Wiktionary:Tea room

Wiktionary >Discussion rooms> Tea room

WT:TRredirects here. For guidelines on translations, seeWiktionary:Translations

Click here to start a new Tea room discussion.

Wiktionary discussion rooms(edit)see also:requests

Information desk start a new discussion|this month|archives Newcomers’questions, minor problems, specific requests for information or assistance.

Tea room start a new discussion|this month|archives Questions and discussions aboutspecific words.

Etymology scriptorium start a new discussion|this month|archives Questions and discussions aboutetymology—the historical development of words.

Beer parlour start a new discussion|this month|archives Generalpolicy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.

Grease pit start a new discussion|this month|archives Technicalquestions, requests and discussions.

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions12345–All discussion pages12345

A place to ask for help on finding quotations, etymologies, or other information about particular words. The Tea room is named to accompany theBeer parlour.

For questions about the general Wiktionary policies, use the Beer parlour; for technical questions, use the Grease pit. For questions about specific content, you're in the right place.

Pleasedo not edit section titlesas this breaks links on talk pages and in other discussion fora.

Oldesttagged RFTs

• Sukhumi
  regnbuefamilie
  Euthemia
  hagdon
  lipsati
  Wesson
  monolid
  watercressing
  notch
  address
  carhouse
  RGSS
  series
  multivarious
  amen
  -stan
  червь
  چھہ
  half
  based
  α΄
  orignal
  dies Mercurii
  manso
  ၐြဳ
  ကာလယဲ
  pasar por las horcas caudinas
  monosemic
  hazelly
  Dağ Türkleri
  Aster
  smeť
  over skyerne er himlen altid blå
  rumped
  Indon
  belly dance
  on purpose
  nasal cavity
  how much
  take its toll
  bok choy
  search up
  don't try to teach grandma how to suck eggs
  speech recognition
  turn the tide
  ne bis in idem
  cornus
  code point
  one over the eight
  green privilege
  Chinese landing
  one's house in order
  native bread
  rhina
  one's heart bleeds
  gender-neutral
  chicken-or-egg question
  otocrane
  Surinam
  no thank you
  mukt
  uninvited
  away
  catalogue
  imaginary
  tweener
  radiendocrinology
  classique
  be
  smuggling raisins
  shadowing
  mandate
  war hero
  war-hero
  eat like a horse
  tacet
  lightning bruiser
  phrogging
  tjälknöl
  efilism
  Jacboson
  Andersdr
  berm
  pirmas
  arena rock
  rayon
  on someone's ass
  caviar to the general
  churtle
  Lipović
  -to
  sum of its parts
  joke
  dunnarf
  Єфінгар
  Ефингар
  Sơ thứ kiến diện
  

October 2024

Slavic -nik/-nica calques?

How would we refer to the phenomenon where Slavic languages derive words from a German compound word, by translating only the first half of the compound and then adding -nik or -nica at the end in place of translating the second part of the compound?

I'm talking about stuff likeSerbo-Croatianжелезница／železnicafromGermanEisenbahn,orCzechandSlovakčíselník(fromčíslo) andMacedonianбројчаник(brojčanik)fromGermanZifferblatt.Is there a specialist linguistic term for that?

It's not a partial calque, since that's specifically defined to have part of the word be a direct borrowing, such asSilesianwaszkuchniafromGermanWaschküche.Any ideas?Insaneguy1083(talk)10:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Would saying it's a clipping of a calque (or asemicalque) +-nik/-nicabe adequate?Leasnam(talk)19:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Likely calque is just more accurate.Vininn126(talk)09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I even dare say thatsemicalqueisn’t accurate, this is just prompted by OP’s suggestion that it would have to be something peculiar, which I see not, rereading it the second day.Fay Freak(talk)11:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Calques don't have to account for each lexeme or etymon, in my opinion.Vininn126(talk)11:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Aye, or morpheme on the other side, therefore it is justa calque.Fay Freak(talk)11:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Tamil ட்டாணா

I came across this term for a police station in an old grammar book (spelled ட்டாணா) and couldn't find it anywhere here, so I created this pageட்டாணா.However in the DDSA dictionaries it shows up in three forms: "ட்டாணா", "டாணா", and "தாணா"^†.I'm not sure which of these is the most canonical nowadays (or if this is even a term that is still used much), so if there is someone who knows better it would be great to hear a more informed opinion.

† This one reflects the original hindi spelling of the word "थाना"Felix.gif(talk)12:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Portuguesemuçurana(“snake species”)

This word comes from Old Tupimusurana,where it referred to a kind of rope used in anthropophagic rituals. However, in the Portuguese entry, it is said that "origin of the new sense is unknown". Isn't it kind of obvious that a snake and a rope look a bit alike and the association was pretty likely, thus the semantic shift?OweOwnAwe(talk)15:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for some snakes and the snakes in question.

It can be doubted also that “term didn't refer to any snake species in that language” – Old Tupí, it can be an unattested sense, for such a language. I have procured an appendix of senses in another formerly widespread language, Aramaic, inferred only outside of it, to substantiate further such constellations, whichsome people seem to find hard to understandfrom their basic or casual linguistic reading:Appendix:Aramaic terms only attested in borrowings.Fay Freak(talk)11:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

IsTwitteresea proper noun?

I created it last year as a common noun, but Mlgc1998 changed it to a proper noun yesterday. Should it not matchgolfese,parentese,etc.? It is capitalized becauseTwitteris.J3133(talk)07:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say that as it means ‘the type of language used on Twitter/X’ but not necessarily actually used on the platform then it has a somewhat generic meaning and shouldn’t be treated as a proper noun (a similar phenomenon to the wayhooverhas been genericised).Overlordnat1(talk)08:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Logically, I would say it is no less a proper nouns than any other language name (capitalization not being a fundamental linguistic criterion). TakingFrenchas an example, in the sense "the French language" it can be viewed as a proper noun, due to normally being conceptualized as one unique entity. This does not prevent it from being used countably to refer to multiple French languages in special contexts: e.g. "vernacular Frenches indeed make rampant use of adverbiallà".Some uses ofTwitterese,golfese,parenteseare clearly being used with the same kind of unique sense (thelanguage of Twitter,thelanguage of golf,thelanguage of parents) and I think would be equally entitled to be called proper nouns--as a matter of logic. However, I think that in practice the proper noun/common noun distinction is not treated especially logically. It would help to have a Wikipedia style guide that outlines general conventions to use, so that we can accomplish consistency: e.g. how to categorize language names, month names, day names, ethnonyms (countable and uncountable), organizations, ethnicities, etc.--Urszag(talk)08:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is no proper noun.

Previous discussion, with my arguments and further links to previous threads:Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/December § Language and proper noun.Fay Freak(talk)11:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the names of natural languages likeFrenchare more properly common nouns – in French, the language namefrançaisis anom commun– than the traditional properness ascribed to them,Twitterese,likejournaleseand the names of other lingos neologistically formed with the productive suffix-ese,are IMO definitely common nouns. --Lambiam12:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Islook liketransitive?

The verblook likeis said to have a transitive sense: “To be similar inappearanceto;resemble.”It has a usex:

Ostricheslook likeemus to some people, but they are only distantly related.

If it was truly transitive, shouldn’t one be able to say, “*Emusare looked likeby ostriches to some people”? I think, in fact, that the bracketing is as inOstriches look (like emus);after all, one can also say,Ostriches look emu-like.--Lambiam12:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems intransitive to me. —Sgconlaw(talk)12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Intransitive, it does not have an object but apredicative.Predicative expression.Fay Freak(talk)14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Separate question, about sense 2: in which dialects is the usex "He always looks like scoring a goal"a natural-sounding sentence? (Offhand, I can only recall hearing examples like the other,rain-related usex.)- -sche(discuss)02:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It ‘looks like’ perfectly natural English to me and I doubt anyone else in the UK would raise their eyebrows at it either. I suppose ‘he looks like he’s about to score’ could be thought of as the more grammatical and formal equivalent but ‘he (always) looks like scoring (a goal)’ seems perfectly fine and commonplace to me.Overlordnat1(talk)05:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO, usage in sense 2 with a gerund phrase should be marked UK or Commonwealth. In any event, not US. This would probably require some reshuffling of definitions or a usage note. Even the wording of sense 2 seems UK-ish to me.DCDuring(talk)14:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I was about to just add some more usexes and label them all by which dialects they're valid in, but I realized... all of them, all of senses 2 and 3 oflook like,just... look like sense 2 oflook,don't they? The difference is that only some usexes can interchangelikeandas if(it looks like it's going to rain,it looks like I'm stuck with you:it looks as if...), while others can't(?) (at least to me,it looks like rainis valid but *it looks as if rainisn't). It looks like / as if sense 4 oflook likeis wrong (or at least, not transitive) as discussed above, and senses 2 and 3 should just be defined in terms oflook,pointing people tolook...- -sche(discuss)15:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The viewpoint expressed about about senses 2 and 3 (now removed), which amounts to stating that in these senseslook likeis an SOP or a non-structural juxtaposition, is supported by the fact thatlook likein these senses can be replaced byseem like.This also holds for the late sense 4. --Lambiam16:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like I'm not taking my usual anti-phrasal verb position, but only becausesomedictionaries and idiom or phrasal-verb references (imperialistically inclusive in their domains) includelook likeand we often follow such lemmings. In any event, such works never have more than two definitions. As for the revised entry, if we accept the premise that it is not a phrasal verb, it looks, like, good.DCDuring(talk)16:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Anatidaeaplomb

is the confidence that everywhere, every how, a duck is watching you! Deal with it folk! Some are even watching out for you!2001:8003:9814:C800:A58A:4A85:265B:B66609:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The original "anatidaephobia"term was awkward enough, since it used the taxonomic name for the duckfamilyrather than for "duck" (that would be something like *anatiphobia.This is just dumb. Also, please readWT:CFI:this is what's called aprotologism- something someone just made up. We don't allow entries for those. Sorry.Chuck Entz(talk)14:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Nettaphobia?--Lambiam16:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Anatidphobia, possibly?Cremastra(talk)16:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

where

There are common, informal/incorrect uses ofwhere(andwhen) "where" relative conjunctions are preferred. The proscription seems based on the notion thatwhereshould be limited to location (andwhento time). Such usages occur in Wiktionary definitions, often "where" / "when" the contributor doesn't bother with or buries a hypernym for the term being defined. (See [[infinite suicide]] for the definition that reminded me of this usage of "when".) I have taken a run at definitions marked asinformalat [[where#Conjunction]].

Is informal the right label? Can the wording etc. be improved? The definitions offered are not substitutable in all cases that I have heard. Do we need to add them? Can (and should) the various cases be combined somehow, so as not to overemphasize such usage?DCDuring(talk)17:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

'downwell' - expand to include meaning of 'downwards in gravity well'

Hi, I've come across the use of the word 'downwell' in science fiction to mean 'towards the nearest planet' i.e. towards the centre of the nearest gravity well.

References: Ancillary Sword, the second book of the Imperial Radch trilogy by Ann Leckie, and this allusion to an earlier usage:https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/223914/what-s-the-first-use-of-the-term-downwell.

I notice it's not in Wiktionary. I've never edited a Wiktionary page and thought I might (for now) make a note in case someone with more experience wants to pick up the ball here... Thankyou!Orthabok(talk)06:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@OrthabokYes, I've noted that as well, in the Imperial Radch trilogy and also, I think, in a few books by CJ Cherryh. I will add that definition todownwell.Cremastra(talk)15:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

aquatone - copyright infringement?

The first definition ofaquatoneappears to have been copied verbatim fromhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aquatone.Vroo(talk)17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I cut back the detail in the def to reduce the degree. Beyond that, though, probably nothing else can be done, because a handful of words to say 'what something is' is at the level of a noncreative statement of fact alone.Quercus solaris(talk)03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

kick over the traces-kick against the pricks

Is there a difference in meaning?PUC–09:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

They are perhaps near-synonyms. "Traces" clearly refers to control. "Pricks" doesn't, not matter which definition ofprickis meant. I don't think that using{{syn of}}is warranted.DCDuring(talk)16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Mutual reference in See also sections seems fine, though. --Lambiam20:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

on wiki/off wiki

do these terms, either hyphenated on not, pass criteria for inclusion? these are used very similarly toonline/offline,possibly even comparable toin hospital.below are some example sentences:

On wiki,there are many discussions regarding the recent news.

These are theon-wikiprotocol for arbitration.

I keep differenton and off wikiidentities.

Juwan(talk)17:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

We have an entry foroff-wiki.J3133(talk)17:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

oh, that's nice to know. is there a technical term and template for the distinction between the phraseon wikiand the adjectiveon-wikithat one could you to reduce redundancy here?Juwan(talk)18:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Diaeresis or umlaut?

ThelogoofMatthäi,a largeconstructioncompanyin northernGermany.

In the entrydiaeresis,I added this image to illustrate the use of the diacritical mark. But now I'm wondering if it is actually an umlaut rather than a diaeresis, especially since the mark is on thearather than thei(see the usage note atdiaeresis). Some help, please? —Sgconlaw(talk)22:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that it is an umlaut, because ä = ae is a standard transliteration and we see it inMatthaei(e.g.,w:de:Matthaeiandw:en:Matthaei). Athttps://www.youtube.com/@matthaeibauunternehmenwe hear what I would transcribe as /eɪ/ for the syllable, not /e.i/; to my knowledge German does not emically use the /eɪ/ diphthong much (whereas it uses monophthong /e/ plenty), but when it needs to use it, it needs to spell itäioraei,becauseaiandeiboth spell the diphthong /aɪ/ in German orthography. Now I'm asking myself, when German orthography wants to spell /e.i/, how does it do it? My mind is blanking on it right now, but I must go to bed.Quercus solaris(talk)05:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Quercus solaris:I suspect you're right. Anyway, I moved the image over toumlaut,and used a different one atdiaeresis.I wish someone would take a photograph of the newly updated Brontë plaque at Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey with the diaereses added (see the 2024 quotation in the entry), so we can use it! —Sgconlaw(talk)16:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

shout as he would

1. How would you place this in entrywould?
   • 1922,Agatha Christie,“Chapter 16”,inThe Secret Adversary:

     Shout as hewould,no one could ever hear him. The place was a living tomb

Wars at my door(talk)11:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wars at my door:I think it's verb sense 5 ( "wanted to" ). —Sgconlaw(talk)16:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say sense 6. I think you could also useas he mightand still have the same meaning.Leasnam(talk)07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You're probably right but we could consider having entries for the phrasesas one mightandas one wouldto cover things like this. There's a discussion of 'try as I might' on StackExchange here[1].--Overlordnat1(talk)07:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed on Wordreference athttps://forum.wordreference.com/threads/try-as-he-would.3379387/It is not any of the meanings mentioned by people in this thread. If it had to be any of the Wiktionary meanings, it would be number 3. Shout as he insisted on doing. See post 8 in the Wordreference thread. Yes, shout as he would and shout as he might mean roughly the same thing.2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B8219:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me revise that from meaning 1.3 to meaning 2.7 or 2.8. Shout as he might wish to.2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B8219:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say sense 2.2, honestly. The implication seems to be that he doesn’t scream, but would if he thought it would help. Agreed that it seems like a variation on “…as he might”.Asticky(talk)22:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Scottas: palatalization?

Old EnglishScottas(“Scots”)is consistently marked with the palatalization dot <sċ> /ʃ/. But it comes from LatinScotiwith /sk/, and it gives Modern EnglishScotswith /sk/. Why do we think it was palatalized in OE? Other words with <sc> before non-front vowels do give Modern English <sh>, likescamu(“shame”).The entry mentions an alternative formSċeottas.How common was this? Sweet'sAnglo-Saxon Primersays it was /sk/ in some foreign words such asscōl(“school”)andScottas.Hiztegilari(talk)18:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sceottas,Sceotta [leoda],Sceotta [land]- Forms usingSceottare rare, yet occur frequently enough to not be considered aberrations. Middle English usually shows Sc-, Sk-, and Sch- [=/sk/?] but rarely Sh- and S- [=/ʃ/]. I would show /sk/ for Old EnglishScottas,but /ʃ/ forSceottas.I would assume the stabilising effect of the Latin and Old Norse (i.e.Skotar) would keep Sc- from permanently becoming /ʃ/.Leasnam(talk)20:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

DNI

I wish some help with how this term ought to be defined. it is used more flexibly beyond the phrase "do not interact", as in the usages below (taken from Twitter but I don't think I should post the original links):

noDNI

you areDNI

I am not sure when a term can be separated into a new etymology, but I believe that this warrants a separation from the other definitions for being a special case.Juwan(talk)21:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on a Twitter search, I assume your first example simply means "I don't have ado not interactlist "; I think this is covered by noun sense 4. The second usage looks adjectival, I would define it as e.g." Belonging to a group of people that a social media user requests not to interact with them. "I agree a separate ety section is justified for these senses.Einstein2(talk)13:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Polishpowinienunused forms

Two thing:

1. The table includes forms powinnom (było) and powinnoś (było). I am no native, but surely these are not actually used? You wouldn't address yourself or your interlocutor as neuter, right? I would like to add this info, but I'm not sure how. Should I put it in the usage notes? Or should they be marked somehow in the table, or just outright removed from it? (I wouldn't know how, the table seems auto-generated.)

2. It is marked as a defective verb, which, in terms of meaning, it is. But for me, when using this to learn, that made the forms seem arbitrary, while they are not, at all. The forms come from powinien behaving as a short form adjective, which gets the same clitic endings as the past tense does to agree with the subject. (Of course these clitics originally come from forms of być, they were not necessarily past-tense endings before.) I would also like to note that somewhere, but again, I don't know where. It isn't exactly a usage note, so is it then trivia? Doesn't really sound like trivia either. Maybe mention it in the etymology? Donostia Gipuzkoa(talk)12:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that I looked up powinnom and powinnoś on Reverso Context and indeed found no uses of either.

Donostia Gipuzkoa(talk)12:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Donostia GipuzkoaNeuter forms are often generated by both WSJP, NGJP, and many, many other sources as well, and the language council officially supports them. Forms like these are often used in science fiction and other things, as well as a minority of speakers who use neuter forms (such asaktywiszcze). While they are not common, they are often cited, and when it comes to declensions we often have rare forms, such as the vocative for nouns that rarely have them. Would you be in support of removing the vocative here, as well?Vininn126(talk)13:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

As to point two, the separate forms could be added to the table, if you mean the fact that those clitics can dettach from powinien itself. Compare other verb conjugation tables for a similar approach.Vininn126(talk)13:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Final note, I'll add that these neuter-personal forms are attested online in various ways. Not the most common, but there.Vininn126(talk)13:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

collier#Translations

I think that the current 'unified' definition ( "A person in the business or occupation of producing (digging or mining) coal or making charcoal or in its transporting or commerce" ) atcolliermakes a mess of the translation table under "person" because this definition blends a number of concepts which will be rendered with different words in most languages. (The English shift from "charcoal burner" to "coal miner" and then to "mineral coal transporter/trader" does not seem very common, perhaps a minor phenomenon in other languages at best (although the ambiguity of some glosses is not very helpful here), which is itself curious if you consider how liable to polysemy words for "coal" are.) Unsurprisingly this table is therefore a smorgasbord of terms for miners and charcoal burners with insufficient indicationin the tableof which is which.
Does anybody object if I split the translation table at the very least? Is it desirable to split the actual definition as well?←₰-→Lingo^Bingo_Dingo(talk)11:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

My two cents: go for it (splitting the transl table). As for splitting the def: I went for it; done (sense with two subsenses).Quercus solaris(talk)21:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I went a little further and replaced the "person" table with two soft redirects to the synonyms and relocated any useful terms.←₰-→Lingo^Bingo_Dingo(talk)14:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

conatus

is there any consensus in how pronunciation for multiple senses, or in this case grammatical numbers, should be handled? the method used atconatusis very and also likely unaccessible.Juwan(talk)14:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s fine. I don’t see why it is “unaccessible”. —Sgconlaw(talk)06:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

the combination of;and bullets may cause some confusion to screen readers. I have seen other ways such as main bullets and subbullets or sense labels, which would be way better here, so that's why I made this question.Juwan(talk)10:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's what you meant, you could have explained yourself more clearly. Sure, no objection to the use of bullets and sub-bullets instead of the semicolon. That's what I would use, anyway. —Sgconlaw(talk)22:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

aardbei

The sound clip for Dutchaardbeisounds like /ˈhaːrt.bɛi̯/ rather than /ˈaːrt.bɛi̯/. Does anyone else hear an initialh?Leasnam(talk)06:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes it does. What I also find strange is that, despite apparently not having an ‘h’ sound, many French people seem to add one to the beginning ofoui(though not in our audio). It does typically sound closer to the German ‘ch’ sound than the English ‘h’ sound when they do this though,Overlordnat1(talk)06:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Would the current sound byte be considered incorrect or misleading?Leasnam(talk)17:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think both. The pronunciation ofaardbaanbythe same speaker(

Audio:

(file)

) does not suffer from a similar issue. --Lambiam20:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Bồ đào

This word meaning "grape" is given the Pinyin transcription pútáo, but this is incorrect. It is actually pútao, with the neutral tone in the second syllable. Listen to it on Forvo.2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B8210:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly not fluent in Chinese so I may be missing something, but it looks to me like a simple case oftone sandhi,in which case it would be a matter ofphonemicvs.phoneticrepresentation. In English, the normal pronunciation ofspeak,peakandbeakare shown as /spiːk/, /piːk/ and /biːk/, respectively, but if you play a recording of "speak" starting after the "s", it will sound more like "beak" than like "peak". That's because English uses aspiration to represent "voicing" of initial consonants, and aspiration is suppressed after an "s".

Thus a native speaker of standard Mandarin Chinese will always pronounce a word with a second tone on both syllables the same as if it had a second tone on the first and a neutral tone on the second.Chuck Entz(talk)15:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There’s also regional variation. It seems to be pronounced with two second tones in Singapore. —Sgconlaw(talk)04:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not sandhi. In particular, "a native speaker of standard Mandarin Chinese will always pronounce a word with a second tone on both syllables the same as if it had a second tone on the first and a neutral tone on the second" is flat-out wrong. For example, học tập is xuéxí; it is not xuéxi. If you listen to học tập on Forvo, you will realise that. Amazingly wrong to claim that tone sandhi means the second of two second tones is in fact a neutral tone. Could it rise less high? Yes, it might, but that is not what the neutral tone is.

Having looked further into this, the Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (Xiandai Hanyu Cidian - the most authoritative mainland Chinese dictionary) has pú·táo, where the interpunct (the raised dot) signifies that the second syllable can be optionally neutral-tone, so that both pútáo and pútao are correct. Neither of you were intellectually qualified to answer my question here. I had to look into it myself. QED.2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B8218:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category for abbreviations used in personal ads

below is a non-compressive list of many of the labels used previously in personal ads and now on other parts of the Internet, such as tagging (images, stories, etc), roleplay ads, among other usecases. I wish to request some help in how they should be added, categorised and presented on Wiktionary. I want to create a category, a list template and possibly a label for displaying these, because it is too much of a hassle to change all the pages one by one. how should these be even called is up to the question too.

I have compiled this list as to 1. exemplify what entries I want categorised and 2. for a basis for what to add in the future. I am not completely sure that all pass CFI, but that is not the point right now.

gender

• M(“male”)
• F(“female”)
• TF(“trans female”)
• TM(“trans male/man”)
• TW(“trans woman”)
• MTF(“male-to-female, trans woman”)
• FTM(“female-to-male, trans man”)
• NB(“non-binary”)
• FB(“femboy”)
• (chiefly pornography)FT(“futanari”)

marriage status

• SF(“single female”)
• MF(“married female”)
• DF(“divorced female”)
• SM(“single male”)
• MM(“married male”)
• DM(“divorced male”)

number of partners

• MF(“one man, one woman”)
• FM(“one woman, one man”)
• MM(“two men”)
• FF(“two women”)
• MMM(“three men”)
• FFF(“three women”)
• MMF(“two-men, one-woman”)
• MFF(“one-man, two-women”)
• FMM(“one-woman, two-men”)
• FFM(“two-women, one-man”)
• FMF(“two-women, one-man”)
• MFM(“two-men, one-woman”)

note that forFMFandMFM,the separation may mean that the two women or two men, respectively, don't interact with each other. instead only interacting with the middle partner. a user on Redditexplained wellthat FMF may have two straight women and FFM may have two bisexual women.

orientation

• MFM(“male for male”)
• M4M(“male for male”)
• MFF(“male for female”)
• M4F(“male for female”)
• M4A(“male for all/any”)
• MFA(“male for all/any”)
• FFM(“female for male”)
• F4M(“female for male”)
• FFF(“female for female”)
• F4F(“female for female”)
• F4A(“female for all/any”)
• FFA(“female for all/any”)
• NBFM(“non-binary for male”)
• NB4M(“non-binary for male”)
• NBFF(“non-binary for female”)
• NB4F(“non-binary for female”)
• NB4A(“non-binary for all/any”)
• NBFA(“non-binary for all/any”)
• TFT(“trans for trans”)
• T4T(“trans for trans”)
• (slang)ST4T(“straight trans for trans”)

in the abbreviations above, sometimes the middleFis uncapitalised to indicate the wordfor.the list is not even complete! because you could absolutely add multiple variations for the abbreviations listed in "gender", but I digress, that is for someone else to acheive.

there are also similar abbreviations used in fanfiction (seen below), used e.g. Alice/Bob, Alice&Bob, etc.

relationship type

• /(“romantic relationship”)
• &(“platonic relationship”)

any help would be appreciated!Juwan(talk)15:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Not only used in personal ads. They may also appear where (pornographic) material is produced by one person for others (like Reddit's /r/gonewildaudio), or in the descriptions of fan fiction etc. that involves certain combinations of people having sex.2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:580C:F1AF:B902:5AA616:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

that's completely true! exactly why it needs to include more than just personal ads.Juwan(talk)16:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I support creating a category and label for these terms, although I'm not sure how they should be called. Another more generalclassified adscategory may also be useful (for terms likepcm(“per calendar month”),w2w(“wall-to-wall”),etc.).Einstein2(talk)16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Einstein2I support that too!Juwan(talk)18:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

protactic

There's a modern term for this... what is it?P. Sovjunk(talk)20:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well,prologeticis synonymous but not modern or common. The word that my brain most reaches for isprefatory.Quercus solaris(talk)05:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

scrolloping

Seems to be word invented by Virginia Woolf and used in several of her books. But also it seems to have been included in an OED supplement according to the journalNotes & Queries.I don't have access to any OED content so I can't confirm this or find out what the word actually means. Any idea if this word is attestable enough to include? Any idea what it means?Nosferattus(talk)21:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nosferattus:Alternative form oflollopingas already in a1998 online newspaper culture piecewith an additional quote (to multiple of Woolf, to it is not just a one-off) from an apparentlythen popular poetseems right to me.Fay Freak(talk)21:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, are you sure about the meaning? I came across the word in the sentence "He tore, in one rending, thescrolloping,emblazoned scroll which he had made out in his own favour in the solitude of his room appointing himself, as the King appoints Ambassadors, the first poet of his race, the first writer of his age, conferring eternal immortality upon his soul and granting his body a grave among laurels and the intangible banners of a people's reverence perpetually. "I don't thinklollopingwould make sense there. The word seems to have something to do with being ornate and pretentious. Does anyone have access to the OED definition?Nosferattus(talk)21:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nosferattus:If you pick a piece of paper or even metal it can bend, wave, a bit. It may also be just a perceptional aspect, like surely the cucumbers look wavy, but not so much as to justify the word “wavy” or similar, so they use this understatement which also means “to lie around lazily”. It’s so dainty that only this few upper-class people know the word.Fay Freak(talk)22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nosferattus:It befits to note that shehas the matching neurodivergence;the authoress’s mood toward an object goes otherwhither as juxtaposed with mine or thine. “From the age of 13,Woolf hadsymptoms that today would be diagnosed as bipolar disorder.”Fay Freak(talk)22:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that would explain her unfortunate tendency toward autodefenestration.Nosferattus(talk)22:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak:I found an interesting comment on the OED's inclusion ofscrollopinginThe Oxford History of English Lexicography:"[Robert] Burchfield emphasized many times (e.g. Vol. 1: xiv) his fondness for inclusion of thehapax legomenaand eccentric usages of major literary writers (Beckett’sathambia,Joyce’speccaminous,Woolf’sscrolloping,Edith Sitwell’sMartha-coloured,etc.). "Nosferattus(talk)21:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I finally found the OED's definition of scrolloping: "Characterized by or possessing heavy, florid, ornament. Also transferred and as present participle, proceeding in involutions, rambling."Nosferattus(talk)21:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nosferattus:Which expresses the same as what I said, without the etymological and psychographic backing.rambling:‘winding irregularly in various directions’,involute:winding regularly in various directions. What ornaments and flowers (florid) often are heavily.Fay Freak(talk)22:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Brush with death?

Just want to make surebrush with deathmeets the criteria, since I was kinda surprised it didn’t have an entry before. It’s clearly a specific use case of sense 6 ofbrush,butit makes up such a vast majority of usesthat I would be inclined to say that “brush with {something else}” is an extension of “brush with death” for modern speakersAsticky(talk)22:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look inclusion-worthy underWT:CFI.The appropriate definition ofbrushis "A short and sometimes occasional encounter or experience." That definition could be improved by mentioning that it is frequently complemented by a preposition phrase headed bywithand having usage examples with a few of the common nouns in such phrases.DCDuring(talk) 01:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)DCDuring(talk)01:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

𑍐(om)

weird things on the𑍐page. if you go to alternative scripts, it shows "sa" as being all of the transliterations. i'd assume that this is because sa is sanskrit language code, and someone mistakenly put it in, but then i looked at theꦎꦴꦀpage. now everything is औम̐ (that's औ + म + ँ) and gujarati is suspiciously missing. same happens forওঁand𑖌𑖼,whileᬒᬁand𑓇have the "sa" problem again. brahmi𑀑𑀁and kannadaಓಂhave ओं (makes sense, that's literally what it is) but it seems like "sa-alt|Deva=ॐ" is not working on any of these pages. Does anyone have an explanation, and hopefully a fix?NS1729(talk)00:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

killed in action

What does everyone think about the photos and text "Many Confederate generals were killed in battle" added to this entry? Would it be considered as encyclopedic content and thus inappropriate for Wiktionary?---> Tooironic(talk)10:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it is no illustration of the term. I mean those individuals have not been told “let us have a photo shoot just in case we need illustration for your having died in action specifically.”Fay Freak(talk)16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. TheConfederacyis an extremely politically-loaded issue in the US, so what looks like a shrine to people who fought to preserve slavery (it's more complicated than that- someone from the South might frame it quite differently) added just before a presidential election is definitely a violation of NPOV. If an IP had added it, I would have reverted it and blocked the perpetrator. Instead, it's just another demonstration of poor judgment by a marginal contributor best known for adding bad categories.Chuck Entz(talk)17:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for dealing with this. I thought it looked out of place.---> Tooironic(talk)22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'm not entirely comfortable with this entry. First of all, is this really an adjective? The verb is definitely restricted in how it can be used, but "killing in action", although rare, might very well pass CFI. Part of it is the nature of "kill"and"in action"which have very strictsemanticrestraints built in. "Kill" in the context of an individualpatientseems to be restricted to a single action- it may take a while, but it's a single action. "In action" seems to be restricted to the kinds of things characteristic of combat: "fed in combat" sounds silly, though it's definitely something that has happened a lot over the history of war (seemess kit,K-rations,an army marches on its stomach,etc.).

The distinction betweenkilled in actionandmissing in actionis instructive: you can say "wentmissing in action",but" wentkilled in action"sounds odd. The equivalent of" missing ", where killing is concerned, is"dead",not"killed".Part of it is no doubt the contrast betweentransitive/activeandintransitive/stative,but it seems more than that.

Which brings up the second part: given the semantic (andsyntactic?) restrictions on the parts, it seems like this might also be SOP. You could say "killed while fighting a war", "killed in combat", "shot in action", etc.Chuck Entz(talk)00:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right that it is no adjective, since in a sentence structurekilledis part of the inflection of the verb in the passive (for which we need forms ofto beas auxiliaries, but the page misleadingly assumes them full verbs accompanied by apredicativelyused adjective) andin actionan adverb,verb phraseandadverbial phrase.This means it is anon-constituent,for which we apparently use the headerPhraseas incooking with gas.Fay Freak(talk)22:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Is a folded leaflet a "folder" in English?

The Swedish wordfolder(“folded leaflet”)originates from the English wordfolder.However, should it be categorized as an "unadapted borrowing" or a "pseudo-anglicism"? The English definition does not explicitly include meanings like brochure or leaflet, although dictionary entries are rarely comprehensive. –Christoffre(talk)10:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with a "leaflet, brochure" definition forfolderin US English, but it is certainly possible that it has the meaning in some contexts, such as advertising or printing.DCDuring(talk)13:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. The sense is absent from general usage, but if aninitiatewere to tell me that it exists as a jargon sense in certain subspecialties of theprintingbusiness (e.g.,direct mail), it would not surprise me.Quercus solaris(talk)14:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess that I'll keep it as "unadapted borrowing" then, unless we can prove the negative. –Christoffre(talk)19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

airlift, v.

What does this verb from today’s news mean? “The vice president appears to have airlifted sections of her book […]”. I could add an empty ({{rfdef}}) definition with this quote, but I am not going to do this before the election—in consideration of the professional ethics of the lexicographer as well as avoidance of a resurrection ofOrange Jesus—, and when searching for other quotes in relation to plagiarism in particular, I get too noisy spam advertising plagiarism checks. Seems like some recent academia slang, thoughthe plagiarismhas been found by anotorious German-native researcher.Fay Freak(talk)14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks to be an expressive synonym oflift,as you said, meaning to take.Vininn126(talk)15:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. A peculiar way of morphologically adding expressiveness, if so. Perhaps @Einstein2can prove it with further occurrences.Fay Freak(talk)15:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I will try and look for attestations once I regain access to Internet Archive and Newspapers.com.Einstein2(talk)16:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Simon Armitage,A Vertical Art: On Poetry(2022), page 243, takes the metaphor a step further: "[…]an entire system-built section has been airlifted from one text and parachuted into another. "- -sche(discuss)08:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd interpret such attestation as being of an expressive metaphor, not thatairlift(steal) had entered the lexicon.DCDuring(talk)13:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You can see it this way, but it is not mutually exlusive. I like the idea of expressive inventions decidedly fusing two etymological origins at the same time, the literal senses ofairliftand the older senses of the verblift‘to steal, also intellectual property’, and thus entering the lexicon.Fay Freak(talk)15:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I know, but -sche's cite shows that the metaphor is both alive and kicking, not that it has entered the lexicon.DCDuring(talk)18:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an arbitrary distinction - plenty of freshly coined words (like random adverbs derived from adjectives or un- words or -ness words) are nonce words, yet given enough quotes we document them. Are you against such nonce words too, or just neologisms that go against your sensibilities?Vininn126(talk)18:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is just an untrue insinuation that a metaphor must be adead metaphorto enter the lexicon.Fay Freak(talk)21:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If it has entered the lexicon, it shouldn't be hard to find cites without depending on those that merely show the the termnosinginto the tent of lexicality. (The appropriate sense ofnose#Verbdoes not seem well covered by our definitions.)DCDuring(talk)04:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you feel the same way about rare words suffixed with -ness?Vininn126(talk)08:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes.PUC–20:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch" is not English-language but is listed as such in definition

the definition ofLlanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochis said to be the "longest English-language settlement name in the world" in the English definition, but the town name is Welsh-language. saying it's English language is technically wrong and a wee bit anglocentric, but I'm a new editor and I'm not sure if I'm making a big fuss out of nothing. thoughts?Thefollyof(talk)02:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

We list it as an English term, so saying that it's anglocentric feels a bit weird. The reason we do that is because it's used in English running text as a native word. I edited it to say "English name" because there are other, longer place names in the world in other languages, likeกรุงเทพมหานคร อมรรัตนโกสินทร์ มหินทรายุธยา มหาดิลกภพ นพรัตนราชธานีบูรีรมย์ อุดมราชนิเวศน์มหาสถาน อมรพิมานอวตารสถิต สักกะทัตติยวิษณุกรรมประสิทธิ์,the full Thai name of Bangkok.CitationsFreak(talk)02:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

fw heavy

Usage note...As with 𝓯𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓴𝔂 (freaky), this is often written in a cursive font:𝓘 𝓯𝔀 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓱𝓮𝓪𝓿𝔂 𝓫𝓻𝓸❤️.𝔀t𝓯???P. Sovjunk(talk)21:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

On a different note, this is SoPLeasnam(talk)03:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

“invoker or invokee”

Old Norsegoðihas this definition: “godi,invoker or invokee,chief of aþingor keeper of a sanctuary”. Its Icelandic descendantgoðihas: “(historical)godi,an alternate title for ajarl,invoker or invokee,chief of aþing”.Finally, Old Norsegoðhas, under Related terms, “goði(“alternate title for a jarl,invoker or invokee”)”.What information is this meant to convey? --Lambiam07:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Added indiff,FWIW.- -sche(discuss)07:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

rationalize

I note that someone has added a quotation into the second definition to this entry. Is that appropriate?---> Tooironic(talk)08:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course it is, why wouldn’t it be?Overlordnat1(talk)09:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen a quotation added directly onto the definition line. It doesn't look right.---> Tooironic(talk)11:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s actually officially against policy to display the quotations in any other way, as perWiktionary:Votes/2024-07/Remove "Quotations" sectionsOverlordnat1(talk)12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you're joking, or misunderstanding what the vote did and what the entry was doing. 😅 I'veremovedthe quote from inside the definition, which didn't use the word (or else I would've reformatted it as a#*quote).- -sche(discuss)17:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought the REM quote was being referred to, not the dodgy reference. Clearly I got my wires crossed. --Overlordnat1(talk)01:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It was a finedefinitionfor the nounrationalization.I've used an element of it to tweak our definition. --Lambiam08:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

virus– collective or plural?

We list a sense ofvirusas: “(uncountable)A quantity of such infectious agents”, supported by a quotation: “... unseen pests and diseases (particularly small insects and microbes such asvirusor bacteria) whose populations might explode catastrophically...”. When I read this, it seems to me that the authors of this sentence usevirusas a plural noun, not as a (singular) collective. Other uses ofvirusthat appear plural to me:

• “Chronic diseases: what about infections ofvirusand prions via the gut?... methodological improvements have made it possible to studyvirusand other microorganisms” (→DOI);
• “Citrus is also subjected to various biotic stresses, especially caused byvirusand viroids which limit the vigor, yield, and quality of the plant.” (→DOI).

Possibly, this was done in (misplaced) analogy with other Latin loanwords in-usthat are unchanged in the plural, such asconsensus,detritus,domusandlapsus.

The definition of the first sense seems to be that ofa single particle,avirion,whereas the uses usually have the sense ofan infectious agentformed by such particles, or even, specifically, that of aspecies,as seen in the second quotation of the first sense, “Bats host many high-profilevirusesthat can infect humans, including severe acute respiratory syndrome and Ebola.” The meaning here is obviously not “many virions”, but “many virus species”. --Lambiam09:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that you are correct in parsing those citations as most likely reflecting the writer's intent for a zero-inflection plural count-noun sense (i.e., anull morphemeform) rather than truly using the mass-noun sense (uncountable-noun sense). But what must be added in the same breath, in my view, are the following points: (1) that this isnonstandard:many speakers would view this ascatachrestic,which does not mean that it does not exist (descriptively) nor that a dictionary can't enter it but merely that a dictionary should (not fail to) apply thenonstandardlabel to adequately describe it; and (2) that the mass-noun sense also certainly exists, which can be shown with other citations (an example ux:they found much virus in the sample[ = they found a highviral loadin it]), and is certainly standard. I agree that the citations you shared here are not the ones to use for supporting the mass-noun sense.Quercus solaris(talk)15:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of attestation ofmuchvirusin textbooks, medical journals and reports, etc. I don't think it is an error of any kind. It reflects the notion that microbes are, in usual practice, never counted and would be very difficult to count. The use of the plural would also raise the need to be committed to a view of whether different species of virus (or other microbe) were involved.DCDuring(talk)16:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There are two things going on, not to be conflated: (1) a mass sense which is pluralized to mean "types of that mass noun" (directly comparable with "much butter" (mass noun) and "a variety of herb butters" [which denotes types of herb butter as a mass noun) (another example: "much paint" [mass] and "a selection of alkyd paints" [types of mass]), and (2) a count sense, in which the declension is (a)virus, viruses(sg, pl) (standard) (example: "this virus, norovirus, sometimes causes outbreaks of gastroenteritis" and "those viruses, the enteroviruses, include X and Y" ) or (b)virus, virus(sg, pl) (nonstandard, involving a null morpheme, comparable withsheepandmooseas null-morpheme plural inflections, which for those words is standard).Quercus solaris(talk)17:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we generally have a simpler typology for nouns: countable nouns, singular countable nouns, and plural countable nouns. I don't recall anyone suggesting that mass nouns have plural forms. We often have a countable sense for a usually uncountable nounX"(countable) a kind of X. "DCDuring(talk)21:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Many mass nouns in English have plural inflections, denoting types of that mass noun or portions/servings of it. Which metalanguage or typology people choose to describe that phenomenon may vary.Some beers are made with hops;some steels have more manganese than others do.Those utterances are about kinds/types. Explanations of mass nouns that say that they "don't have plural forms" are just lazily written. Others do a better job by saying things such as "usually aren't used in the plural form" or similar.Quercus solaris(talk)23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The typology English Wiktionary has chosen does not require distinguishing between the plural of the uncountable and countable nouns. We treat that sort of usage ( "kinds of [uncountable noun]" ) as a countable definition of the (un)countable noun. In any event, I don't think the typology changes how we present such words, nor whethervirusis sometimes used uncountably.DCDuring(talk)15:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. As my comments said, it often is used uncountably.Quercus solaris(talk)15:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: there is also a count sense of the wordvirusthat meansvirion(viral particle, virus particle), althoughplenty of peoplethere are some people whoprescribe that it be avoided because they consider itloose.The label for that sensewouldcouldbesometimes proscribed.Quercus solaris(talk)18:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's news to me that anyone would proscribe using "virus" as a count noun to refer to the specific infectious particle. The OED includes a 1960 citation with this use in its entry: "There are some particles smaller than any known cell, the viruses, which are regarded by some biologists as being alive" (D. C. Braungart & R. Buddeke, Introduction to Animal Biology (ed. 5) ii).--Urszag(talk)19:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Re news, it depends on whose preferences (and pedantry) one is exposed to. There are some people who subscribe to the idea of "don't say 'virus' when you mean 'virion'", which allows them to reserve 'virus' to the sense meaning "viral species". I should have said "some" rather than "plenty".Quercus solaris(talk)20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Asvirusis abundantlyusedboth uncountably and countably and even sometimes indistinguishably fromvirion,we don't have to prescribe and generally shouldn't anyway.DCDuring(talk)15:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; moreover, I think it can accurately be said that Wiktionary shouldneverprescribe usage (that is, in its "own voice", as it were, which would be POV), but it should succinctly inform its users about prescriptions that exist, which is just recording an NPOV fact. It does this well and unobtrusively whenever it uses a short label such asnonstandardorsometimes proscribed.Importantly, those labels aredescriptive:they don't claim to declare what is "correct" or "wrong", they only record thatsome people thinkthat X or Y is correct or wrong.Quercus solaris(talk)15:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sylki

@WordyAndNerdyadded the “en:Heterosexual ships (fandom)”category to this entry; I restored it after seeing that someone reverted it without providing any reason. It was removed again, with the summary,

Both Loki and Sylvie are canonically bisexual, therefore they shouldn't be included in the "en:Heterosexual ships (fandom)" category.

In my second revert, I wrote,

“Heterosexual” in this category ( “Heterosexual ships (fandom)‎” ) refers to the ship, not the characters.

as the category is “for specific ships between characters of different genders”,but purportedly,

Since both the characters Loki and Sylvie are canonically bisexual, the ship is a bisexual ship. Therefore, they shouldn't be included in the "en:Heterosexual ships (fandom)" category, otherwise it could be considered an act of bisexual erasure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual_erasure). The lack of a category for bisexual ships, or a broader LGBTQ category shouldn't be reason enough to conflate a ship of bisexual characters in a heterosexual category.

J3133(talk)12:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I see where the IP is coming from, but I also agree with you about what the scope of the category should be... I think the issue is the category name, and we could solve this by renaming the categories to more clearly reflect their stated scopes(viz. "specific ships between characters of different genders","specific ships between characters of the same sex").I suggest renaming the categories to something like "Same-gender ships (fandom)" (andm.m."Different-..." ). (Perhaps WAN or anyone else can foresee if that would cause any different issues.)- -sche(discuss)17:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Heterosexual ships (fandom)is based on the gender/sex composition of the couple. "Bisexual ship" has too many interpretations to be functional as a category. The most straightforward would be any ship composed of two bisexual characters. But it could potentially also include any couple featuring a single bisexual character. I've seen the F/F shipLumityreferred to as a "bi ship" since one of its members iscanonically bisexual.And what about canonicallypansexualcharacters? Lumping them into a "bisexual" category might be viewed asits own form of erasure.Plus in fannish contexts "bisexual ship" may also refer to ships that have varying canonical gender composition due to fantasy/sci-fi reasons (Doctor/Master) or customizable player characters (Shenko,Fenhawke,etc.). It doesn't seem feasible to account for all these nuances within the framework of the categorisation system.

I would support a rename from "Category:Heterosexual ships (fandom)" to "Category:F/M ships (fandom)." This would bring it into line with "Category:M/M ships (fandom)"and"Category:F/F ships (fandom)."I think that" same-gender ships "(or" same-sex ships ") could potentially perpetuate the existing issue with the het category being the odd one out.

Can we also remove the clunky "fandom" disambiguators from these categories? They don't seem necessary except forCategory:Ships (fandom)andCategory:Shipping (fandom).I don't think there's ever going to be a real need to disambiguate the lesbian character relationship category from a category for lesbian boats.WordyAndNerdy(talk)00:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As an aside Sylki would fit underCategory:Selfcest shipsif there's any interest in such a category.WordyAndNerdy(talk)WordyAndNerdy(talk)01:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point, naming them F/M ships (etc) would also work (and no objection to dropping "fandom" from the name here).- -sche(discuss)02:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy:I also support “F/M”, to match the “M/M” and “F/F” categories.J3133(talk)05:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we can also deleteCategory:en:Homosexual ships (fandom)and its parent category. From what I remember this category was originally created by another user to house both M/M and F/F ships. I created the M/M and F/F categories to create separation (and also to avoid the dated connotations ofhomosexual).WordyAndNerdy(talk)01:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

An additional possible interpretation of "bisexual ship" isOT3swith characters of multiple genders. There's currently only one entry that fits that bill (Clexana), thoughnot for lack of tryingon my part.WordyAndNerdy(talk)04:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy:Should I make an RfM? Also, I suppose the current “Heterosexual” category, as “for specific ships between characters of different genders”, would include ships between non-binary and male/female characters, whereas “M/F” would not.J3133(talk)05:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are no objections to renaming the category "Category:F/M ships", I will try to just make that change with AWB soon. I will also delete "Category:en:Homosexual ships (fandom)",it seems to serve no purpose anymore: its two subcategories can just go into the next-higher categories (shipping and LGBT) directly.- -sche(discuss)03:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I've moved/renamed the "heterosexual ships" cat, and removed the "homosexual ships" category. (The F/F and M/M cats have yet to be moved/renamed.)- -sche(discuss)01:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@-sche,WordyAndNerdy:I haveaddedanother sense toheterosexual( “(of a romantic or sexual act or relationship)Between two people of different sex.” ) to match the second sense athomosexual( “(of a romantic or sexual act or relationship,formal,distancing ordated)Between two people of the same sex;gay.”).J3133(talk)08:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

formality

Senses 2, 3 and 4 sound very similar, can't we condense them into two or even one?PUC–17:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Older dictionaries (Century 1911, MW 1913, Webster 1828) have as many as 8 definitions, newer ones only 3. We sometimes claim to be a historical dictionary. Are we missing something needed to understand how older works usedformality?— Thisunsignedcomment was added byDCDuring(talk•contribs) at17:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC).

Possibly two, but definitely not one. The formalities of a taxonomy are usually not (mere) formalities,if you see what I mean.All of the word's more specific/particular senses are, logically (and formally 😉), subsenses under the broadest one meaning "the state or an instance of being formal", but if a Wiktionarian consensus refuses to indent them (##), the flaw is venial.Quercus solaris(talk)17:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

demon

Discussion moved fromWiktionary talk:Tea room/2024/October#demon.

I would like to dispute one of the definitions of the word "demon"on this website. It's definition 1 sense 1; I have no idea of the proper jargon, so I may have butchered this (I'm new to Wiktionary). If I butchered it, let me just quote it:" An evil spirit resident in or working for Hell; a devil. "The Bible seems to indicate that demons do not come from hell but are instead going to hell after the second coming of Christ (Mt. 25:41,Rev. 20:10). The place they are currently locked up, most often referred to as "the abyss" or "the bottomless pit" depending on the translation (Luke 8:31,Rev. 20:1-3), is a temporary prison where they are held until it is time for God's judgment (2 Pet. 2:4,HCSB;Jude 1:6). So, maybe the definition should be altered in order to account for the disparity between popular belief and the Scriptures, because the current definition seems biased towards one belief system.

Note: All BIble verses are from the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition except for 2 Peter 2:4, for which I decided to cite from the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I chose that translation because where most translations chose to translate "Tartarus" as "hell", which I feel is erroneous, this one chose to use the Greek term, which I feel shines a better light on the verse's meaning.NAIO23(talk)23:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@NAIO23:this is the correct place to post this. The talk page is just for talkingaboutthe Tea Room, not posting to it.Chuck Entz(talk)00:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As to substance: "hell"is a Germanic word that originally referred to a place in Germanic mythology. The scriptures use a lot of different terms that require a great deal of interpretation to arrange into a coherent picture. The interpretations that have led to the cosmology in general English usage are different from yours, but that doesn't mean one or the other is the" correct "one. Complicating things is the usage of pagan Greek names by Jesus and others to refer to things: for instance, the" gates of Hell "is"πύλαι ᾅδου",literally" gates ofHades",and 2 Peter 2:4 uses the verbταρταρόω,"to cast intoTartarus"- a verb also used by Homer in the Iliad. What you distinguish as the true Hell is described in various ways: Matthew 25:41 says"πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον","the eternal fire "and Revelations 20:10 refers to castingεἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ θείου,"into the lake of fire and sulfur". Revelations 20:14 refers toὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης,"Death and Hades" being thrown into the same lake of fire and sulfur. As for Luke 8:31, it does useἄβυσσον,"abyss",but who's to say that's mutually exclusive with" hell "? Jude 1:6 says the fallen angels"εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν","unto the day of great judgment are being kept in eternal chains under deepest darkness "(or something like that).

As you can see, the actual wording doesn't support your clear-cut distinction between the current places of imprisonment and punishment and the "hell" of the time after the Last Judgment. That doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but a descriptive dictionary based on usage can't override popular conceptions based on your interpretation alone.Chuck Entz(talk)01:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We record the senses of terms as they are actually used by speakers of the language in question. For example, just in books from the 17th and 18th centuries we see uses such as

• “a demon from hell”;^[2][3][4][5]
• “demons from hell”;^[6]
• “his demons in hell”.^[7]

--Lambiam19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

baoziPronunciation

Hey, a pronunciation audio was added to baozi page. I feel it reflects an "incorrect" but likely common pronunciation. Regardless of my opinion, what would the appropriate label for this pronunciation be? I don't want readers thinking this is the standard pronunciation (unless it is somehow??). Thanks!Geographyinitiative(talk)19:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't even follow any of the IPA transcriptions. I'd say it's wrong, but I don't know if some Americans pronounce it that way. —Sgconlaw(talk)20:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

GermanBruch:definitionally usually fit for pastoral use?

Back in2018,an IP changed the definition to say that aBruchis "usually [...] fit for pastoral use, rather than [an] actual bog[] or swamp[]". I have not spotted this detail in other dictionaries (nor when searching Google Books for any books confirming or denying it), all of which just define it as a forested swampy area. (In contrast, Ihavemanaged to find information about whether various other wetland words typically refer to inhabited or cultivated or pastoral or uncultivatable places.) Can anyone confirm or deny this detail?- -sche(discuss)22:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I may have been that IP. I have at any rate worked on the entry. Now, the DWB(1) says "es ist also, wie aue, ein feuchter wiesengrund, der beweidet und betreten werden kann". This may be the origin of the passage. Other dictionaries do say that "Bruch" has trees and brushes, which in my understanding suggests that it's not the same as "Moor" (bog), but might be the same as "Sumpf" (swamp).92.218.236.8517:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sleboggan

Sle from sled Boggan from toboggan

Sleboggan Register Trademark acquired by william c herrick First used in October 2011 Patent definition: Device for steering a toboggan67.172.45.3611:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Teuton

In the Etymology section ofTeutonwe display quite a bit of etymological information typically reserved for Descendant sections of word entries. Is there a reason why we show this detail on the page?Leasnam(talk)19:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• It seems excessive. I would just mention that it's cognate withdeutsch,and point people to the proto-Germanic entry for more information about cognates in other languages. That's at least useful information (the organisation that in English is called theTeutonic Orderis just called theDeutscher Ordenin German).Smurrayinchester(talk)12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

am

Per Wiktionary's "include all definitions people use, not just the ones that are considered proper", the use of "am" as a third person singular present tense form (with an appropriate label) should be included; an example is the phrase "the battle am in my hand" from "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho".Georgia guy(talk)14:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As long as you can cite attestations that meet the criteria set forth in [Criteria_for_inclusion], then yes.Leasnam(talk)21:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

For the few very irregular verbs like this, I suppose having separate sense lines may be the way to go, but it's worth noting that a lot of (sub)varieties of English do this kind of thing withevery arbitraryverb, as a grammatical rather than a lexical thing (just like every English word, including classes of words like adverbs that don't normally pluralize, can be pluralized when referring to how manyslowlys a document contains, which wedecided not to include). SeeWiktionary:Tea_room/2017/August#hates.So hopefully more people can weigh in on what they think should be done here, because I think we'd benefit from a discussion of whether this kind of thing is best handled word by word by word as a lexical thing, or just byAppendix:English grammar.- -sche(discuss)01:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that the English of the slaves came from one or more English-basedpidginlanguages, paradigmatic leveling of asuppletiveverb like this is thoroughly plausible. On the other hand, there's a lot of early attestation that made fun of the slaves by turning their speech into caricatured "plantationese" so everyone could laugh at how illiterate they were. I'm not sure where this fits on the continuum from "plantationese" toAAVE.Chuck Entz(talk)02:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Some versions of the lyrics of "Polly Wolly Doodle" also use "am" this way.Georgia guy(talk)23:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

tidyw.r.t. data science

I take CompSci at university, and I recently learned that "tidy" in data science (usually in R Programming, sometimes in Python as well) refers toa specific way of formatting datasets,although obviously this is hardly new knowledge to anyone. Should that definition be included here? Since other science-y definitions to regular English terms are also included on Wiktionary.Insaneguy1083(talk)07:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems appropriate. I added the sense attidy#Adjective.Quercus solaris(talk)20:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Russian colloquialisms

Seems like that Russian colloquialisms have a different criteria from English. Like,вперемежкуandвперемешкуare indeed rare to find in official documents, but it is definitely not pure colloquialisms, and they are pretty normal in serious conversations or books etc. Such words are just not used in bureaucratical setting. So are they colloquial at all?Tollef Salemann(talk)12:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No. “colloquial” does not mean “cannot be used in formal settings”, and it certainly does not mean “nonstandard”. That’s why we have labellings “colloquial, law” and “slang, law”. There is elbow room to use the terms for clarity and/or artistic licence, but since there are many different ways to express the same only the latter consideration applies, which does not apply to official documents so much.Fay Freak(talk)14:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a phrase "low colloquial" for просторечие. "Colloquial" is разговорный язык. There is therefore a difference between colloquial uses of the sort all speakers of a language resort to in conversation, and low colloquial uses seen as sub-standing in some way. I'm reading a book about conversational Russian, Outline of Colloquial/Conversational Russian: Linguistic Overview of the System by James Holbrook, in which he emphasises the difference. He argues that pronouncing действительно as диситна is not low colloquial, but something everyone does, for example.2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B8209:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Whoops. I meant to write "sub-standard". I don't know why I wrote "sub-standing", but I can't edit it.2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B8211:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wal-Mart

Wal-Martshould be created as a redirect toWalmart.It was the store's old spelling before they changed it to Walmart. I tried to redirect it, but it said that "you do not have permission to create this page."2600:1700:4410:47A0:155:A798:7C9B:255E14:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I can create that entry, reliably sourced & with example quotations.Nevermind, back on 12 Jan 2008, it was deleted because it "failed RFD or RFV: does not meet current requirements for brand-name entries".Erminwin(talk)15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind. It looks like the issue is solved.Wal-Marthas been removed as an alternative form in theWalmartentry.2600:1700:4410:47A0:B350:39A8:E42:F01019

49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

rheumides

Old medical term: is it justherpes?Linkyspoot(talk)11:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you find usage of the term, preferrably in conformity withWT:ATTEST(not just in dictionaries)?DCDuring(talk)14:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone else can do that if they want. I'm too bustyLinkyspoot(talk)14:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Quit your boasting.

In any event, consider this, from an 1877 medical journal:Thus Piffard, in speaking of the rheumides (in this class he puts eczema, psoriasis, pityriasis, etc.) says, "it may be formally stated that the affections pertaining to this diathesis are all probably due to an accumulation in the blood of an excess of certain excrementitious substances, and presumably those that are efficient in the causation of gout and rheumatism.DCDuring(talk)14:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an obsolete term in the classification of dermatological conditions coined in 1874 by American dermatologistHenry Piffard.^[8]A report on a mildly enlightening discussion that took place on March 16, 1875, can be readhere.The singularrheumatidealso occurs, presumably as an obvious back-formation. --Lambiam18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

nous ayions

In a paper published by a French entomologist in a German journal in 1959 I find "Ce matériel est, de loin, la meilleure collection africaine que nous ayions jamais vue, à tous égards." Wiktionary does not recognizeayions.Modern authors say to useayonsinstead. Is the use ofayionsarchaic or simply a common error? The author was working in Delémont at the time, if this is a regional variation.Vox Sciurorum(talk)18:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To me, it just looks like a mistaken attempt to render the subjunctiveayonsimperfect by analogy withavons→avions,perhaps due to a lack of familiarity with the moribund imperfect subjunctive form. But it's more than possible that it has/had more widespread use.Andrew Sheedy(talk)21:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Quoting from a webpage:^[9]

Exercices (cherchez les erreurs)

...

9. Il est contrarié que nous ne lui en ayions pas parlé.

...

Réponses

...

9. Faux. Il faut écrire: Il est contrarié que nous ne lui enayonspas parlé. On n’écrit pas « que nous ayions », mais « que nous ayons », sans « i ».

...

--Lambiam18:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

bus driver

Searching "always the bus driver" on (for example) twitter (X)shows a high amount of people using the phrase to mean something like "a person or group of people randomly mentioned", usually negative. It seems it originates fromthis tweet.Is this a valid reason to add this meaning, or is it not widespread enough? Is it purely internet slang? Fandom slang? Do other places other than twitter use this phrase a lot?Ideoticideot(talk)06:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this weird phrase is quite widespread on Twitter already, I’d suggest creating it and labelling it a ‘hot word’, in which case it might get challenged in a year or so if no more durable cites appear.Overlordnat1(talk)07:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

to get someone at it

This idiom isn't in Wiktionary, or I can't find it as a separate head entry. This is the entry in the OED:

get, v.

d. to get (someone) at it: to have (a person) `on', to make fun of. slang.

1958: F. Norman Bang to Rights iii. 136 “You see I did this on perpose just to get her at it.” Ibid. 151 “He had half sused that the boggie was getting him at it.”

[Some of those quotations given in the OED must give the original incorrect spellings.] I'm not sure it has to mean "make fun of", In my personal idiolect, it can mean "to get someone doing constant pointless stuff". E.g. if someone writes an article, and you ask for many copyediting changes, and they do them, and then you go back to them with 10 more queries, and they resolve them too, and then you go back with a few more queries, you can say "I don't mean to get you at it, but can you look at these queries too?"

I think maybe the original meaning is that constant pettifogging requests can be a form of "having someone on", but then by extension it also means "putting someone in a constant hamster wheel of pointless requests". Is my personal use wrong? And should this idiom be included in Wiktionary? I have never made any head entries, so someone else would be better at implementing it than me.2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B8209:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

ummah

Is this usex OK?What are you doing akhi? Are you shoplifting? Astaghfirullah, look at the ummah today.- I find it difficult to understand and/or offensive.P. Sovjunk(talk)17:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it means something like "What are you doing, brother? Are you shoplifting? I'm shocked at the behavior of the ummah today." It is a little unclear, yeah.CitationsFreak(talk)18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

(However, it isn't offensive, and implying it is feels offensive to me.)CitationsFreak(talk)18:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s offensive, but we should just replace it with a more straightforward usage example that doesn’t require a reader to look up the wordsakhiandastaghfirullahjust to figure out what it means. Something like “Sunnis are the largest denomination of Muslims, making up about 85–90% of theummah.”—Sgconlaw(talk)11:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

slave to sin,servant of sin

Should we have entries for these? CompareGermanSündenknecht.PUC–18:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew SheedyPUC–18:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

In English, I don't think so. We have figurative senses ofslaveandservantthat suit these expressions and all the similar ones.DCDuring(talk)18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'm with DCDuring. They don't strike me as being sufficiently lexicalized to merit their own entries. You could also say "enslaved to sin" or "enslaved by sin" or "a slave of sin." The variety of different forms suggests to me that the concept is best expressed with figurative senses at "slave", "enslave(d)", and "servant".Andrew Sheedy(talk)04:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Researchshipandresearch ship:heteronyms or homophones?

Areresearchshipandresearch ship(alternative formresearchship) heteronyms or homophones? I had put them down as heteronyms (/ɹɪˈsɜːt͡ʃˌʃɪp/or/ˈɹiːsɜːt͡ʃˌʃɪp/(stress on the second or first syllable)v./ɹɪˌsɜːt͡ʃˈʃɪp/(stress on the third)), but @P. Sovjunkthinksthey are homophones. I could be wrong, or canresearch shipbe pronounced both ways? Thoughts? —Sgconlaw(talk)22:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course, in English, people can make up and use any words they want, and once used, they are captured in dictionaries. Researchship, which in my view is accented on the second syllable, would be much more idiomatically "a research position". Research ship - well, the word "research" in itself was once accented on the 2nd syllable, and purists still insist on that, but not many people in England still insist on that. Research ship would normally have the primary accent on re- and the second accent on ship. The third accentual pattern you offered doesn't exist.2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:3F7E:AC4A:8A85:B36407:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you suggesting the following?

• Researchshipetymology 1 –/ɹɪˈsɜːt͡ʃˌʃɪp/.(Comment: since many people now pronounceresearchwith the primary stress on the first syllable, presumably/ˈɹiːsɜːt͡ʃˌʃɪp/also exists.)
• Research ship/researchshipetymology 2 –/ɹɪˈsɜːt͡ʃˈʃɪp/.

—Sgconlaw(talk)18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

My instinct is to pronounce them the same (as /ˈɹiːsɜːt͡ʃˌʃɪp/), but I haven't heard the word "researchship" pronounced, so I don't know what is standard.Andrew Sheedy(talk)18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Formatting of definitions for words borrowed into English

there are is category of words that fall at the border between being considered "foreign" and "accepted" (so for example, they might still be written in italics). for many of these lemmas, such asbaizuo,chuunibyou,gongbang,etc., the original language also has a definition rather than an expected gloss. should these be updated and reformatted as a gloss instead?Juwan(talk)20:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Specific epithets associated with places

Manyspecific epithetsare formed as Latinate adjectives. Many are associated with nouns, eg, toponyms, in various languages, eg,liberiacus(Liberia),noveboracensis(New York). For good reasons such noun entries do not have usually have adjective sections.

Under what heading should such specific entries appear on the associated English (in these cases) noun pages?

1. Descendants of, in the cases above, the English toponyms, because they are intended to associate a species name with a place.
2. Translations, though they are adjectives and the toponym has no adjective section
   1. as Translingual, though Translingual isn't a language.
   2. as Latin, though Latinists object to including scientific, ecclesiastical, medical, and legal Latin
3. See also, because they don't fit any other heading well.

Or should they not appear at all, because no user we care about would ever want to find such Latinate terms associated with toponyms or other nouns?DCDuring(talk)13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Does this seem like a BP matter, possibly leading to a vote?DCDuring(talk)15:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Latinists object to including scientific, ecclesiastical, medical, and legal Latin":
  That's not true at all; e.g.:nōmen(“noun”)andpolygōnum(“polygon”)are scientific (linguistics; mathematics),āmēn(“amen”)ecclesiastical,trochiscus(“pill”)medical. But that's different from faux- or pseudo-Latin likeSerpens Cauda(literally“Snake Tail (not:Tail of the Snake,the Snake's TailorSerpentis Cauda)”).
• noveboracensis,for example, does not descendent fromNew York,so "Descendants" section would be wrong.
• noveboracensisis no translation ofNew York,so that "Translations" section would be incorrect. However, there are adjectives likeNew Yorkian.

--17:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Term for a certain kind of mistranslation

A name for when an attempt to translate via acalquefails solely because the "attempted word" is anaccidental gap.A species of near miss or nice try. There's an established name for this, I seem to recall, but I can't think of it, and neither can Gemini it seems. An example would be if one language has a word such as "embridgification" (meaning bridging or bridgebuilding) but the target language happens to lack the homologous form by mere accident.Quercus solaris(talk)02:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We categorise those underCategory:Non-native speakers' English.I guess it's a "pseudo-anglicism"although that only refers to English terms that don't exist in native speakers' vocabularies.Smurrayinchester(talk)11:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

(There's also the Wikipedia pageCrosslinguistic influence.That doesn't give any name for this error other than "calque" )Smurrayinchester(talk)11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Great link, thanks. I guess if a term specific to that subtype does exist, it is rare enough that I will give up trying to uncover it. Thanks again.Quercus solaris(talk)15:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

objectsona

Hello, I don't do a lot on Wiktionary. My attention was drawn[10]to the wordobjectsona,and I noted that all the quotes are tweets. Is this considered good enough for inclusion around here?Gråbergs Gråa Sång(talk)10:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

railroadin roleplaying

The definition we give seems wrong, almost backwards - I understand it as meaning "Forcing players to stick rigidly to thedungeon master's planned plot, rather than allowing them improvise actions that change the path of the story. "For example, if the DM wants players to steal an artifact from a dragon, but the players have the idea of making a magical copy of the artifact instead, the dungeon master mightrailroadthem by saying "Magic can't copy this particular item." But I haven't played RPGs much, so before I edit this I wanted to check if other people had the same impression.Smurrayinchester(talk)11:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think your definition is better than the existing one.Andrew Sheedy(talk)08:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Changed the definition.Smurrayinchester(talk)16:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey can you pull around?

Which of the 27 senses ofpullis this:“Why Do Drive-Thrus Ask Customers to ‘Pull Around’?”?Or ispull arounda phrasal verb missing an entry? --Lambiam08:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lambiam:I think we are missing the intransitive (?) sense "to drive a vehicle to a particular place". I'm not surepull aroundis a specific phrasal verb; in the above article it seems to mean driving past a drive-through window, going around and pulling up to the same window. We also speak of cars "pulling up" to a curb, to a shop, etc. —Sgconlaw(talk)12:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

But I don't think it works without something - either a preposition or an adverb.pull up,pull in,pull into,pull out,pull back,pull forward,pull over,pull around,but never just pull (unless your car has broken down). Is there some way we can format that without creating a dozen separate phrasal verbs?Smurrayinchester(talk)13:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lambiam,Smurrayinchester:maybe something like "Followed byout,over,up,etc.:to drive a vehicle in a particular direction or to a particular place ", and then add some usage examples or quotations. —Sgconlaw(talk)14:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, have added it.Smurrayinchester(talk)08:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sơ thứ kiến diện

(NotifyingBenwing2,Fish bowl,Frigoris,Justinrleung,kc_kennylau,Mar vin kaiser,Michael Ly,ND381,RcAlex36,The dog2,Theknightwho,Tooironic,Wpi,Thẩm trừng tâm,Hận quốc đảng phi xuẩn tức phôi,LittleWhole)::Hi. Can someone please assess the frequency/currency of this phrase? It's commonly used by non-Chinese (Japanese or Korean speakers) in reference to their equivalent stock phrase or when trying to translate from Chinese into Japanese or Korean. I've got an example of such usage in my "Shadowing" book for Japanese learners (in four languages - Japanese, English, Chinese and Korean) - so I would oppose a deletion request.

Is it actually used by Chinese native speakers? Thanks in advance.Anatoli T.^{(обсудить}/^вклад)01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Atitarev:From my perspective, as a verb, it sounds conversational to me, though it might be SOP. For the phrase, I've never heard it used that way. Seems like a calque ofSơ めまして.--Mar vin kaiser(talk)02:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser:Thanks. Indeed, seems like a calque of the JapaneseSơ(はじ)めまして(hajimemashite)or Korean처음 뵙겠습니다(cheo'eum boepgetseumnida).It has penetrated multiple textbooks and dictionaries, as a standard translation of those phrases, including books published in China or Taiwan.Anatoli T.^{(обсудить}/^вклад)03:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

At least in Singapore, it's not a very common phrase. But I can understand it without any problem. The wording is quite self explanatory. Sơ thứ sounds exceptionally formal tough. It's not something I would use in a casual setting.The dog2(talk)03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly citeable asa phrasebut often in those various bi- or multilingual resources. The phrase in ja and ko are very formal, so that's an equivalent in that sense.Anatoli T.^{(обсудить}/^вклад)03:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Atitarev:I don’t know how idiomatic it is. It is a possible collocation, but I don’t think it’s a particular phrase used natively. It seems to be SoP on the surface. I would need to see more actual usage of the phrase (even by non-native speakers) that may show that there is meaning more than the sum of its parts. —justin(r)leung_{{(t...)|c=›}}18:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Justinrleung:Thanks. Please check the file inhttps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1EbCBAE8claNorzKm70uOopQuYOE8whQg?usp=sharing.I've saved just a few Japanese/Chinese and Korean/Chinese examples (as a phrase) from published books. To me, it seems an attempt to translate as close as possible equivalent phrases in Japanese and Korean into Chinese, which seems not as common among native Chinese speakers. There are many more examples in textbooks, phrasesbook and dictionaries. Perhaps usage notes?

(This somewhat reminds of the Russianна здоро́вье(na zdoróvʹje)when it's used in the sensecheers!(toast).)Anatoli T.^{(обсудить}/^вклад)04:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung:I've saved the references as screenshots in my link but I realised it's maybe not what you want. Basically I searched the Chinese phrase together with some Japanese and Korean translations in Google books.Anatoli T.^{(обсудить}/^вклад)05:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Atitarev:The screenshots are a good starting point, but it would be good if you could include the actual Google Books links and cite them using the{{quote-book}}/{{zh-q}}templates. It would also be good to perhaps include examples where it might be less obviously translated from Japanese/Korean (i.e. things that are not phrasebooks/textbooks, but perhaps book translations that don't have the original Japanese/Korean right beside it). —justin(r)leung_{{(t...)|c=›}}06:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Justinrleung:I would need help quoting Chinese resources with the phrase used by native speakers and without Japanese or Korean. The usage is restricted on bilingual resources or translations from Japanese or Korean.

The below hits seem to be translations:

1. Sơ thứ kiến diện (1)
2. Sơ thứ kiến diện (2)
3. Sơ thứ kiến diện (3)
4. Sơ thứ kiến diện (4)
5. Sơ thứ kiến diện (5)

Anatoli T.^{(обсудить}/^вклад)09:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

たいと tư う onTư うandたい

Hello. Can someone please say whyTư うandたいusage notes have no about ～たいと tư う with "to be going to" meaning?Frozen Bok(talk)15:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also for @Sgconlawtoo.Frozen Bok(talk)16:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Frozen Bok:not sure why I have been pinged, as I don't know Japanese and don't edit Japanese entries. Sorry I can't help. —Sgconlaw(talk)18:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Western Yiddish lb tag

Since most of our discussion and entries of Yiddish on here are of Eastern Yiddish, I feel like it would be helpful if someone could create a Western Yiddish category and lb tag, to demarcate words such asאָרן(orn)orהאַרלע(harle)which aren't really used in Eastern Yiddish. Not "Netherlandic" though, because I think that just refers to the pronunciation of vowels of Western Yiddish as spoken in and around the Netherlands, and there's a whole separate Yiddish-speaking community in Alsace.Insaneguy1083(talk)08:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Kyrgyz and Kazakhжаз

Kazakh entry says Proto-Turkic *yāŕ ( “spring, summer” ).

Kyrgyz says From Proto-Turkic *jāŕ ( “spring, summer” ).

Is it correct that these are from two different proto turkic roots?Zbutie3.14(talk)22:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed?Tollef Salemann(talk)22:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The new word 'Extracism'

the power of extra:extracism What's your favourite extra feature about your country or your community? At what extra length did you go towards your academic research? The economics of extracism:what is the value of the/an extra?

Bcoz there is nothing like being extra! What are your thoughts on extracism?Vocabwordsmith(talk)17:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Please seeWT:CFI.This doesn't appear to be a completeprotologism,but I'm not sure most Google hits pass our cfi.Vininn126(talk)17:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

отъезжать “only used in отъезжа́ть наза́д”?

отъезжа́ть(otʺjezžátʹ)has two definitions, the second of which is ‘Only used in отъезжа́ть наза́д (otʺjezžátʹ nazád, “to back up” )’. This is somewhat confusing, as it seems to contradict the existence of the first meaning. I guess that what is meant is that it only occursin this sensein that combination. Moreover, it is not clear which of the 11 senses of ‘back up’ is meant. Could this not be better formulated? Incidentally, the sense of ‘back up’ is not given atru:отъезжать,so far as I can recognise.PJTraill(talk)00:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's also incorrect: "Я отъехал от магазина" sounds to me like "back up", not "drive away".Thadh(talk)06:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It says something about the English translations instead of describing the senses of the Russian term. This is what is wrong. Just remove the second and put up a good usage example or quote. Nobody claims a gloss to cover all possible translations.Fay Freak(talk)15:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

защи́тник: defence counsel?

защи́тник(zaščítnik)says this means “advocate, attorney” butru:защитникsuggests it means the counselfor the defence.This seems to need a correction or at least a usage note.PJTraill(talk)15:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are right, the page is wrong, you can derive the formulation in Wikipedia from the legal definition inArticle 49RF Code of Criminal Procedure; on the opposite end there is typical translator sloppiness added by Stephen G. Brown when we did not take ourselves as seriously.Fay Freak(talk)15:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

warmonger

Isn't the definition ofwarmongerlacking (in other dictionaries as well)? It states "advocates war", generally. Could an inhabitant of country A who writes an op-ed in a national newspaper to argue for war between countries B and C (neither allied to or against A) be considered a warmonger? That seems dubious.←₰-→Lingo^Bingo_Dingo(talk)21:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say thatdescriptivelyit's within the realm of thenatural.Awarmongeris most broadly anyone who tries to "sell"the choice of making war. Even when they're not abelligerentin the sense of that word meaning one of the warring parties, they'rebelligerentin the sense meaning eager for war andwarlike(bellicose). One of the factors here is that the wordwarmongeris tied so closely cognitively withmongerasdealerand witharms dealer=merchant of death,someone who tries to "sell"war (=" sell "killing and death) either literally (e.g., $$$, ₽₽₽, CN¥) or figuratively (e.g.,persuade,pitch,coax,egg on). As for the literal sense, people who sell weapons are infamous for thesometimetendency to sell to any and all customers, plugging back into the notion of "anyone anywhere who pitches war".Quercus solaris(talk)15:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

To me, at least, it seems natural / correct to describe Op-Ed Writer A as a warmonger, if they're pushing for war (whether it involves them or not). It wouldn't surprise me if there also exists a second definition more closely tied tomonger-as-merchant, though; is that what you're thinking of, or are you thinking of something else? Maybe we could search for cites that describe arms manufacturers (in peacetime and when they're not pushing for a new war) as warmongers, to try and distinguish that sense from the broad sense?- -sche(discuss)16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it might not be worth splitting into two senseid values; it's more the kind of thing where one senseid contains semicolons and (sometimes) "especially". Agossipmongeris anyone who spreads gossip (eithersellsit orsellsit), even if it might beespeciallysomeone wholiterallysellsit (e.g., tabloid/magazine editors).Quercus solaris(talk)16:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I was a bit of time getting it done

Which of our definitions ofbecovers this:

• 1907,C. J. Cutcliffe Hyne,McTodd,page232:

  The bag was crisp with ice, and with my fingerless gloves Iwasa bit of time unholing the buttons. But I got the flap turned back at last, and there was Ryan grey-faced and stark.

What aboutgoogle books: "I was some time in","he was some time quite covered with the cloud of dust", "He was some time Examiner in Natural Science,[…]"?I don't get the sense that this use ofbeis uncommon, though I'm not sure if it's archaic or still current.- -sche(discuss)16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds a bit old-fashioned. And yet I hesitate to call it dated or archaic.He was a long time getting that done.If I heard that in speech, it wouldn't draw my attention. If someone had said that to me today, before I read this Talk thread, I would not have thought twice about its form.Quercus solaris(talk)16:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Which of the definitions ofbecovers this? (Are we missing a sense? The meaning is sort-of similar to, but is not, 3.4 "occur, take place"; in the phrases I can think of, it is more like "spend (time)", but perhaps the same sense can also be used in other phrases and the meaning is more general.)- -sche(discuss)02:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think of it as "UK", especially "a bit of time". Couldn't one say "I was four hours getting it done."? In the US one might say "I got it done in four hours." or "I was done in four hours."DCDuring(talk)15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this the same "to take a duration of time" sense as "Dinner willbe10 minutes "," Itwasan hour before he returned "(which I also don't think we have). If so, I'd say this is a very common current sense, but some constructions using it now feel a bit dated.Smurrayinchester(talk)16:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What's different I think, is that the subject is an agent, not the patient.DCDuring(talk)18:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Unsupported titles/S:t Michel

Would it be possible to remove the backslash from the head, so that instead of "S\:t Michel" it would say "S:t Michel" and still link toUnsupported titles/S:t?Mölli-Möllerö(talk)11:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed.Smurrayinchester(talk)14:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)