Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary talk:Hall of Fame. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary talk:Hall of Fame, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary talk:Hall of Fame in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary talk:Hall of Fame you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary talk:Hall of Fame will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary talk:Hall of Fame, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Archive
Some (mostly rather old) resolved threads, like suggestions for sections which were incorporated, are in this archive.
Misc suggestions
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Poking around online, I see the suggestion (which depends on the speaker's pronunciation of certain words) of cense, cents, scents, sense, since (and, if counting possessives, cent's), and a suggestion if homographs are allowed of rhos, roes, rose (flower), rose (rise), rows (not columns), rows (a boat), atop which one might consider Rose another word, one might be able to attest Ros with this pronunciation, and one might add possessives (rho's, roe's, row's, and Ro's). Chinese, of course, has a lot, and should probably be considered separately; I see the claim that "Chinese author Li Ao that yì" is the sound of 205 different words/characters, including 乂, 义, 亿, 弋, 刈, 艺, and 忆. - -sche(discuss)00:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Our entry for yì lists 228 characters, though many of those are rare characters, rare pronunciations of common characters, and/or bound morphemes. That entry omits the character 一, which is pronounced yì in certain phonological environments due to tone sandhi. —Granger (talk·contribs) 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
A bunch of those are just simplified or variant characters, and clearly don't represent separate words. And although I don't spot any mistakes offhand, those lists are of poor quality and frequently contain errors... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds01:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Etymologies
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Aha, there's "oka", which is English, from Italian, from French, from Turkish, where the Turkish is sometimes thought to be from Arabic, from Classical Syriac, from Greek, from Latin (so, it's seven steps removed from its etymon, without even going into the non-borrowing descent sequence: Latin from Old Latin from Proto-Italic from Proto-Indo-European). And "cukier" is Polish, from German, from Italian, from Arabic, from Persian, from Sanskrit (five steps, if that chain is correct). - -sche(discuss)07:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's very impressive, if it's right. Apricot seems to have gone from Italy to Turkey and then back across the Mediterranean to Spain (and then up towards England), but shaman is even more well-travelled. It could use some inline refs, though... I'll see what I can do. - -sche(discuss)01:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Most borrowings of the same word by the same language
Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion
The Narragansett term mishcùp (plural mishcùppaûog) was borrowed by English four times, as mishcup, scup, paugie, and scuppaug. (Even more impressively, the borrowings seem to have occurred over a relatively short timescale of no more than 200 years and quite probably less.) Are there other cases where one language has repeatedly borrowed the same word from another? If so, we could add a category. See also #etymologies, where we're looking for examples of long/convoluted etymology chains. - -sche(discuss)22:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Re your edit summary: well, English does tend to steal words for any things it doesn't have words for yet... and also for things it does already have words for (e.g. royal, regal on top of kingly)... it just eats everything in sight, really. :b However, I think mackle and macule — words with the same very specific printing-jargon meaning, same Middle French source, and same basic /mVkVl/ form — are probably just forms of one another, rather than distinct words, whereas malha(“mail”, from French) and malha(“stain in fur”, from Latin) seem like distinct words, so Portuguese and English are actually tied. Has Portuguese ever used the Italianate macchia? Does it have its own macula-derived native designation of scrubland? Then it could retake the lead... :b - -sche(discuss)06:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Century merges our (former) mail#Etymology 4 and mail#Etymology 2, and if both are (as they say) from the same Old French root, that seems reasonable. I meant does Portuguese have a native (non-borrowed) designation for scrubland? Maquis looks like a borrowing from French. In trying to track down the precise chain of descent for mascle, I've discovered that it, and possibly some of the other terms, may actually derive from mascula, from a Germanic source related to mesh. - -sche(discuss)09:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Interesting. That looks like another case (like English scup, etc) of repeat direct borrowing of the same word. I wonder if in such cases, it's that different communities of speakers borrowed the word in different ways / for different purposes, and then all of the borrowings became part of the language, or what. - -sche(discuss)09:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Every time Vietnam was conquered by China, the Chinese officials brought with them the Chinese pronunciation of the character at that time. Plus all the pronunciations brought there by the individual Chinese immigrants speaking all the different tongues... A similar thing exists in Chinese too - every time the remote area (say, Min) is reclaimed by the central regime or is populated by refugees from Central China due to famine or warfare, the officials and migrants bring their pronunciations with them, resulting in the Literary and colloquial readings of Chinese characters. Min is probably the hardest hit, having as many as 5-10 different layers of pronunciations of the same word, used in different circumstances. For example, Min Nan 生 (chheⁿ/chhiⁿ/seⁿ/siⁿ/seng), 旋 (chn̂g/chn̄g/sn̂g/soân/soan). Mandarin is no exemption, e.g. 落 (luò/là/lào/luō), although there was only one pronunciation in Middle Chinese. Wyang (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Mancha, mágoa, malha and mangra are all naturally inherited descendants. This is why I like this etymological chain so much: the word at the same time underwent and avoided four sound changes. This chain alone disproves the Neogrammarian hypothesis. — Ungoliant(falai)02:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Borrowing from different descendants of a proto-language intuitively feels different from borrowing (via whatever routes) from an attested language, although I suppose there's no real distinction (the word is making its way from the source language via various routes into the target language either way). There are probably a lot of examples of multiple borrowing from proto-languages; English has borrowed Appendix:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/s-la at least four times (probably more). - -sche(discuss)18:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Most pronunciations
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Impressive! Re Taipei/Zhangzhou: I conceived the section as a count of how many ways a term could be pronounced, so if it's pronounced identically in Taipei and Zhangzhou, I would think of that as one (or in this case eleven) pronunciation which is used in two places. (Traditionally, the formatting would also convey that, by labelling the pronunciation {{a|accent 1|accent 2}} rather than having separate lines.) But the Min Dong, Cantonese and Mandarin pronunciations bring the number up to 14. - -sche(discuss)06:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I don't know if this kind of thing could be clearly distinguished from merely "polysemous", but some words are so contranymic as to be basically unusable. My favourite example so far is claviform, which can mean either "club-shaped", "nail-shaped", or "key-shaped"; allosexual is another example. - -sche(discuss)22:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm tempted to create a section for this, along the lines of "Unusably polysemic words" (probably in the Anteroom of Silliness, because like with Agrilus the information is correct, just...weird). My reservation continues to be that the distinction between this and simple polysemy is not hard-and-fast. Nonetheless, it does seem like even a very polysemous word such as "take" is still usable (the average person could work out which sense you meant in "I took her pen" based on context, even though it could be virtually any sense, including even one as unlikely as "have sex with" if the context were e.g. faux-Victorian erotica where the pen was a sentient being), whereas you functionally can't refer to something as claviform and have anyone know which sense you mean, unless you also specify in plain English what shape the thing has. What does anyone else think? What other words like this are there? - -sche(discuss)21:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I suppose that ticks all the boxes... and may suggest this is not worthwhile to track after all (at least on the main page, although I still find it interesting to track here on talk), since there must be hundreds of polysemous common names of critters (even e.g. bluebird). - -sche(discuss)15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
If we end up creating this, I guess we would need to have at least three senses since there are many examples of words with two senses. Still, if a word has two contradictory senses in the same narrow semantic area, the resulting confusion can make the word remarkable. For example, acrotic has two different meanings and they are both medical. This may have led the word to be phased out in favor of other words for both senses. —Soap—12:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Surprisingly-attested 'literal' meanings
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments3 people in discussion
I'm not sure how to phrase this, but WT:RFV#racist (alleged to also be "one who competes in races") got me wondering: what unexpected literal meanings of words that more commonly mean something else do exist, especially if they have a separate etymology (the way a running race and a human race have separate etymologies)? I can think of mother(“moth catcher”) and flower(“one that flows”), which also have different pronunciations. really(“in a real, not unreal, way”) is sort of in this vein. - -sche(discuss)10:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
bunny(“resembling a bun”). Maybe resolve and redoubt, but those don't seem as surprising to me, as re- is very productive even when the result is homographic to something else. Bluer(“one who blues”) and procreationist also don't surprise me, perhaps because neither sense is that common (compared to the other). - -sche(discuss)10:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think this was our theme for April Fool's Day one year (including the word mother). I suppose there's inner and outer (some noun senses). I would expect the multiple meanings of -er to produce a lot of words with double meanings. Can canny mean "full of cans"? I'll keep thinking. —Granger (talk·contribs) 15:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Aha, so we did, featuring beer(“one who exists”), Catholic primates, sewer(“one who sews”), dialectal teenage(“brushwood”), gamergate ants, obolete alligator(“one who binds”) and the vinegary sense of mother.
I think we've thought of all the best ones in English. I'm holding off on adding glower because it's not a particularly common word in either sense. We might be able to branch out into other languages here, though the judgment of what is interesting might be difficult and highly subjective. For example Japanese せいけん has three completely unrelated meanings and a fourth that is still a distinct spelling, but such homophones are quite common in Japanese for various reasons. —Soap—13:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Most anagrams
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Whatcha think, should the "Hall of Fame" portion of User:-sche/exceptional be moved to the Wiktionary namespace, either as Wiktionary:Hall of Fame or some better title? (Optionally the "Anteroom of Silliness" too, or perhaps it should just be merged into WT:BJ.) That could make it more findable, and more "official" as a project page (and other people might feel less weird about adding categories and keeping it up to date), but could also add more pressure to keep it up to date (a neverending task). - -sche(discuss)08:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Seems like a good idea to me. Some of the lists look feasible for me to eventually write scripts for, like "most etymology sections" and "most translations" (at least using the measure of largest number of language codes in translation templates), and "most semantic relations", and perhaps "longest etymological chains". — Eru·tuon09:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
How is this measured? If we include netslang then I'm sure there are hundreds of weird-spelled words. Personally I was delighted to find a word that had xz or zx in sequence; it was some kind of weird chemical, you know, equinoxzolanone or what not. Equinox◑23:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Anti-pronunciation section
Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I was a little dictionary-reader as a kid. I always liked words. And I remember my little mind being blown when I saw a word (this was in a 1970s Chambers dictionary, big red book) that had no definition. They didn't even try. It was just "a word in Shakespeare" basically. I think it was scarre...? Equinox◑23:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This question has been asked before, and answered too. What's the oldest citation? I vaguely remember something from like 5000BC, and it was about a defecating elephant or something... --Java Beauty (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
If you mean most translations, it's probably water. If you mean most languages that have a word spelled a particular way, I dont know, but it's probably something very short, like a or o. If that, we'd need to decide whether the letter itself counts as a word or not. —Soap—04:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
mi has 125 languages listed, which is more than o (93) but less than a (155). We could potentially list two winners: most languages for one spelling (winner would probably be a) and most languages for a spelling with more than one character (winner might be mi, unless someone can find one with more). —Granger (talk·contribs) 05:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
drawer, prayer, liver
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
drawer, prayer, and possibly liver on the list of words with (unintuitive) literal senses, which currently also specifies that the two meanings are unrelated. But the two meanings of drawer are in fact related since they go back to the same etymology. The two meanings of prayer are of course also related, and not that far apart semantically, and I wouldnt even oppose it if someone removed prayer from the list. As for, liver, our etymology seems to contradict itself ... does it come from live or not? If we keep these words listed, perhaps they could get a small list of their own after the others, since while they're still amusing, they're not really coincidences like the others. —Soap—11:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Long compound words
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
sure, if we count letters as words. I'd be against it for that reason, and the ambiguity may be part of why this category hasnt been added to the list yet. —Soap—09:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, to dismiss the ambiguity it could be done by categorising according to the number of letters. E.g. perhaps a for 1-letter words, perhaps ma for 2-letter words, and so on. (Again, in principle this might disadvantage other scripts, but I don't think that's a huge impediment.) —DIV (1.145.44.12210:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC))Reply
¹ en.wiktionary.org (inspected top-level headings in table of contents for each entry)
² ??.wiktionary.org (inspected "In other languages" box on en.wiktionary.org for each entry)
Oh. I added some baby talk words ... you know, nana mama papa baba tata type of words ... not having seen this. None of what I found comes close to 145, but maybe the words I added can still be on the list just so long as there aren't dozens of others with more entries than the lowest-ranking one I added. —Soap—19:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The right-hand column may be more difficult to assess with total rigour. It occurs to me that — theoretically — the word that occurs across the most Wiktionaries, for a given number of letters, might not exist at all in the English Wiktionary.
Another — theoretical — concern for either column is that the winning words might not be written in the "English alphabet", but instead use some other script. Fortunately many languages use the same script as English, or approximately so.
As a very quick comparison, 中国 (China) appears in 49 Wiktionaries, and is defined for only 3 languages within the English Wiktionary. The simplest course would be to treat this as if it comprised two "letters" (or, equivalently, amend the existing column heading to "Number of characters"), in which case it lags quite far behind the current (draft) table entries for 2-letter words. Alternatively, it could perhaps be argued that the equivalent number of letters should be based upon the word's transcription — although pinyin is then not the only option — in which case the tally would be much more competitive.
—DIV (1.145.127.23913:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC))Reply
Add words that end with J.
Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Also add a section for citation pages for words that don't have their own entry yet. Actually make a shortcut for citation pages for redlinks. Like WT:RLC or something. Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments1 person in discussion
if we expand this list, we should come up with rules to determine how to count the words. For example i think we can all agree internationalisms shouldnt count, so maybe the initiating root has to be from Reconstruction namespace, therefore meaning it must be old. Another idea would be that words on this list must also appear on the list of longest etymological chains. —Soap—17:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
also i meant to add that we should be going with words, not roots. With PIE roots it would get rapidly out of hand, for example. —Soap—21:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
rice
kind of busy right now but it occurred to me that Austronesian *bəRas "rice" might be cognate to a lot of words, including questionably the set that gave rise to English rice. —Soap—15:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Greatest doublet set
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Basically, the longest set or chain of doublets in a given language. I thought of this when dealing with English five and its five-to-six doublets. English father is also high up there with its five doublets, but surely, there are entries with even more. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)03:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re diff, surely any counterintuitive numbers are just an artifact of "what has vs. hasn't been entered into Wiktionary", yes? More languages may have borrowed the "tea" word, but until someone enters them somewhere there's no way to know how numerous they are. Anyone feel like going on a water-like effort to find tea words? - -sche(discuss)09:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply