereas if you equate dullness with greatness, you are saying that dullness is not merely compatible with greatness but is greatness (or is, in and of itself, equivalent to greatness). Am I misunderstanding or should we undo that edit (and maybe improve the definition of comport)? - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@-sche Their accounts of the incident seem to equate (with each other), but don't comport with the established facts. JMGN (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The current definitions suggest that equate (def 1) is definitely not comport (def 2). They don't even have the same transitivity. A person can equate thing A with B, and thing A can conform with thing B. But there's nuance because A agreeing with B or being in accord with B (or supporting the notion, claims, etc. of B) does not mean that A is also B. Yes the meaning is similar but definitely not the same. 21:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 Best I can furnish:

(a) http://web.archive.org/web/20200712133431/https://www.oed.com/oed2/00045766

AND (b) http://web.archive.org/web/20200712155843/https://www.oed.com/oed2/00077203 JMGN (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the senses have changed too much, unless you want to add the obselete senses in. 22:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The user continues expeditiously making a silly number of edits and reverts, adding example sentences that, for the key purpose of demonstrating a word's usage, are quite unnatural or lacking in practical context or may even not be grammatical as well as many problematic synonyms that aren't really synonyms . Providing an example or a screenshot from a trusted source when challenged indeed does minimally help us understand where they are coming from (especially with few edit summaries), but ultimately the fact that two words can be used in similar slots in similar contexts with similar meanings is not really sufficient to list them as synonyms. I don't have time, interest, or patience in sorting through arguments why these sort-of synonyms don't really apply like -sche has done, though, but please continue reviewing the contributions. Hftf (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hftf (1) He took me into his confidence si perfectly grammatical (as in in confidence), (2) This morning the icy wind (that) bit to the bone is a typo salready fixed, which happens to the best of us, believe you me (3) Tell us why He continued to protest his innocence is not a (near-)synonym of to aver, to maintain as true., I'm all ears. JMGN (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@JMGN, on sentence (1), the set phrase is in confidence. Set phrases aren't so maleable. For example, we often say, "no matter what" but if I change the determiner no with any, it's ungrammatical (*"any matter what"), just like swapping the adposition in that phrase and then adding a possessive determiner is also ungrammatical. Any person, regardless of if they were familiary with the idiom in confidence, would interpret the sentence as if the speaker were erroneously trying to treat the word confidence as some physical location. This is because into is an adposition that typically implies movement towards the inside of an object. Clearly confidence is not a phyiscal location, so it is not correct in meaning (#"He took me into his confidence").

In addition to this, if the word confidence actually means any of the meanings listed in its entry, then it further suggests that sentence (1) makes no sense. Compare the dubious or odd sentences:

1. He took me into his self-assurance.
2. He took me into his feeling of certainty.
3. He took me into his information held in secret.
4. He took me into his boldness.

12:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

(1) I wasn't saying that it's ungrammatical, it's that it's a sentence that barely helps (non-JMGN) readers at all, as likely the first thing they'll do is try slotting the first gloss into the bolded word, resulting in "He took me into his feeling of certainty" or then "He took me into his firm trust or belief" or "He took me into his faith," none of which sound any bit natural or elucidate the sense. You also reverted (2) among other fixes of your typos for some reason within minutes so it would be beneficial to be less trigger happy. (3) The word protest here means to assert in the face of some required disbelief or accusation, and connotes repeated, desperate, or emotional denial due to the speaker not being believed, while affirm does not require any of that, making it not a synonym.

I repeat that finding an example where one word is able to slot in place of another word really just doesn't work as a sufficient test of synonymy. Unless it's a nuanced or obscure sense or a deadass oversight, native speakers protesting that X isn't perceived as a synonym of Y should be trusted to some extent. Hftf (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

My counter to sentence (3):

Protesting something is when you don't agree with something, so you go out to the street, or try to make some vocal statement regarding your opinion against that thing (it's mooore or less like this). Now, none of what I just said included "to aver or to remain as true," so... there you go. Affirm is like confirm. I mean, the definition speaks for itself... 12:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 protest reads:

2. (transitive) To affirm (something) I protest my innocence.

JMGN (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 Do something to it too then. JMGN (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm telling you, @JMGN, protest doesn't not mean affirm. Protesting someone's innocest actually implies the opposite. ...Nevermind. Did not see that. Surely that's not a common meaning of it, right? The next meaning is literally "to object to"; they sound like opposites. 12:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hftf How are them crickets faring so far? https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk:must-see#Pronunciation JMGN (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

MW says _MWˈməst-ˈsē. I thought it would've been like ˈ ˌ as in must-have (_MWˈməst-ˌhav). 15:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Why are you expressing this message here? Is something wrong? Hftf (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hftf I'm still waiting a response, it's only fair: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2025/June#c-Hftf-20250707112500--sche-20250706193600 JMGN (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

What does this thread have anything to do with that? I asked there for a cite of information you provided, which you provided, thank you, and voiced simply that as a native speaker I would find the provided stress unnatural (see also ). Why is any response from me necessary?

If you're spamming talk pages trying to make fetch happen, please don't also spam at people in other unrelated fora to demand answers in unrelated fora, this feels like starting drama. Hftf (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I think a warning is due to the above user for deleting other users' talk-page messages they don't like without explanation and for whatever weird tit for tat placed in the wrong forum is going on above . Let's make sure to please not continue doing this in the future. Thanks Hftf (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@JMGN, are you sure it's okay to just delete others' answers to yours if you don't like it? ...in a talk page? I mean, you did the same thing with that one IP user, and now the above comment. I'm not well versed on all the rules of Wiktionary / Wikipedia, but I have a feeling that doing something like that is probably an easy way to get your editing priviledges restricted, especially if you're just doing it without putting a reason in your edit summary... 22:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 protest STILL reads:

2. (transitive) To affirm (something) I protest my innocence.

But you did revert my edit though, dincha? Some fine lexicologist you are! https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?diff=85476615 JMGN (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

You could put it back. I said this after having reverted your edit, so if you reverted my edit at any point from when I said that to now, I wouldn't have had an issue with it. I was quick to revert, and that was unneeded, but in my defense for the confusion, protest (object) and protest (affirm) are very unalike. 00:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

(I edited in the strike through at that time, I mean.) 00:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm not going to revert it, but I still think the "he took me into his confidence" thing sounds a bit weird still. "He took me into his "? Surely that can't be right?... 01:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 Who told you that substituting the wording of the abstractly concise sense definition is THE lexicographic criterion? Even so, rephrasing it appropriately would make it suitable sooner or later, smh... JMGN (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not, and I know, but I think it's a good rule of thumb. True synonyms usually can replace their counterpart synonym anyway, even phrases too. Anyway, something's wrong with that sentence. Either it's the sentence doesn't belong under that sense, or it's the fact that you changed the idiom from (what you claim it is) "in confidence" to "into his confidence," or maybe the whole phrase "take (someone) into one's confidence" should be made as an idiom, like it is in Cambridge Dict. In fact, I think the last idea is the best because... that phrase fits the criterion of an idiom. 01:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I see them adding lots of synonyms/pseudo-synonyms in level 4-5 headers below headwords (instead of using {{syn}}) with multiple definitions without providing {{sense}}, {{senseid}}, {{t}} or some other necessary parameter; also confusing prepositional verbs with their plain counterparts (make is not make of!). Saumache (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache Elaborate on it further pal. JMGN (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@JMGN That's not the way to handle criticism when the whole world is against you, "pal". Saumache (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache All I see is hedging crickets, dawg. Back up your statements or refrain from spamming, daphuc ?! JMGN (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@JMGN

• for statement 1, indicate would be a good example, speak of doesn't work as a synonym for all five meanings, try to use {{syn}} as much as you can
• for statement 2, a sentence you thought was bailing you out in this self same thread: "I couldn't make/comprehend anything of her last remark." where the verb is indeed make of, not make, which you in fact put as synonym for comprehend

After having been checked back and forth, behaving as you do now will get you nothing but being banned, this is a collaborative project, and nobody wants saucy zoomers calling them ridiculous names. Saumache (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache Statements? We need links to what you are referring to. JMGN (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache Anyway, I see no "comprehend, understand" sense in make of. 2) REgarding the synonyms in indicate, that was there already: it was not me that created it (BTW, there are very many such cases in several entries, so I guess new meanings were added over time, but the synonyms section remain untouched, so that now there's a serious mismatch...) JMGN (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@JMGN statements are point a) and point b) I addressed in my first text.

interpret > understand, wiktionary pages are sadly not always the best sources, what sense at make were you even refering to when coupling it with comprehend?.

As for the synonym issue, I advise you to put synonyms under the correct definition, even when not yours; I myself am constantly bloting and sorting out synonym headers if need be.

P.S. after checking make out, the page does mention at sense 6. the meaning 'interpret' but redundantly stating "construed with of", to be cleaned up I guess. Saumache (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It's make something of. Hftf (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hftf @Saumache I see know. I was thinking of its variant not make anything of, negative-polarity you know. Regarding make "interpret", there is also the approach make (out) of... JMGN (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@JMGN well you see "know" that either way synonymy was wrong at comprehend and changed indicate for the better, so I hope you got the point this time. Saumache (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache Lets address the make (out) of issue, shall we? JMGN (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright, reviewing JMGN's last few edits,

• 1 was partly correct, right to add /pɹəˈpɪʃəs/ but wrong to remove /pɹoʊˈpɪʃəs/,
• 2 is correct

  (and indirectly highlights that our definition at favourable has room for improvement to make the meaning come across clearer: I feel like something needs to be added to the definition, maybe "advantageous"?),

• 3 seems wrong (vaulting optimism might happen to be overconfident in sense 1, but it seems incorrect to add vaulting as synonym of sense 2, "cocksure, rude and disrespectful"),
• 4 seems correct,
• 5 reverting another editor was plainly wrong, breaking the formatting and not a good synonym, either,
• 6 and 7 are largely correct (syn vs ant seem to be out of order, but Jeff's bot will fix that; and ending with |}} instead of }} is a substandard thing that, JMGN, you should please stop doing, even though it doesn't seem to actually cause any problems at this time because the modules are smart enough to ignore empty parameters),
• 8 seems fine, 9 is probably fine,
• 10 is perhaps technically not wrong, but I undid it because I think it's better to leave the mention of doubtless to the usage note, which covers its unusualness, rather than just list it as a usex,
• 11 is probably fine,
• 12 needed to be qualified, which I have taken care of, because it's not usual language anymore,
• 13 added various questionable (some seemingly wrong) synonyms to estimate, and the formatting is sloppy, having the last item in the list end with a comma as if more are to follow; I have revised the list;
• 14 is questionable because you can't really sub "put" into the usexes and cites listed for that sense, even though it is sometimes substitutable: I have tentatively switched it to {{cot}} + explanatory gloss;
• 15 is technically correct although I suspect the reason no-one had added it previously (AFAIK) is that the sense of quit which is the synonym is different than the sense that the definition "To vacate one's place of employment" would lead one to be thinking of,
• 16 seems to be correct, as does 17

  (which BTW indirectly highlights that our last definition of overtake should possibly be split into two senses ― if e.g. anger overtakes you, does this definitionally have to involve surprise, or can be be a straight synonym of overcome?

• 18 seems understandable but maybe an error (?): I can see why someone would think that the fact that the words can be interchanged in a variety of situations would make them synonyms, but it seems like their actual meanings are not synonymous...?
• 19 is correct,

  and highlights that our definitions of both total and make could probably stand to be improved (or at least better cross-linked to mention each other as {{syn}}s or {{cot}}s),

• 20 seems incorrect(?),
• 21 I'm unsure about: the words have similar senses but they're not always interchangeable grammatically, e.g. in the "X, appointed by Y to be Z, was..." usex you can't sub in make AFAICT,
• (22 is estimate which I mentioned earlier)
• and for 23, I think I may understand the thought process behind the edit (thinking of "what do you make of it?" type usage?) but it seems incorrect (?).

(I also spotted and undid this a little earlier.)
We all make mistakes―I had a brain fart earlier and capitalized cognomen in one of the many quotes I added to cognominal, which J3133 fixed two instances of, prompting me to fix the third―and I can see how JMGN might feel 'under attack' and perhaps that's prompting the somewhat rude cattiness above. Nonetheless, JMGN, you need to take to heart that multiple editors have identified that a concerning percentage of your edits have errors, and please try to do better. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@-sche Let's make/schedule a date for Friday. I make/estimate the value at $1,000. I couldn't make/comprehend anything of her last remark. What do you give/estimate for his chances of getting her back? Etc. JMGN (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Also regarding propitious, the LPD shows only my edit (regarding pro-, see https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk:pro-#Pronunciation). JMGN (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

-sche took the considerable time to review, in detail, quite a number of your contributions, and that's all you have to say? I'd urge you to stop picking at details, zoom out, look at the bigger picture of what people are trying to communicate to you, and then respond at that big-picture level. This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@This, that and the other To little avail? Waste of time. JMGN (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Get over yourself and stop wasting our time cleaning up your faulty edits that misunderstand synonyms and literal thousands of talk pages. Hftf (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hftf FMP, Torquemada. BTW, still crickets? JMGN (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Re propitious: I see. It is a understandable thought process, to check a reference work and, upon not seeing a pronunciation we list in it (and seeing some other pronunciation instead), remove the pronunciation; over the years, various editors have done that on various entries — and have sometimes been right, but have sometimes removed valid pronunciations (e.g. of azure), which other editors have only sometimes noticed the loss of and brought up for discussion and restoration, which is why it's not an ideal practice. I won't blame you for not knowing better; now you do. More generally, I do believe you're editing in the good-faith belief that your edits are correct (and some of them are), which is why I've been joining the other users here who are trying to help you get better at identifying which ones are not correct; the problem is that many of your edits are not correct, and many of your responses are coming off as rude or recalcitrant.
Today I noticed this, adding boom as a synonym of campaign "take part in a campaign", which I don't understand: I know a person might boom (speak loudly), or speak, or agitate, in favour of something they were campaigning for, but that doesn't seem to make boom mean or be synonymous with campaign (just like it doesn't make speak and agitate synonyms), and I don't see any definitions in our entries (or the OED's) that look like they make those words synonyms; what definitions of those words were you thinking were synonyms? I also noticed this, adding seede as a synonym of plant; assuming you meant seed, I'm not sure sense 1 of plant is a synonym of seed...? You seed (put plant seeds into) a lawn, but plant a plant (by putting it into a lawn, dirt, etc). This is interesting because it feels like it could be right (I'm familiar with the trope of people being 'so happy they could break into song'), but I can't find a sense of sing by which the words are actually synonymous. This also seems wrong. OTOH, other edits are fine (e.g. this seems close enough to count as a synonym).
In general, your (as you might put it: vaulting) assessment of your English abilities continues to exceed your actual English abilities. Given that, (and this comment I address to everyone here:) I'm not sure what to do here. Someone clearly needs to (and if I have time, I will) go through the user's edits to fix the erroneous ones, and as long as mainspace edits continue, that's an ongoing maintenance task, so I'm considering blocking JMGN from editing mainspace (leaving them free to continue editing and making suggestions/questions on Talk: and Wiktionary: space); does anyone have a better idea? - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@-sche Re pronunciations, all of a sudden attestations do not matter, so even if no lexicographical references are found (written material), it's O.K. to maintain them? This criterion seems to be in a flux.

2) "your edits are correct (and some of them are)" would entail that more than 50 % of them are wrong, which methinks a bit too many, even though admitteldy I am always hazarding a lexicographical reproach.

3) boom: campaign for vigorously (His followers are booming George for mayor)

4) seede is obviously a typo, as in we seeded this field with oats

5) wrong link...Please provide it asap!

6) strike/adopt/assume a pose/attitude: He likes to strike a noble pose.

7) Rather than nativenesss, this is an issue of lexicographical approaches, which in a communal project are gonna necessarily vary : https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315104942

8) I can instead suggest all potential edits, but I doubt somebody will care about hundreds of them a day...

JMGN (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Re: boom, I think it's a good idea to check whether we have a term - and more importantly, how we present it - before adding it as a synonym. We have this sense at definition 6: "(US, slang, obsolete) To publicly praise" (I've added "promote" to the sense, with a couple more cites - although I still don't think it's a synonym of campaign, I can see why someone might define it that way). I'd avoid adding obsolete slang as a synonym, at least to main entries, since it's more likely to confuse users than to help them (the only potential use case would be writing historical fiction). Properly labelled, obsolete slang could go in a Thesaurus page. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

One idea I had is having them add senseids to their links and having them at least place an exemplifying sample sentence in edit summaries, since the user takes an initiative in contributing mostly advanced idiomatic senses and knowing which word substitution exercise inspired their edit would save some of the back and forth as native speakers try to figure out why they think something is a synonym. Hftf (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hftf Take into account I've never created a new sense in any entry, not a single new definition, but rather tried to accommodate meanings to what is already there, when possible. JMGN (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@-sche They are still going on their editing spree without seemingly heeding our calls,

(: no senseid, linking back to pander on pamper nor corresponding senses found on either page for that matter; ; ), also adding obscure/wrong synonyms only over being thorough in their editing (; : how?). I'd wait and see what comes forth from them in the near future, blocking them from mainspace would do the trick. Saumache (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?search=senseid&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 JMGN (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Do we need a subscription to Grammarly to address pure grammar issues? Could we offer them our services flagging their mistakes or questionable calls? DCDuring (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's not just grammar issues; it's also meaning issues. A good portion of their errors stem from them making one word synonymous with another when they are actually near-synonyms or not actually related. Plus, as it seems, other people (excluding me) keep doing that—flagging their errors—but for some of the errors we flag, the user doesn't take it too kindly or just overrides our edits. | Languagelover3000 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I have recently created the Latin entry for Danaeius, as it is attested in Ovid's Metamorphoses. Based on the context and several online translations (as well as the interpretation of the word as Danae +‎ -ius), the word is generally agreed to refer to Perseus (son of Danae). However, one thing I've been having trouble with is finding out how to deduce the vowel length. I immediately went for Danaēius, since in Latin, Danae has a long vowel on the e (Danaē), and in -ius, all the vowels are short. However, this was merely a guess and I'm starting to doubt that this analysis is correct. Is there any way to correctly figure out the specific vowel length in this word (e.g. based on the meter), or is it just lost information?

In hindsight this looks like a really dumb question and it might be as simple as Danaē + ius, but I'm just unsure. Sumxr (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you can use scansion, and for a term like this, the first thing to look at is how it scans in Latin poetry. Resources to use: Hypotactic, PedeCerto. (They are not perfect, so use with caution, but they will help you get started.) Dictionaries also may have information: Lewis and Short is not very reliable for pronunciation, but Gaffiot 2016 in Logeion marks this word as ending in -ēĭus.--Urszag (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This word is listed under sao Hoả but I believe it should be under sao Hỏa instead. Danielklein (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this part of more general variation in the placement of tone markers? I don't know if it's correct, but Wikipedia says "In syllables where the vowel part consists of more than one vowel (such as diphthongs and triphthongs), the placement of the tone is still a matter of debate. Generally, there are two methodologies, an "old style" and a "new style". While the "old style" emphasizes aesthetics by placing the tone mark as close as possible to the center of the word (by placing the tone mark on the last vowel if an ending consonant part exists and on the next-to-last vowel if the ending consonant does not exist, as in hóa, hủy), the "new style" emphasizes linguistic principles and tries to apply the tone mark on the main vowel (as in hoá, huỷ)."--Urszag (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know which is why I asked here instead of changing it myself. If both are correct should there be two cross linked entries? I asked ChatGPT (yes, I know!) and it justified it like this. I don't know if its argument is sound.

You said:

Which is correct? "sao Hỏa" or "sao Hoả"? I'm seeing both on various websites.

ChatGPT said:

The correct spelling is: ✅ sao Hỏa — with the "ỏ" tone mark.

Why?

In Vietnamese, the word Hỏa (as in sao Hỏa, "Mars") comes from Sino-Vietnamese and means fire (火). The proper tone is the hỏi tone, marked with a "?"–like symbol above the vowel:

Hỏa = fire 🔥 → used in contexts like sao Hỏa (Mars), hỏa hoạn (fire disaster), hỏa tiễn (missile).

The incorrect form "Hoả" (with "ả") uses the ngã tone, which would change the pronunciation and is not correct in this context. Danielklein (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Even without knowing Vietnamese, I'm pretty certain ChatGPT is wrong here. The ngã tone is written with the diacritic ◌̃, not ◌̉. If you also don't know Vietnamese, you can look to Wiktionary:Vietnamese_entry_guidelines#Spelling for more information. It says "The lemma form of Vietnamese words in Wiktionary is the "modern" spelling: always writing i instead of y in monophthongs (mĩ instead of mỹ) and putting the tone accent on the second vowel in oa, uy, oe (khoẻ instead of khỏe)."--Urszag (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It's useless to ask ChatGPT anything, since anything it says could be right or wrong, and you don't know which without finding reliable resources and checking them — you save yourself time if you just check those to begin with. You might as well ask a coin. I just flipped one and it said Hoả was right and Hỏa was wrong. - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Are we missing a very basic sense here? The sense of equal used in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and "All animals are equal, but some are more equal that others." I don't think this is sense 1, where we currently have the quote - the American Founders did not believe all humans were the same in all respects, nor would "identical" be a valid synonym there. It's closer to sense 2, but we have that marked as a strictly mathematical sense at the moment. Should we have a "Having the same value and rights; neither privileged nor disadvantaged." to cover this and phrases like "equal rights" and "Everyone should be equal"? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The second equal in the Orwell example is a nonce meaning.

The wording for definition 1 seems wrong to me. How about something like "the same for some purposes or in some regard or aspect". Equality is always within some particular frame of reference. That includes the mathematical sense, IMHO. DCDuring (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. Merriam-Webster has "1b: like in quality, nature, or status. 1c: like for each member of a group, class, or society" (distinguishing the subsense used in all men are equal from the subsense used in equal employment opportunities); Dictionary.com has "like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc." and Cambridge has "the same in importance and deserving the same treatment" (combining the subsenses MW splits). I have tentatively added one sense covering both the men are equal usex/subsense and the "having the same rights" subsense. Please revise further if needed. I left sense 1 as it was because such a sense does seem to exist (in use and in other dictionaries) precisely in situations like the usex, "Equal conditions should produce equal results." - -sche (discuss) 16:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw no definition in any OneLook dictionary that agrees with our definition "The same in all respects". I don't see that the citations require such a definition. Is identical a synonym of equal? DCDuring (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The noun is based on this sense- "equal" is not the same as "twin". Chuck Entz (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The entry as currently written does indeed need some improvement. The first sense shouldn't simply portray the adjective "identical" as a first-listed synonym, as it currently does — better as cot or nearsyn, but not syn, because readers can too easily misinterpret that assertion as simple interchangeability , even if that notion (interchangeability) was not meant. It is descriptively true that sometimes someone says "equal" (adj) and means (in that instance) "fungible" and/or "not different in any way that matters." Meanwhile, though, as Smurrayinchester rightly pointed out, that is certainly not the sense that was meant by 18th-century thinkers or founders who stated famous concepts such as "all men are created equal" or ""liberty, equality, fraternity (liberté, égalité, fraternité)"; rather, they meant equality under the law, that is, having the same rights, thus not being second-class citizens or third-class citizens. But people with antidemocratic leanings often either honestly misapprehend (some of them) or dishonestly pretend (others of them) that those founding slogans were "obviously" stupidity or lunacy or idiocy (i.e., "it's obvious to common sense that people are not all the same, so 'therefore' small-d democratic thought is 'obviously' stupid, insane, or nefarious"). Thus, incompetent misinterpretation in some cases, and malevolently intentional misportrayal in others. Polysemy's a bitch in natural language, but we're stuck with it, and thus also with perennially disabusing such things. As for Wiktionary doing the latter, one of the senses entered for "equal" (adj) could perhaps be ""fungible; not different in any way that matters", which is not the same as "identical" although sometimes it is not different from "identical" in any way that is considered to matter (contextually). Quercus solaris (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC) Update: I tweaked it at the adjective POS accordingly. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, the changes look good. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there another pronunciation for 阜 beside fu4 ㄈㄨˋ? It appears "fou" was believed to be a pronunciation for the 阜 in Qufu, producing several variants like Ch'ü-fou (pinyin: Qufou). And this appears elsewhere that 阜 appears. The Fuping in Hebei has a variant spelling of "Fou-p'ing" (pinyin: Fouping)- see: pg 651 col 2. At https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&char=阜 I see: 扶缶切. Together, this all leads me to believe there is a variant pronunciation. But the variant pronunciation does not appear at the entry for 阜 (fù). Other Chinese characters have this same issue: 溪 (xī) as qi (ch'i) instead of xi as in Pen-ch'i, 埠 (bù) as fou instead of bu or fu as in Sungfow, 港 (gǎng) as jiang (chiang) instead of gang. And see K'o-shih (Keshi for Kashi). So, I plan to start a new section on the Talk pages of each of these characters to compile information about these ghost pronunciations until some "solution" can be made. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that the singular Ocimibundu should be Ocimbundu. The root is Mbundu, and there are versions of the common Bantu ki-/vi- prefixes, and the extra -i- seems 'obviously' a typo. One which unfortunately has propagated all over the Internet. WP has Ocimbundu as singular. But I'd like someone with a better knowledge of Bantu to confirm this. Hiztegilari (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

since shinjitai 余 maps to both kyuujitai 余 and 餘, what are the actual attested ways of writing these surnames in kyuujitai? (only the surnames are ambiguous; the "blessings, benefits" sense of 余沢 is a borrowing from literary chinese 餘澤.) -- also, 余澤 is either a kyuujitai entry or spelled in half-kyuujitai for some reason, depending. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 18:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Can we define this better? Sense 1 is "(British) A flat, round bread bun, usually containing currants, sultanas or peel and often served toasted and buttered with tea", but it seems like in both Britain and Ireland (0:35; by other speakers throughout the rest of the video) a wafer with marshmallow covered in chocolate (like this), whether called a "Tunnock's chocolate teacake" or "whippet", can also be a kind of teacake. (Something to cover in a separate definition, or by expanding the first one?)
Sense 2 is "(US) A traditional cookie", which seems vague (and probably also wrong, too narrow?). Wikipedia says "In the U.S. teacakes can be cookies or small cakes". One American friend I asked said "teacakes" could be "cookies, scones, or petit fours"; another said "small sweet cakes or petit fours, but not scones or cookies or biscuits".
Wikipedia also says: "In the Southeastern United States, a teacake is a traditional dense large cookie, made with sugar, butter, eggs, flour, milk, and flavoring." - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

In my experience (native AmE speaker), in my region this term is culturally a passive vocabulary item, not an active vocabulary item, but (at the same time) the compound is transparent enough that people can plausibly fill in the blank regarding what each person would predict that it would be or ought to be: some kind of baked good that would complement a cup of tea. This would explain why different AmE speakers in my region might give different answers. I see that MW defines it with senses of (1) a small flat cake usually with raisins or (2) a cookie. Supermarket bakeries in my region sell items matching sense 1 under the term "tea biscuit"; I don't remember ever seeing one labeled "teacake", but I also wouldn't be surprised if I ran across one labeled so sometime. FWIW, those tea biscuits are more biscuit than cake, using the terms as we usually use them here, where anything with "cake" in the name often tends to be sweet and dessertlike and things with "biscuit" in the name often tend to be more like this than like this. Meanwhile, the term coffee cake is active vocabulary where I'm from and has a pretty unified denotation here: it usually means something in the crumb cake category. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia there’s also a ‘Russian tea cake’, AKA ‘snowball cookie’ (though some people on the talk page simply refer to them as ‘snowballs’) or ‘butterball’, which is a still different type of baked good. Despite the name, it’s apparently an American term for an American food. Are you familiar with them? We could also specify where in England ‘teacake’ simply means ‘bread roll’ (‘bun’ seems to be a less good descriptor, as it’s only ever used to mean a roll/bap/cob/batch that’s been sweetened/spiced/seeded in my idiolect). That raises the questionː “Should we split sense 1 into 2 separate senses, create a subsense, or rely on tags or usage notes specifying ‘East Lancashire, West Yorkshire and Cumbria’ (the regions stated in Wikipedia) to do this?”. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

DARE has an entry for tea cake: "Chiefly Sth a cookie, usu of a delicate flavor and not heavily sweetened. Note: In many contexts it is impossible to determine what is meant by tea cake; only exx that clearly refer to a cookie are included here." Eleven examples follow. My personal experience accords with sun oak's. DCDuring (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

For the UK, I'd say the bun sense and the marshmallow sense are separate, with the marshmallow sense being more Scottish and the bun sense being more English. I'll add the Scottish sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

(I've split it according to two supersenses - a cake to be eaten with tea, and a cake flavoured with tea) Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A bit of digging confirms that the teacake is a plain cookie in the Southern US. I've tentatively added the "small delicate cake or pastry; petit four" definition as "chiefly US" too. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

In Standard Swedish, alltjämt means 'still, steadily'. Historically, it also meant 'always' (see SAOB) and still does in some regions. An example from Ostrobothnian Swedish (Finland): "he e alltjämt sama problem" (Standard Swedish: det är alltid samma problem 'it is always the same problem'). The entry currently only lists the former meaning. My suggestion would be to add the second, historical/dialectal meaning as well. Rodher617 (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a page hellgramite listing hellgrammite as an alternative pronunciation. However, hellgrammite is the spelling that renders more search results on Google, is used on Wikipedia, and is found on OED. Any reason for this? Should this be amended? Donopi (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I support swapping the direction of the cross-reference, per the reasons you cited. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been reading about hellgrammites from time to time for half a century, and I've never seen it spelled with one "m" except in our entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Ngrams agrees the two-m form is more common and always has been; I've swapped the entries. - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

"(law) Of information, a statement, etc.: not pertinent to a matter; irrelevant." This def is inadequate: the info, statement etc. has to be something injurious too, i.e. irrelevant and harmful. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9178:5BE6:BDEA:EDD5 18:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? The word certainly connotes that, but OED does not contain that qualification and defines scandal as "An irrelevancy or indecency introduced into a pleading to the derogation of the dignity of the court" . I added two quotations to the entry, but it is hard to tell from them whether some aspect of disgracefulness is a requirement for something to be legally deemed "scandalous". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Bouvier's law dictionary (US) has "MATTER, SCANDALOUS, equity pleading. A false and malicious statement of facts, not relevant to the cause. But nothing which is positively relevant, however harsh or gross the charge may be, can be considered scandalous." 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 4163.

This directly supports the challenge to the definition, as does common sense. Anything that is scandalous in this sense must be scandalous in the usual sense, but not vice versa. DCDuring (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The citations are hard for me to interpret as unambiguously supporting the definition because I cannot tell for sure which sense of impertinent is being used, "irrelevant" or "insolent, ill-mannered". DCDuring (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring: impertinent in those quotations seems to mean "not pertinent". — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe. DCDuring (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

OED's def cited above says "to the derogation of the dignity of the court". Again, we are missing that negative connotation. It seems that a mere irrelevancy like "the suspect was wearing a hat at the time!" (so what?) would not be scandalous. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9178:5BE6:BDEA:EDD5 21:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, Equinox, can you suggest an appropriate rewording? — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this a meaning that exists outside of legal proceedings? If not, then "information", "statement" are only assertions used in a judicial proceeding in evidence, testimony, or legal argument. That kind of limitation of scope should make the definition easier to understand. I don't think that this applies to something that insults the delicate sensibilities of the judge or jury, only to something derogatory or embarrassing, or possibly prejudicial, to one side or the other in the adversarial proceeding. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)