Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Newest 10 tagged RFVs

• isoxathiole
  prolegalism
  kilo-metre
  trone
  go
  sanguisuge
  WTFO
  plate number
  deck
  choosable
  

Scope of this request page:

• In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
• Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”

Templates:

• {{rfv}}
• {{rfv-sense}}
• {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}

Shortcut:

• WT:RFV

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Format for citations
• Standard entry layout
• A list of searchable external archives, useful for finding durably-archived media to quote.

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

• Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
• Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

• Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
• Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
  In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Oldest 100 tagged RFVs

• trema
  ↑
  ↓
  soothness
  superseminate
  Hawai`ian
  pilk
  accordion
  abstorted
  pantaphobia
  I'dn't
  born
  flower
  pal up
  nonkilling
  royd
  proliferation
  morning-after
  BeReal
  boot
  code vector
  slaveboy
  oversit
  underfong
  dominus vobiscum
  nuces vomicae
  oes
  ponderosa
  kaparrang
  malasapsap
  virtually
  kreyk
  aquan
  pyment
  VIPer
  win one's spurs
  Adessenarian
  ignorantia juris non excusat
  false venus comb
  away
  pick flowers
  rontosecond
  heartburn
  Meiteilogist
  Meiteiologist
  allege
  Classical Meitei
  Classical Manipuri
  Ancient Meitei
  louk
  centimate
  Hu
  German vice
  facingly
  concrete
  in-line
  taptastic
  shis
  Odajyan
  palpebrate
  bête de scène
  feign
  underfriction
  wray
  Romaboo
  cyberethical
  snowman hole
  whorenalist
  caput Mundi
  slur
  thunder
  to high heaven
  Nerdview
  sparling
  Littie
  kettle king
  anti-reciprocal
  marrot
  confusionism
  forinsecal
  rave
  pseudocompressible
  grithbreach
  cornobble
  humen
  ring-a-ding
  silent h
  it wasn't only only
  frithy
  heroyam slava
  heroiam slava
  sh*t your mouth
  aweful
  geopbyte
  uncleft
  willy warmer
  phyllo-decaoxotetrasilicate
  primiparous
  soycialism
  who's
  

March 2022

wehrb

This was closed as RFV-passed in 2020 without providing three durably archived cites: Talk:wehrb. Google Groups has nothing. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it is only recorded online, as far as I can tell. The only think that I can find that is arguably durably archived is this tweet from 2016 under the argument that the Library of Congress has a copy (see this post for overview), but it also seems very mention-y. As a side note, we can probably add wehrbette ([1]) to the list of non-CFI compliant terms. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. I immediately knew what this meant, even though I've never seen it before. Terrible. Theknightwho (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Failed for now, this may be revisited if the CFI allows blogs and such, but it seems extremely rare even with social media included. - TheDaveRoss 14:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

amogus

Equinox ◑ 03:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

WP redirect was deleted multiple times before it got ECP salted. But then someone created it again and it still stands. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:26 18:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

What is "ECP snowed"? Equinox ◑ 02:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the IP means "ECP salted". See [2]. This, that and the other (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, got confused with W:WP:SNOW and W:WP:SALT. 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:1C 12:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

what 142.113.162.38 21:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Someone put a citation. Check please. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:5D 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Not durably archived, but that shouldn't get in our way anymore. Now let's have two more good ones. Apparently this figure was royalty back in the day [3] This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We have empirical evidence (See #for all intrinsic purposes.) that linkrot for "non-durably archived" citations removed 4/6 from 2007 to ~May 1, 2022, ie, a half-life of ~9 years. DCDuring (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There are ways around this, such as the Internet Archive. Theknightwho (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Failed for now. - TheDaveRoss 14:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss Why did you delete a term with 3 citations and over 5 million ghits? Ioaxxere (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

All 3 cites are for capital-A "Amogus", and they are poor: e.g. the one that says "the intentional misspelling Amogus" is a mention, not a use (and not even a terribly convincing mention). Equinox ◑ 15:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox I've added a few articles into Citations:amogus. Hopefully these are enough. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

westaboo

98.170.164.88 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"...enjoys western media" is a poor definition, too. It means popular entertainment like films and music, doesn't it? Not western media like The New York Times. Equinox ◑ 20:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Added Twitter cites spanning 12 years over here. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Weeaboo seems to have thousands of durably archived usages, are we sure that this isn't just a pun repeated a few times on Twitter? - TheDaveRoss 14:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

abies

This is claimed to be the third-person singular of aby, but that entry gives abys as the correct form. It doesn't seem like the verb was used much in this form, so it could be hard to verify either way. (I can't think of any other English verbs in -VCy where the final -y is a stressed diphthong from which to make an analogy, but that might be more of a TR question.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

See Category:Rhymes:English/aɪ/2 syllables for a few. Etymologically, they seem to be all from Old French- so they probably aren't good models for an Old English inheritance like this one. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do here. This is an exceptional situation where the regular form of an English verb is unclear. I did some searching in EEBO some months ago for various third person singular forms of this verb, such as abies, abys, abyes (noting that OED lemmatises this verb at abye), abyeth, abieth, and I seem to recall coming up with nothing. Perhaps the verb was never attested in this form at all. This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: if you did a search and found nothing, sounds like this term fails verification. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes but (a) these terms are very difficult to search for and it's likely I missed something, so I'd like a second opinion, and (b) what to list at aby under "third-person singular"? This, that and the other (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

vajungle

Created by an indef blocked user. Could just about be speedied. This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Third cite is not durably archived? This, that and the other (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a use on Usenet, but it's in the middle of some kind of poetic word salad: [4]. Page 100 of this thesis uses the word, but with a different meaning. There are some uses on Twitter (not durably archived either), but not an impressive number. 98.170.164.88 01:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I was perhaps a bit too hasty to pass this, due to the third cite issue but the earliest Twitter use is from 2008 [5] and the earliest that clearly conveys meaning is the following from2009 [6]. Then there’s this early blog post from 2010 [7], the Guns and Roses cover band Guns and Hoses singing ‘Welcome to the vajungle’ and apparently selling ‘Vajungle pants’ according to Twitter, ‘Vajungle’ being the name of a play about sexual abuse (though I don’t know if hairy axe wounds feature), the comedian Ralphie May saying it in the YouTube video called ‘These are glorious times’ (over 3 million hits) and some uses on TikTok. Can’t see anything technically durably archived that conveys a clear meaning other than the two cites already found though, or even any GoogleImage hits for Vajungle memes. Probably slightly less worth of inclusion than Dorcassing or FaCIAbook which have already failed, for better or worse. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. We have two book cites, and miscellaneous mediocre web cites. Meh. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Failed, but very close to cited, I moved the cites to the citations page. My guess is that this is just an obvious pun/nonce which has been coined a number of times, and not a set term. - TheDaveRoss 12:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

anteroposteriorness

Creator has also linked to it from many other entries, so if deleted, please check for incoming links. Equinox ◑ 08:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I found and added two citations to the citations page, but have not yet found a third. Kiwima (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Purity of Virgins

Captain of Man's Salvation

Father of Heaven and Earth

Glory of Heaven

King of Glory

Joy of Angels

King of Patriarchs

Light of the World

Redeemer of the World

Sun of Justice

Being an epithet of some (real or fictional) entity does not, in my opinion, by itself imply a term is entry-worthy. Satan has been called “the adversary of man”.^[8] To fully understand the significance of the epithet requires some background, in particular (1) that Hebrew שָׂטָן (śāṭān) as a common noun means “adversary”, (2) that in the common Christian conception “the devil” and “Satan” refer to the same supernatural being; and (3) that the author of First Peter warns us, human beings, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” It only becomes lexical when writers use the term adversary of man, while readers are supposed to understand, without being told so, that this term refers to Satan. Likewise, if we read “Jesus, Purity of Virgins”,^[9] this use does attest to this being one of many Christian epithets for Jesus Christ, but verification requires more: uses attesting to the epithet’s having become lexicalized.  --Lambiam 18:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I agree mere use as a descriptor or epithet in a form like (e.g.) "Jesus, Captain of Man's Salvation" does not (itself) suggest that "Captain of Man's Salvation" lexically means "Jesus"; we need, at a minimum, more cites like the "when the Captain of Man's Salvation visibly ascended" one. (Even then, cf Talk:Prince of the Power of the Air...) - -sche (discuss) 23:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That quotation is lifted from a sermon on the Ascension of Jesus. In the context it will be clear to anyone who understands English, including people who have never before encountered the collocation Captain of Man’s Salvation and are also otherwise quite ignorant of the doctrines of Christology, that its referent is none other than Jesus Christ. Otherwise it would be like claiming that Stetsoned billionaire^[10] is a lexical term for Jeffrey Preston Bezos.  --Lambiam 09:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. These don’t seem like set phrases. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point. (Reminds me of what I raised with regard to "Prince of the Power of the Air", that "forty-third President of the United States" likewise always means one specific person, but . . . ) - -sche (discuss) 15:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

In that case, the meaning is understood because the term is a transparent sum of parts, like “the oldest son of Emperor Frederick III of Germany”. It is not particularly relevant that this means one specific person; the same issue applies to “the descendants of Emperor Frederick III of Germany”. Captain of Man’s Salvation is in contrast rather opaque and not a priori particularly meaningful; to assign it the idiomatic meaning of Jesus in our dictionary, we need to make sure the term is used by itself and meant to be understood as having that meaning.  --Lambiam 18:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of those are random descriptive phrases that have just happen to have been been used as epithets. King of Glory seems more like a set phrase, especially since (like Ancient of Days, which comes from Biblical Aramaic) it preserves something of the construct formation of the Hebrew original. I would note, however, that it originally referred to God- its application to Jesus is secondary and not deserving of an entry on its own. Light of the World feels like a set phrase to me as well. As a member of a church choir I've encountered it many times in prayers and anthems where the context implies a set phrase, though I'm not sure I can find them online. Also, it's used as part of organization names such as "Light of the World Ministries", which again implies a well known set phrase.

Looking at the google hits for "Oh, Light of the World" I also see some non-Christian usage where it refers to someone seen as the epitome of brightness. Perhaps it might be better to generalize it and make the Christian epithet a subsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

If there are senses meeting our CFI, they can be added. This holds equally for any subsenses, but a subsense does not automatically become entry-worthy by dint of the worthiness of its supersense. This RfV is an {{rfv-sense}} specifically for the (non-gloss-definition) sense “an epithet for Jesus Christ”.  --Lambiam 18:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Whew! I have cited all of these epithets. The ones I could not cite, I moved to another heading where they have been marked failed. Whether these epithets are inclusion-worthy is more a question for RFD than RFV. Kiwima (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I am unfortunately inclined to say not cited (for the most part); while I appreciate the time and effort you've put into finding occurrences of these sequences of letters in texts, they (mostly) don't demonstrate that these phrases idiomatically mean what the entries claim they idiomatically mean, as other users have laid out above, and that has traditionally been an RFV issue, despite some efforts of late to insist such things should be offloaded to the Tea Room, RFC, and/or RFD. (This has been an occasional issue with other things being marked as passed because the sequence of letters occurred in a book, but not actually in the claimed meaning, e.g. at quenouille.) For example, citations of the form "He is the immaculate Lamb of God; He is the Purity of Virgins; He is the Lover of Chastity." don't seem to me (or apparently Lambiam or other users above) to support the idea that it means or is lexically an epithet for "Jesus" any more than "Biden is the President" would support a sense "Epithet for Joe Biden" at President. I can see how the border between this and an RFD issue is a bit grey and fuzzy, but in this case the discussion above suggests that enough people think this (issue that we need other citations, if they exist [which we have RFVed the entries because we doubt], not citations of the form provided) is an RFV issue that I think it's correctly listed here. I don't want to step on anyone's toes but I am tempted to remove the citations like that ("He is the Purity of Virgins; He is the Lover of Chastity") for that reason (they don't satisfy the RFV issue). - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

PLM

Rfv-sense: “initialism of police lives matter”. Graham11 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Found one use on Usenet. There might be more, but PLM isn't an easy term to search for. Binarystep (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I put in a bunch of citations from various websites. In searching, I also saw a fair number of occurrences of "prison lives matter" and "Palestinian lives matter". Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed, only one valid cite. Probably a thing, but perhaps not set enough to merit inclusion. - TheDaveRoss 12:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

tankhood

1. The state or sphere of being in a tank, especially sea creatures.

This is apparently from Finding Nemo. Is this used anywhere else? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We have enough cites independent of Finding Nemo to pass WF:Fiction, but they are not permanently archived. Given the negative response we have gotten to putting the new voting scheme for citation acceptability on the main voting page, I am holding the vote for these cites below: Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not just let it ride, pending a policy vote? DCDuring (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I am not clear on what you are suggesting. Please explain. Kiwima (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wait until the relevant policy vote happens. No rush. 30 days is a minimum. There is no maximum. If this page gets crowded, move the undecided entries.definitions to a subpage. DCDuring (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Complicating things, this cite (also about Nemo) seems to use "tankhood" to refer to something akin to "brotherhood"/"sisterhood":

• 2010, Petra Eckhard, Michael Fuchs, Walter W. Holbling, Landscapes of Postmodernity: Concepts and Paradigms of Critical Theory, LIT Verlag Münster, →ISBN, page 169:

  His acceptance into the tankhood allows Nemo to conceive of his fellow fish as his surrogate family and redefine the concept of kinship.

(So if we found other cites of that, that'd be another sense...)- -sche (discuss) 21:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Dr. eccl. phil.

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The few web sources I can find all pertain to the Jewish University of Colorado (arguably misleadingly named, as it is actually Messianic Jewish/Christian). Those web hits may not even be durably archived. 98.170.164.88 22:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Ao-i-t'o-ko-la-k'o

Rare --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: you created this entry. Did you try to find at least three qualifying quotations spanning more than a year before doing so? It doesn’t seem to be a productive use of other editors’ time for you to create entries that you aren’t even personally sure will pass RFV. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No I did not. You're saying I should just go for the speedy delete? Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: no, since this entry doesn’t seem like it obviously violates the CFI I think RFV is the correct place to challenge it. But rather than challenging your own entries, in future you should only create new entries after at least making a reasonable attempt to ensure that CFI is complied with. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Very true, I agree and understand. My goal then was to just try and see what was out there. My goal now is to clean up the areas I have worked on and make them nice. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

thrifty

Rfv-sense:

• (obsolete) Secured by thrift; well husbanded.
• Having a pleasant appearance; looking or being in good condition.

OED gives only a Shakespeare cite for the first one (what does that gloss even mean?) and lacks the second sense. Webster 1913 marks the second sense as "Obs." and gives a Chaucer quote, which is placed by OED under a sense "Respectable, decent, becoming, proper" that has only Middle English evidence. This, that and the other (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems exceedingly hard to find citations that definitively use one of these two sense. Senses 2 and 5 ('thriving' and 'having a pleasant appearance') can be hard to distinguish; likewise for senses 3 and 4 when applied to an animal ('well-husbanded' and 'growing rapidly'). In a surprising number of texts, a beautiful, thriving and frugal woman is called thrifty! Nevertheless I've found a quote for the first that may match the gloss given. It's been added to the page. I've found more success looking for thriftie and thrifty than the standard spelling.

The fifth sense seems to have been grandfathered into the OED directly from Johnson's dictionary, Shakespeare quote and all.

One quote that may match the second is from Johnson's Cynthia's Revels, III. iv:

Nor can my weak imperfect memory
Now render half the forms unto my tongue,
That were convolved within this thrifty room.

The OED lists this as the only quote for its even more obscure sense 4.c, marked obsolete and transferred.

Winthrop23 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have cited the first of the two challenged senses (secured by thrift), and have added one for the second. Kiwima (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we have a better gloss for sense 4? I'm not totally sure I understand what this sense means. This, that and the other (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Naize'er Bage

A page which is seemingly uncitable. (I did not create it) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ick

"(slang) Anything moaned about; a gripe." Needs to be cited distinct from the other two senses. If real, it suggests there may be a plural "icks", which doesn't seem easy to find. Equinox ◑ 11:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Passed. - TheDaveRoss 12:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

radde

Rfv-sense: Chaucerian past participle of rede. The past participle of read is not really in doubt. This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Chaucer stuff tagged as Webster 1913 should just be converted to Middle English. W1913 did not distinguish between OE, ME and ModE. Equinox ◑ 10:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Still needs checking in EEBO to sift through all the pasts of read. This, that and the other (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

ming

Rfv-sense: "(intransitive) To speak; tell; talk; discourse. <!--obsolete? dialect? certainly not standard-->" OED has Middle English evidence only for this sense. This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

langure

Should be Middle English if anything? Webster's Chaucer source can't be found. Ultimateria (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Chaucer: “Now wol I speke of woful dauyan Þat langureþ for loue.” (MED) J3133 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ultimateria good catch; I should have moved the Chaucer bit to Middle English languren. There's nothing modern for this spelling in OED. In EEBO one finds a couple of noun uses and two post-1500 verb uses: one published from 1528 (not clear when it was written) and the other a 1670s modernisation of Julian of Norwich. This, that and the other (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Aangirasa

The forms "Āngirasa" and "Āṅgirasa" might be citable, if you want to count those as English words and not code-switching. "Aangirasa" has some uses as a name/epithet, but I could not find any using the calendar sense. 98.170.164.88 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

beme

Etymology 2 somehow got excluded from the RFV of this word; if I recall correctly, I wasn't able to find any post-ME cites of it. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kiwima, the cites you provided for this aren't any use, as they appear to be (Middle) Scots, not English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hazarasp They should be moved to Scots instead of being removed. J3133 (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I currently lack the time and energy to create the appropriate Scots entry. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

coalstuff

This is taken from Uncleftish Beholding, a demonstration of what technical English might have been like if Latin had never existed- not conveying meaning. I have my doubts whether there's anything out there that isn't basically quoting or referring directly to this passage. I did see at least one use of another sense having to do with actual coal as a raw material in some industrial process. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 13:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

sweet home Alabama

WTF? Zumbacool (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This definitely exists as an Internet meme, and would be citable using web sources. Finding offline durably archived citations is more difficult if not impossible. 98.170.164.88 19:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. The all cites provided were mentions, even though they were the web sources mentioned. - TheDaveRoss 13:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

economic need

Was added as Economic Needs, I applied standard formatting and moved it. Seems pretty poorly written tbh but I decided to bring it here to see what people say and whether they think it's SoP or not. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure we could find economic need being used in many ways, including even in accordance with the dreadful definition given. But I strongly suspect that those uses will be SoP, reflecting various definitions of the component terms. DCDuring (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see any sense of economic that would make this SOP.  --Lambiam 14:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there is a sense (or multiple senses) missing. I can think of other phrases that use the word economic to refer to one's personal resource situation and not that of the whole economy. Btw, I think the definition on economic need is confus(ed|ing). For example, it seems like quite a stretch to put "loving relationship" as an example, but I could be missing something. 98.170.164.88 16:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

In any event, we need citations that unambiguously support this definition or a reworded one in the same spirit. DCDuring (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Economics is an intellectually imperialistic field. Utility theory could apply to anything that humans want including "friendship,loving relationship, community services and workplace relations". If anything "economic need" is a pleonasm: all needs are subject to economic laws and reasoning. DCDuring (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

kinderfeindlichkeit

Tagged but not listed by an IP with the message “is this term actually used in English?”. Old Man Consequences (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Most uses I found were capitalized. Some were italicized but some weren't. 98.170.164.88 04:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Howe & Strauss use this word (albeit with a capital K) in their books (Generations, The Fourth Turning, etc.) when talking about the Gen-X childhood. I've used it myself. 2601:644:102:C610:C0EF:E040:37E0:F2F8 09:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a legal term that I have ever encountered in English law, and comes up with 0 results on Practical Law and Westlaw. It's total rubbish, so sense 1 should be speedied. Theknightwho (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Sense 1 (law) RFV-failed. Sense 2 is probably (just) citeable in lowercase from Google Scholar: [11] This, that and the other (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

stank

Rfv-sense: sigh. Not in OED. If kept, Swedish word should possibly be changed to stånka Zumbacool (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's in the EDD ({{R:EDD|stank|v.4 and sb.4|730|noformat=1}}) with a couple example sentences, but I'm not sure if those are taken from published works. If you look up "stanked" on Google Books, you can find some hits related to cows, and EDD also has examples related to cows. The EDD explains that the term is used for cows sighing in pain, but it seems like "stank" is being used differently in the cattle-related quotations I found. Not clear if it can be cited outside of that particular context, but it would be good if possible. 98.170.164.88 04:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

lightning

Rfv-sense: The act of making bright, or the state of being made bright; enlightenment; brightening, as of the mental powers. Zumbacool (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That seems to me to be four distinct definitions, which would require three citations each. Maybe a better definition is that it is a verb form, an alternative form of lightening. DCDuring (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a variant of lightening. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Converted to an alt form, but I didn't add any cites. OED has several before 1700, so EEBO might be a place to look. This, that and the other (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Passed, I guess, but next time actually add the cites! - TheDaveRoss 12:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

mabby

Liquor from Barbados, anyone? Zumbacool (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Found some hits for mobby being used in the Barbadian potato drink sense (not using apples or peaches as the current definition states, but that sense also exists). 98.170.164.88 04:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

crowned

Rfv-sense: great, excessive, supreme. Chaucer quote is wanted, but he's Middle English (enm), not English (en) Zumbacool (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Chaucer used the phrase "crowned malice", but I'm not sure this is what is being sought. 98.170.164.88 23:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The 1934 translation by John Urban Nicolson has “supreme malice”,^[12] which may have contributed to the notion that this is a sense of crowned. The American Dictionary and Cyclopedia of 1896 even has “consummate, consummated, perfect”,^[13] using Chaucer as a quotation. Methinks they are over-interpreting Chaucer’s intention. Earlier this was glossed as “sovereign malice”,^[14] which in the context seems a better fit to me, with sovereign in the sense of “not subject to a higher power”. Anyway, Chaucer’s ME use appears to be the origin of the disputed E sense, which may be dictionary-only.  --Lambiam 13:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This is OED sense 2 of crowned, adj:

2. Unfailingly effective, perfect, total; (also) completed, consummated. Now rare.

It gives the Chaucer quote but also (verified except where noted):

• Robert Burton in The Anatomy of Melancholy [translating (quoting?) "Ælianus Montaltus"]: "a crowned medicine"
• Robert Barret in A Companion for Midwives: "the crown'd Act of Conception"
• Samuel Richardson in his mammoth novel Clarissa: "the crowned act"
• Emmeline Stuart-Wortley in the third canto of her poem Visionary, published separately and which I have been unable to locate online (or in any library near me): "Their crowned truths"
• Ellen Maria Huntington Gates in The Treasures of Kurium: "That the crownèd truth advances."

Also, searching for "a crowned success" gives quite a few hits on google. This seems like a collocution but since it seems so much more common than other uses of crowned in this manner perhaps it is something more? In any case, Chaucer quote, the verifiable cites above, and one book use of "crowned success" have been added to the citations page. Is this enough? Winthrop23 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

amma

Rfv-sense: An abbess or spiritual mother. We already have a mother sense, but merging them seems dodgy... Zumbacool (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe some of these are usable: [15], [16], [17]. 98.170.164.88 23:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are lots of recent ecclesiastical history books that use the term: [18]; I'm sure some of these could be cited too. 98.170.164.88 23:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Indic

Senses:

• A branch of the Indo-European family of languages comprising Sanskrit and its modern descendants such as Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi.
• Relating to other languages of India, which use Brahmic scripts.
• Pertaining to India or its people, culture and languages; Indian.

Tagged by @Kwamikagami but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't confirm use as a noun (first sense). I'm curious how the 2nd is used, assuming it exists at all. For the 3rd, it would be good to have examples, at least what kind of nouns are modified by "Indic".

Also, "Indo-Aryan" as a synonym for the first. That does exists as a noun (for people), but AFAICT not in the sense here. kwami (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to find works that call Tamil and Telugu Indic languages, but maybe they're just mistakes: [19], [20], [21]. 98.170.164.88 00:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is descriptive; we go by uses. It is entirely possible that some use the term in a broader sense than others.  --Lambiam 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I take such works as lying. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

In an article entitled “A Dataset for Indic Handwritten Text Recognition”,^[22] the authors write in the abstract that they introduce “a large-scale handwritten dataset for Indic scripts ... written ... in 8 widely-used scripts”.^[23] These scripts are identified on the next page as being “Bengali, Gujarati, Gurumkhi, Kannada, Odia, Malayalam, Tamil, and Urdu scripts“.^[24] However we define the adjective, there should be a sense in which, applied to a script, it means, “a script used to write an Indian language”. (Note that the script used for Urdu is not an abugida, so, as used by these authors, “Indic script” is not synonymous with “Brahmic script”.)  --Lambiam 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is covered by what is currently the third sense, "Pertaining to India or its people, culture and languages; Indian." Even more strikingly, the authors' usage doesn't include the Burmese script, let alone Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep the first sense, the noun sense. I've just added three quotations.

I don't understand the second sense. Is it, 2a) "Relating to other languages of India" or 2b) "Relating to other languages of India which use Brahmic scripts". Once we've found the vaguely supporting quotations, do we spin it off to a request for clarification? To me, this pertains to an indigenist claim that Indic and Dravidian are related. I don't know whether this concept brainfart includes Munda, isolates like Kusunda and Burushaski, or the Sino-Tibetan languages of Assam, or even Tai languages like Ahom. At the very least, we need to change "Relating to other" to "Relating also to some other" or "Relating to any". --RichardW57 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep the third sense. I've just added three quotations. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan

Sense:

• A branch of Indo-Iranian and thus Indo-European language family, with a total number of native speakers of more than 900 million, chiefly in South Asia.

Tagged by @Kwamikagami but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As an adj, the Indo-Aryan languages, or branch of the family, sure, but AFAICT not as a noun with this sense. kwami (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Trivially easy to cite as a (proper) noun: here, here, here and here, to start with. I notice your qualifier "with this sense", so perhaps you're making some finer distinction- in which case you should explain what you mean. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

algospeak

Tagged by Jberkel, not listed. J3133 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is the only citable source I've found. Perhaps it could be a hotword, but it still needs 3 cites, right? – Jberkel 21:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added a durably archived cite, though it just paraphrases Lorenz' TWP article judging by the trailing citation. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

spratchet

"New entry. Definition found from various web sites, e.g. Urban Dictionary"

Aside from a surname, this only seems to be represented on GBooks by unviewable hits for books in the Sniglets series. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This poem, which uses the word in the sense given, looks durably archived: [25].

I'm not sure whether Sniglets should count as a use, since it's basically a dictionary of coinages. I couldn't access the book either, but an associated video clip is on YouTube [26], where the term is spelled "spratchetts".

I think this book is using it as a placeholder like doohickey: [27]. This Usenet post seems to use it to refer to an automobile-related object, but it may be a joke given that the other objects mentioned in the thread don't seem to exist either ("ufadufa valve", "double sided noggin washer"): [28]. Here it is being used as treknobabble: [29]. Looks like gibberish/placeholder here too: [30]. 98.170.164.88 20:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

neafs

Plural of neaf. I imagine neaves as a potential plural too. Pious Eterino (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Evidence for neaves: [31], [32], [33]. This looks like evidence for neafs, assuming the meaning is correct: [34]. This looked promising in OCR, but unfortunately it seems to actually have "neaſs", i.e., "knees": [35]. 70.172.194.25 00:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive, but here are a couple OCR search results that look like they might be using "neafs" in the requested sense. Archived in case they change. "NORTH SHIELDS POLICE COURT", "TRUTH PUZZLE No. 104" (the latter is a mention). 70.172.194.25 01:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems odd that your RFV-ing words that haven’t yet been created. It seems that you’ve justified creating neaves, so why not do so? I would suggest adding another definition to it, namely the plural form of neave which we have defined as an alternative form of neve, a rare and possibly obsolete word for nephew. neafs seems like a real word too but you could create it and add a couple of cites anyway and if anyone then wants to challenge it on RFV they could (I wouldn’t personally bother). Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added the RfV tag or started this section. 70.172.194.25 16:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added the quotation of neafs (“NORTH SHIELDS POLICE COURT”) 70.172.194.25 found to neaf. J3133 (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Good decision. I’ve now made things interesting and created neaves and neafs. Do we have to find 3 quotes for every alternative spelling and plural form though? Surely we could just add all the quotes we find to neaf and declare this to be RFV-resolved? Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

marinate

Rfv-sense: "When a bad person stays close to, protects and is nice to a person in order to gain their trust". I had previously added one durably archived quotation to Citations:marinate, but was holding back on adding the word. Would be citable with web sources, but print ones will be hard to find. 70.172.194.25 04:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

niggership

Cites, less slurs in definitions. I think it might be worth blocking people who use slurs in the definitions of words, that is USE not MENTION, which is a problem. - TheDaveRoss 13:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is probably a conversation for the Tea Room, but I'm in two minds about how we should handle definitions like this because it is an accurate gloss when you take into account what the suffix -ship means (and is consistent with other definitions of this format), and therefore essentially amounts to a mention. However, we should probably think of a better way of handling it so that it doesn't look like we're okay with casually dropping racial slurs into Wiktionary voice. Theknightwho (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Have either of you seen niggerhood ? It was created USING the same. BLOCK us all in that case (smh) Leasnam (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Just clarifying: my charged (and shocked) response was to the first opinion. I am fine and have no issue with the second, which sounds reasonable. Leasnam (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's another example of what I was talking about above. All X-hood entries could be defined as "The state or period of being X". Theknightwho (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Noted. For the record, I have no issue with niggerhood. I was just using it to make a statement. I'm glad reason still exists. Leasnam (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy: Regarding diff, is this correct? I was under the impression that ethnic slurs are words that one could derogatorily say to a member of an ethnic group, not just any word that is disparaging about an ethnic group. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:English ethnic slurs has a lot of entries that are used directly towards that specific ethnic group. As a side note, though, uhhhh do we really need all of these words??? The rate at which some of them are being defended is a bit concerning, and I'm really iffy on whether or not we should be giving currency to some of these niche and extremely offensive terms just because they get some cites in the most vile places on Usenet. I agree with @Theknightwho & @TheDaveRoss that these terms at the very least should avoid repeating the ethnic slur in the definition, even if it's done for other non-ethnic slur terms. AG202 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It is all somewhat difficult. I don’t know what those many words questionably labelled typically claim—trying to subsume under the definitions of slur or ethnic slur. Is niggerball perhaps only about the sports while the speakers, only in the contexts where they use this word, do not say anything particularly – in comparison to their usual talk – disparaging about the ethnic group? To an outsider it seems like the word’s usages also make derogatory claims about the ethnic group, but contextualized maybe there should be something particular in addition to containing the ethnic slur, since its users have a general rejective stance towards the ethnic group.

@AG202: Pursuant to my below reasoning that I wrote while you wrote, we can presume that the relevant terms are those which refer to members of an ethnic group, at least collectively. One cannot, as the definition of this category claims, “offend certain ethnic groups”, because they don’t exist, only individuals feel and are offended (possibly in some collective way, but the offension mechanism is about someone being presumed something because of belonging to that group, and the rest should be under some supercategory). In an analogous newer category we do not make this mistake: religious slurs—you may also look at the fuller Arabic category for what there is; the definition is by Chuck Entz 2015. Leasnam also seems to think like me as I read his answer about niggerness. So well I have given grounds why you can just change the definition given in the category—the definition of a category by a dictionary is a reason, too, why people misuse it, beside people’s wont of collective thinking and vain symbolism due to idpol, motivating them to differentiate themselves by vague labels slapped upon themselves and each other. Fay Freak (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the definition "insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnicity or racial group or to refer to them in a derogatory, pejorative, or otherwise insulting manner."

I suggest we use that. Theknightwho (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have mentioned it. Whether that definition covers these words is not immediately clear. I.e., is the use of niggership an “insinuation or allegation about members of a given ethnicity or racial group”? How oblique may the “insinuation” be? I don’t speak Wikipedia, often their content is senseless. Fay Freak (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Note the second half: "or to refer to them in a derogatory, pejorative, or otherwise insulting manner". There is no question that the definition as a whole covers all of those words. Theknightwho (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No, these words do not refer to them. niggerball refers to basketball and not Afro-Americans. Fay Freak (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

refer: "To allude to, make a reference or allusion to."

allude: "To refer to something indirectly or by suggestion."

Can you please drop this infantile line of argument? It is a disservice to Wiktionary. Theknightwho (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Or should the word be presumed to be used to denigrate a specific person even rather than expressing a stance about an ethnic group, to be an ethnic slur? Such as to be the kind of insult we call Formalbeleidigung? Cuz if man watches, as formulated humorously, Talmudvision or the electric Jew, whether man is a Jew or not, this is—though risky—not even an insult towards the person, how can it be an ethnic slur? If it were called electric nigger WordyAndNerdy would add the label “ethnic slur”? So we see the fallacy in “inheriting” the ethnic slur property of a word from the parts it is composed from. Fay Freak (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The description of Category:English ethnic slurs is "English terms that are intended to offend certain ethnic groups." The category contains more than just direct insults for members of a specific ethnicity. E.g. plenty of racially-derogatory place names like Japland. This is an old precedent. It's been this way as long as I've been here.

For better or worse, "all words in all languages" includes racist language, although I'm of the mind that such terms should possibly be held to a stricter standard. For example, we could require they be cited within a week of creation, which might help moderate the creation of such entries. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you know about what those racists intend? Many terms are mostly employed in obscure in-group fora and may be for creativeness, their particular form of virtue signalling in the form of inventing new terminology, or to vent one’s anger. From the particular fact of someone’s utter identity being racist I must assume for any instance of racist wording that it is just following a pattern rather than intent and there is no evidence that he is specifically intending to offend the group right now. Still, if nigger is used to specifically offend a member of an ethnic group it does not follow for every derivation made by racists. Fay Freak (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

From a quick look at Google Books, it seems like this was also used as a (mocking?) term of address, comparable to the British usage of "Your Worship", but I only found two examples: [36], [37]. If it's being used to refer to a specific person in this way I'd say it's an ethnic slur. 70.172.194.25 22:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Internet Archive: [38][39][40][41][42] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Seemingly cited for one sense (see Citations:niggership). Hellish work. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a use in the Canadian House of Commons Debates, 16th Parliament, 1st Session : Vol. 2: page 1676, first paragraph. I guess this is the "state of being" sense, but I don't fully understand what it means. 70.172.194.25 01:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm stumped as well. Seems completely out of place. Theknightwho (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As explained above at niggerdom (god, this project is really going to shit, isn't it?), I think using the slur in the definition is probably reasonable in this case. Equinox ◑ 13:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding whether this is an ethnic slur (vs contains an ethnic slur), I think we may need to make wider use of phrasings/labels like "contains an ethnic slur"; possibly the clearest example of a term of this type is nigger killer (which contains a slur for a Black person, and which denotes a person, but which doesn't denote a Black person). I may start a Tea Room discussion about this. - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

(Actually, there was already Wiktionary:Tea_room/2020/September#adjectives_and_other_words_derived_from_ethnic_slurs, but I may start a new discussion because I think {{lb|en|contains an|_|ethnic slur}}, which would retain the word "ethnic slur" and its category, would address the previous concerns about that.) - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Resolved, one sense cited the other removed. - TheDaveRoss 12:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

level 99

There are lots of arbitrary levels, is 99 one of significance? - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Could be related to how levels/stats/scores/etc in video games tend to max out at numbers consisting of all 9s. Binarystep (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard this myself. The entry seems to be poor quality anyway. Is this really an adverb? If so, why is the definition like a noun? Equinox ◑ 13:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ninety-nine is frequently the maximum level that characters can reach in video games. This probably harkens back to the NES/SNES era when battery save states made the extra bits required for recording three- or four-digit levels more difficult to justify. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've only been able to dig out one cite and there it is used as an adjective, not as an adverb. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've dug up another cite. This one might be a bit questionable though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

choose

Rfv-sense: "scope for choice". This exact gloss is in OED, with one cite from 1486. This, that and the other (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Also while we're at it, I'd like to RFV the "dialectal" label on Etymology 2. I can't find evidence of dialectal usage in OED or EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: dialectal - not sure if this is also Northern English, but it was used this way in Scotland up to the late 17th century. Leasnam (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the Scots Dictionary, there is an Early Modern English choose (noun) corresponding to their entry here [[43]]. Leasnam (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't doubt that an obsolete/Northern noun choose exists (existed); OED confirms that the other senses are (were) in use in ModE. But this sense in particular was copied straight out of NED or OED even though the only cite was from 1486. This, that and the other (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(Wow, ignore my comment here - I see you were responding to my second point about the "dialectal" label, which I had apparently forgotten about when I wrote the reply. Sorry!) This, that and the other (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

teleocracy

Is this term used in English at all in the sense of “the use of television to influence public opinion”? The quotation is from a book that is written in French (Mais, pas plus que la «  télécratie », la « radiocratie » ne peut exister dans un régime de pluralisme, ...^[44]).  --Lambiam 10:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Gujanbagh

Rare. Kind of like the Gezlik/Citations:Gezlik situation.. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

limaille

limaille is a well-attested Middle English word with meaning 'metal filings.' It is also a Modern French and Anglo-Norman word with the same meaning, the latter being the root of Modern English lemel, again with the same meaning. In Modern English texts, limaille is attested in some 19th century dentistry texts, with the same meaning (as best I can tell) as the French word. To me this seems like conscious use of French in an otherwise English text. In any case, I cannot verify the metallurgical sense given, especially in light of lemel, and I am not convinced by the odontological cites. Winthrop23 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox where did you get this sense from? The gloss for the metallurgy sense is awfully specific. This, that and the other (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether Winthrop23 has won a prize... This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake. It's in George-Floyd Baronet Duckett's Technological Military Dictionary (page 116), under Gaarschaum; however, limaille is given as the French word there, not the English... Equinox ◑ 02:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

OED has it as a variant of lemel; however, there is only one late-19th-century quotation using that spelling. The other post-1500 quotations spell it variously as limall, limmell, and lummle. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

punchy

"Tending to overreact to routine events. I was so sleep-deprived I was starting to get punchy." Equinox ◑ 16:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing seems a bit too specific. I've definitely heard it used this way, but in a broader sense meaning "irritable". Binarystep (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the etymology? Does it mean "inclined to punch somebody"? Equinox ◑ 02:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The usage example would work for the "punch-drunk" sense. DCDuring (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

vocably

"In a vocable manner." Seen in word lists, but I can't seem to find this anywhere. Mostly it's scannos for irrevocably. Equinox ◑ 01:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

[45], [46], [47]. A few uses on Usenet, e.g., [48]. 70.172.194.25 02:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

YUL

Meaning Greater Montreal, apparently derived from the IATA code for the airport (which is under Translingual). Theknightwho (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

OAK

Abbreviation of Oakland, California. Not the IATA airport code under Translingual (which is what this is presumably derived from, if real). Theknightwho (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

SR

Initialism of Saudi riyal. The currency code is SAR. Theknightwho (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Searching Google Books for ["SRs" saudi] or the singular yields some usable results. 70.172.194.25 07:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

second yellow card

Are there uses in which the term is used unequivocally as meaning “dismissal” – as opposed to referring to the second caution, which, although automatically triggering a player’s being sent off, is not the sending-off itself? (See also the discussion at WT:RFDE#second yellow card.)  --Lambiam 14:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a misconstructed request, because it is impossible to differentiate between the issuing of a second warning and the dismissal that that results in. All this needs are citations that show that second yellow card does not refer to the physical card. Theknightwho (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

As I also made clear before, I think the definition is off and should not say that it is the dismissal. If it is your position that this request is “misconstructed”, why for heaven’s sake did you advise me to “send it to RFV”?  --Lambiam 11:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not hard to find instances where “second yellow card” quite clearly does not mean “dismissal”:

• Joy soon turned to despair for Darko Vucic when he celebrated his wonderful overhead kick by removing his shirt only to pick up a second yellow card resulting in his dismissal.^[49]
• Clearly a bit shocked, Myazin pushed him back and received a second yellow card, resulting in his dismissal.^[50]
• The goal seemed to rock the visitors, and in the 33rd minute, Rob Holding was shown a second yellow card in just seven minutes following a coming together with Son, leaving the referee with no option to flash the red as the Gunners’ disciplinary issues under Mikel Arteta reared its head once more.^[51]
• But with Birmingham unable to seriously threaten Chris Wilder's men, the points were secured for the Teessiders as Folarin Balogun curled home impressively in the 62nd minute before Pedersen was shown a second yellow card resulting in his dismissal late on.^[52]

What is shown to the players is a card, and not a dismissal, which is signalled to them by the referee flashing the red – the usual omission of the latter in a report on a match simply stems from the fact that the writer assumes their readers are knowledgeable on this aspect of the laws of the game. It is really weird to say that a dismissal results in a dismissal, as would result from applying the substitutivity test. Decapitation inevitably results in the death of the decapitee, but a dictionary should not define decapitate as “to kill someone by severing their head from the body”.  --Lambiam 12:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam I've added three cites which use it to refer to the dismissal. Theknightwho (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not see how these uses mean anything else than a “second caution”, where “caution” is the term for a warning issued by the referee that a player has committed a ”cautionable offence”. Since 3 March 2017, the Laws of the Game recognizes two systems for dealing with punishments, called “System A” and “System B”.^[53] Under System A all cautions are punished by a temporary dismissal. Under System B, not all cautions are punished by a temporary dismissal, but a second caution is punished by the player being sent off (as signaled with a red card); moreover, they may not be replaced by a substitute. It is up to the competition to decide which system to use, but as far as I'm aware all major-league competitions use System B.
     It is easy to find uses of to escape the noose, meaning, “to avoid the death penalty, to be executed by hanging”.^[54][55][56] I submit that it would not be appropriate to define a sense of noose as “the death penalty, to be executed by hanging”. Then we should also add this to gallows, since knaves have also been said to escape the gallows^[57]; next we have those who managed to escape the guillotine,^[58] and so on. The instrument for executing a death penalty should not be glossed as the resulting death itself, and the reason for the sending-off (only under System B) should not be glossed as the sending-off itself.  --Lambiam 11:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's irrelevant that second yellow cards can be issued in systems that don't automatically issue red cards. That doesn't change that the term can be used to mean dismissal, and is being used that way in these examples. I have already explained this to you.
• It's also irrelevant that you can't use an idiom to define part of it. That's just the concept of not being the sum of its parts. There is no evidence that "second yellow card" is restricted to a particular phrase or some variation thereof, as applies to "escape the noose" and its variations. What matters to your examples is that they're restricted to a particular lexical construction, but you are trying to apply that logic to the topical context. Topic labels and and usage notes can easily suffice to deal with any of that.

The fact is that in these instances, the term is being used as a substitute for dismissal in the context of association football:

1. "He will miss the Joburg game after collecting a stupid second yellow card."
   That doesn't apply to the fact he received a caution - it applies to the fact he received a dismissal.
2. "If McCall had been incensed about Varga escaping a second yellow card in the first half, he was much quieter when Billy Dodds got involved in an off-the-ball incident with Henrik Larsson early in the second half."
   Why was he incensed, exactly? Are we supposed to assume that the narrowly-escaped dismissal is just a secondary aspect of the message being conveyed there? No. It's a straightforward example of metonymy.
3. "Some managers may instruct players to ‘earn’ a second yellow card and miss a relatively unimportant group game rather than risk missing important semi-finals or finals."
   This quite literally doesn't make sense if it doesn't mean dismissal.

Theknightwho (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that, when something is a known consequence of something else, we often use the action to refer to the consequence. Does this mean that every action which has an obvious and well-known consequence also has the meaning of that consequence? Sometimes I am sure it does, but in this case I don't think so. Other sports terms which are similar; "he left the batters box after a called third strike", in which a called third strike implies that the batter is out, but doesn't mean "being out"; "she was sulking on the bench after her fifth foul", a fifth foul implies an ejection but doesn't mean an ejection. None of the quotes provided clearly indicate that this is more than second + yellow card with the assumption that the reader will understand the consequences of such a yellow card.

I'll also note that in your final example there, it doesn't refer to a dismissal, it refers to a suspension from a subsequent game. Yellow card accumulation in some leagues (second yellow card across games) results not in a dismissal but instead in suspension from a later game. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You make a fair point, but that assumption that readers will know what they’re referring to is precisely why we use topic labels, and is also the basis for metonymy. In other words, that assumption is precisely why it isn’t SOP, because it can only be made about the whole, and does not come from either of the two parts. It’s just how terms like this get used, to be honest. It does feel a bit like second yellow card is being held to a higher standard by virtue of looking obviously sum of parts on the face of it, combined with it only being used this way some of the time (in durably archived sources, at least, which is a problem because they tend to be more formal and therefore spell out the fact a red is given as well).

You are right about the 2021 cite, by the way, though I’ve also added a new 1996 cite which is subtly different: “the suspension of Garre after receiving a second yellow card”. Unlike 2021, it can’t be glossed as “suspension”, but I will need to verify that the dismissal is the operative point here, rather than the accumulation of yellow cards. Theknightwho (talk)

It is actually quite common that an SoP term has a context-specific use; for example, risk tolerance is used in economics as meaning, more or less, “the willingness of an investor to accept financial risks in exchange for the possibility of a high return on investment”.^[59] Someone who does not understand the concept of investing and its inherent risks may not get this just from the two parts. But that is not in itself an argument to include such an encyclopedic context-specific definition for what is, essentially, a sum of parts that can be applied equally to other contexts involving risk taking.^[60]  --Lambiam 21:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A collocation like risk tolerance does not appear in any general-use OneLook dictionary, but it does appear in two financial glossaries (with another six links being spurious, dead, or to paywalled pages). The entries are paragraphs: long, encyclopedic or nearly so. DCDuring (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's an argument to have an entry at risk tolerance, not an argument to exclude second yellow card. There is no policy against including terms that have meanings in specific contexts, and I'm not sure why you would imply that. Theknightwho (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Whom are you addressing? DCDuring (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lambiam. Theknightwho (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring @Lambiam - it seems that WT:PRIORKNOWLEDGE would explicitly allow the example of risk tolerance. Theknightwho (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether the term risk tolerance has a specific technical meaning in the field of investing is a judgement call. IMO its meaning in that field is the general sense of the term, but, obviously, applied to risks that are relevant in that context. These are not the risks of walking a tightrope while blindfolded (other than figuratively).  --Lambiam 16:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You're conflating etymology with meaning. risk tolerance in that context refers only to the willingness of an investor to tolerate variability in returns, and while that obviously derives from the conventional meaning, it is necessary to refer to that definition to understand sentences such as "Those with gilt portfolios achieved low yet highly consistent returns on investment, while those with the greatest degree of risk tolerance tended to achieve the highest and lowest rates of return."

It's very easy to work backwards from a definition to its etymology and conclude that it is obvious, but that is only because you have the necessary context to make sense of it. To anyone who doesn't, it might not be obvious at all - which is precisely why financial risk tolerance is something that any investment manager will explain to new clients. Theknightwho (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

But if the context required is the context required to understand risk and tolerance, then what is the point of the entry risk tolerance except to avoid forcing the user to actually use the dictionary? Furthermore financial risk is definitely not the only kind of risk to be tolerated: sky-diving/vaccination/infection/traffic/natural hazards/career risk come to mind. DCDuring (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Because the context we would give is the label (finance), and even then it's not at all obvious that risk tolerance actually manifests in that way without explanation. That's why the concept has to be explained in the first place. As for the rest, isn't that just what {{&lit}} is for? Theknightwho (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who reads "second yellow card" and doesn't understand it (a) will not understand "yellow card" either and hence (b) is more likely to search a dictionary for "yellow card" than "second yellow card". Definition #1 at "yellow card" will give them all the information they need to work out the meaning of "second yellow card". This suggests to me that "second yellow card" is SOP+metonymy, and thus the entry is superfluous. The difference between a "second yellow card" and a straight red card is better explained at red card, which entry is currently inadequate. BTW the "second yellow card" was introduced in the 1992; it was just a red card before that, so one couldn't tell until the referee's report whether it was a "straight red" or a "second bookable offence" red. Jnestorius (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

howitzer

Rfv-sense: "Normally a cannon with a tube length of 20 to 30 calibers; however, the tube length can exceed 30 calibers and still be considered a howitzer when the high angle fire zoning solution permits range overlap between charges"

Doesn't seem to define using what are essential characteristics. Either def. 1 or def. 1 reworded seems adequate. DCDuring (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think there are two different types of ordnances known under howitzer. This should just be one sense. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

At best there are two different ways of trying to characterize the ordnance, but the second definition may include or exclude some specific examples, eg, old siege howitzers. DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

GR

Meaning Georgius Rex in English. Easily citable in Latin. Theknightwho (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a few examples of GR appearing on postboxes here:- [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] and [66]. We have equally valid entries for ER (the Queens Elizabeth and Kings Edward) and VR (Queen Victoria). E.R and G.R also often appear in cryptic crosswords for ‘king’ or ‘queen’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely - but is it English? Seems very much like the use of Latin for the occasion to me, which is congruent with how I've seen the written-out form used. Theknightwho (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Searching on OneLook, the Free Dictionary gives E.R as meaning King/Queen Edward/Elizabeth according to Collins [67], the lemming principle doesn’t quite apply I suppose but G.R is similar enough to deserve an entry, in my mind, as when people see G.R on a post box they know what it means even if they don’t know Latin. It’s borderline though, as I don’t think anyone would ever say something like ‘G.R ascended to the throne’ in an actual sentence. It’s also worth noting senses 3 and 7 of R (where it is short for ‘Rex’ or ‘Regina’). Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The only context I can think of where it might crop up are the Journals of the House of Commons, as they're essentially the formal minutes of the House of Commons (as opposed to Hansard, which is a transcript). It'll still be difficult to find if there, and I doubt that it'll be in this non-punctuated form, too. Theknightwho (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Above and beyond the basic RFV question, isn't there an issue about whether GR standing for "Georgius Rex" could even theoretically be English? How would we cite this? If someone finds a citation where GR stands for "Georgius Rex" then we would still presumably say "yeah but that isn't English". Equinox ◑ 07:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It easily passes RFV due to its appearance on post/pillar boxes alone, the real issue is whether it should it be subject to an RFD due to it being Latin but surely it’s just as valid as q.v., etc. and RSVP? Also GR could just be listed as an alternative form of G.R. if G.R. Was to become the main entry (q.v. qv and etc). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If we saw GR being used in an English sentence with the meaning of "King George", then that's definitely English (and the derivation can go in the etymology), but for it to be an initialism of "Georgius Rex" in English, I think you'd also have to show that "Georgius Rex" is English. Not very likely, but theoretically possible. Theknightwho (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Humm, I dunno, e.g. is very much English but exemplī grātiā (which I suspect fewer than 10% of e.g. users could explain to you) is probably not English by anyone's standards. Equinox ◑ 16:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

True, but we don't define it as "initialism of exemplī grātiā", whereas GR is defined that way. Theknightwho (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim at the entry is not that GR means Georgius Rex ”in English”, but that it is an initialism of Georgius Rex, which is true. The meaning is given in a {{non-gloss definition}} as “The royal cypher for George V and his son George VI, kings of Great Britain”. This sense is not hard to verify (image of a GR letterbox); the question may remain whether appearances on letterboxes count as uses.  --Lambiam 08:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a learned borrowing of the Latin initialism Georgius Rex. There are plenty of other borrowings like that in English, but the place to put that is the etymology section. Currently, the template links to the English sections of Georgius and Rex, which in the case of the former does not exist. In any event, the royal cypher is a symbol and not a proper noun, so it's not correct in that sense either. Theknightwho (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the definition and etymology could be improved but once we’ve done so, let’s call this RFD-resolved. It reminds me of the definition I added for in, where I claim that it can mean ‘burning’. The fact that people say ‘keep the fire in’ to mean ‘keep the fire burning’ but they don’t say ‘the building’s in’ to mean ‘the building’s burning’ doesn’t change the fact that ‘in’ can mean ‘burning’ in the right context. Similarly, ‘G.R’ means ‘King George’ only in the context of letterboxes/postboxes/pillar boxes and perhaps the odd coin or stamp but within that context the two terms are interchangeable. It would be wrong to claim that it’s an invalid definition due to it not appearing in books as it does appear in them, albeit only in the context of discussing postboxes that bear these letters. I’m not sure whether we could even class it as Latin, as would a supporter of the divine right of Kings, write or say in Latin “GR (or G.R) est divinus” instead of “Georgius Rex est divinus” if they were trying to say “King George is divine”? (not that the situation would arise outside of the Vatican). Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the reason I brought it here is that I was genuinely curious whether it was used in English, which is just about plausible for extremely formal texts from the 18th century - even though I can't find any. I think the solution is probably to move the relevant bits to the etymology and to change the part of speech to Symbol, while keeping it in the English section. It being defined as a royal cypher is probably sufficient to cover usage, but a usage note about it appearing on post boxes wouldn't hurt. Theknightwho (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

rudden

Google Books only yields scannos for redden, the OED lacks any post-Early ME attestations, and the EDD only has ruddnin (“red hematite for reddening”). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This quote looked promising, but the original had "reddened". 70.172.194.25 04:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

rud

Rfv-sense: "to rub, to polish"; the EDD mentions this sense without providing any evidence for it, and the only post-ME evidence provided by the OED is the EDD's mention. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

choose up

Rfv-sense: "(idiomatic, transitive) To select; pick, especially, to make a decision on a selection or option"

I don't find this in OneLook dictionaries. OED? In any event we need cites. DCDuring (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be an AAVE expression. @Leasnam added the usex She chose up, are you mad?; the phrase "she chose up" turns up in various rap lyrics, and could probably be cited just from that. This, that and the other (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

However, that's intransitive, which disagrees with the entry. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Not anymore. Leasnam (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Song lyrics, like (other?) poetry are often not a good source of unambiguous attestion of meaning. DCDuring (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There aren't a whole lot of things choose up can mean outside of "make a final decision, etc.". So what is ambiguous about it? Leasnam (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see unambiguous, durably archived evidence in the entry per WT:ATTEST. The usage example is utterly worthless as an illustration of meaning. DCDuring (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I had more of a look. The sense here is a bit elusive, but certainly narrower than currently defined. The highest-rated Urban Dictionary entry doesn't actually define the term, simply saying "Often used when refering to a pimp or hoe".

There are some uses in self-published books in GBooks:

• [68] "I thought […] I would've at least helped her, but not even a week later, she chose up with another pimp."
• [69] A girl is apparently into her boyfriend's friend (I'm not sure whether they had sex); the friend says "Don't get mad at me cuz she chose up".
• [70] "Field was definitely a playa […] He chose up on me a while back and I almost said yes until I went to the restroom that night and saw him bumping and grinding on some freak near the Men's room. That was the end of that."

Perhaps the gloss is "(intransitive) to pick out an individual one intends to have sex with"? This, that and the other (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it means exactly all that, per se, but it seems to certainly be used in that context. Leasnam (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Dingsidang

Nothing in Internet Archive, Goofle Books, or Goggle Scholar. In light of FaCIAbook and similar, I think that Dingsidang with its poor cites on Citations:Dingsidang may very well survive rfv or a vote. If anyone (including you wonderful IPs) can find another use or mention, please add it to the Citations:Dingsidang page. If it doesn't survive, that's fine with me- either result is okay. May be a good "test case" for the outermost limits of the new two week policy. I would say "keep" if Wiktionary is keeping FaCIAbook and similar. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The "TEFL & TESOL" quotation is automatically generated from a template, and therefore shouldn't count as attestation. Go here, choose any prefecture, and then select any town, and you'll get the same boilerplate text with the location changed. All it proves is that the pinyin is in a database somewhere. Fortunately, there are still three citations without that one. I do think the discussion comes down to how much credence we lend to online sources. 70.172.194.25 04:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Æscleah

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English § Æscleah.

yantra

Sense 3: an equipment, instrument, machine or device.

I assume this comes from the etymology, as it's borrowed from Sanskrit यन्त्र (yantra) - see sense 3. However, this sense feels far too broad for general English (and at the very least needs some kind of label). Added as someone's first edit back in 2020, so it could just be someone not understanding the difference between meaning and derivation, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Theknightwho (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

underget

RFV two senses:

1. "(transitive, obsolete) To understand; perceive."
2. "(transitive) To receive; undertake; get at; find out." There are two current citations but they both look unambiguously like NNES error, and the 1998 one does not even seem to match the definition.

Note the OED only has hyphenated under-get, defined as "(transitive) To catch up with, overtake" and having a single citation from 1390. Equinox ◑ 16:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've split the entry into 2, 1 for Middle English undergeten, and another for Modern English underget. I did not add the senses above. If they are verified we can add them at that time I suppose. Leasnam (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand: where did the previous revisions of the page go? I only see your latest changed revision in the history. Nothing shown for page deletion either. Equinox ◑ 14:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It was moved to undergeten, then recreated at the original spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Leasnam (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

whatshumacallit

Tagged by @Paul G but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can be found in two Usenet posts: [71]. At least one more source is needed. 70.172.194.25 21:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 13:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

katalepsis

Tagged by @217.229.86.215 but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The given sense is definitely one of the meanings of Ancient Greek κατάληψις (katálēpsis),^[72] used by Stoic philosophers and possibly coined in this specific sense by Zeno, so it is not difficult to find occurrences in English texts discussing Greek philosophy.^[73][74][75] However, those I saw were unmistakably instances of code-switching, and therefore do not count for attestation purposes.  --Lambiam 21:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

ailuromorphic

The quote on the page appears to be the only one that can be found. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

One more: [76].  --Lambiam 14:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Chengfei

This may need to be shifted to another title like "Cheng Fei jump" or similar (if an entry is warranted for any variant). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Cheng

Variant for Chengfei above; seems rare. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

gainshire

Just appears in dialectal dictionaries. Pious Eterino (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

OED finds a few mentions, including one of a past participle gainshired, but no actual uses. The label given is "Sheffield Cutlery" and a suggestion is made that this is the same word as Middle English gainchare. This, that and the other (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

-00s

I can't recall seeing anyone refer to the 2000s as the -00s with a dash. Usually it would be '00s or 00's with an apostrophe, or just 00s. The usage for a century seems even more unlikely, since -00s doesn't even tell you which century is being referred to. You would need the leading digits for that. I realize this is hard to search for; sorry.

In the case that this was intended as a suffix entry and not a noun entry, that makes more sense but I'm still not sure it's valid. See my comment on Talk:-00s. 98.170.164.88 15:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

waffle stomp

While showering, to step on feces to push it down a drain. Theknightwho (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

On Twitter and reddit.

P.S. Having "twitter.com/search" on the spam blacklist is extremely annoying for RFV, if Twitter is now considered an admissible source. 98.170.164.88 01:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Weirdly enough, this doesn't appear to be citable off of Usenet. I was however able to create waffle-stomp instead. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, this does seem to be in genuine use. I'll do some Twitter cites at some point. Theknightwho (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho I've collected 3 cites from various online news sites. Ioaxxere (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere Thanks! I completely forgot about this. Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have been annoyed at the impossibility of linking to the Twitter search page myself, so: Wiktionary:Grease pit/2022/June#Whitelist_the_Twitter_search_page. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed (unfortunately and surprisingly)--Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(The practice is to wait a week between cites & closing the RFV) AG202 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

True, let’s call it Cited. I was going to leave it a week before closing anyway but I was a bit premature. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

None of the provided cites are CFI compliant... - TheDaveRoss 13:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If we go to archive.org, copy-paste the websites mentioned as sources into the search engine, click on the links and then copy-paste the new links to our citations will that make then durable attested? For example [77]. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Overlordnat1 No. We have clarified the question of online sources recently, the source itself has to be approved via discussion and consensus. - TheDaveRoss 12:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

We have clarified that Huffington Post and Vice are allowed in the Beer Parlour vote, assuming that it gets closed and this section of it gets passed soon, not that other online magazines aren’t allowed. Also media that is permanently recorded such as archived pages surely pass CFI? I’ve no love for the silly phrase ‘waffle stomp’, nor the disgusting practice itself, but if we can find three archived citations then we must consider this entry to have passed RFV. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

gainchare

Middle English only. This, that and the other (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Shitgibbon

This might be an issue for RfD. My main question is whether this is actually a proper noun referring to Trump specifically. If you were to call Trump "the Idiot in the White House", that doesn't necessarily make "Idiot" a proper noun meaning "Donald Trump". It comes down to how it's used, so I think an RfV can help resolve this. 98.170.164.88 04:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think RFV is the right venue. These are notoriously hard to cite, see #piss drinker. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's potentially of etymological value, in that this particular epithet is the reason for the coinage of shitgibbon as a word for the linguistic phenomenon. That being said, it wasn't used in a capitalised sense, and I don't think providing even several cites justifies it being defined as "Donald Trump" any more than it would justify using that definition at "Donald". It's not limited to him (unlike e.g. Cheeto Mussolini, or Shillary to Hillary Clinton). Theknightwho (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If this gets deleted, we could include that information elsewhere, such as in a usage note on shitgibbon. 98.170.164.88 18:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I've expanded the etymology of shitgibbon to include the relevant info, but it doesn't involve Shitgibbon directly. From what I've read, it gained traction as a name for Trump for a short while on Scottish Twitter after the 2016 tweet - might be worth seeing if we can dig some things up from around then. Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't seem to be durably archived, but these out these results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22voted+for+shitgibbon%22&source=hp&ei=BS-yYp6UC4DB0PEPjs-O2AE&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYrI9FelAq5Ul62GTDBxlQVYqshIBfUCh&ved=0ahUKEwjequPvtb_4AhWAIDQIHY6nAxsQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22voted+for+shitgibbon%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EANQnwJYnwJg9wZoAXAAeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQCgAQKgAQGwAQA&sclient=gws-wiz 2601:644:100:9F20:543B:C5CC:CDB1:2058 20:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Good finds; they seem to fit the capitalized proper noun sense. Do people think this is sufficient attestation? 98.170.164.88 18:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant when it comes to derogatory nicknames for real people - even if I agree with them - but in this case I can also find articles like this one, which suggests a bit more staying power. Theknightwho (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m surprised this hasn’t appeared in Trailer Park Boys given their penchant for saying things like shitbird/shithawk. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

cockpleaser

A woman who can easily be convinced to engage in sexual activities with a man. Theknightwho (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added one but I don't think the others on Usenet fit. It looks a lot more citable with a space, i.e. cock pleaser, if one is willing to rummage through the SOP uses. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I imagine this was coined as a rhyming antonym of cockteaser. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 13:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

komku

Not citable except possibly using web sources, and even that is not clear. On Twitter, this is all I found: [78]. There's an Urban Dictionary entry and a Wikia site, and the term is used in a Wikipedia article. But it's not in widespread use as far as I can tell. 98.170.164.88 23:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

cunt-buster

A man who is adept at vigorous sexual penetration and seduction of women. Possibly citable, but the only cite I see from a very brief search clearly uses it to mean "erect penis". Theknightwho (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Can't find that sense but I was able to create cunt buster instead. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

dump ass

To defecate. Theknightwho (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

aardvark

Rfv-sense: "(slang, particularly in the southeast US) A silly or credulous person who is prone to mistakes or blunders." This sounds plausible but I wasn't able to find much. The closest I got was "Scott is such an aardvark", but I don't even know if this is the right sense. 98.170.164.88 04:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

apistia

May be a similar situation to katalepsis above: it seems to appear (italicized) in code-switching contexts. 98.170.164.88 06:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

kimberline

A very specific derogatory term for an outsider on the Isle of Portland! The few semi-decent citations I saw were for uppercase Kimberline, in any case. If kept, I'd strongly suggest tagging the terms as rare or archaic. Pious Eterino (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems much easier to cite kimberlin without the trailing e. 98.170.164.88 17:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

sadge

Originally marked as speedy deletion for x-wiki abuse, but I see real usage in twitch and youtube. Would like some further input. OriginReboot (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

This is real and pretty widespread but I can't find durably archived uses. Here are three durably archived mentions:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.08411

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/honorscollege_theses/360/

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1638118 — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I added three cites from Google News and one from a newspaper. J3133 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

snassy

Rfv-sense: "Acting both snarky and sassy at the same time, rude". This book seems to give it as as blend of snotty and sassy, but I can't find it anywhere else. This, that and the other (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

aloisiite

Occurs in chemical lists/dictionaries, but not so much in running text. I added the best citation I could find. A lot of the results on Google Books are just references to the title of the paper that introduced it, Colomba (1908), but the original article is in Italian; dunno if we want to count those references.

Another potential citation is [79], but it's sort of mentiony since it's talking about the terminology. If we count this, at least one more good quotation is needed. 98.170.164.88 05:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

COPYVIO, I'm afraid. At the very least, it should be reworded. DCDuring (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

dright

Rfv-sense: Ety 1. Middle English only. This, that and the other (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this a use? [80] I can't tell if this is an English dialect or Scots. Obviously the passage is more English-seeming as a whole, but "some weel" almost exclusively pulls up Scots results on Google. 98.170.164.88 08:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The story is set in Ainsworth, Greater Manchester in northern England, which explains the resemblance to Scots. I'm sure the dialect is thrown in for local color, though the magazine the story appeared in was published in Manchester. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This quote isn't visible to me. Could you put it on Citations:dright? This, that and the other (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Done, but on closer inspection of the entry I'm less certain it fits. The entry makes it sound as though the term is used for a group of people, not, as in the quotation, a quantity of ale. 98.170.164.88 07:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed; the quotes in OED seem to be talking about armies of men. Perhaps the quote is talking about a draught of ale? The absence of dright from EDD makes me doubt even further. This, that and the other (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, dright here is a northern Scottish form of draught. Leasnam (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added one cite from 2003 (original 1962 or possibly 1948) - I've also changed the label to historical. I'll look in the am for more possible cites. Leasnam (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a few uses in translation of early poetry, I think translated by Kemp Malone in The Middle Ages: The Old English Period (to 1100). Not sure if A Literary History of England: Vol 1: The Middle Ages (to 1500) is a separate work containing some of Malone's earlier work (?). I'm unable to see more than snippet views. Does anyone have more info on this ? If they are independent of each other, or if parts of one are independent of the other, then the line stripped of glee; the dright all fell, by the wall the proud sought shield can be added as a cite, as I am not able to find that in the later work (A Literary History of England: Vol 1: The Middle Ages (to 1500)); only in the first one. Leasnam (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Leasnam does this assist? This, that and the other (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

keggy

Supposedly meaning a bump on the head in Teesside English. The terms certainly exists, but the most common use for this is in the world of beer, perhaps a small keg. Also, the plural is probably keggies and not keggys Pious Eterino (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

MO

Rfv-sense "moderate intellectual disability". I did a quick GB check, but 2 letter abbreviations are tricky. Added from blocked IP range. – Jberkel 17:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not finding a whole lot of useful stuff but at least in this work they use MO/ID for it, which makes a lot more sense; why would you ever abbreviate moderate intellectual disability as MO? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That sounds odd. I wonder if someone misheard MR? I dont work in this field, but Ive had contact with people who do and I have only ever heard MR. Your link doesnt load for me .... but the longer term MOID does seem to exist, not always with a slash. Still, the sites Im seeing using MOID look like copypasted content, and only one of them is a school. —Soap— 21:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've created MoID. This capitalization seems more common in the literature. I've also deliberately left the link red; moderate seems to have a precise technical definition in this context, so it's either a lightbulb or a fried egg. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RFV failed – Jberkel 11:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

mogus

— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that we also have the entry amogus, which is more common. If this exists it can almost certainly only be cited from online sources and not from books. 98.170.164.88 20:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

RFV-deleted (amogus was deleted recently too) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

ka le

No results for "kale DOTA" on Google Books. --沈澄心✉ 00:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is a blogpost on the term – only as a mention, and probably not permanently recorded either. If only used in online chats, it may be hard to find permanently recorded uses.

Here is a (debatable) use: “the day went by without too many 'ka le' moments”.^[81]  --Lambiam 11:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It was probably by Chinese players using pinyin without tones, because they could not type Chinese characters. 落花有意12138 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

kamchulia

Not seeing much on Google or Twitter. 98.170.164.88 04:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

For now I've replaced the headword template with a basic invocation of {{head}}, since it was emitting errors and it's not clear to me what the conjugated forms would even be. If this is kept, that should be fixed. 98.170.164.88 07:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There are various alternative spellings: gamchulia and gamtrulia.

1. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr17-18/english/counmtg/hansard/cm20180517-translate-e.pdf (kamchulia)
2. http://xiaoshousha.blogspot.com/2015/07/blog-post.html (gamchulia)
3. https://plainfaceangel.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post.html (gamchulia)
4. http://ngtingmae.blogspot.com/2012/02/art-of-gamtrulia.html (gamtrulia)

Only #1 is used in a purely English environment, and it also fits better with the w:Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation, which is why I used this spelling. Wpi31 (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Also spelt kamtrulia [82] Wpi31 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Also spelt variously as camchulia, camtrulia. --Wpi31 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

crapitalist

Sense 2: "A person or company who gains market advantage through crony relations with politicians and government agencies. A rent-seeker." Not sense 1, which is a sort of crappy capitalist. This one, if it exists, seems to come from crony, not crap. Equinox ◑ 04:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

covering space

Rfv-sense (mathematics) A map from a topological space onto another by local homeomorphisms of disjoint preimages. Surely not. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sense 1 appears to be the definition of a different technical term, covering map.^[83] If $p:{\tilde {X}}\to X$ is a covering map, then its codomain ${\tilde {X}}$ is a covering space (for $X$ – it is a relative concept), which is loosely given as a secondary sense. 12:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs).

Yes, these are commonly called just coverings but not spaces. A mapping doesn't have a space-like structure. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

aaron

Cuckoopint (a plant). I've heard of plants with this name in the name, e.g. Aaron's rod, but not alone, and not lower-cased. Equinox ◑ 21:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not as improbable as it looks, because cuckoopint is an arum, and Latin arum came from Ancient Greek ἄρον (áron). No explanation, though, as to why there should be an English term based on a nonstandard (why "aa"?) transliteration from Ancient Greek. In "Aaron's rod", Aaron is from the name of Moses' brother in the Bible and is completely unrelated. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I found the probable source (the Century Dictionary). It looks like folk etymology has changed Ancient Greek ἄρον (áron) into the Biblical name, with the usual lame explanations that make their way into 19th-century nature writing (I find it amusing how they go into great detail about some of the silliest things, but are completely silent about the origin of cuckoopint). At any rate, I can find uses in uppercase, like this and this, and uppercase mentions that show that it can appear without "root" like this, this and this, but I have yet to find lowercase usage. This is probably explained by the folk etymology. At any rate, I haven't found enough to pass this even in uppercase, but I'm sure it's out there. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

antimirror

"A type of mirror that renders objects to appear as only one using a particular kind of lens." I don't understand the definition. Also, is it a real thing, or an imaginary thing in physics like the antitelephone? Equinox ◑ 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s referring to this, I think. The definition currently reads like the writer doesn’t really understand what it is. Theknightwho (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I perfectly understand what it means. Please do not demean or disrespect me. It means "that a certain lens can be used to make multiple objects appear like one." 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:582B:953F:8E6A:436A 04:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Which doesn’t explain anything, because it’s not at all clear what that entails. Theknightwho (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That's probably just because physics is hard. This paper tries to explain it. This, that and the other (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the linked paper only has hyphenated anti-mirror, not this form antimirror. Equinox ◑ 16:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

bugle

"Anything shaped like a bugle, round or conical and having a bell on one end." Er, like what? Equinox ◑ 21:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Like one crisp of the brand named after the plural. It appears to me that it is actually multiple brands naming their crisps this way. Fay Freak (talk) 22:30–33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This feels a bit like having a definition saying "anything rabbit-shaped" at rabbit and so on. Not very helpful. Theknightwho (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't count the crisps if that is always a capitalised brand name. Equinox ◑ 10:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

born on the Fourth of July

born on the 4th of July

Did a Google Books search for "was born on the fourth of July" and "was born on the 4th of July" and did not see any idiomatic uses. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is hard to find idiomatic usage of this phrase.

This passed RfV once before, back in 2007. I improved the formatting of the two citations on Citations:born on the Fourth of July. Together with the citation present on the main entry, that brings the count to three. However, Ron Kovic literally was born on July 4, so I don't think that citation demonstrates clearly idiomatic use, even if he is using that happenstance as a way to brand himself as being a patriot.

I can find some stuff like this poem/song, but maybe we're supposed to interpret that as a fictional character who was literally born on July 4. I'd be most convinced by a citation that unambiguously referred to someone who was not literally born on the date but was a patriotic American. That might be too much to ask for, though. 70.172.194.25 17:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the Kovic quotation has to be discarded; he was, as you point out, actually born on 4 July. The 2006 quotation you added to the citations page seems fine, and while I'm doubtful about the 1977 song I suppose it can be given the benefit of the doubt. We still need at least one more unambiguous quotation. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems silly to throw out the Kovic quote, if he was born on literally any other date it wouldn't have made any sense in the quote. "I have a right to be here, I fought for that right and I was born on August 9th." It doesn't matter, because there is plenty of other usage, including the titles of movies, books, etc. which are what make it hard to find other usage. - TheDaveRoss 13:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: none of the usages in titles, etc., including the title of Kovic's book, clearly show the alleged meaning "Demonstratively patriotic about the United States". — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that they all do, which is the only reason they were chosen. Again, no other comparable phrase makes sense. You don't make a movie about a paralyzed veteran who has to defend his patriotism while opposing a war "Born on March 22nd". They are not in the form "I was born on the Fourth of July, by which I mean I am demonstratively patriotic about the USA", but thankfully most things people write are not that awful. - TheDaveRoss 13:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sgconlaw. I don't think it provides strong evidence of idiomatic usage because the literal meaning obtains, and he would not have used the phrase if it didn't. 70.172.194.25 18:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

denial of services

Supposedly meaning a denial-of-service attack. Seems like a misconstruction by a non-native speaker to me. Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Widespread use, along with denials of service and denials of services. Probably bothall have to be defined relative to denial of service attack. Also, abundantly attestable at Google Books. Of course denial of service(s) also has an SoP meaning. Denial of service(s) also may have one or more definitions in law, especially administrative law, eg, US healthcare regulation. DCDuring (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but is it used as a plural of denial of service? One denial of service, two denial of services? That's what we have to show for this to pass RfV. 70.172.194.25 01:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a likely non-durably-archived use, a possible use (compare the heading, which uses the singular generically) and an ambiguous use. This, that and the other (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The question remains: is this really the plural of "denial of service"? I mean, "colour of apples" is probably attestable but it is not the plural of "colour of apple". Equinox ◑ 04:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The interview with Christopher Reichert certainly uses it as the plural: he says "Here's how many denial of services we rejected", which can only be interpreted as "Here's how many denial of service attacks we rejected". Same in the Hewlett Packard documentation: "...to create multiple Denial of Services". And I think the academic paper is using "distributed denial of services" to mean "distributed denial of service attacks". But it is certainly a rare usage, and time-consuming to search for. This, that and the other (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We need to keep semantics, morphology, and syntax distinct. Denial of services is not a plural of denial of service attacks. It might conceivably be a misconstructed plural of denial of service (defined as "denial of service attack"), but it just looks like an error to me as such. We are not much helping anyone decode what they read or hear by having this occasional and predictable error documented. DCDuring (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you're on the money when you say it could be a misconstructed plural of denial of service [attack]. Whether or not it's an error shouldn't concern us. Having said that, I'm not convinced it can be attested, unless someone does a real deep-dive search. This, that and the other (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I now recall that we do have DOSes and DDOSes (plurals of initialisms), though of course you don't have the opportunity to put the plural -(e)s in the middle of an initialism. Equinox ◑ 22:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

dash cherry

"The red rotating light put on a police car's dashboard to indicate an emergency." I can't find anything on this. (If it's real, does it mean the light is lifted up and placed on the dashboard, or that it is always fixed there and is merely lit up in emergencies?) Equinox ◑ 21:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Two books by the same author: [84], [85]. I couldn't find anything else. 98.170.164.88 07:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Reddit: [86]. 98.170.164.88 07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Those things are called cherries, try a google image search for "police cherry" Drapetomanic (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If that sense of cherry can be cited, dash cherry then becomes SOP. I see someone has just added it, defined as "cherrytop", with one cite. This, that and the other (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

moved to RFD: WT:RFDE#dash cherry This, that and the other (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

pyrenophore

Rfv-sense: Any fungus of the genus Pyrenophora DTLHS (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

adumber

To overshadow or obscure. Can't find it. There is, however, adumbrate. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Here it is:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/adumber

linked entry was originally included on this page:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adumbration#Related_terms 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:E5C5:3DAE:2CED:455A 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

OED has 4 cites (adumbrit, adumbred, adumber, adumbered). This, that and the other (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ruscism

Previously failed RFV, was recreated without cites, was RFDed (Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Ruscism_needs_a_restore?), and has been given a changing set of poor definitions. It's currently defined as a proper noun meaning "Russia under Putin", but I think this is wrong, and (like WP says) it refers to ~"the ideology of Putin, Russian fascism". Citations would clarify, presumably, and are needed anyway since this previously failed RFV. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You can define “Russia as envisioned by Aleksandr Dugin”, or {{synonym of|en|Duginism}}, this would be correcter. I think you may also just take it as granted that it has the same meaning as the Russian and Ukrainian term and this may be one of the words that even if attested by use cannot be understood by the whole corpus of the language but needs references from other languages. There are more trivial examples, like American English using palo santo while in the contexts the species are not clear so I refer to the Spanish. Fay Freak (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I added some quotations going back to 2015.[87] —Michael Z. 2022-07-15 18:30 z 18:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The definition has been revised and I guess there are technically enough cites now. - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

fully

Synonym of nip slip.

This has failed RFV before back in 2017, but might pass on the new CFI criteria. Theknightwho (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I can find a cite for a different sense, but not this.

• 2012, Dimitri A. Bogazianos, 5 Grams: Crack Cocaine, Rap Music, and the War on Drugs, NYU Press, →ISBN, page 91:

  [The] nature of new-era violence can be encapsulated in the notion of the “fullie spray”—the lethal potential of fully automatic weapons. [E]verybody got fullies, so one ride usually is enough now to drop several bodies at once.

- -sche (discuss) 00:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Charlie

A short, pointed beard, like that of King Charles I.

Not particularly easy to search for, but plausible I suppose. If real, almost certainly needs some qualifiers. Theknightwho (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in 2013, Julian Franklyn, A Dictionary of Rhyming Slang: "In mid-19 C. a Charlie was a small pointed beard." Equinox ◑ 17:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

charlie

Alternative letter-case form of Charlie.

In which senses? Feels like we need citations on this one to work out when it's actually an alt-case form. Theknightwho (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that we also have charley as an alternative form of Charlie. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 04:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

big up

"British, slang, transitive: To increase one's muscle mass through exercise. He works out every day to big up himself." (Shouldn't it be "big himself up"?) Anyway, can't find much on this. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I would think that there would be intransitive usage, too. DCDuring (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

But I haven't found any, either transitive or intransitive in this sense. DCDuring (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

undersignalman

98.170.164.88 22:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox ??? This, that and the other (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

glom

Rfv-senses

1. A cluster of heterogeneous things.
2. (transitive) To combine together into a larger mass.

These need labels, but it also needs to be demonstrated that these would be distinct from 1.3 "to attach". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Surely it’s etymology 1 verb sense 3 that should be removed with the quotes transferred to the sense at etymology 2. It seems more likely that the etymology for glom = attach is from ‘conglomerate’ than the Scottish ‘glaum’. glom on and glom onto could be deleted and their quotes transferred too. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

smoothrunning

Per the result at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § smoothrunning. AG202 (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I’ve only found one book where the author uses the form smoothrunning (and twice, so clearly unintentional) [88]. The number of clear uses on Twitter goes well into double figures, even ignoring invalid hits like #smoothrunning, as it does on the wider internet as can be seen by doing an advanced Google search but most of these instances are probably typos. We could perhaps get away with listing it as a misspelling &/or non-standard form of smooth running or smooth-running but they all seem SOP to me (though that’s no longer technically relevant now, I suppose). Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

More hits from archive.org: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]. 98.170.164.88 00:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Good find. I think we can call this cited. Whether anyone wants to create separate entries for smooth running and smooth-running or do the opposite and RFD this after passing the verification process is another matter. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Please remember to add the cites to the page itself. AG202 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Ernesto

Rfv-sense A 2006 storm, first hurricane of the season. Does this have three idiomatic uses along the lines "brace for another Ernesto"? Uses of the bare name outside contexts where it is immediately obvious that it talks about hurricanes have also been suggested to be sufficient. See WT:RFDE#Ernesto,_Katrina,_names_of_hurricanes. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

paedolect

A language variety unique to a child or to a youth. 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:E85C:831E:6673:ED1A 06:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

All I found: [98]. The form pedolect looks more promising: [99], [100], [101]. 98.170.164.88 04:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

colonizer

Rfv-sense: "(US, slang, derogatory) A white person." It seems tricky to me to verify usage where this is the specific intended meaning rather than it being used with the intention of its other listed definition ("One who colonizes"), or at least intending to refer to the act of colonizing rather than just to someone being white, but certain people interpreting it to have supposed derogatory meaning. AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems to have appeared in online usage in the last year or so. Here's one apparent use on Facebook. Some likely uses on Twitter: [102] [103] Probably can find some on TikTok too if anyone is that brave. This, that and the other (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@55

Per Talk:@55 & Talk:@$$, this should've been sent here ages ago. AG202 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's found plenty on the internet^[104] but searching it in Google Groups^[105] is a pain because for some reason it doesn't really recognize the @ in the search query. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are some uses of @55: [106], [107], [108], [109]. @$$ is harder to search for, but I found [110], [111], [112].  --Lambiam 19:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

cast

"A broadcast." (Radio, TV, online stream?) I have seen it only in derived terms like "vodcast". Equinox ◑ 20:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume it means stuff like this. I was expecting a fairly common nominalisation of cast verb sense 16 (the def of which I just edited to be more specific), but I am really surprised how difficult it is to find. This, that and the other (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

cast (2)

Rfv-sense: horse unable to rise without assistance (noun). I can only find participial uses: "cast horse", "horse is cast", etc. We probably need a better verb sense to cater for this usage. This, that and the other (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

reset

Noun: "Something that is reset." (But not typographical matter, since that's a separate noun sense already.) Equinox ◑ 01:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

siege (a workman’s bench)

As was mentioned in the Tea Room, there’s no proper citation for this sense of the word siege and the alleged source, the American Mechanical Dictionary, doesn’t seem to list this meaning of the word anywhere. I couldn’t find any evidence of the word being used in this way in GoogleBooks either. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the American Mechanical Dictionary does mention this meaning. It's in volume III (1876/7), page 2175. 98.170.164.88 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

plebvision

Plausibly an Internet-only protologism. There are multiple uses on Usenet, but I opened several of them and was amazed to see that all in my sample were either by 'Peter Brooks' or in response to him. There are also a few hits on Twitter, but most of them are by one Twitter account, whose profile info links to the Amazon page of Peter Brooks.

It's possible enough unassociated uses exist if anyone wants to go sifting, but this isn't the type of usage distribution I'd expect from a broadly diffused word. 98.170.164.88 03:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The quote by Samson is from a thread that Brooks also participated in. So I guess it's technically not him, but maybe his friend or something. 98.170.164.88 15:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on WT:CFI, that should count as an independent usage. It also seems speculative to assume that Samson actually knows Brooks, and didn't just pick up the term from reading the latter's posts. Binarystep (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

anti-contact

Opposed to sexual activity between adults and minors.

pro-contact

Supportive of sexual activity between adults and minors.

These show up in a Google search, but I’m not seeing much in anything durably archived (though there is a bit). I think these need particular attention, as I’m unsure how loaded these terms are. Theknightwho (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I can find only a few examples on Google Books, e.g.:

• 2018, Rebecca Lievesley, Kerensa Hocken, Helen Elliott, Sexual Crime and Prevention, pages 46 and 47:

  Well known (by his username) non-offending, anti-contact MAP, Ender Wiggin, voices his concern about the rates of [...]

  [...]

  Predominantly, SuH seeks to provide users with background information on paedophilia, specifically the theories [...] While factual conversations about this topic are allowed, “Together” strongly states any “pro-contact” discussion or efforts to change laws on sexual activities with children are not welcome.

• 2019, Mark Dice, The Liberal Media Industrial Complex:

  [...] pedophiles using Twitter to openly promote pedophilia. [...Some refer to] themselves as MAPs (Minor-Attracted Persons) and others call themselves “anti-contact pedophiles” meaning they're [...]

Other examples of the phrases seem almost nonce-y / SOP and I'm not sure if they're in this same sense or not:

• 2021, Camilla Nelson, Catharine Lumby, Broken: Children, Parents and the Family Courts:

  She also discusses Garner's idea that treatment for paedophiles should consist in teaching mothers of abused children to use [...] On the impact of the court's pro-contact agenda on child sexual abuse cases, see Brown and Alexander, [...]

- -sche (discuss) 04:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

shitgibbon

Rfv-sense: A type of antibacchic compound word used as an insult, consisting of a single-syllable expletive, followed by an absurd or innocuous two-syllable noun as a trochee.

Could be, but it needs cites, especially if used as part of Wiktionary text, categories etc. We particularly need to make sure that the academic-sounding definition is the sense that people actually mean as opposed to a definition like "any word that reminds one of shitgibbon". DCDuring (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The blog post by Jones (2017) is cited as coining the term, so naturally it does use it (albeit only once, in the heading "how to make a shitgibbon in two easy steps"). The piece by Tessier & Becker (2018) is durably archived and uses the term many times. So we need at least one more use, I guess. Should be easy to find if we admit web sources; probably impossible at present otherwise. 98.170.164.88 04:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

For our credibility, we need them visible in the entry. And we still don't have a policy that citations that are not durably attested satisfy WT:ATTEST, do we? DCDuring (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

They're already visible in the entry, in the references section and referred to in the etymology. Plus there's the academic article Vowel but not consonant identity and the very informal English lexicon. Plus WT:ATTEST was changed a few months ago, which is something that's already been flagged to you. Theknightwho (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not where we put attestation cites. BTW attestation is supposed to show uses, not mentions. Arguably coinage cites that define the term are mentions. DCDuring (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It isn't, but they're particularly relevant to the etymology given that it's a coinage. Nevertheless, the term clearly has gained traction given its use elsewhere. It's trivial to find more online uses in this sense. Theknightwho (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Find them and insert them where they belong for the sake of our credibility as a dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Cites do not have to be featured in-entry to count toward attestation. There's a reason we have a whole namespace dedicated to filing citations. That said the ridiculous circular etymology in this entry does hurt our credibility. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Drop the stick. I’ve already explained how it’s not circular in detail, which you simply ignored. Theknightwho (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You ignored my explanation of how a self-referencing etymology is unhelpful and went ahead with edit-warring it back into the entry. At a certain point one realizes one has a greater chance of extracting blood from a turnip than budging the inexplicably entrenched. Doesn't mean the etymology isn't a blemish on an otherwise informative entry. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s clearly unhelpful to define shitgibbon as ‘shitgibbon of shit and gibbon’, we should simply write ‘From shit + gibbon’ in the etymology (like we do for knobjockey). Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy I didn’t ignore that at all. I will repeat what I wrote on the talk page, because this argument comes from you mixing up the concept with the term:

It isn't a circular explanation, because the concept of the shitgibbon existed long before the term did. "Shitgibbon" did not inspire all other shitgibbons - it just gained a lot of prominence on Twitter, got noticed by linguists, and then got coined for a second time as representative. That's precisely why I went into the background of the tweets, because it shows how this one ended up leading the pack. That doesn't mean we can call it prototypical, though, even if it's archetypal. It would also be completely accurate to describe the etymology of eggcorn that way, so long as the linguistics coinage was also explained as well. In that context, it's fine.

By your logic, we would have to remove the “shitgibbon of” etymology from every shitgibbon coined before the linguistics sense. Are you going to argue nominalization needs to be revised, too? It’s currently given as a nominalization of nominalize (with the -ation suffix). Theknightwho (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We could make a special exception for the entry shitgibbon because "Shitgibbon of shit + gibbon" doesn't read well due to repetition, and instead just use "Compound of shit + gibbon", but still categorize it as one. 70.172.194.25 20:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to include it being a shitgibbon in the etymology, even if we expand the phrasing. Fundamentally, it was coined due to having the linguistic qualities of a shitgibbon; if they were called "fucktrumpets", we'd be having this discussion about that term instead. Given that both pre-date the linguistics blog post, either could have been chosen, but the fact none of us have an issue with the etymology of fucktrumpet being "Shitgibbon of..." suggests this argument comes from a conflation of the term with the concept it describes. Theknightwho (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully understand the point you're making and from a logical standpoint it makes perfect sense. The word shitgibbon (sense 1) is a shitgibbon (sense 2). If this was a pure consistent database for robots there would be no issue. But it could be confusing for human readers, which is our audience, even though I admit there is something kind of fun or satisfyingly consistent about "Shitgibbon of shit + gibbon". For that matter, if nominalization said "Nominalization of nominalize" (it doesn't), that might be considered confusing phrasing too, even if it's entirely accurate.

What about something like "Compound of shit + gibbon, being the prototypical example of what later became known as a shitgibbon word (sense 2)"? 70.172.194.25 20:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I do see your point, and I agree with it. I think what riled me was that it was called circular (it isn't), and then I was simply dismissed as irrational when I pointed that out.

It is actually a coinage, too, so how about "Coined by journalist David Quantick as shit + gibbon in British music magazine NME in January 1990, as what would later become the quintessential example of a shitgibbon." I'm not sure we can call it prototypical, as I don't think it was the first of its kind (I don't have any evidence either way, but I suspect not). Theknightwho (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think IP 70's proposal would help resolve the readability issues presented by the current format. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

balios wasp

This species was described in 2014, this 2017 article coined the common name, and everything else is either directly or indirectly Wikipedia or us. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

iCON

"A fan of the Nigerian rapper, singer, and songwriter Laycon." Can someone (a) provide sources, (b) verify whether the spelling used is correct? Searches for "icon laycon" yield the spelling "Icon", and I can't verify the meaning. Benwing2 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

shitgibbon (music)

Rfv-sense: "A music bootlegger" At most two of the cites support this definition and neither of them are unambiguous. Arguably All of the cites are just the generic use of the term directed at music bootleggers. Obviously derogatory. DCDuring (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

DCDuring, I'm pretty sure the Sara Wylde quote (which I originally added to the generic term) referred to e-book piracy. I moved the cites back to the original sense. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The use of a derogatory term to a particular group does not thereby make the meaning of the term "a particular group". Can anyone produce cites that show that the term means "music bootlegger". DCDuring (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring (and apparently also Alexis, apparently we're all in agreement here?), these cites all look like the general insult. Calling a bootlegger a shithead to insult him doesn't make "shithead" mean "bootlegger". Looking back through the edit history I'm having a hard time finding who split the cites off to their own sense to begin with; the users who added most of them (Hugovk and Alexis) correctly understood they were the general insult. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

-sche, shitgibbon (Diff 67381638) by User:Theknightwho. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not add the sense of music bootlegger, though, but I’m not sure I agree with the others on this thread anyway. The term was first coined in relation to music bootleggers, and seems to have seen consistent use in respect of them. That doesn’t seem like coincidence to me. Theknightwho (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Theknightwho, I did not add the sense of music bootlegger Actually, according to the diff I linked, you did?
and seems to have seen consistent use in respect of them To the degree that's true, it could maybe warrant a usage note, but the term is obviously not restricted to bootleggers. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I legitimately forgot that I did. Having looked in more detail (and jogged my memory), it's because these two sources directly refer to it.[113][114] The term is not restricted to bootleggers these days, but I disagree with the claim that the cites that were previously under that sense don't support it.

• get the f*ck off this newsgroup,shitgibbon!! is a clear cite for that sense. It's in response to somebody offering to sell bootlegged wares. In isolation it could be a generic insult, but it's part of a pattern.
• The other 2000 cite is now broken, but it's saved in more detail here: It's clear that some of you expect others to do the hard work for you (ie filming)then belly-ache nauseatingly when you're asked to cough-up for it! .As for taping,I totally endorse taping trees and suchlike but franky audio-ing is a piece of piss compared to filming and 99% of filmers will only trade with other filmers.Why should lazy so-and-sos like you get copies of our tapes for free? But if you really baulk at buying videos,I'll tell you what,I will film the London show but because I don't want to be accused of bering mercenary,i'll keep the tape to myself-no sales,no trades.Good luck and goodbye to the most sick-making,hypocritical bunch of shitgibbons i've yet encountered on the Web! Another reference to bootleggers.
• The 2001 cite is another obvious reference: So they should be,when he's the feller "what" films them.If you want cheap then feel free to buy from any one of 10,000 shitgibbons out there "who film from their computer keyboards" (as it were) thereby saving so much $$,that they can cut you a GREAT deal for a 4th gen mastepiece!

I don't think it's reasonable to say it was simply a generic insult back in the early 2000s, to be honest. There is a clear pattern of usage and - importantly - they're being used with the assumption that other users understand that the term is more than just an insult. I would definitely argue that the sense falls under WT:JIFFY, if nothing else. Theknightwho (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Ehh. The blog and Slate both cite one researcher saying the earliest uses he found were directed at bootleggers, but he points out that more than one of the early Usenet uses, though from different usernames, are by one person, and the Slate article goes on to point out other earlier uses of shitgibbon in the music scene where the term was pointed at musicians, showing that the definition was not restricted to bootleggers even when early users were mainly in the music scene. Nothing in the cites themselves distinguishes them from e.g. political forum posts referring to whichever end of the political spectrum their enemies are as fuckheads or retards or whatever else, which obviously doesn't make shithead mean "(in right-wing parlance) a leftwinger; (in left-wing parlance) a rightwinger". Wylde's "Please purchase only authorized electronic editions, and do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted materials. In short, don't be a shitgibbon." is of a piece with countless hits describing some particular frowned-on behaviour(s) and then saying google:"In short, don't be a dick."; finding three that described the same frowned-on behaviour(s) would not, by itself, make dick definitionally mean someone who committed that behaviour. It's obviously possible for a general insult to take on (or have originated with) a more specific sense, but the evidence doesn't point to that here. (I also strongly suspect that if I perused the newsgroups, I'd find them describing people they disliked, including the bootleggers and disliked musicians they slurred as shitgibbons, with other slurs.) I could see adding a usage note that the earliest uses seem to come from the music scene, directed at disliked musicians or hated bootleggers, or if we preferred to handle that via a definition / context label then "(originally UK music scene) A disliked musician or fan or bootlegger", but just defining it as "A music bootlegger" isn't supported by the cites AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

are

Rfv-sense: Etymology 4: "(UK, humorous, derogatory) Deliberate misspelling of our."

Deliberate? DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a very common British meme on places like Reddit and Twitter to mock working class right-wing people, essentially calling them thick. “TAKE BACK ARE COUNTRY” is the quintessential example (in reference to Brexit supporters), but there are plenty of other uses, with “are” being the signal that that’s what’s being implied. Theknightwho (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: instead of having separate "misspelling of" and "deliberate misspelling of" lines, should we in general combine them like "misspelling of x, sometimes deliberate"? (Obviously creating or modifying any templates as necessary to effect the same categorization as at present.) It seems like most (all??) deliberate misspellings would also occur as accidental misspellings. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have a single definition, with a usage note explaining how it's used to caricature certain people. After all, the implication is that the misspelling is not used intentionally or humorously by the people whose speech is being mimicked. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve definitely encountered people who misspell our as are unintentionally. Such people aren’t mocking themselves of course, as it’s not usually in people’s nature or interests to do so. It would seem more sensible to phrase it as misspelling, sometimes deliberate than something like misspelling, sometimes deliberately used to caricature people who are perceived as being unable to spell due to a lack of intelligence as that seems unnecessarily long-winded. I’ve now tagged both existing senses as both U.K. and US as the quotes demonstrate that this spelling can be found in both countries (unsurprising, as in much (most?) of England, most of Northern Ireland - as in the comic representation of a Northern Irish accent found in the comments section to this article[115] - and much of the U.S they’re homophones). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

boot boy

Rfv-sense: "(informal, derogatory) A bootlicker, a supporter of authoritarianism seen as sycophantic."

These seemed like two different definitions to me, but I guess the intent is something like "A bootlicking, sycophantic supporter of authoritarianism". DCDuring (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

stunning and brave

Rfv-sense: "(Internet slang, derogatory, ironic) Expecting praise for something that is too insignificant or ridiculous."

Could be, based on South Park episode. Any uptake? DCDuring (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Definition is too broad. I've only ever seen this phrase used to insult trans people, which matches the context of the original South Park ep. (I've also seen it used to refer to people who weren't expecting praise, but I'm not sure if that's an actual shift in meaning or if it's just another example of how insults naturally become more encompassing over time.) Binarystep (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The definition is too narrow, it's basically the usual senses + sarcasm, probably originally insulting trans people but now often anyone; the choice of words is ?idiomatic? or at least memetic, but since they occur in either order and with interpolations, I'm not sure this entry is idiomatic. Here is one person and another referring to AOC being arrested, and Theresa May refusing to clap, Biden burning fuel to visit Saudis to fight climate change, and the BBC hiring/airing Black people, as "stunning and brave"; some could be saying the act is actually "too insignificant or ridiculous", but e.g., the person saying the BBC is "stunning and brave" for hiring "20% Black in a country that's 3% Black" clearly thinks it is not insignificant; some of these might be claiming/imputing that the person expects praise, but it's not a requirement that the person actually expect praise, since it's also used of minorities simply existing. Australian gamer Modest Pelican refers to bad moves he makes (in several videos, although I can't find one offhand) as e.g. "I make a stunning, and also brave, decision to [do some inadvisable thing]" or "brave, and also stunning", and here's someone referring to Australian vegans getting vasectomies as "stunning and also brave"; in the reverse order, here is someone dismissing a ban on swastikas as "brave, and also stunning". The reverse order, "brave and stunning", comes closest to be restricted to insulting trans people, though even there you see some examples dismissing other things. If kept, we need to think about how to define it, maybe resorting to {{n-g}}. Obviously, non-sarcastic, sincere use also exists, and seems to be the main use in books. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand "expecting" as even potentially part of the definition. It seems that it is a group that believes the person or action deserves to be called stunning and brave, but that the speaker and his ilk do not. The individual or action called stunning and brave and the person's expectations need never be involved. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The Modest Pelican uses sound more like the British euphemism brave, or are at least blending with it (i.e. the brave decision to do an undesirable thing). Unsure if it’s also used in Australia, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Theknightwho (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It could be a blend in some cases, but he's referencing the meme / using that pair of words because it's become a phrase for people in a certain cultural sphere to identify themselves with. I can't find the example where he calls his bad decision in a stealthy hitman game to start a big gunfight which makes him lose "stunning and brave", but here he says "I make the stunning and brave decision to become a fisherman" as his boring, legal 9 to 5 — I suppose that actually fits the definition currently in the entry (it's an insignificant choice he's jocularly suggesting is praiseworthy), though I think it also fits my sense that it's just sarcastic use of the words + the memetic nature of the exact word choice. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Not really worse than humblebrag, is it? There is implied judgement there that the person is (i) bragging and (ii) trying to sound humble about it. Equinox ◑ 21:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Another phrasing is "so stunning, so brave". I suppose an argument for keeping [assuming it passes RFV with a significantly changed definition], with soft or hard redirects from attested variants, would be that the particular choice of words is memetic and has a particular etymology (South Park) and connotations (mostly used by rightwingers, often as a transphobic meme, somewhat like use of uppity as a racist dogwhistle). Counter-argument is that it's still basically just sarcastic use of the words, and while we have a usage note in uppity because we already have an entry because it's a single word, we can't possibly cover every memetic set of words, when they're not limited to a particular order or phrase, just using both in the same vicinity is the meme/dogwhistle. Here is a US Republican describing a transgender criminal as "stunning and brave": AFAICT he's not saying she's insignificant, and "ridiculous" also doesn't make sense there, nor do I see any indication she (or anyone else) expected praise, it seems like he just means the words sarcastically, or even vacuously/meaninglessly, and just chose those particular words because they're the meme. (Literal, nonsarcastic use is still the main use I come across, btw, especially in books.) - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

(If we can find enough cites of the nonliteral use, I'm coming around to the idea it might be idiomatic or useful to have an entry on, even if there's variation. IDK.) - -sche (discuss) 14:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Another problem: if it's "sarcastic" (as glossed) but means "expecting praise", then we should infer that it really means "not expecting praise"! Clearly that wasn't the intention. I think the "expecting" angle is a red herring; there is no need for the stunning and brave person to "expect" anything. Equinox ◑ 23:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of # {{non-gloss|Used sarcastically, to suggest someone or something is bad despite being hyped as good; used to express dislike}}? (Or just omit "sarcastically".) I think(?) that might cover the range of uses from cases where it sort-of expresses a meaning (like the tweet about Biden burning fuel to visit the Saudis) to cases where it's just a vacuous insult. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Trumpster diving

"(US, politics, informal, humorous) The act of scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a candidate." Graham11 (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if the term exists, the definition itself is hardly of neutral style. brittletheories (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing a neutrality issue with the wording at all, to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect this term was in vogue in the runup to the 2016 election when Trump was seen as an unviable candidate. Note that the National Review is conservative, but specifically labeled itself as anti-Trump in 2016. But I suspect once Trump became president, even his enemies within the GOP would have had a difficult time using a term like Trumpster diving and getting the intended meaning across. —Soap— 10:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy to stand corrected, but it really seems like there are some puerile editors casting around for terms they can find a derogatory or obscene rhyme for, and then creating portmanteaus of them as entries (like Bangcock and Buttswana). Can’t roll my eyes high enough. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is a scrappy bit of wordplay questioning a U.S. president's fitness for office equivalent to a bunch of racial slurs? 🙄 WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree its not equivalent, but as I understand it the wording of the new CFI policy provides no exclusions and so a comparatively mild term is still subject to the same strict verification process. I expect this term to fail attestation because it was coined by an anti-Trump faction of the Republican party who within months fell apart as they saw Trump win the nomination and then the election. As such the term quickly lost all relevance as an insult and I wouldn't expect to see its use span more than a year. —Soap— 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The policy specifically states that it applies to any term which is derogatory of a named person; it’s not necessary to show that the term is racist, sexist, etc. A higher degree of caution is justified for terms that denigrate individuals, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's entirely fair to hold this to the new attestation requirements for derogatory terms. I just don't think there's a call for grouping this in with what seems to be a pattern of low-effort provocation. Politicians are generally viewed as fair game for criticism and that particularly applies when they hold the highest office in what is arguably the world's most powerful country. There are plenty of uncharitable coinages for other (former) U.S. presidents (e.g. Bidenflation, Obamunism, Bushtard). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

umbrella

Sense: "Umbrella bridge, a bridge in more than one direction. An umbrella bridge was built over Oxford Circus in 1963 to allow traffic to drive over it while excavation took place below it to create a new ticket hall for the London Underground as part of construction of the Victoria Line. https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2013/08/22/50-years-ago-a-huge-steel-umbrella-for-oxford-circus-tube-station/ accessed 2021-09-29."

This might be true: but it seems to have been dropped in drive-by style, perhaps the user really meant "umbrella bridge"; so we need to prove a sense of the word umbrella. (If necessary, please move to umbrella bridge with appropriate citations. Thanks honeys. I love you all, even when we fight.) Equinox ◑ 00:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

bibliodiversity

Noun:

1. Publishing printed material on a wide variety of topics.

More POS-confusion. There is definitely usage having to do with cultural diversity in publishing, but I don't see anything for this. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

ywroke

Only in Spenser (and Chaucer). This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

That should be good enough for WT. Dunderdool (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Only in Middle English. Theknightwho (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Spenser is Modern English, but that's only one citation. 98.170.164.88 22:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

froin

This is supposedly the "simple past of frain", but appears to be a ghastly neologistic concoction; the OED and EDD only know frained, which is unsurprising; I would expect strong verbs where the ablaut vowel was followed by (historic) /ɣ/ + consonant to become weak in Middle English because the late OE/ME development of the sequence of vowel + /j/ or /ɣ/ into a diphthong would efface the regularity of the vocalic alterations (which is exactly what we find with breiden, the only other such verb I am aware of). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

froun

See the RFV for froin. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

yuckel

Alt form of yokel. (Actually seems to be a bird, the hickwall or yockel...?) Equinox ◑ 11:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hickwall in the sense Picus viridis. DCDuring (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Otukian

No results at google scholar:Otukian or google books:Otukian, perhaps a copyright trap or a misspelling? —Fish bowl (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

According to w:Otuke language, the language is spelled variously as "Otuke", "Otuque" and "Otuqui". Indeed, one can find Google Books hits for "Otukean", "Otuquean", and "Otuquian"- everything but "Otukian". Also, "of, relating to, or comprising any language family" in the definition makes no sense, and the pronunciation section uses an odd English-based notation. It's dangerously close to the "no usable content given" criterion for speedy deletion. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The most notable thing about this word is that it appeared in a spelling bee in 2022 (all the Google results are about that). It's ironic that they would use it, since this spelling doesn't even seem to be attested. 98.170.164.88 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

All I found for use was Webster's dictionary using the word "Otukian" in the definition for the word "covareca". I know we're generally against citing dictionaries, but does that apply to terms used in defining other terms? 98.170.164.88 06:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that's a valid use; if a dictionary defines cave widow as "a species of spider found in dark caves, active crepuscularly", it's a use and not a mention of dark, right? So "an extinct Otukian people of Paraguay" is a use, albeit we're scraping the bottom of the barrel if we have to resort to citing uses in definitions. (If it were a one- or few-word gloss, like a translation dictionary had a list "Adler: an eagle, adlig: noble, Adlubar: foobar ...", or if a word were used in defining another form of the word, like if foobarness were defined as "the quality of being foobar", that'd be a lot more borderline and I'd personally be inclined against counting either of those as a use of foobar, but this looks like a real use.) I wonder if that's why the spelling bee went with what otherwise seems like the least common spelling, because it appeared in that dictionary? But we should lemmatize a more common form if possible... - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

quister

The current definition is as a noun, "(slang) (chiefly Nonantum, Newton, Massachusetts) An attractive female". I posit that quister is actually an adjective meaning good, awesome, beautiful, etc., since quister mush is translated as a "good, stand-up guy", while quister jival is translated as pretty girl. But I'm not sure any of these words even pass CFI at all. 98.170.164.88 07:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s easy to find British uses of mush on GoogleBooks (search for ‘Oy mush’/‘Hey mush/alright mush’) but there is one durably archived source demonstrating its use in Nonantum, Massachusetts - the same source also mentions quister jival [116]. It’s strange that 3 English slang words of gypsy origin would be used in an Italian community in Massachusetts but apparently chore/mush and wonga are - according to Nonantum. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's someone on Twitter using "quister jival", etc.: [117], [118]. (Is the word quister only used in combination with jival and mush? I haven't found it used with anything else. Maybe these have just become shibboleths.)

I found jival and mush in a Newton, MA yearbook, which probably isn't technically durably archived.

This book is said to contain some use of Nonantum Lake Talk, but it's not available on Google Books, Archive.org, or libraries near me (AFAICT). I added a citation to mush based on a preview I found of the first two chapters.

Policy question: do we need three citations of this being used in Nonantum, MA to justify the "(US, slang, chiefly Nonantum)" label on mush? The word is certainly citable in UK contexts, but quotations from Nonantum might be harder to find. 98.170.164.88 18:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

ey

Rfv-sense: "island". See the RFV for this word's supposed Middle English progenitor; if this didn't survive into Middle English, it could've hardly survived into the modern language, unless it was recreated on the analogy of Alderney, eyot, etc. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Outside chance this is regional. It rings a small bell, but that could just be me misremembering some uses of eyot. Theknightwho (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Not a lemma in the OED. Could it be a variant of ait? The OED lists eyt as a variant of this word, but not ey. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

biotruth

(derogatory) A misunderstanding or misrepresentation that is purported to be an inescapable or inherent product of biology.. Theknightwho (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

So, is this term used by people who support or oppose biological essentialism, or both? The 'derogatory' label and updated definition ("misunderstanding or misrepresentation") implies it would be used by opponents, but the example sentence sounds like what a supporter of biological essentialism would say. 98.170.164.88 20:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Until now I wasnt familiar with the term biological essentialism, but it seems to be very close to the definition except that it's not a countable noun, whereas our word is. Would "a statement in support of biological essentialism" be a good rewording of our current definition? I agree it doesnt seem like the type of thing that people would do sarcastically unless their whole personality was built around sarcasm (e.g. some notorious social media personalities). —Soap— 20:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, I suspect the term has seen occasional use by people who are not aware of its origins and thinking they're coining a new word. The original and novel senses might make the definition difficult to pin down, unless we just stick to the original sense from the Gor novels. Incidentally, the Google Books link no longer works, so they may have removed it. —Soap— 20:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@98.170.164.88 I think it originated as a way of mockingly imitating the pseudo-scientific, jargon-filled language that some people like to use in arguments, but because the term was (probably) never actually used by anyone espousing those views, it simply became an automatic signal that whoever was saying it didn't actually believe it.

It's important to separate the etymology from the definition/usage. If you imagine it said "biomisconception" instead, then the definition and usage pair up more intuitively, but for whatever reason it come about that way. I suspect that's why it hasn't had much staying power, though.

@Soap I would be surprised if there were any sincere uses of this in support of biological essentialism, to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Gor series of fantasy novels takes place in a world where women are hormonally bound to serve men and to enjoy it, and as such, men have no need to feel guilt for what they do. It's a biotruth in the clearest possible sense. I wrote this in my original response and then deleted it thinking it might be a distraction. The book's text has been removed from Google Books, so I can't show it in full context. But I am very confident that the original definition used by the author, who I would say likely coined the term, was sincere and not intended for sarcastic use. The term may have slept for quite some time, used by fans of the novels, until spreading with the rise of the Internet and contact with people holding opposite opinions. —Soap— 12:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up: Knight changed the definition immediately before RFVing it! It still needs cites though. Equinox ◑ 06:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but that’s because me, you and Brittletheories were all interpreting the old definition in different ways, and it wasn’t at all clear how it was supposed to be derogatory. I did a bit of digging into the term, and this is how several people explained it in different places. Theknightwho (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why this has found itself in the crosshairs of WT:DEROGATORY. This term is critical of a particular political philosophy. WT:DEROG applies to terms that denigrate a named individual or a class of people. And in the latter case it is limited to terms that denigrate people on the basis of "ancestry, ethnicity, gender or sex, religion, or sexual orientation." I don't think it was meant to encompass things like Twitard or ambulance chaser.

I first encountered this circa 2013 on Reddit communities and blogs critical of the sort of evolutionary psychology-based views on women and gender espoused within PUA/MRA/incel circles. I suspect it was deliberately borrowed from the Gor novels for the connotation of extreme cavemanny male chauvinism. Beyond that, I think it is used to convey the idea of science wielded as dogma, as received truth that reifies pre-existing conceptions of the world. "There aren't as many women in STEM careers because females brains are evolutionarily hardwired for empathizing over systemizing" is arguably a secular iteration of "God made women to be wives and mothers."

I prefer the definition I used when I made the citations page eight years ago (wow!). It's simple but broad enough to encompass a range of ideas and philosophies. Plus it scans as mostly value-neutral to me. Anyway, this is almost certainly attestable by now, so I'll have to rummage around for newer cites. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Cited this under the countable sense (see the citations page). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The citations at Citations:biotruth support the definition given there, so all we have to do is to revert the strange current definition at biotruth to that and then call this RFV-passed. Overlordnat1 (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

yay

Meaning: “The letter for the y sound in Pitman shorthand.” I don’t even know what this means. Which sound is “the y sound”? And as far as I can see, the signs of Pitman shorthand are various strokes, curls and dots, not letters.  --Lambiam 14:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

(Well it must be the /j/ sound mustn't it?) Equinox ◑ 19:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I can find some hits on Google Books, but most of them are italicized. Also, it's in this table of Pitman shorthand marks, in case it was unclear which mark corresponded to "yay". 98.170.164.88 20:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The definition was more clear when it said "The name of the letter for the y sound". In the same way, "aitch" isn't a letter, it's the name of a letter. Since Pitman shorthand is a system for representing spoken English, it would have the sound of "y" in English, which is most distinctively the semivowel /j/.

As for being "strokes, curls and dots", Braille is nothing but dots, and that doesn't stop it from being called an "alphabet" made up of "letters". For that matter, if you add "squiggles", that phrase could serve as an ignorant English speaker's description of Arabic writing. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that we change the "y sound" thing to the /j/ IPA notation, and that we change "letter" to "symbol". I don't really think this was an RFV matter. Lambiam being a touch pedantic. However, can wait for citations. Equinox ◑ 05:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

datto

Challenging sense 1: "A title which is either inherited or conferred in Malaysia." Not to be confused with unchallenged sense 2: "A local headman in many parts of central Malaysia and the southern Philippines." So what does sense 1 really mean? Is this a title (like "captain" or "admiral") for somebody who holds the headman role of #2? Or is it a totally meaningless inherited title within the culture? I don't feel that #1 defines anything properly, and I suspect it might really be best subsumed in #2. Equinox ◑ 08:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

w:datuk? —Fish bowl (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

cuntocracy

"Government under the majority control of women." I can see a couple of possible citations in GBooks but I'm not sure they have this meaning: they might refer to a government of objectionable people/bastards, or one that uses female sex appeal. Equinox ◑ 14:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, of the cites at GBooks, the "cuntocracy of generals" seems to intend the derogatory meaning rather than to be specifying women (the one general whose gender is indicated in the snippets I could see was a he), although I could be wrong. Imagining Selves is about a "feminized" government, which seems different from actually being "under the majority control of women"; it says: "'feminized' countries could not defend or even government themselves. The roots of the decline of everything were 'discovered' in women (or in the petimetre, a feminized man). Charles-Pinot Duclos [...] wrote: '[...] ceci est une conocratie!' [...] What we have is a cuntocracy.". The Kadet cite ("keep your soft liberal yack and MSW feminism out of the main of department life. You empowered women are like a- a- hey Cap, what's the mayor's word for it? Cuntocracy?" "Gynocracy.") would support "government or rule by women". Many other cites are quoting Duclos. This is probably still citeable, but it'll take some actual evaluation of the cites beyond "here's this string of letters". - -sche (discuss) 15:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I added two cites to the "government by women" sense and one to the "government by cunts/bastards" sense. - -sche (discuss) 07:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

glizzy

Rfv-sense: 2 of the 3 definitions on the page: 2 (slang) Hotdog. 3 (slang, vulgar, uncommon) Penis.

Each has a single cite. Sole cite for def. 2 is clearly a mention. DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Ah come on, like every minute somebody is dropping glizzy to mean hot-dog if you search Twitter by recent (I checked this some weeks before already to convince myself), and at the same time in the comments when somebody makes a video of his one, in such a fashion that one often would have to look it up (if one isn’t a lexicographer and hypebeast who is up-to-date about the linguistic memes), so this is clearly widespread use (since mid 2020, as suggested by my etymology); though the “quote” be a mention, which I have not got around to replace, perhaps finding that the quote at least serves to illustrate the original location of the sense as believed by some speakers at the point when the word became frequent.

I hesitated with the “penis” sense indeed, which may be daffed as an idiosyncrasy, though demonstrated possible, even if we had three cites, inasmuch as we know that any comparable object is liable to mean “penis”. Fay Freak (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Cited the hotdog sense. J3133 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't usually look at Twitter or Facebook or Usenet, nor do I hear this in any speech or music I listen to. I suspect there are others like me in this regard among our normal users. "Widespread" use in some limited set of media is not the same as "widespread use" in the meaning of WT:CFI/WT:ATTEST. A term that is in few (no?) other dictionaries, except possibly paywalled OED and Urban Dictionary, needs real, unambiguous citations if we are to continue to aspire to being a professional-looking dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

amogme

This entry was obviously created as a joke, but is there any actual usage that might be used to make a real entry out of it? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a few search results on Twitter, but not many. About half of them aren't even using it in a sentence; the other half are basically just variations on the joke "it's amogUS, not amogME". The definitions currently on the page don't track actual usage at all AFAICT. 70.172.194.25 05:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

amongme

As above Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

greasehead

"(derogatory) Term of abuse".

No cites at time of this RfV. Cites that unambiguously support a more helpful definition would be nice. DCDuring (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's rare but I can find a handful of uses in GBooks, where it appears to be a synonym of greaser, "a rocker or metalhead". Two examples: "young punks and middle-aged greaseheads in Fortrel sweaters and leather bomber jackets that don't close around their bellies anymore"; and "we were able to form our own opinion on some dirgy greaseheads from butt-fuck, Arkansas" (in the context of a musical band). Equinox ◑ 23:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

skin queen

Rfv of both current senses, namely 1. "(slang) An individual with a fetish or sexual preference for uncircumcised males." and 2. "(LGBTQ slang) A gay male who views his partners as no more than sex objects."

I have added everything I could find in the usual durably archived sources to Citations:skin queen. The senses that seem to actually be attested, not necessarily worded optimally, are more like 3. "a woman who is viewed as a leading skincare professional" and 4. "a woman whose skin is viewed as exceptionally good". There may be another sense 5. "a woman who shows a lot of skin, such as a model". There's potential for overlap between 4 and 5, though.

There are also uses like "dark skin queen", "dry skin queen", etc., but I assume those are supposed to be parsed as "{dark-skin} queen" and "{dry-skin} queen" respectively, not as "dark {skin queen}". Looking back, a couple on the Citations page might actually fall into this, but I think the ones I added at least allow for some ambiguous readings. 63.92.3.194 01:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Defs. 3 (especially), 4, and 5 seem SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

overground

Can we verify that the word overground, with a small o (rather than the proper noun Overground), is used as a noun sense referring to the trains running overground?

I have only heard of the use of this word as an adjective, as in the phrase overground train or similar. --Miklcct (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it has a plural so it must be a noun. One citation added so far. Equinox ◑ 12:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The soaps in the shop come in two varieties, scented and non-scented. The scenteds sell much better than the non-scenteds. Look ma, I made some nouns! - TheDaveRoss 13:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless we start adding plurals to {{en-adj}}, yes, you did. Same thing with verbing nouns: the different forms necessitate different POS. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Or, and hear me out on this, grammar exists. Nouns being used attributively are not adjectives, adjectives being used nominally are not nouns, and nouns being used verbally are not verbs. As far as I can tell everything is an adverb, adverbs are very complicated. - TheDaveRoss 18:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not a question of the metaphysical reality of nounhood, adjectivity, or verbitude for a given usage. It's a question of whether uncommon, incidental usage of a term outside its main PoSes is worth tracking. Almost all English words can be used out side their principal PoS. Is it really worth it to trivially reword adjective definitions as noun definitions just to memorialize such de minimis usage? DCDuring (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

What an idiotic comment :D Equinox ◑ 17:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I do what I can. - TheDaveRoss 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

cramsome

Of food: filling to satiety. A Tolkienism, so needs further sources. However, since Tolkien also wrote about a fictional food called "cram" (similar to the "lembas" of his elves), I wonder if the meaning is even correct. Equinox ◑ 17:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

AC

Net slang: "audible chuckle" (something like "LOL", presumably). I've never seen this in 20+ years online, whether on Web, Usenet or IRC. Equinox ◑ 12:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Not finding much. It's on Urban Dictionary, but that doesn't help. 142.166.21.76 14:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

gosu

Likely citable using online sources. I added the only durably archived quotation I could find. 24.137.99.97 02:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, I didn't think to check Google Groups before sending this to RfV. This looks well-attested on alt.games.warcraft and alt.games.starcraft, along with a few uses in other newsgroups. Will add some. 24.137.99.97 02:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

exaltate

"(obsolete, astrology, of a planet) Exercising its highest influence.". As the quotation in Webster indicates, this occurs in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, which is written in Middle English. Different manuscripts spell it as either exaltat ([119][120]) or exaltate ([121][122][123]). MED even gives two other works that use this word. However, all the modern English uses I've found so far were for a different sense, apparently using it as a verb meaning something like "to exalt": [124], [125]. 24.137.99.97 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It might have been used more broadly in Middle English than just in astrology. For example, Occleve wrote "Every man willethe to ben exaltate", and there's another use in an Arthurian context that I admittedly don't understand. 24.137.99.97 03:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

-tardy

We don't have any words that use this suffix, and the second sense in particular seems difficult to verify. I'm also not convinced that the first sense is anything more than -tard + -y, which doesn't seem like a distinct suffix to me (does the existence of clockworky justify the creation of -worky?). A word like libtardy would be better analyzed as libtard +‎ -y than lib +‎ -tardy, in my opinion. Binarystep (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This is probably more of an RFD since a suffix on its own will be hard to verify, and it will be a question of the constructions of example words. - TheDaveRoss 13:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

purpose

Rfv-sense: A result that is desired; an intention.

What quotations of use substantiate this sense as anything other than sense 1:

• The end for which an action or activity is done, an endeavor is undertaken, an artifact or its feature is made or an entity exists.

I see that there is a corresponding translation table with different translations; could the translations be most fitting to the word "intention" rather than "purpose"? It seems to be so for Czech. Multiple dictionaries do not seem to have two senses like these; M-W does not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back, Dan. I tend to agree that there is some redundancy in the definitions, I also think that the first definition is needlessly arcane. I think we should rewrite it more simply, something along the lines of "The reason for which a thing is made or is done." Senses 2,3,4 and 6 are perhaps subordinate to this sense, or else totally redundant to the sense. - TheDaveRoss 13:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitions often need to overlap to cover the range of meaning in actual usage. When we write simple definitions, it seems to tempt contributors to add more specific ones that don't seem to clearly be covered by the simple definition. Subsense structures sometimes address the issue. I think it helps that definitions not have too many elements and that each element be unambiguously supported by more than one citation.

In this case, definition 1 seems overly long (ie, have too many elements) and may well include others of the definitions. MWOnline has three definitions, which adds to my skepticism about our seven. Only one of our definitions is fully attested.

I also note that we lack the use of purpose as used in some descriptions of the functioning of organisms where the meaning is "function" as there is no one evident that has the purpose.

I doubt that RfDs and RfVs of individual definitions can address the problems with the entry. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I like the new arcane definition, but I see that people may want to see it simplified. I would be sorry to see it go, but I am only one person. I really like how it explicates the kind of entities to which purpose applies. As for "The reason for which a thing is made or is done", I don't like the genus "reason" and prefer "end", which M-W has together with "object". Furthermore, "made or done" does not cover "exists", which I see as a problem since purposes are lexically assigned to things neither made nor done. I posted some reasoning about the new definition at Talk:purpose#New definition of sense 1.

The RFD-nominated sense of intention could be kept if we assign the example "It has been my purpose to illustrate rather than to explain" to it, but I am not sure we should; there is more at Talk:purpose#My purpose in X is Y, my purpose is X. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there is an interesting philosophical question there - can a thing have a purpose if it merely exists without having been made? But that is not in the scope of this project. - TheDaveRoss 17:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly right. And to avoid the philosophical question, we allow "exists" just like one of the dictionaries does, just to be on the safe side, to cover all uses, even those uses that a proper philosophical analysis would declare dubious. On Talk:purpose# Which objects can have purpose, I posted a list of things that are implied to have purpose, on phrase level. By the way, are organizations "made" or "created"? And is art "made" or "created"? This is why I picked so many entity types and verbs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

To wit: "Although the purpose of wings is to fly, they are structurally different. The wings of bats consist of skin that fills between the very elongated finger bones." Are bat wings made? They can be analyzed as "made" by evolution by natural selection, but do we need to make that analysis? Since wings are not really made by grow; they are "made" by cell division processes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there's some conceptual confusion going on, as that seems to be a separate question (and covered by sense 8). I think there are three concepts here, which are all intertwined. Roughly:

• Intention (the will expressed in carrying out an action) - currently sense 2.
• Reason (the justification for that action) - currently sense 5.
• Role (the function of an action/object) - currently sense 8.

purpose can refer to all three in separate ways:

• "My purpose in X is Y" neatly separates intention from reason. X is the intention, while Y is the reason.My purpose in this letter has merely been to call attention to this family can be rewritten as "My intention in this letter has merely been to call attention to this family". You could of course write "My reason for this letter has merely been to call attention to this family", but that isn't quite the same thing. One is raw intention, while the other is the justification for that intention.
• It's quite clear that something can have a role without that role having been instated with intention. I don't think we need to get bogged down in the philosophy of it, as the current gloss is adequate.

As a result, I think it's actually sense 1 that's superfluous, which should make it straightforward to cite sense 2. Sense 1 currently reads: The end for which an action or activity is done, an endeavor is undertaken, an artifact or its feature is made or an entity exists. This tries to cover all three at once, and as a result it comes off as conceptually muddled and difficult to interpret. In fact, without this discussion I'm not sure I'd have been able to interpret it at all. Theknightwho (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Can’t we simplify the definition of sense 1 to “An end intended to be served by something”?  --Lambiam 19:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That goes too far in deontologizing the definition, failing to show what that something could be. At least say "The end for which something is done, made or exists"; that at least hints at entity types that have purpose by the used verbs, and is reasonably short and simple. I ontologized the definition a lot, which is unusual and it seems people don't like; I do.

About intention being the lead sense: not to me. The lead sense of purpose is that which something is for and involves means-end relationship, whereas the lead sense of intention is the course of action intended, with means-end relationship not involved. M-W seems to disagree, though. The second sense of intention does involve means-end, which complicates the analysis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

DCDuring added sense "Function, role", with beautiful quotations. This would be the "exists" part in "end for which something is done, made or exists" or as-if made. It would be an implied end or an as-if, but still a kind of end. E.g. "The purpose of the gall-bladder is obviously to permit the accumulation of bile". gall-bladder's design was created by a design-like process of natural selection which tends to create purpose-like things. Thus, the objects of biology are interpreted as if made with a purpose, and indeed, the implied or as-if purpose permeates biology even though some philosophers don't like it. I am not convinced this has to be a separate sense. What do we do with "the purpose of the universe" if we assume that the universe was not made with a purpose? We have to let language users interpret things as if made with a purpose even when it is philosophically rather dubious. The quotations are beautiful, in any case. Are there any external references that we could use to support the sense, to add to our internal deliberations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

In the common senses, it seems to me that a person can have a purpose in the sense of what the person intends and that the objects of such intent have the purpose of the intender. There is also the feeling of purpose. These three are the senses in most common use, for which we need to have definitions that are clear and relatively simple. What doesn't fit under these are the relatively uncommon uses of purpose as applied to things that do not form intentions and are not the object of the intention of persons. We could argue that such usages are error, crypto-theism, or habitual vestiges of theistic thinking. We could dispense with a definition for this last, but only if we make the first two definitions I refer to more complicated or force the reader to include personified God, Nature, Evolution, of the Invisible Hand as persons. DCDuring (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the opinions above, I have changed the def to "The end for which something is done, is made or exists." It is close to the def in Lexico but "reason" was changed to "end", which hints at "means-end" relationship. I kept "exists", which is supported by Lexico and AHD. If someone feels strongly enough about removing "exists", I won't object: things that were not made but are implied to have purpose will have to be interpreted as if made. If someone feels strongly that "reason" is better than "end", go ahead: it is supported by some dictionaries; I don't like it but I can't exactly say why; I feel "reason" is not synonymous enough to purpose ("He had good reasons for doing so" but not "He had good purposes for doing so"), while "end" is in "ends justify the means". I added some public domain quotes as usexes to show that man-made things can have purposes: usexes have no visual identification noise and are not hidden, which is very useful for gaining an overview of use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just noting I have cited the sense "(obsolete) The subject of discourse; the point at issue." which was tagged, with help from Century which alerted me to collocations. I note that neither Merriam-Webster (which has it as one of just two noun senses they deign to cover) nor Dictionary.com mark it as obsolete, as we do; we should see if modern citations exist... - -sche (discuss) 09:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also, it seems possible to add something like "; the reason for the present discourse" to the definition, to make the connection to the noun's primary sense. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dan (or with what I think Dan's stance is, above) that the "Function, role" sense does not seem separate from the main sense (although I did notice Century has a comparable sense in their Supplement, saying it's used in biology without reference to intentionality), "the purpose of the gallbladder" is "the reason it exists" whether or not anyone thinks it is also "the reason it was created" by anyone with intentionality; it's why, when early forms of it evolved through random mutation etc, it survived natural selection and evolved further. I think it should be made a subsense of sense 1 (or maybe merged into it). - -sche (discuss)

I am inclined to expand our "Resolution; determination" sense to "Resolution; determination; (sense of having a) reason for existing or doing things", to better cover things like saying volunteering google books:"gave her purpose" or google books:"gave her life purpose" (and in line with some other dictionaries). - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That last extension seems to me to be rather distinct. It seems to be very close to "meaning" or "meaningfulness". Perhaps purpose is a particular kind of meaning. A common collocation for the "resolution/determination" sense is (do/say something) with purpose, synonymously purposively or purposefully. The emphasis is on the intention of the doer. Your examples are of the collocation give (someone/something) purpose. In these cases the purpose is often something lacking in a person which is found externally. Emotionally these seem very different.

I don't see the advantage of confining our criteria for recognizing distinct senses to distinct instances of formal logic. DCDuring (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

About meaning: the phrases purpose of life and meaning of life seem to refer to the same thing or almost the same thing. This suggests there would be synonymy of meaning and purpose in some sense, but this does not seem to be the case for the main sense of purpose: "what is the meaning of your visit"[126] does not work. A similar term is meaning of art, which could be synonymous with purpose of art; google books:"meaning of art". The associated German terms could be Sinn and Bedeutung, which incidentally also have the same sense of "semantics; word or sentence meaning"; Czech is smysl but not účel, which is the lead Czech translation of the main sense of purpose. Another term is meaning of history and purpose of history: google books:"meaning of history", google books:"purpose of history". A synonym could be import, but I am not sure; another candidate is significance. meaningfulness is not a synonym for these kinds of phrases: it is not an answer to the question what does it mean?

In defense of DCDuring's "function, role", WordNet has item "function, purpose, role, use", which supports DCDuring's sense as a separate notion. I do not feel compelled to support a merge or subsensing at this point; WordNet probably has better notion/concept engineering than lexicographical dictionaries, and I see some plausibility in having "function, role" as a separate sense". --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm persuaded that "function, role" can be a separate (sub)sense. And I'm detagging "The subject of discourse; the point at issue." as it's cited, unless anyone would like to dispute the interpretation of the cites. - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

mytilus

From Webster 1913, where the first letter of the entry is always uppercased. This is just Translingual Mytilus. I found some lowercase uses in 19th-century geology texts [127] [128], evidently referring to ancient shells or fossils, but these texts put all genus names in lowercase and I don't think this means we should have entries for them. This, that and the other (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

purpose, verb

Rfv-sense: "(transitive, passive) To design for some purpose." Does this exist distinctly from passive use of the preceding sense 1? - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: because RQ-templated quotes don't include the year anywhere visible in wikitext (to enable sorting them into the right chronological place when adding other quotes), I just added some other quotes (to sense 1) after the RQ. - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

y'all'd'nt've

y'all'dn't've

Yes, you can derive this legitimately by combining morphemes- but does anyone actually use this? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly widely recognized, a quick Google Books search returned this list of contractions.

Ioaxxere (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a mention, not a use. 142.166.21.76 15:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean using that book as a citation, I'm saying that it directly states that this contraction is used (albeit on the "rarest of occasions").

Ioaxxere (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I've moved the content of the page to y'all'dn't've as this seems to be the most common spelling. Ioaxxere (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'dn't've seen any hits on Usenet if I'd've searched yesterday and I don't see any today, alas. I only see one hit even for "you'dn't've" (and it's a mention, "I almost spelt this as you'dn't've"). Even on Twitter, most hits are mentions, or ungrammatical jokes ("y’all’dn’t’ve be ready for my swag"), although there are valid uses (1 2 3), maybe enough of them to consider it cited if we're accepting twitter these days (bah). - -sche (discuss) 16:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if this matters to CFI, but all of the previously linked Twitter citations look like they're only using it in a forced way to make a jocular point about grammar (you may need to read the previous messages in the thread to see the context). I suppose it could be argued that they nevertheless convey meaning and aren't just mentions. At the very least, this entry probably deserves a label of (rare, humorous), since the contraction appears to be unused outside of jokes. 142.166.21.76 23:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I don't think anyone uses this seriously. Theknightwho (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

humblehead

Cited to Chaucer. Was not able to find modern English uses. The one that looked the most promising on Google Books turned out to actually be a scanno for "humble head". Everything else I found had a similar story.

The Middle English spelling is "humblehede". This is a varia lectio that occurs in some editions ([129], [130]), while others have "humble bed" ([131], [132]). Some textual critics seem to think "humble bed" is the original form since its sources are older/more reliable, but MED still documents "humblehede", and I suppose we should too (with a note perhaps). 142.166.21.76 02:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Some more stuff using the spelling "humblehede": [133], [134]. I think these may be modern authors attempting to write in Middle English. At least that's my interpretation of "Attempted in the Language of Chaucer's Time" / "after the style of Chaucer". I also found some stuff with "humblehed", all Chaucer. Still no luck with "humblehead". 142.166.21.76 03:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Equinoxism. Leasnam (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

onomatopeia

tagged but not listed - -sche (discuss) 03:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Reversinator tagged this with the edit summary "can't find any dictionary that recognizes this, particularly as a US-specific spelling".

OED does list it (although without a US label) but gives cites from 1553 and 1577. And it's not at all hard to find modern uses of this term: [135] [136] [137]. However, it does seem to be a rare form, so that might be a better label than "US". This, that and the other (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That last example may be a typo (Toward an Urban Cultural Studies also uses the "onomatopoeia" spelling), but I'll at least recognize that the spelling has modern usage. Maybe it could be classified as a misspelling, but either that or as a rare form should be fine. At the very least, it doesn't seem to be a US-specific spelling.

Also, sorry for not listing it here! Reversinator (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed the US label since GNV does not support this notion; I tagged it as rare based on GNV. GNV suggests this is attested, and google books:"onomatopeia" confirms that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed: This, that and the other provided links to quotations above. He did not call it "cited", but that is just a minor process defect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

halogenobenzylic

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE. 07:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be an adjective, not a noun, but I lack the relevant chemistry knowledge Pious Eterino (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This belongs in WT:RFVE. Theknightwho (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the noun is halogenobenzyl although no plural attested that I can find. Facts707 (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have now added (as an adjective) the one single instance of this word that can be found in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 10:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There are at least two independent quotes on Google Scholar too. 142.166.21.76 11:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

chili queen

Rfv-sense: "(US, historical) A Mexican woman who sold chili con carne as street food in San Antonio, Texas."

This specific? A particular historic figure? Any woman selling/promoting/using chili products? Only in San Antonio? Capitalization? DCDuring (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

2018 April 16, Katherine Lam, “Chili grower defends world’s hottest pepper after man hospitalized”, in New York Post:

Shahina Waseem, called Britain’s “Chili Queen,” also defended eating the Carolina Reaper and said the pain usually doesn’t last for a prolonged period — though she did admit eating the pepper makes her feel like she’s “dying” for a bit.

DCDuring (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe add this as a citation.

Ioaxxere (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't San Antonio just the locus of origin of a collocation? Does the woman have to be a Mexican citizen? DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the entry a bit and added citations, it should be clear that the definition doesn't refer to a single person.

Ioaxxere (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the def. It didn't mean one specific woman, of course, but Mexican women who did this job in a certain time and place. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

chargeant

Adjective: "(obsolete) burdensome; troublesome".

Cited to Chaucer. Compare MED, which lists two meanings. All modern English uses I was able to find in a quick search appear to be Irish legal jargon referring to one party in a dispute or contract or something, with the coordinate term being "dischargeant" (both of which are used as nouns). Maybe similar to debtor/creditor. 142.166.21.76 14:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

OED has Middle English only for the adjective. It glosses the noun as "One who has a charge upon an estate; = chargee". This, that and the other (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Just noting I added the (attested) noun. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

intention

Rfv-sense: To intend.

Not in modern dictionaries, unless I have overlooked something. Not a single example sentence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

google books:"intentioning" "intentioned" shows that there is a verb intention, but what it means is less clear. In the 2013 and 2016 cites I put at Citations:intention it seems like a jargony (philosophical?) way of saying something in the vein of "have an intention", but in the 2015 cite it coordinates with manifest (“will (something) to exist”) and could also be viewed as something in that vein. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like some kind of continental philosophy jargon. Maybe {{lb|en|philosophy}} {{rfdef|en}} is the way. Or remove the sense as unattested and leave the quotations only in Citations:intention. There is a reference to Husserl in one of the quotations, so it would be phenomenology. From SEP: "Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object", boldface mine. So it really looks like phenomenology. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Could there be a connection to common terms like well-intentioned, which seem to use it as a verb as well?

Ioaxxere (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think well-intentioned = well- + intention:noun + -ed. Compare well-mannered: this does not depend on verb manner. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

A formal definition would probably be "to manifest intention". This is different from "to intend", because it doesn't require the thing being intended to be specified, as the point of focus is on the existence of the intention itself (rather than its object). I consider this cited, to be honest, but agree that a philosophy label is probably appropriate. Theknightwho (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you know these things? I cannot say the provided quotations reveal as much. If we had Husserl's definition, that would be something.

Maybe the label should not be "philosophy" but "continental philosophy" or "phenomenology" so that the reader does not get the impression an Anglophone philosopher would normally use the word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I added some more cites, and some more text to the cites. The philosophy cites indeed seem to be phenomenology, Dan is on the money there. I discern at least two strains of use: one or more philosophy senses (three cites refer to Husserl, two don't; there are probably(?) enough citations on Google Books and Scholar which use the word outside of quotes of him to meet CFI's "independence" criterion), and a new-age sense for which I've also found 3+ cites (probably allowing it to be a separate sense). - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

writing as separate words

Not a noun; see Talk:writing as one word. The translations (at least one of which, the French one, is contrived) should be moved elsewhere, maybe to a template; see Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/August § those who can't use their head must use their back. PUC – 20:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

homonymphobia

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

“A fear of words that rhyme”. That includes virtually all words except orange (although, for some speakers, this rhymes with doorhinge). Someone inflicted with this phobia would be speechless, so how is this different from logophobia?  --Lambiam 08:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I managed to get Wikipedia to add "blorange" as a rhyme. Probably the one time I made any change that wasn't eventually entropied. Equinox ◑ 14:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I did find one cite, Citations:homonymphobia, although it would suggest tweaking the definition to "fear of homonyms". - -sche (discuss) 16:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No cites for the other morphologies? DCDuring (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your comment led me to look for google books:"homophonophobia", which gets some hits, which in turn led me to realize that a more expected form for this word would would be homonymophobia with an -o-, which does seem to be attested: Citations:homonymophobia. So maybe we can move (and redefine) the entry. The meaning seems to be "fear of homonyms", not "fear of words that rhyme", though. - -sche (discuss) 17:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

My brain keeps trying to parse this as some kind of weird and probably offensive LGBQ term... Chuck Entz (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

There is nymphophobia, which looks attestable. DCDuring (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I created the better-attested spelling homonymophobia; thanks to This, that for formatting the cites. Homonymphobia's spelling and definition both seem mistaken. - -sche (discuss) 09:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

exteacher

I created this with the use of GNV without realizing GNV may pick ex-teacher split across the line as "exteacher", which it very often seems to do. Are there any real attesting quotations? And if so, is this not rather a misspelling given how rare it possibly is? On the other hand, ex- is often used without a hyphen, so this would not be mis- per method of construction, would only be a rare spelling of ex-teacher.

Note that ex-teacher is now protected via WT:THUB. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

If you only created it based on scannos, you coulda just put a speedy tag on it. Maybe we can find 3 awful cites (probably due to reformatting issues in vanity presses) but it's very stupid (no offence to you) and I believe any use could be fairly clearly argued to be an error. Equinox ◑ 13:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the current translations at ex-teacher, it looks like it's not protected by WT:THUB. Czech exučitel and German Exlehrer are just ex- + their respective words for "teacher" which looks to fall under "a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term: German Autoschlüssel does not qualify to support the English "car key"". If there are additional translations that don't fall under the limiting criteria at WT:THUB, then yes it'd be protected, but for now only WT:COALMINE seems to apply. (I won't be the one to make an RFD for it though) AG202 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

ex-teacher is not a compound but rather a prefixed word, and so are exučitel and Exlehrer. Therefore, the current WT:THUB does not exclude exučitel and Exlehrer. Some may want to have them excluded, but this is not what the current WT:THUB does. THUB is overridable so if ex-teacher is sent to RFD, people may vote delete; I will vote keep. There is Category:English compound words, which to my surprise contains open compounds as well as closed compounds. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Cited at Citations:exteacher. Better revert the deletion campaign against ex-X words, and document them as single words, which they are, and stop complaining about prefixes being productive. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Including hyphenated prefixed words as single words. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

juften

A more bibulous than meticulous editor added juchten and juften to Russia leather and an IP editor likely created one without checking. I can only find yuft used or mentioned for English, while those forms must have been German forms mentioned in English texts. Fay Freak (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

metalevel

Sense 2: "A medium-scale level." Equinox ◑ 13:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Marxism

Rfv-sense "The study of Karl Marx within society." Plausible, although it seems like it would be confusing, heh. I'm having a hard time finding any examples, because searching for things like google books:"Marxism" "scholars of Marx" or "Marxism" + "Marx's life" or "study [Karl] Marx" still only finds the more common sense. - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This sense was added by @Jamzze, who has been contributing a number of sociology senses and terms. Jamzze, can you help us attest this sense according to the attestation requirements? This, that and the other (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-pinging @Jamzze, who has been active on enwiki lately. This, that and the other (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

-iery

J3133 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

ambedo

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

To my surprise, given how recent the ety says the coinage is, I found four cites. Apparently writers found it a useful coinage. :o Might still merit a label like "uncommon" (or even the "neologism" label if we're still using that rather than defdates). - -sche (discuss) 16:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Judas

Rfv-sense: "Penultimate book of the Bible, with only one chapter, composed of twenty-five verses". Usually known as Jude in English translations AFAIK. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If you try a search query like "Hebrews, James, Judas", it's possible to find it, but it seems rare. 98.170.164.88 06:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

purportion

"Something purported; a claim. I deny this slanderous purportion." Zero Ghits outside Wiktionary for "slanderous purportion". GBooks is full of errors for proportion, i.e. totally different meaning and erroneous. And this entry here is marked as uncountable, which seems wrong given the usage example, which looks singular. Equinox ◑ 12:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, it's marked as uncountable because you changed it, though it doesn't make sense that it was marked as countable/uncountable either. Theknightwho (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Cited using Usenet. I found some potential hits elsewhere ([138], [139]), but the Usenet quotations more clearly match the meaning and usage example. Maybe it can be uncountable too: [140] (Google Groups but not Usenet and therefore not durably archived). 98.170.164.88 23:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't even understand two of the citations. The middle one seems okay. Equinox ◑ 07:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Both of the last two make sense but the first one is surely just a typo for ‘purporting’? Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to explain the three Usenet quotations:

• The alt.native quotation is referring to statements (about the Leonard Peltier case) made in a magazine advertisement. The Usenet poster disagrees with those purportions, and suggests contacting the editor of the magazine. The word is used twice within the same post so I don't see how it would be a typo, especially since "ing" and "ion" are pretty dissimilar.
• The rec.music.classical.recordings quotation is commenting on the purportion that Parisians are concerned with water conservation or fragrances, or something. Honestly, this is the one I understand the least, which is funny since it's the only one Equinox understands.
• The soc.culture.jewish one is talking about how conspiracy theories (regarding the USS Liberty incident) rely on unverifiable purportions.

Overlordnat1, Theknightwho, Equinox: satisfactory? 98.170.164.88 08:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Our wires have got crossed, I was referring to the potential hit published in the Elba Clipper (‘purportion (purporting) to be the last will and testament’). The three citations at the entry itself and the other two potential hits are fine. The USS Liberty quote claims that it’s the Israelis, rather than their critics, who make unverifiable purportions - in any case this can surely be considered to have passed RFV. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you (and probably Equinox) meant. I agree that 'purporting' makes much more sense there.

Anyway, 'purportion' is much more commonly used (perhaps as a pronunciation spelling) to mean 'proportion' than to mean 'that which is purported'. So maybe the former definition should be added too. 98.170.164.88 09:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks to whoever has found citations. I do feel this is one of those lovely "edge cases" where it's really a lazy mistake or confusion (it's not, for instance, an everyday word in Indian English). But 3 cites and ya win, because it's American baseball. Cheers. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Three people made a mistake, obviously we should put it in the dictionary. - TheDaveRoss 12:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, languages never develop at all. Ever. Theknightwho (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It sure does, and this ain't it. The Google results for purportion show us as the first result (very bad sign), with the next bunch of links being spell checking links, SEO garbage, and people who clearly mean proportion. I am not saying this is conclusive evidence that the term is not used, but it sure doesn't show strong evidence that the term is actually in any sort of common usage. It was used three times on UseNet though, so we will pretend that it is an actual English word. - TheDaveRoss 18:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

prepping

Noun sense 3: "Repeated exercise in or performance of activity or skill so as to acquire or maintain proficiency in it." Needs to be distinct from sense 1 (preparation in general). Equinox ◑ 07:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

manred

Rfv-sense: "sexual intercourse". This sense is apparently only attested once in Laȝamon's Brut (a Early Middle English text); obviously it shouldn't be in our ModE entry unless I'm wrong. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

homonymphobic

1. (rare) Of or relating to homonymphobia.

@2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:C958:F5FD:41A0:BBEB

Tagged since homonymphobia still hasn't been cited. Binarystep (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Expected form would be homonymophobic (mirroring attested homonymophobia), but even that doesn't appear attested. Possibly the IP is wasting our time. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Struck "possibly" given the user's other contributions, see discussion of #horsenostril above; the user mixes bad edits in with good edits (a vandalism tactic WF was recently praising, although I don't think this is WF), and is now blocked for three months. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

buzzbee

Unfindable in this form other than a use by D.H. Lawrence. There is a surname Buzzbee, and apparently at least one product has this name (with a capital B). Didn't get much else though. This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay I forgot to search for the plural again... this and this, but it's not clear whether they are bumblebees or just general bees (or something else entirely). This, that and the other (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The one from The Searchers looks like it might be referring to bullets, given the context, but IDK. Two more possible uses from GBooks: [141] (referring to something like the RoboBee), [142] (unclear meaning). 98.170.164.88 19:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Loving the "somewhat childish" gloss, where somebody thought it would be appropriate to give D H Lawrence his GCSE results. We definitely shouldn't use "somewhat" in glosses. Equinox ◑ 20:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox User:This, that and the other/weasel words in context labels This, that and the other (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I love it but I will love it even more when you fix them all. In this case, it's "somewhat childish" to mean "a bumblebee" but fully "childish" to mean "any bee". Since bumblebee is a hyponym of bee, we got a problem, Houston. Equinox ◑ 03:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

mikepost

Chuck Entz (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hard pass on KnowYourMeme being an acceptable source. - TheDaveRoss 16:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a mention rather than a use, anyway, and uses different capitalization. - -sche (discuss) 17:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Not a criticism, but an observation: this entry has mostly (and extremely heavily) been edited by somebody whose user name is the name of a character from the series. Equinox ◑ 20:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Getting strong vibes that this is specific to a certain subreddit or similar. Theknightwho (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, and you may already know this, adding post to things to mean 'make posts about' is a thing (I see web hits for Fryposting, owlposting, doctorposting...), so while people who mikepost may have made a subreddit, I don't think the word would be specific to one site per se; I see a few hits on Reddit, a Facebook group for Cursed Mikeposting, a few hits on Twitter; it just seems to be in general rare and low-value, broadly intelligible from the parts, particularly because we'd need to change the definition (or add a bunch of definitions) to note that it can refer to posting about any Mike, not just Ehrmantraut but Bloomberg or Deltarune or seemingly someone's OC. - -sche (discuss) 16:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but the issue is more that Mike could be referring to anyone. Plus it has to be a "thing" first, for people to understand what it means - especially given the definition we have. Theknightwho (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree it can refer to anyone. (Ditto e.g. doctorposting being variously a doctor making posts, or posting about Doctor Who.) So do we think only context clarifies when mikeposting is about Ehrmantraut like only context clarifies which Taylor a Taylor stan stans (and we wouldn't have an entry *Taylor stan) and so (if kept) it should be redefined to be general (~"post about a person or character named Mike"), or do we think any Mike for whom there are enough cites should get his own definition, or is it too rare to have at all? I'm unsure, we seem inconsistent in how we handle such things, e.g. Gregorian lumps together the popes but splits out a mathematician, Smithian lumps together most Smiths but splits out Adam, Achillean distinguishes the Iliadic one and Tatius, Jonesian distinguishes William and Mary, ... - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

tryhard

The verb only. The sole citation is actually a noun (tryhard + -ing). Gbook hits for try-harded are scannos for "try harder". Hits for try-hards appear to only be for the plural. Leasnam (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Is "have fun while tryharding" using a noun? I can "have fun while verbing" ("have fun while classifying"), but can I "have fun while noun" (*"have fun while classification")? I found some other hits of Citations:tryharding, of which "Tryharding, simply put, is a preference of telic routines over paratelic playful pleasure" could indeed be a noun, but "DON'T YOU EVER STOP TRYHARDING?!" seems like a verb. "tryharding is not her style" could be either, and "tryharding to rob him from air" reads like like a weird, non-fluent error for "trying hard" (not usable for this sense), so we still need one or two more cites (and yes, ideally other inflected forms). - -sche (discuss) 18:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This seems fairly legitimate if you just google around. Better than "pick a random Anglo-Saxon verb, and stick be- or -ly on it". If we are going to accept the Web sources (which I believe we can do now by consensus) then yes, it's clearly a word that people use. Equinox ◑ 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

chao tai D

Never heard of this word, probably some sporadic coinage by a small group of people. The romanisation method does not make any sense: chao does not correspond to 鋤／锄 (co4) (in IPA t͡sɔː, tones stripped, likewise for the others) in any of the romanisations I know, chao should instead be one of t͡saːu, t͡sɐu, t͡sʰaːu, or t͡sʰɐu; tai is from some of the older romanisation schemes that do not distinguish between t and tʰ, otherwise it should be dai; D is only rarely seen on the Internet as a shorter form of dee or di or similar, but never alone in a proper romanisation. This word also does not appear on w:Big two, which instead lists chor dai di, co daai di, dai di and sho tai ti as variant names derived from Cantonese. cho and dee would also be acceptable, among the various rearrangements of the ones listed. – Wpi31 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

cunny 2

"Countryside". Nothing obvious, although the many other meanings makes searching hard. Partridge implies it's Merseyside dialect; the EDD has nothing for this sense, only senses related to a game of marbles. (The sense "cunning" might laso be hard to attest in English as opposed to Jamaican Creole.) - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

(Other recent edits have brought to my attention how many edits by the user who added this are incorrect, or malformatted.) ~~ — This unsigned comment was added by -sche (talk • contribs) at 20:32, 18 September, 2022 (UTC).

It never fails: corrections or comments on errors of others always seem to have some kind of picky little error themselves. There must be something subconscious at work. As for the user in question. I noticed a tendency to use quotes to add unnecessary encyclopedic content, but I didn't have time to look through their other content. It doesn't surprise me though. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

reel

Rfv-sense "(textiles) A machine on which yarn is wound and measured into lays and hanks, —-- for cotton or linen it is fifty-four inches in circuit; for worsted, thirty inches." moving from RFD. - TheDaveRoss 18:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The sense certainly exists - it's a specific use of sense 3, but it probably deserves its own sense for historical reasons as the only meaning recorded (by OED at least) in OE and ME. The stuff after the dashes can just be deleted, I think. This, that and the other (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

plyg

Rfv-sense "a polygamist" who's not Mormon. All the examples I can find (I put a few in the entry and on Citations:Plyg) are, if you read the surrounding pages/chapters, referring to Mormon polygamists, which is sense 2. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

vert

The verb: to turn. Apparently needs some context (or "obsolete") gloss if it's real, since I clearly can't say "I verted my head towards her", or "please vert the potatoes in the oven". Might be entire bullshit. Equinox ◑ 00:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's in OED2: https://www.oed.com/oed2/00276718

Seems to be obsolete though.

Ioaxxere (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

hang in

This entry seems purely wrong and misguided to me. Definition: "(intransitive) To remain in a particular place or status." Then there are mentions of "hang in there" and "hang in the balance". But can you ever say "hang in" on its own? What kind of sentence or situation would this be used in? And, even if you can, we presumably wouldn't analyse "hang in there" or "hang in the balance" as an intransitive "hang in" + SOMETHING (but rather "hang + PP"). Anyone got any idea what might be intended here? Equinox ◑ 02:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Searching for ‘hang in and’ to avoid instances where ‘hang in’ is followed by ‘there’ provides several usable quotes where the context is either sticking with a job, or remaining in a political party, despite disliking it or (of either individuals or companies) fighting to stay alive; or in one case fighting to remain in your own home rather than be sent to an old people’s home and another case staying on the wagon: [143],[144],[145],[146],[147],[148],[149]. Even more general uses, broadly similar in use and meaning to ‘hang in there’, can be found here: [150],[151] and [152]. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

So it's a synonym for (or weird error for?) hang on, then? Because that's my understanding of hang on. Thanks. Please add any citations that strike you as convincing. Equinox ◑ 09:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

They seem pretty similar in meaning to me, I’ve created Citations:hang in. Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Pan-Cake

Based on the {{lb|en|trademark}} label which was formerly present, the capitalization, the headering of this as a proper noun, and what kind of cites turn up from a Google Books search, this seems to be a brand name which would need to meet BRAND, rather than a common alternative form of pancake (“theatrical makeup”). - -sche (discuss) 23:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

sedevacantism

Rfv-sense: "A position that there is no current valid Pontifex Maximus as supreme leader of the Ecclesia Creatoris.". RcAlex36 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be the same as sense 1. Theknightwho (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Note the context label "Creativity". So the Pontifex Maximus referred to in the gloss is the leader of that group. Even so, I can't find any evidence for this. This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Good point - I’d missed that (and I’ve never heard of them, honestly). Theknightwho (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

attributive

Rfv-sense: Serving to express an attribute of an object.

This has to be something different from the 2nd sense, "Having the nature of an attribute." There are zero attesting quotations and zero example sentences. I don't find the sense in “attributive”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I found at least one old citation which speaks of "all verbs attributive of what passes in the mind", where it seems to mean something broadly along the lines of "attributing" — the cite is about verbs like I hate or I grieve which attribute hatred or grief to me — which might be the kind of thing this definition was trying to cover. In the same vein, "आल and आट put after वाक् Speech, with it form adjectives attributive of much bad or improper speaking", where the adjectives are likewise attributing an attribute, and (like the verbs to hate, etc) can probably also attribute it to e.g. a pronoun (e.g. "he who utters much bad language") and not just a noun as in definition 1. But this definition's wording would need to be improved if we consider it to have been trying to cover this kind of thing. (Not all the cites I put on the citations page are this sense.) - -sche (discuss) 20:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, modern OED hasn't moved beyond NED's 19th-century glosses: "1. Characterized by attributing. Obsolete. 2. Logic. That assigns an attribute to a subject. [3 is the grammar sense] 4. So-assigned, so-ascribed (by those who essay to assign the authorship of a painting or work of art)." but with only one or two cites for each. This, that and the other (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful. Sense 3 in OED reads "Gram. That expresses attribute". And that reads very much like the nominated RFV-sense. The nominated sense was added in diff on 10 September 2020 by an anon, with no example sentence. It could be that the anon did not realize the sense in grammar is already covered. Note I also sent Wiktionary sense 2 to RFV, which is nominated below. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

We already have two different definitions of attributive in the glossary, depending on whether we're referring to syntax or semantics. Those are definitions that treat "attributive" as a noun, but the difference equally applies to when it's used as an adjective as well. Theknightwho (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This brings up another issue: I notice that whereas our grammatical sense is restricted to "modifying a noun", the OED's is not limited to nouns. Should our definition be broadened, maybe to say something along the lines of "modifying something, typically a noun" (or some better or even more generalized wording)? If (as our usex says) "big" in "big house" is attributive, would "angry" in "There he goes again with his angry 'no, don't!' and 'that's not safe!' " also be attributive despite modifying a (nounless) phrase rather than a noun? And people speak of google books:"attributive adverbs" that modify verbs... - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

attributive

Rfv-sense: Having the nature of an attribute.

Not in Macmillan[153] and cambridge.org[154]. It is MW 1[155], but they have no example sentence for the sense, only for the grammar sense. It is AHD 2[156]; no example sentence. No example sentence and no quotation of use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

nomen attributivum

Entered to mean attributive noun. google books:"nomen attributivum", google groups:"nomen attributivum", “nomen attributivum”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Any attesting quotations in use in English? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

epicurely

Apparently just used once by Thomas Nashe. Almostonurmind (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that I found another non-Nashe use: [157] and one that belongs to a different sense: [158]. Still needs a third cite for the "luxuriously" sense. This, that and the other (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

oaxaquita

Nothing in oaxaquita at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.; two quotations are in the entry. Can a third quotation used in English be found? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither of them count. One is italicized and the other clearly a mention. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Right. Three quotations missing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Deleted, probably just Spanish used inline. - TheDaveRoss 19:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

box of dildos

Meaning (uncountable) A stupid or contemptible person.. Unsurprisingly, lots of kinky shit comes up when searching, and some fun expressions like "Useless as an armless lesbian with a box of dildos". I tried searching stuff like "you box of dildos" and "he/she's a box of dildos" but I suspect this was added as a joke. Almostonurmind (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I have definitely heard this in use. It's humorous, obviously. Also used about things that someone dislikes in general (e.g. "my job is a box of dildos"). Theknightwho (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

bathing

RFV of the adjective: was listed at RFD, but is properly an RFV question of whether citations demonstrating adjectivity exist. (The current usexes are the verb and noun, respectively.) - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Of the 2 usage examples given the first is just the participle, and the second is the attributive noun. Leasnam (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Added bathing machine. DonnanZ (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

50 cent

RFV-sense:

1) as an adjective where the term is described as derogatory when functioning as a synonym for the term cheap.

2) as a noun where it is referred to as a synonym for wumao.

The background to the dispute can be found here and I am not seeing anything on Google Books that provides attestation for either sense of the term.

Sorry in advance if there are defects with this RFV as this is the first time I’ve done this Stormandfury (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Stormandfury looks like a good RFV. A cursory search tended to confirm your suspicions. Let's leave it for (at least) 30 days and see if anyone can find any evidence to support this entry. This, that and the other (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other it’s been well over 30 days and it doesn’t seem like anyone else has “found evidence to support this entry” as nobody else has commented on this rfv. What are the next steps? Can I proceed with my changes to the entry in question? Stormandfury (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking more closely, I see some use on Reddit: [159] [160] [161] Let's leave this open for a bit longer until we have some more clarity on the community's expectations for non-durable online sources. This, that and the other (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

milli-light second

Seems like an odd construction (why not light millisecond?) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't effect the validity of the RfV, but it may well be that light second was well established before this term came into use. And for some users, say, in a classroom, you would not want a term that brought to mind heavy milli-second. DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find many results, but some more might be found with different punctuation. I saw some with no hyphens (milli light second) and some with all hyphens (milli-light-second). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

For many milliseconds I wondered what a milli-light might be. This does seem like a term that needs citation-informed cleanup rather than probable-deletion-oriented RfV, but RfC doesn't seem to be a popular venue. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

minor key

Noun sense 2 and adjective:

• Noun: (idiomatic) A mood of melancholy or pathos.
• Adjective: (idiomatic) In a restrained manner; on a small or limited scale.

Not really seeing much evidence for this as a mood, or as a way of describing behaviour.

Looks like evidence for in a minor key may be found at Google Books DCDuring (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

major key

Noun sense 2 and adjective:

• Noun: (idiomatic) A mood of cheerfulness or happiness.
• Adjective: (idiomatic) In an unrestrained manner; on a large or expansive scale.

Likewise. These two were also added yesterday by a user that edited both pages, so I'm pretty sure these were just inferred from minor key. Theknightwho (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There could be something in this as songs in a minor key are generally considered to sound more melancholy than those in a major key and vice versa but I can’t find any support for these senses regardless. Perhaps the user who added these meanings was getting confused with low-key and the rarer high-key? Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Try looking for "in a minor key". It's a not-uncommon metaphor for having sad and melancholy overtones. That said, I'm not so sure that "minor key" by itself means the same thing, and I definitely don't think that it's an adjective. You might find "minor-key" as attributive use of the noun with the "in a" implied. As for "major key", I see a little metaphorical usage, but since the major keys are what Western music considers the default (what I like to refer to as the "unmarked category"), it's not as useful as a metaphor. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Harder to filter out other uses in in a major key, but there seems to be some support at Google Books, but there are some possible cites. I'm not sure about cites of "speak/talk in a major key". Here's an often reused sentence from:

• 1910, Arthur Edward Phillips, The Tone System in Public Speaking and Reading:

  Smooth the brow, brighten the eye, contract the dorsal rather than the ventral aspect of the frame, and speak in a major key, pass the genial compliment, and your heart must be frigid indeed if it do not gradually thaw!

DCDuring (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

the high moments of social life on the farm … are in a decidedly minor key

— Don Murray

art in Australia … reflected English traditions in a minor key

— Bernard Smith Peppermintpatty111 (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

usteq

Defined as "Yup'ik word for catastrophic land collapse caused by the melting of permafrost, coastal flooding and erosion". So I doubt it's an English word at all. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried to look up the etymology of this word and, as with several other words from this language family, I got stuck about halfway. I suspect it's a word that simply means "falling" or "collapse" (from the stem uste-) and that the much more specific sense is confined to English. It isnt as obvious as it seems, because Eskimo-Aleut languages have complicated grammmar and we can't just assume a word usteq is built from uste- and a suffix -q. So I can't confirm anything, and I've put off replying until now. —Soap— 17:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

-jak

Apparently, an English suffix – having a hard time buying it though and the only clickable example on Wiktionary – soyjak – contradicts such a construction. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

has now been speedy deleted by Chuck - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedied. None of the alleged examples exist in Google Books, the regular Google hits for those examples are all user names, coincidental running together of neighboring words, or are in running text of other languages, and it's obviously just the Serbo-Croatian or some other Slavic-language prefix grafted onto English. Of the 19 English lemmas ending in -jak on Wiktionary, only soyjak could even remotely be interpreted as having an English suffix- and that's far better explained as a blend.

For what it's worth, neither of the accounts that edited this have ever edited anything else on any Wikimedia site except a user page. They're probably both the same person, but that's not enough to justify a checkuser check, so I don't know for sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Although I agree that this is a blend rather than a suffix, I do think we should have a way of categorizing certain common blends. Binarystep (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There are quite a few blends based on faux, for example. Would be nice to have a place to collect them all. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(bolded the "speedied" above) This, that and the other (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

cibai

Last year, PulauKakatua19 added an English section to cibai. The word is supposedly derived from the Malaysian word for vagina. Indeed, Google Translate confirms that "膣屄" (chi-bai) translates to vagina when translated from Malay to English. However, "cibai" has no results in OneLook Dictionary Search, and searching for "cibai" or "cibai meaning" on Google returns mainly Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary results. And "cibai" translates to "try." Inner Focus (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It's Malaysian/Singaporean English. It might be citable from Usenet, e.g. search results for the variant "cheebai". 98.170.164.88 23:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Cited the alternative form cheebai, which appears to be the main form. Still need two more for cibai.

Only cited the noun senses "vagina" and "contemptible person", not the verb or interjection.

It looks like Twitter could also be used to gather more quotations if anyone is interested. I think I'm done with this one. 98.170.164.88 00:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

omnivastance

Nothing on Google books, but it just might be citable from websites- if someone can figure out what the definition is. Different people seem to be trying to top each other with superlatives to the point it hardly makes any sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

wisdom (2)

Rfv-sense: thyme. Challenged by an IP in the talk page: "One of the definitions states that wisdom is a name for thyme. I've never heard of such use, and the example there talks about sage. Can some native speaker give a real example [if] it's true, or erase it [if] it's a mistake?" Not in OED, haven't checked other lemmings. This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether "name of wisdom" in that quotation is supposed to refer to the word sage itself. The different senses of sage aren't etymologically related, but it's an easy mistake for a non-linguist to make. 98.170.164.88 06:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The sense was added in this edit in order to add the quote. @Esme Shepherd specializes in the worthy task of adding quotes from public domain literary works such as novels, but occasionally runs into problems due to lack of background in more specialized subjects. It certainly looks like a case of incorrectly assuming the "wisdom" reference applied to the "thyme" rather than the "sage" part of the quote. The fact that the herb name "sage" is a homograph and homophone for "sage" meaning "wise" makes it the obvious choice. That said, I'm not sure I've seen the name "wisdom" applied to sage in 50 years of reading about herbs. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What I was thinking (maybe didn't express it well enough) is that "name of wisdom" could refer to the word "sage" and not even the word "wisdom" itself. This would be like if you were to call the given name "Maximillian" a "name of greatness", because it's related to the word maximus; but that doesn't mean "greatness" and "Maximillian" are synonyms. In the quotation, the word "wisdom" is not in quotation marks or italicized, so this reading is at least a possibility.

Maybe someone will dig up some quotes that prove this interpretation wrong. The closest I was able to find was searching for "herb of wisdom", which mainly brings up hits about sage but also some for thyme, rosemary, and lettuce (!). It's not clear to me that people are even using it definitionally to mean sage, though. 98.170.164.88 07:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Landon states that sage (not thyme) has the popular name of wisdom but remember that this was in 1834. It seems very likely to me that children would associate the word wisdom with the name sage and clearly it was so associated, at least in her childhood. She may also have come across it in Yorkshire, when visiting her uncle and his large family there. It seems to be common practice to include historical meanings to words, even though they might not be in use today. I apologise for putting thyme rather than sage: that was a careless mistake on my part. It is true that I have included many quotes from Landon but then she was a person of very powerful intellect who was vastly read and she deserves to be regarded as one of the safest authorities available. Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed, Landon's writing is slightly ambiguous but the IP and Chuck make convincing points. This, that and the other (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

spinning

Rfv-sense adjective Rapidly rotating on an axis; whirling. Can any citations be provided that clearly demonstrate adjectivality? Compare Talk:spiring; pinging also @DCDuring: to let you know this "passed" RFD. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this should pass based on the use examples for the negative formed with non- ... non-spinning black holes, non-spinning vertigo, non-spinning reserves. As per the reply I wrote below under #non-growing (which i saw without realizing it was part of a set), I would say that unless non-spinning is actually a verb, this particular would should be kept on the basis that an adjective formed with non- requires a base word that is also an adjective. One could argue that the non- prefix can turn verbs into adjectives, but then we would have to say that with phrases like "spinning and non-spinning" the two content words are different parts of speech, which seems tortuous to me.

I dont plan to apply this same logic to the whole set, though, because the other base words have clear antonyms that would discourage the use of words like non-surrounding and the like. —Soap— 19:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said below, that seems like assuming the conclusion. Indeed, if e.g. raining and unraining skies or snowing and unsnowing skies isn't using a participle + adjective, it seems to me easier to view it as (usually) two particles and connect the [other] use of unrain and unsnow as verbs, rather than to view it as making raining or snowing an adjective. However, I do see one hit for "snowingest", so it's possible some of these might be attested in adjectival ways. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I used non- because it came to mind first, but I think my point comes across just as well with un- on the basis that adjectives like unsnowing cannot possibly be bracketed as unsnow + -ing, but can only be from un- + snowing. The rare, poetic verb "unsnow" would surely be understood as meaning to remove snow, and not as "to withhold snow". Whereas unsnowing skies would just as surely be understood as skies that cannot deliver snow, and not as skies that evaporate snow from the ground.

Likewise, if unspin is a verb, it probably has a dynamic meaning requiring context to understand, but I would not expect to find it to mean "to not spin", whereas the word unspinning, if used as an adjective, can only describe something which does not spin. I do think my point comes across clearer with my original non- examples, though.

Either way, this still leaves us with the question of whether prefixes like un- and non- can turn a verb into an adjective. If they can, then I suppose we could argue that snowing really is a verb even when it describes a characteristic of something. If it can't, then snowing must be an adjective so long as either unsnowing or non-snowing is in common use as an adjective. But I don't know the answer to that question. Is that something that scholars have settled with a clear yes or no, or is it an endless debate of the type that such scholars take delight in arguing about? —Soap— 20:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If English present participle is an amphibian that acts both as a verb and as an adjective, then I don't see what objective test could ever conclusively show it to be an adjective beyond the participle: any adjectival behavior can be explained away as a behavior of the underlying participle. What are examples of adjective -ing forms that passed verification as separate adjectives? Wiktionary:Votes/2022-01/Excluding trivial present participal adjectives does not given any examples of adjectives beyond participles.

I think WT:LEMMINGs can help us, as always. Adjective "spinning" is not in M-W and AHD. “spinning”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. This can probably be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky This is exactly the argument you just called faulty logic, because you're trying to use lack of inclusion in other dictionaries as a reason for deletion. We also have quite a few tests for adjectives, but this is also RFV, not RFD. Theknightwho (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I admit that LEMMING guides deletion in this case, but if it were approved as an automatic rule, the rule would not force the deletion here. It follows from the formulation of LEMMING. The referenced page mentions "very ___, too ___" as a test: if present participles are amphibians acting in part as adjectives, why does this behavior go outside of scope of the participle behavior? And again, what are some examples of -ing adjectives that shall be included? Should I play the game implied by the reference page:

"For example; suns go “nova” and become spinning at hundreds of times per second!": Adj?

"Turning would become spinning at higher super speed.": Noun?

"A time is coming in the very near future when everything will become spinning." Adj?

I cannot find more supporting quotations. But I do not see why "become" conclusively proves anything, exactly because participles are amphibians by definition. Wiktionary:English adjectives does not list any example of adjective-beyond-participle -ing form. Again, seeing examples is what would really help. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Read more, type less. -ing verbs are specifically addressed further down the page. If you want to take issue with the tests then go ahead, but I'm not going to participate in that discussion. Theknightwho (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I see no examples of adjectives-beyond-participles there. Does anyone have the requested examples? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

serving

Rfv-sense adjective That or who serves or serve. Can any citations be provided that clearly demonstrate adjectivality? Compare Talk:spiring. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The phrase serving staff exists and turns up hundreds, maybe thousands of hits, so I think this one qualifies as an adjective too. One site even uses the phrase "kitchen and serving staff". —Soap— 00:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, "kitchen" isn't an adjective, so that seems evidence against. Equinox ◑ 00:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you say that in the sentence

The serving staff at this restaurant are very good.

that serving is a noun? If so, would the word reclining in reclining chair also be a noun? I can see a case to be made that it is, and I would at least say that it makes more sense than calling it a verb, but I also think it eliminates a distinction in usage that we should be able to see clearly. —Soap— 13:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Words that are principally nouns (including proper nouns) and gerunds (verb forms) can be used attributively. Having an adjective PoS definitions in addition to those for the noun or verb just complicates our entries and gives is the need to keep all the "adjective" definitions coordinated with the noun and gerund definitions. Also, we would need to attest each adjective definition.

To avoid all of this we follow CGEL (2005) in applying some tests to determine whether a given word behaves sufficiently like an adjective. The tests are gradability/comparability, predicate use, distinct semantics, and modifiability by adverbial too or adverbial very. We only require evidence that a word passes one of these tests. (I don't know whether we have explicitly addressed whether three quotes each attesting to a different test are sufficient.) DCDuring (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

An example of a participle that is an adjective is abiding - it can be used comparatively (e.g. "more abiding"). Theknightwho (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that abiding also has a meaning that abide does not have, at least not in current English. DCDuring (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that necessary for it to be comparable, though? Theknightwho (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Does your reply mean that you think serving is a noun in the use example above? You never actually said yes. Without an answer I dont really know what to say. Thanks, —Soap— 14:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like an -ing-form, aka 'present participle'/gerund. DCDuring (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Soap: you're overlooking the distinction between participles and gerunds. Gerunds are different from participles, but they're still not adjectives. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe that all of the so-called noncomparable adjectives ending in -ing are gerunds, or just some? I would find it hard to accept reclining in the phrase reclining chair is a gerund, just as I dont believe its a verb. The most obvious part of speech in that case is an adjective. But nobody has challenged that word yet, so I dont want to set up a straw man. Thanks, —Soap— 14:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation is a clue. In "sleeping bag" (a bag for use when sleeping, gerund), there is a gradual descent in pitch across the whole phrase. But "sleeping child" (a child who is performing the verb sleep) the pitch pattern is quite different. Another example: "living room" (one for living in, gerund), the same pitch descent, vs. "living dead", different. For "serving" we might compare "serving maid" (gradual descent; so apparently the gerund, a maid "used" for the action of serving?) with "serving soldier" (one performing service). Equinox ◑ 14:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Authoritative sources say that English present participles behave like verbs and adjectives. Thus, some adjectival behaviors are accounted for as those of the participle. By definition, a participle is a form that shows multiple part of speech behaviors. The part of speech Verb for what is a participle is misleading; it should be Participle. Those who claim knowledge should explain which adjectival behaviors can be accounted for as participial and which not and why. Wiktionary:English adjectives shows modification by "more" and "very" to be adjectival-beyond-participial but does not explain why: if participle is an amphibian, it can account for "more" and "very" as well. I would love to see a good external source explaining these things.

Authoritative sources further say that some -ing forms are gerunds and that these behave like nouns. Nouns, in their turn, can be used in attributive positions where they show what is arguably an adjectival behavior. Thus, a present participle can behave like an adjective and a gerund can behave like an adjective, none of which necessitates having Adjective section in the entry.

By the way, I expanded Wiktionary:English adjectives with some examples of "true" adjectival -ing forms. interesting is a case in point: "very interesting"; there are more examples. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Some tests don't serve to distinguish between an adjective and a present participle. I have usually focused on the tests that distinguish a noun from an adjective, as this is the most common kind of case addressed on this page. DCDuring (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but why are people talking as if adjectives must be comparable? There is no *very reclining chair, but I've yet to see anybody challenge the idea that reclining in this use is an adjective. Category:English uncomparable adjectives is a thousand miles long and includes many forms ending in -ing. —Soap— 15:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

They don't have to be. Gradability/comparability is not a necessary condition for adjectivity. We treat it as a sufficient condition. DCDuring (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not that they must be comparable, but that participles are not comparable. If we use a word that could be a participle in a comparable way, then that means it's an adjective. English POS are pretty fuzzy, but it's fundamentally useful to separate out the true adjectives because they have these distinctive qualities. As DCDuring says, there are other ways this can happen. Theknightwho (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Adjectives don't have to be comparable. And thus, the tests of adjectivity are terminologically confusing; obviously, non-comparable adjectives such as spinal do not meet them, which is a failure of these so-called tests. These tests are to distinguish adjectival behaviors that can be accounted for by nouns and participles from adjectival behaviors that can't. The whole terminology is confusing. The adjectival behaviors of the participle make it a true incomparable adjective, but that's what it is by definition, that's why it is called "participle", it "participates" on multiple parts of speech. The definition "That swims" adds nothing to "present participle of swim". He who knows the grammar knows that the "present participle" is at the same time an incomparable adjective. In fact, even in "she is swimming", "swimming" is arguably an adjective, and the phrase is equivalent to "she is in the state of swimming". But someone has decided that once the form becomes gradable, it becomes something more than a participle, but they did not explain why and did not trace it to a source. So the confusion remains. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

w:Necessity and sufficiency — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Explains nothing. Why is modification by "more" not participial given participle acts as adjective? Or put differently, why is the participle endowed with incomparable adjective capabilities but not with comparable/gradable adjective capabilities? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please stop spamming this same point over and over? Before commenting this, you had already made three comments of approximately 200 words each (2 in this thread and one in #growing) that say practically the same thing: that you don't understand why gradability is used to distinguish participles from true adjectives. We get it. You do not have to say everything that comes into your head every time you think it. It just crowds out everyone else. Theknightwho (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

To restate my position more concisely:

In the expression serving staff, serving is not a verb because it describes the noun staff categorically. Waiters employed in a restaurant do not cease to be serving staff when they take their lunch breaks.

Likewise, serving is not a noun (or an appositional use of a gerund of a noun), again because it describes what the staff do, not an activity they are merely associated with. A serving tray is a good example of appositional use of a gerund because the tray is not itself an agent that serves dishes; it is used by other people to serve dishes.

Therefore serving in this phrase cannot be either a verb or a noun, and the most obvious way to categorize it is to call it an adjective ... which I suspect is where most casual users browsing Wiktionary will be looking for it. —Soap— 12:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semantic reasoning is a poor tool for determining in which grammatical word class a given group of usages of a term falls in.

Most present participles (verbs) seem to be used both in a sense parallel to serving staff ("staff that is serving at the moment") and serving staff ("staff that typically engages in serving"). I see no essential distinction between that case and the case of serving tray ("a tray (eg, normally merely decorative, too delicate for use) that is being used for serving at the moment) and serving tray ("tray typically used for serving"). DCDuring (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I might be done talking here then. I dont know why people seem to come up with ever more tortuous reasons to categorize these words as every possible part of speech except the most obvious one. I've explained up above why inanimate objects like serving tray are not the same as human agents; repeating my argument at this point just makes it look like I'm unsure of myself. I leave it up for the community to decide. Best regards, —Soap— 14:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Soap Think about it like this: every situation where you can use a participle, you can also just use a noun ("the kitchen bin" or "the office canteen") - those attributive nouns also lack the qualities that we've been talking about. The difference with participles is that they derive from verbs, but if you categorised them as adjectives, you'd have to do the same for attributive nouns. You can also use "-ing" words as ordinary nouns, too: "walking is good for your health". However, we call them gerunds instead, because they're very specific (i.e. always uncountable, and referring to the activity collectively). Parts of speech often blend into each other like this, but the solution is to look at it systematically and to categorise correctly based on that approach, rather than just shoving all "-ing" words into multiple POS. Theknightwho (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In light of that, it occurs to me that the present participle is essentially just an attributive use of the gerund, actually. Theknightwho (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

surrounding

Rfv-sense adjective which surrounds something Can any citations be provided that clearly demonstrate adjectivality? Compare Talk:spiring. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

falling

Rfv-sense adjective That falls or fall. Can any citations be provided that clearly demonstrate adjectivality? Compare Talk:spiring. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

growing

Rfv-sense adjective That grows. Can any citations be provided that clearly demonstrate adjectivality? Compare Talk:spiring. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of use examples for non-growing ... e.g. non-growing tumors, non-growing cells, non-growing companies. Unless those are somehow still verbs (I could be wrong), I would say that this should instantly pass on the basis that an adjective formed with non- cannot exist without its base form also being an adjective. —Soap— 19:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

To me, it seems like you're assuming the conclusion: your examples can equally (and, I would say, more easily, with Occam's razor suggesting we not posit that words have any more parts of speech than they can unambiguously be shown to have) be viewed as proving it possible for a non-foobar adjective to exist without foobar being an adjective. The same thing happens with e.g. unraining#Adjective skies, where there is no adjective *raining. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The Occam's razor makes it possible to declare all adjectival behaviors to be participial: participles, being amphibians, do behave as multiple parts of speech. Wiktionary:English adjectives does not show prefixing with non- as a test of adjectivity. Of course, "non-growing" is formed by treating "growing" as an adjective; the problem is that participle "growing" can behave like an adjective by definition. The question remains which adjectival behaviors are accounted for as participial and which as adjectival-beyond-participial, and why. I don't know of an external authoritative source explaining that. Wiktionary:English adjectives contains some tests of adjectivity but does not trace most of them to sources. In the meantime, “growing”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows adjectival definitions in M-W, Collins and Macmillan, and one can only wonder what their reasoning is. However, our definition is merely "That grows", whereas they have multiple senses and more refined definitions. I don't really know what to do here; I have more questions than answers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The tests that I believe are sufficient to distinguish "true" adjectives from present participles are:

1. Modification by adverbial very or too
2. Existence of comparative (-er) or superlative forms (-est)
3. Use after forms of become
4. Existence as adjective prior to use as another 'part of speech'.
5. Use with a sense not derived from a current meaning of the verb.

I would not be too surprised if there proved to be exceptions. DCDuring (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Demon

Greek-derived male given name derived from the same root as demos. I couldn't find anything searching for Demon + common Greek surnames, and google books:"Mr. Demon" only finds references to demons (contrast "Mr George" which finds hits for that given name as part of strings like "Mr George Osborne"); Wikipedia doesn't appear to have any articles about any Greeks with this name. If you can find it, can you also determine how it's pronounced...? - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@-sche: This feels like a mix-up with the name Damon (from Δάμων (Dámōn), δαμάζω (damázō)). The only related name to "Demon" that I found was of Δήμον (Dímon) in a Pontic Greek poem from 1946. @Sarri.greek, are you aware of Δήμον or Δήμων being used as a name? -Stelio (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello! @Stelio, long time no see. Hello @-sche. I do not understand if this lemma is about a trasncription of a greek name, or an english name from greek. Anyway, there is a https://logeion.uchicago.edu/Δήμων but I don't know anyone called (modern:) "Δήμωνας" personally. Any ancient name could be given to someone, though. https://logeion.uchicago.edu/Δῆμος is a very usual one, because it also works as short of Δημοσθένης (Dēmosthénēs), etc. Better transfer the word to Demos. As for the pontic, they always end words with nu: Δήμος>Δήμον. It doesn't mean something different. Thanks! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 15:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

handlist

Senses: "A list with very little detail applied to each point", and "A list scribbled hastily or with little attention to detail". I think it's just a list for easy reference, like a handbook (which was Chambers 1908's definition, and which I've just added). Equinox ◑ 00:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

poverty is a state of mind

Sense 2: "Anyone can have a decent amount of personal wealth (e.g. by making responsible choices, budgeting well, working hard, etc.)." Equinox ◑ 00:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

couth

Rfv-sense as the obsolete past participle of can (“to be able to”) - I don't think this survived into modern English. The OED only gives couth as an archaic/dialectal form of could in the simple past sense past 1500. The only past participle that it does give is could (and coulde), which still sees occasional dialectal use ("I haven't could sleep"). Theknightwho (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

strude

This might exist, but all I'm finding are dictionaries. 98.170.164.88 03:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

OED calls it erroneous, originating in the 1702 New English Dictionary. Theknightwho (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed, moved to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms This, that and the other (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

man shall not live by bread alone

Rfv-sense- the phrase is common but is this phrase really used with this meaning? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s proving harder than I thought it would be to find cites that demonstrate usage of this phrase consistent with the definition at our entry. I think there are two issues. The first issue is that many religious people interpret living by the word of God that occurs in the second part of the phrase to not just mean following God’s commandments but having faith in God and living a spiritual life full of enjoyment in things like art, music, science, literature and mathematics and the study of such things. The second issue is that the shortened form of the phrase is sometimes used, or at least alluded to, by atheists, agnostics and secularists to refer to abstract and non-physical things like education, the arts, and nature, that are necessary to thrive rather than just survive - mainly things which would be thought of as spiritual in nature by most believers.

I’ve no doubt that the famous slogan Bread and Roses alludes to this more secular sense but apart from the fact that the title of the autobiography of the trade unionist Moe Foner, who created a socialist organisation called Bread and Roses, is Not For Bread Alone[162] it’s hard to find proof of this. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

concern

Rfv-sense interjection. (Internet slang) Used to express concern on the part of the speaker in response to something.

For those that haven't encountered this, it's literally just saying the word "concern" as a response. I've just added this myself, as it's something I've definitely used/seen used, but it's quite difficult to search for. Theknightwho (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

maalin

The SND and Jamieson both list this as a Shetland word, which would mean that it should be classed as Scots rather than English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW OED lists this as a Shetland form of merlin, in case that info helps to construct an etymology of the Scots term. This, that and the other (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The SND also includes information about its derivation (through Middle Scots) from Middle English merlioun . Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed, moved to Scots This, that and the other (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

black trash

This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 26 September 2022.

Recently created w/o cites. Felt I should put it to RFV given WT:DEROGATORY. Winthrop23 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I assume this is an "equaliser" phrase to match the older white trash (I remember seeing poor white trash in the Chambers Dict in the 1990s)... Equinox ◑ 05:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Could this be SOP? 98.170.164.88 19:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Black World/Negro Digest - May 1962

  ... And we ain't black trash" — how fiercely she used to add that — "We ain't black trash what goes to lying and cheating and stealing, Galey. Not never!" Recollections of her aged grandmother were no longer steadying.

• Slow Fade to Black, Thomas Cripps · 1977

  And a faithful black mammy confirms the point when she speaks to a Northern Negro: “Yo' northern low down black trash, don't try no airs on me!” kicking him in the pants for punctuation.

• Daughters of Suburbia: Growing Up White, Middle Class, and ..., Lorraine Delia Kenny · 2000

  These are just black trash (laughs). So that's what I gravitate towards ... all kinds of trash.

• Prima Facie: A Book of Psychaotic* Essays, Richard Thomas · 2007

  But even so, I think the riot was really one of resentment of black trash against black class, a distinction that defines two completely different sets of blacks nowadays.

• Talking Black and White: An Intercultural Exploration of ..., Gina Castle Bell · 2017:

  Or sometimes my parents will watch Judge Judy or something like that, um, and they're like, “they'll always be the Black trash.” They always find a way to put a Black person down before they will ever put a White person down ...

• (mention only) African Americans in Conservative Movements, Louis G. Prisock · 2018

  ... to a mainly white audience, regularly refers to inner-city African Americans as “black trash”: ...

• The Nightmare of a POSITIVISION, Louise Uwacu · 2010

  And it always looks like black trash is killing each other again. No matter how many die it does not stop.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So it is derogatory, not of blacks per se, but of misbehaving and/or poor blacks. Used by whites, it seems like an effort to differentiate "bad" blacks from "good" blacks. I don't think it is uncommon and I doubt anyone could produce good evidence that it is. DCDuring (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring What would evidence of being uncommon look like to you? Theknightwho (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

My imagination fails me. DCDuring (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Turkroach

This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 26 September 2022.

98.170.164.88 02:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Cited, albeit mainly with internet sources because this term is far too new to appear in books or Usenet. Although the citations can be challenged, with 70 quotes and counting, it's hard to argue that this term doesn't exist. It's certainly more attestable than much of the Usenet slang we've catalogued. Binarystep (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit disingenuous to say "cited" when there are zero CFI compliant cites provided. You do qualify your claim, but based on current policies the term is not cited. I also agree with you that this one seems to have significantly more currency than many of the others recently added, further demonstrating the problem of trying to use the current CFI criteria with social media and other internet sources, the CFI as written does not distinguish between terms used thousands of times and terms used three times. - TheDaveRoss 12:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There are enough Twitter quotations, and the discussion Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Whether Reddit and Twitter are to be regarded as durably archived sources suggests Twitter could pass as an accepted source. This RFV can remain open until the two weeks from the start of the BP discussion pass, two weeks after 21 September 2022, which is 5 October 2022. That's as far as CFI. CFI requires three uses, and even if it required ten times as many for online-only non-copy-edited sources, the term would still pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Prospective policy is not policy. - TheDaveRoss 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to delete the entry now and recreate it on 5 October if Twitter passes? Better leave the RFV open until then, no? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggested nothing of the sort. - TheDaveRoss 14:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

So we'll leave the RFV open and all is fine. The disputed claim "cited" seemed fine as an invitation for others to look at the cites and tell us whether they accept the quotes and their sources. This is one way to implement the new policy; another way is the ongoing BP discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@-sche If all of Spoonks's creations passed RfV, does it still make sense for them to be blocked? We seem to be sending a weird signal here: discouraging users from adding entries that we deem valuable. If they are confirmed by CheckUser to be a sock of the blocked user, that's a different story, of course. 98.170.164.88 00:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked, and the IPs (different city/state) and device details don't match. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me at all if meat puppetry was involved, but that's not something a checkuser can check for. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• My position is that Citations:Turkroach are good, given their volume and timespan. They would pass 15 quotations spanning 3 years, or even higher requirements. They are not typos and not bots. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

shadow acting

No definition given, any ideas fellow Wiktionarians? Missbezabeh (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted it: it was a totally useless stub entry with no definition, no citations, nothing. Equinox ◑ 06:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If it exists and isn't deemed SOP, I think it probably refers to a form of entertainment using shadows/silhouettes, along the lines of shadowgraphy or shadow puppetry. There are at least two seemingly independent uses on the first page of the Google Books search results (Reed, Hayter-Menzies), didn't look deeper. 98.170.164.88 06:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

OTOH, there's also this website that uses it in a completely different way, referring to having abled people ('shadows') assist disabled actors both beforehand with learning lines, and also during a play.

And there's also theatre shadowing, in which the 'shadow' is a sign language interpreter. 98.170.164.88 06:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

These all seem inclusion-worthy, as I don’t think they’re SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Moved to WT:REE, not an RFV matter This, that and the other (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

deadit, deadited

deaditor might be just about citable, but as a verb? Is this used on WP?– Jberkel 15:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A search for all forms of 'deadit' in all namespaces of the English Wikipedia (except File, which pulls in scannos from Commons) yields but one result, a typo for "dead it". 98.170.164.88 19:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV failed – Jberkel 13:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

gloatrage

Nothing on GBooks. The rest of Google seems to consist of "I made up a word", followed by others saying "look at this new word". If kept, the definitions will have to be trimmed. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Failed. - TheDaveRoss 12:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

nonkilling

Sense 1: "A precept or worldview that affirms the possibility of a society where killing is absent." It has tons of citations, but I believe every single one fits better under sense 2: "Lack of killing; permitting to live". Equinox ◑ 20:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

fuck your mother's cunt

There is only one current definition: "Synonym of fuck; expressing dismay or discontent." I don't think it's that sense at all. Isn't it always an insult? Equinox ◑ 00:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I would note that the person who created the entry as a definitionless translation-only entry and the person who added the definition are both native speakers of Chinese. I suspect that the real definition got lost in the translation, and this is a Cantonese and/or Mandarin entry in disguise. Perhaps @Justinrleung might have more insight on this. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s a direct translation of a Hokkien (Minnan) vulgarity (a variant of 幹你娘／干你娘 (gàn nǐ niáng)); can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone say that in English. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

serena

Obsolete. "The damp, unwholesome air of evening." This was added to the page by Equinox in August 2018, but it was added without any citations. Onelook shows that only Rhymezone has given this definition. Merriam-Webster gives "an evening love song." However, neither definition appears in any of the other dictionaries listed there. Inner Focus (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The gloss is apparently straight out of Chambers. This should be converted to an (obsolete) alt form of serein = serene Ety 2, which Chambers glosses as "the chilly damp of evening; blight". This, that and the other (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Cited with three dusty old cites straight out of the public-domain NED. One of them is a little iffy (italicised) I guess. This, that and the other (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

tharf

Rfv-sense: Unleavened. The only definitely modern use I can find in EEBO is a 17th-century edition in Modern English of John Mandeville. There was also a Middle English use and a Scots use. This, that and the other (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

kleptomnesia

A new entry, with two senses: "A psychological disorder in which people steal things without any memory of the theft" and "Generating an idea that you believe is novel, but in fact was created by someone else". I can see sense 2 mentioned (not really used) in a small handful of books, but it seems to be an invented word without real currency. Sense 1 might not exist at all. Equinox ◑ 17:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Added three citations that are all basically the same sentence with slightly different wording. 98.170.164.88 23:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

(You've added 3 cites to sense #2. Sense #1 is still cite-less.) Thanks for your work: I am, however, not at all happy with the fact that all three citations use the word in quotation marks as a coinage or neologism. We're really scraping the barrel. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sense 1 is certainly plausible - "I don't remember" is probably the #1 excuse when people get found out for dishonesty (including theft etc). That being said, if we can't find anything for it we'll just have to stick to terms like narcissist and shithead. Theknightwho (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

There’s also this from the BBC[163] which could be thought of as a bit ‘mentiony’ as it uses the word only to immediately define it but doesn’t put it in quotation marks. There are a huge number of tweets using the word kleptomnesia too. Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

That article doesn't even include the word. It does use cryptomnesia, however. 98.170.164.88 23:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Oops! That must be my biggest brain fart of the year but I’d still maintain that sense 2 of this word should scrape through based on the existing quotes. Sense 1 seems much harder to justify, though.Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

paleass

Sense 2, an obsolete spelling of palace.

I rather suspect this is a deliberate misspelling used just once in a late-1700s novel to represent the writing of an uneducated person. Note that it appears within a quote, not within the running text of the novel (though that novel consists largely of letters and spoken words). A version of the book with a foreword by the publisher suggests that the misspellings are deliberate and also purposefully vulgar. I also think that paleass is not a likely spelling for the word palace in any stage of English, as it contains a silent e in the middle of the word, which is unusual at best, and Im not sure Ive ever seen it before.

The link to what I saw is this; hopefully it should work for everyone who wants to read it.

Thank you, —Soap— 14:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed, completely unfindable outside that work. On a tangent, this word turns up in a whole bunch of Latin texts in the GBooks search. "Coge mihi paleass Cererem iam delere"... not sure what Ceres did to deserve this moniker. This, that and the other (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

asswipe

Rfv-sense

• (informal, Canada, US, vulgar, figurative, derogatory) A periodical which has the habit of publishing questionable statements.

This was added by a French editor with marginal English skills. I suspect the real meaning is something along the lines of "A poor-quality, worthless publication", the idea being that it's so bad that the paper it's printed on would be better used as toilet paper. Now, a newspaper or similar publication that prints questionable things (the original wording was "questionable truths") is certainly not good, but that doesn't mean that the term refers to that specifically. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

foge

"(UK, dialect, Cornwall, dated) A forge used for smelting tin". All I can find are a few mentions. The OED suggests it may be or have originated as a local pronunciation of forge. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Without speaking to its attestability, it is a plausible pronunciation spelling for Cornwall - particularly if you go back a few decades or more. Theknightwho (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be English, but it has the word in running text. I wonder if the existence of the word in a Cornish-language text has resulted in dictionaries giving it as a "Cornish" word for forge with the mistaken assumption that it's Cornish English. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

succeedable

Seems to be attestable in some nonstandard sense, but I'm not sure this is the one. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It could be the sense of succession, i.e. the deceased queen is "succeedable" by either another queen or a king. But it seems to be hardly used at all. Equinox ◑ 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What an odd word. I put a variety of cites on Citations:succeedable; a couple of them might actually be this meaning. A couple look to mean either that someone is ?able to be helped to succeed? or able to be succeeded via succession. One has to do with legal succession. Others are opaque. - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've sorted through the cites but the 1700 citation is incredibly enigmatic. My theory is that possibly it's a usage of the obsolete sense of succeed ("to ensue with an intended consequence or effect") and Mosman (if that is the author?) is saying that Man will likely be suffering concequences for his wicked deeds. Maybe someone can weigh in on this.

Ioaxxere (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I question if the "succeedable challenge" cite is really using sense 2, though; isn't it just like the "succeedable endeavour" cite (sense 1)? I'm also not sure if the "trust is not succeedable" cite and the "[rabbi] is succeedable" cite are the same exact senses of succeed, although I suppose they're probably combinable. (The rabbi is able to be succeeded in the sense of replaced or followed in his office; the trust is (not) able to ... what? Be replaced/followed in its position? The fit seems a little off.) By the way, this makes me notice that Merriam-Webster marks the legal sense to do with devolving/passing as an heirloom as obsolete and Dictionary.com doesn't have it at all, whereas we don't mark "To descend, as an estate or an heirloom, in the same family" as obsolete, and the sense we do mark as obsolete, "To fall heir to; to inherit" ("if the issue of the elder son succeed before the younger, I am king"), seems indistinct from our (not-obsolete) sense 2. Maybe I will try to clean up succeed later. - -sche (discuss) 18:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me just remind our cite junkies that if you can only find like ONE CITE for each (supposed) sense, if you can even find a sense: it might not be worth it. Equinox ◑ 05:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the NED has this as "Succeedable, a. nonce-wd. [...] Likely to succeed." They interpret Byron's remark about Assyrian tales as this sense, so we've got two cites for "likely to succeed", one cite that looks like ~"able to be succeeded in or at", and one cite that could mean either of those. A thorough search could find more cites. - -sche (discuss) 06:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

looks-at-me

Alt form of the adjective look-at-me. Equinox ◑ 20:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

supergalaxy

"A very large, extended cluster of galaxies." At w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super galaxy (2nd nomination), users were unable to locate this term outside of online dictionaries such as The Free Dictionary. Most results online are for the C-5M Super Galaxy, not this term. This entry is newer than the Wikipedia article, as are the entries compiled at The Free Dictionary. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 Cited though the definition will likely need to shift. This term is also found in Merriam-Webster, Collins, & Dictionary.com. AG202 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

meep

Noun: "an endearing term of affection between lovers", with one citation. Could well be a nonce word there. Equinox ◑ 14:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

terpin

Rfv-sense: medicinal preparation. OED and Wikipedia give a completely different sense - a specific chemical compound. This, that and the other (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Not "delegitimising" your RFV, but if you know there is another sense, why not add (and even cite?) it before challenging the other. We know otherwise someone will find "OH LOOK there's a book using the word" and potentially add citations that are not the correct sense. Equinox ◑ 01:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I was doing it just after filing the RFV but I got distracted (had to teach a class). Done now. This, that and the other (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Even supah-cool lecturers are beholden to the CFI rules. How did it go? -- Also please check countability. A lot of these chemical compounds are the {{en-noun|~}}. Thank you. Equinox ◑ 07:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

noncrowdsourced

cute Equinox ◑ 01:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

duck off

"(idiomatic, slang) To hide or conceal from others; to render something less conspicuous." Added by the consta-banned racist IP user. Is it real? Equinox ◑ 04:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Given who added it, I'd assume this is some sort of trolling attempt. I've only ever seen duck off as an intentional misspelling of fuck off, in reference to autocorrect's tendency to censor profanity. Binarystep (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is definitely a real term - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ducked+off (2 defs from 2007)

I'm still not sure whether it's supposed to be like fuck off or if it's its own thing.

Ioaxxere (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

scare-bullfinch

Probably only ever used once, in the quotation we already have. Good luck... Flackofnubs (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

kinedom

The OED's last record is a Middle Scots attestation from 1568, but it is not hard to find several 19th-century Northern English examples of this word. However, as far as I know, they are all in the form kindom, which would be expected anyways as a more sensible representation of ModE /ˈkɪndəm/ (regularly developed from Old English cynedōm). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to move kinedom to kindom Leasnam (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed. no need to move, the entry kindom already exists. This, that and the other (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

crocs and socks

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the phrase; however, Crocs is a brand of shoes, so it probably needs a capital C anyway. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Everything I can find, even on 'raw Google' (let alone Google Books) is in reference to literal Crocs and socks. I searched for "Crocs and socks" alone and for "Crocs and socks" + "redundant"/"redundancy". - -sche (discuss) 23:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Created by the apparent single-purpose account 'Wearingcrocsandsocks', whose only other contributions were adding links to this entry from others. In their edit summaries, they state that the term is popular on TikTok. I don't know how to search TikTok effectively, so someone else can look into that if they're interested. What I can say is that I didn't find anything for "crocs and socks" + "redundant"/"redundancy" on either Twitter or Reddit. 98.170.164.88 05:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I can find plenty of uses on TikTok but they seem to be just talking about people wearing Crocs and socks, exactly like -sche found on the wider Web. Happy to conclude this as RFV-failed. This, that and the other (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

kine-

Rfv-sense: "royalty, kingship". Aside from the fact that its ModE form is kin-, Old English cyne- only seems to survive in kindom (see above), which makes having a entry for its ModE reflex rather ridiculous. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It's Middle English. Since we have a Middle English entry, it's already properly placed there. Just remove it. Or let me know and I can. Leasnam (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It now only survives in Family names, like Kinrich, Kinmark, etc. Leasnam (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

corona belly

Listed as a hotword from June 2020. I can't find it in ProQuest at all, nor on web pages added after June 2021. (Maybe someone can find it before 3 January 2020?) It strikes me as SoP anyway, as collocations such as winter belly (weight gained during wintertime) or pizza belly (belly fat attributed to eating too much pizza) are not uncommon. Cnilep (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"Maybe someone can find it before 3 January 2020?" Extremely unlikely, given that on 3 January 2020 there were only 44 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the world, all of which were in Wuhan. The first confirmed case in the US wasn't until 20 January, and the first lockdown (of Wuhan) wasn't until 23 January. If this is to meet CFI, I think it's more promising to look for recent uses instead of old ones. 70.172.194.25 20:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Einstein2 for citations, including some (The Sun, the Daily Mail) that I presume are durably archived. I'd call this cited. Cnilep (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Cited. There are a few other possible citations that could be included that might be considered durable too, especially this one[164]. Anyone looking for cites will have to studiously avoid mentions of the piece of ‘music’ by the deservedly obscure band ‘Victim’s Family’ though. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

orthoepy

"(inexact) Synonym of orthography: the study of the representation of pronunciation in writing". The sole quotation provided may just be an isolated mistaken use of the word in a book title. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

schonicker

The main lemma is shonicker, which should also be the form used in the quotes of schonicker (they're misquoted). Possibly created in error. Pinging @AnthroMimus as the creator. – Jberkel 20:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not certain what you want. The entry has a reference to a slang dictionary published by a major university press. You put a tag of needing further verification. Evidently this entry conflicts with your own. Fine. Delete it. These games about applying tags to entries [and changing the source bibliography of the citations] are the reasons I don't participate in Wiktionary anymore. Have fun.AnthroMimus (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I can certainly see why this would seem pedantic, but I think Jberkel's point here is that the spelling with the extra c does not appear to be well-attested, at least from a cursory search on Google Books. The Irving Allen reference doesn't technically even treat the exact spelling schonicker as an English word, merely appealing to Yiddish schonicker in the etymologies of derived English words. (And we would need to see a usage, not just a mention, anyway.)

On the matter of the citations: Jberkel was just pointing out that the quotations you added use the spelling schonicker, but the original works do not. It seems like this might be an issue you would sympathize with, cf. a comment you left on your user talk page: "I've noticed that people [...] are not so careful about the quote itself. Often they simply mistype words or insert wrong words."

FWIW I found the etymology you added helpful (if inconclusive), and have mentioned it in an Etymology scriptorium thread. 70.172.194.25 03:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@AnthroMimus Wiktionary is a secondary reference work, and therefore the key is what the original primary sources say, and not what some other secondary source says. We're not Wikipedia, and we don't work in the same way - references simply aren't the gold standard here; direct examples of terms actually in use are. Theknightwho (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WT:ATTEST, we need 3 quotations using (not mentioning) the term with this exact spelling, letter for letter; inflected forms such as plural count. google books:"schonicker" and google books:"schonickers" do not look promising. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

RFV failed – Jberkel 14:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

kuft

Rfv-sense "Indian Damascus steel." All I spotted, looking for "kuft" by itself or likely collocations like "[made] of kuft" or "kuft sword", is the other sense (a type of inlaid work / ornamentation, which may involve damascening). - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

wrench

Rfv-sense: a trick or artifice - quote is from 1220. Did this survive out of Middle English? GreyishWorm (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• From the OED, it seems not uncommon in the 16th century, so it looks like it, yes. Ƿidsiþ 13:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

sophism

Rfv-sense: A method of teaching using the techniques of philosophy and rhetoric.

This countably defined sense is not in dictionaries. Our other three senses (the last one just added by me) are covered by dictionaries.

Added in 2014 in diff, which was suspect by marking the main dictionary-supported senses as slang. Another suspect one is diff. Looks very opinionated and fact-free, but let us see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

sophistry

Rfv-sense: Cunning, sometimes manifested as trickery.

In the entry since 2007. This is fairly generic. The other senses are the uncountable sophistic reasoning and the countable instance of sophistic reasoning, and these are in dictionaries. Both of these are cases of use of cunning, but that does not establish a generic sense of cunning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

shwing

Alt form of schwing. Most in GBooks seem to be errors, or a drunken slurred version of "swing", etc. Equinox ◑ 16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

aetherverse

"The collection of magical fantasy/science-fiction worlds from books, TV shows, films, and video games. I head to the aetherverse most nights after work." Equinox ◑ 17:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

obligate

Rfv-sense: Absolutely necessary, indispensable. Ƿidsiþ 13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like a role-reversed version of the 1st definition. It's easy to find obligate food source in running texts on biology, for example. I'm pretty sure I've seen it used that way before and that that's why I didn't even question it at first. Whether it has use outside biology, I dont know. —Soap— 14:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added three cites for the challenged second definition applying to that which something such as an organism needs. Words in the first definition included the second definition, IMO. I have commented out those words. The first definition applies to the organism or other entity that needs something, not what is needed. This accords with Soap's comment. The current definitions are in line with definitions in other dictionaries. Most use seems to be in ecology, taxonomy, and bioenergetics, but usage may bleed into other fields. I find it hard to tell which of the two senses is intended, especially outside the main fields of use. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both. I actually think these two senses should be rolled together, in that case; I don't see an obvious difference, especially now someone has removed "obligatory, necessary" from the first definition. Ƿidsiþ 06:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The synonyms for the two definitions are not the same, at least not in the synonyms' most common senses. It often matters whether a term is applied to an agent or to a patient. DCDuring (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

ting

Rfv-sense: The apartment in a Chinese temple where the idol is kept. GreyishWorm (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

glownigger

Previously failed RfV, however it is on User:Binarystep/Second Look and there are online sources that could be used to support its inclusion. I have added a few to the citations page. 98.170.164.88 00:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why this was restored, I deleted it again. - TheDaveRoss 12:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not the one who restored it, I just saw that someone else had done so and then recalled it was on Binarystep's list. There are currently 4 quotations from Twitter and 1 from Usenet. If the Twitter vote passes, should this be undeleted? 98.170.164.88 20:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Clearly the answer is yes - there are over 100 hits for this word on Twitter, so it easily passes. —-Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It was restored (not by me) because Citations:glownigger has enough Twitter citations. The entry can be restored if Twitter passes in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Whether Reddit and Twitter are to be regarded as durably archived sources. This RFV should remain open until that time. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

My guess is that there are millions of typos which get over 100 hits on Twitter, so that is an incredibly weak argument. I don't think this is a typo, I think it is a word used by a very small group of people very infrequently, and probably doesn't rise to the level of an actual English language term, but I don't know how much use on Twitter or Reddit it would take to make me believe that it does. There are terms used within my group of friends, call it dozens of individuals, which are not used beyond our group. They should not be included in a dictionary. How big does a group need to be before its argot belongs in Wiktionary? I don't know, but it is larger than a small group of friends, and smaller than all native speakers. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that we have the linked Beer parlour discussion to approve Twitter wholesale, it's for that discussion. This RFV is going to be resolved in accordance with the outcome of that discussion. Interested parties can still vote in the BP discussion. Typos are excluded even if common per CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Kinda, we just label them misspellings (also garbage) and keep them anyway. - TheDaveRoss 13:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Typos such as amgydala get deleted (now in RFD). Common non-typo misspellings get included, e.g. concieve. Data reusers have learned how to use our template labeling to filter out anything they need filtered out, whether misspellings, pronunciation spellings or eye dialect. They probably want to filter out many of our geographic names as well; who needs Washington County in a dictionary? Complaining about Twitter does not change any of that anyway. They can filter out things marked as Internet slang as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

misfeeling

Rfv-sense: "(obsolete) insensate". The word appears in Wycliffe's translation of Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes) as "mysfelende". 98.170.164.88 02:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly a Middle English word. MED has it appearing in five separate verses of Wycliffe's Ecclesiasticus: 16:20, 21:21, 22:14, 27:13, 42:8. It appears to also have been a Middle English medical term: Dictionary of Medical Vocabulary in English, 1375–1550 has it under misfeeling/mysfyllynge as "Numbness, lack of physical sensation" and gives a quote from an early 15th century translation of Platearius' Practica brevis. I haven't been able to find the manuscript itself (Cambridge University Library MS Dd.10.44, 18v.) or a transcription of it online. Winthrop23 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It didn't survive into Modern English, right? 98.170.164.88 20:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

-giri

Is this a (productive) suffix in English? It appears in Gandhigiri, but that is probably better analysed as a borrowing from the corresponding Hindi word. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There are several English words using it (chamchagiri, goondagiri, Citations:bhaigiri, Citations:Nehrugiri, Citations:Modigiri and probably more), although they might all be directly borrowed from Hindi. – Einstein2 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Einstein2: yes, that's why I'm wondering. These words are probably best regarded as borrowings from Hindi. It seems to me that -giri would only be properly regarded as a suffix in English if it were applied to a non-Hindi word (to make up an example, *happygiri). — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we analyse it as a suffix, even if it only exists in borrowings? Theknightwho (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is no, if all the supposed examples of its use were borrowed 'wholesale'/intact from another language, then we have no cites of it being used in English. We've tended to delete things that were affixes in Old English but only survived into modern English in e.g. names (fossilized), compare the discussion of #kine- above, and we've deleted things that were affixes in e.g. Latin but not modern English (e.g. sug-, the "prefix" added to *gest to create suggest), although affixes found in 'wholesale' borrowings from Hebrew have sometimes been treated as more includable (e.g. -oth). Personally, I'd want cites of it being used as a suffix within English, although I concede it's at least more of an affix than sug- or -oth, since there are at least identifiable parts Gandhi and giri in Gandhigiri, unlike halachoth where there's no English noun *halach or suffocate where there's no English verb *focate. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

dreamchild

"A child who is not physically extant, due to being dead or never having been born." Equinox ◑ 14:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we also cite the other sense given? Never heard of it. - TheDaveRoss 15:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll used "dream-child" in reference to his own ideal version of Alice Liddell, but I think he hyphenated it. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(Just a procedural note that I've tagged the other sense.) - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't find cites for either of the challenged senses but added a third sense which matches the actual uses of the word. – Einstein2 (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

hell

Rfv-sense "(impolite, sometimes considered vulgar) Used to emphasize." AFAICT, this usage is restricted to the set phrases hell no and hell yeah and variants thereof, and is not productive generally. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 17:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a definition with similar wording (or at least a label, such as often in combination) is warranted that includes the various multiword terms that include hell. DCDuring (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Kuomintang

Rfv-sense: "Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang". That political party/faction is not solely referred as the "Kuomintang", but rather "Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang" (whether this SOP can survive WT:IDIOM is another problem). The quotes as mentioned under that meaning also don't prove that "Kuomintang" solely can refer to the meaning of "Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang": both of them are using the full name of that party/faction.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I basically agree with removal of this sense based on the logic presented above. However, I am not familiar enough with the minor political parties in the PRC to know if the RCCK is referred to as just 'Kuomintang' in some contexts. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It's plausible, but hard to search for, because the other meaning occurs in many of the same contexts. I tried to find references to someone in the (modern) National People's Congress or NPCSC being a Kuomintang representative/delegate. Someone with more time might find something using that angle. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

For example, the Biographical Dictionary of Republican China has a page about "secretary general of the People's Political Council, Shao Li-tzu" who "served as a Kuomintang delegate to the Political Consultative Conference in January 1946", but that's from just before before the split of the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang and the Kuomintang-that-went-to-Taiwan; he later served in the PRC government with the Kuomintang Revolutionary Committee. It seems plausible that the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang would be abbreviated to Kuomintang at least sometimes in Chinese, after a first mention of the full name, but it may be too rarely mentioned in English for such use to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@-sche: According to the corresponding Chinese Wikipedia page he is indeed a Kuomintang member (not yet split) at that time, and he was only a RCCK member after the PRC was established, so the quote in Biographical Dictionary of Republican China can't prove that meaning. Meanwhile in Chinese, the RCCK is known as 民革 (Míngé). The term 國民黨／国民党 (Guómíndǎng) is almost used exclusively for the ruling Kuomintang before 1949 and the Kuomintang based in Taiwan after 1949 (such as 國民黨軍, used in Mainland China when referring to the National Revolutionary Army or the later Republic of China Army; or 國民黨反動派／国民党反动派 — BTW is that term a possible deletable SOP?).廣九直通車 (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

succeed

Rfv-sense "To go under cover." The closest I can find, and it is not very close, is that Century has an obsolete sense "To descend" quoting Dryden's translation of Virgil's Eclogues, "Or will you to the cooler cave succeed?" - -sche (discuss) 18:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

However, the old OED defines that Dryden/Virgil cite as "intr. To come up or near to; approach. Obs. rare.", based on him using "Snakes, familiar, to the Hearth succeed." and "To his rough Palat, his dry Tongue succeeds." in the same work; they also take Spenser's line "Who euer, as he saw him nigh succeed, Gan cry aloud with horrible affright" to be this sense. They also have a sense for when something "succeeds" by harming, citing these works, if we could find one more cite of that... but none of this helps with the challenged sense... - -sche (discuss) 01:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been present right from the very beginning of this entry in 2004. That entry appears to have been copied from Webster, and sure enough, in Webster we find it with that same Dryden quote that was in Century. Not sure what Webster was on about; "to descend" is more than enough. This, that and the other (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Aha! I've reworded the sense and added the Dryden and Spenser cites. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

burn bread

1. (slang, idiomatic, uncommon) To wish or hope for misfortune or for the worst for somebody.

It looks like there may be one or more other idiomatic slang senses out there, but so far I've only found one halfway possible cite for this one. Of course, this one is hard to search for, so I'm not claiming to have exhausted the potential sources at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems to exist, apparently mostly used among African-Americans (not 100% sure it originated in that community, but almost all the uses I've found seem to be from Black authors). 98.170.164.88 02:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I added a slightly different sense with three citations, and further senses might be attestable too. The challenged "wish or hope for misfortune" meaning might by supported by the following use: [165]. Note that most (if not all) uses seem to be followed by on, so the page should probably be moved to burn bread on. – Einstein2 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

weest

Rfv-sense "to waste". Not in the EDD or OED as far as I'm aware; furthermore, the rarity of Middle English westen would make its survival into ModE unlikely (given this, if weest is attestable, it probably isn't a continuation of Middle English westen/Old English wēstan; instead, it should be considered a dialectal reflex of Middle English wasten with early raising of /aː/ to /ɛː/, which in turn becomes /iə̯/ in many Northern English traditional dialects; c.f. tyebble, which reflects a further development to /jɛ/). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

TTP

Rfv-sense "Initialism of total time pass." What's that? – Jberkel 11:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

LOL. It's a YouTube channel, and not a very famous one. Equinox ◑ 21:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Twi'lek

Per WT:FICTION. Vininn126 (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

montral

Per WT:FICTION. Vininn126 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

liman

I wasn't sure where to post this as it combines elements of an RFE and RFV, but can anyone confirm that the noun defined in etymology section 1 exists, as is currently claimed, as a French-derived word meaning "silt"? All I can find, including for phrases like google books:"liman deposits", are in the context of the Black Sea (where, as e.g. Dictionary.com notes, the unrelated, Slavic-derived word liman can refer not only to the estuaries/lagoons but to the sandbars and deposits of silt/mud that delineate them), or refer to the Liman Substage. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I see what happened. First of all, works like this one refer to slime floating down a river and being deposited where it reaches the ocean to form a barrier, and specifically to limans as the places where this happens. Then there are bacteriological references such as this one that talk about "liman mud", which is mud found in limans that has concentrations of sulphides due to bacterial action. This mud was heated and applied therapeutically at health resorts in those areas, as described here, where it refers to the "Liman cure". Finally, the Webster lexicographers, probably influenced by the purported French etymon, decided that the word referred to the slime/mud that was deposited to form the estuary, rather than the estuary itself. Judging by a citation in the 1888 Oxford dictionary volume 6, this happened in 1879. This was picked up by many of their competitors and passed along unexamined long afterwards. Almost unexamined: in the January 31, 1891 edition of American Notes and Queries, someone asked for help from readers in response to what they considered "a plain error". Thus it seems to be not a ghost word, but a ghost definition and etymology. I've looked through all the viewable Google Books results for "liman" combined with "slime" and the only place I see the challenged sense is in dictionaries and glossaries.

By the way: it may be "Slavic derived", but it apparently got to "Slavic" from Ancient Greek λιμήν (limḗn, “harbor”) by way of Turkish (see Turkish liman). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Which was reborrowed from (Ottoman) Turkish into modern Greek as λιμάνι (limáni).  --Lambiam 20:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Digging into it further, I see you're right, I had thought liman sometimes did refer to silt albeit as ety 2, but in fact even some of the citations which speak of "liman deposits" sometimes clarify parenthetically or in the previous sentence that they mean "estuary (liman) deposits", not even clearly using the Russian/Ukrainian-derived word liman to mean "silt" (as Dictionary.com had suggested, apparently in a generous effort to save Webster's sense). So, we should drop etymology section 1, and maybe add a usage note (or mention in the etymology section) about the ghost definition and etymology, like aillse has. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've boldly dropped etymology section 1. Obviously, if anyone actually finds citations of liman meaning "slime" or "silt", this should be revised. - -sche (discuss) 21:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ety 1 and ety 2 seem to be nouns describing the same thing. Equinox ◑ 17:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

warison

Rfv-sense: "reward, punishment". This word is absent in EEBO, while the OED's only post-1500 attestations are Scots. The EDD has one lone quote (it also provides a sense "stomach", but supplies no evidence for it). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

patriamonialism

Barely any hits even in a Google Web search. A rare typo, I think. Equinox ◑ 22:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

speedy delete

Probably not attestable outside our little world GreyishWorm (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's used on other wikis, would it count? There are a lot of sites, even small ones, that closely follow our model and I would imagine that some of them have a distinct {{delete}} template because they have vandalism problems just like us and need to get rid of things in a hurry sometimes. —Soap— 21:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW the Lord of the Rings Fandom uses "speedy deleted" and "speedily deleted" and the Star Wars Fandom uses "speedy-deleted". - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 01:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete: even if it’s attestable outside Mediawiki, it’s SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Does the fact that it's adjective + verb affect things at all? The grammatically expected form would be adverb + verb, like "speedily delete". (Both are attestable.) 98.170.164.88 05:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point, and means it probably passes WT:ONCE. Plus, it's also not immediately obvious what this is supposed to refer to without contextual knowledge, so it passes WT:LIGHTBULB, and its restriction to wikis and reliance on the existence of a standard deletion process means it passes WT:PRIOR too. Theknightwho (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This may have cites on Google Books surprisingly. The issue of whether or not it's SoP, however, is for WT:RFDE. AG202 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

contubernal

Sense 1: "(rare) Living in the same tent." Tagged by @This, that and the other back in February. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 19:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to list this one. Compare the discussion at Talk:contubernial. This, that and the other (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

avarous

Tagged by Astova on 20 March (“This was sourced with Middle English warous”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This is all over EEBO if anyone wants to find three cites (I might do it later). This, that and the other (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added some cites; one from the 1990s (according to Google Books, but some other words in the work make me wonder if it's more recent than even that) and one from 2010, for which reason I changed the label from "obsolete" to "uncommon". Besides comparatives with more, btw, -er may also be attested. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

tapinage

Tagged by Astova on 20 March (“cp. [166]”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

grip

Senses:

• (transitive) To help or assist, particularly in an emotional sense.
• (intransitive) To do something with another that makes you happy/gives you relief.
• To trench; to drain.

Tagged by JudgeDeadd on 1 April (“Added "verify" requests to some dubious English senses; Added two new definitions, more readily found in dictionaries”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The "trench, drain" sense belongs to Etymology 3. OED gives it as "dialectal" and includes two Modern English uses.

The other two senses were added by TMattausch way back in 2007. This was one of the user's only two contributions, the other being an earlier version of the gripless entry (see its RFV). I suspect a hoax: the usex for the second impugned sense suggests the collocation let’s grip, but google:let's grip turns up nothing useful. Also, Urban Dictionary provides no support. This, that and the other (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

mimmerkin

Sense: “(obsolete) A dotard.” Tagged by -sche on 2 April, not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oddly, when the entry was created, there was a Dunbar quote under the "dotard" sense, which (aside from being Scots, not English) is attributed by OED to the second sense. @Leasnam can you remember where you were getting definitions from in December 2012? This, that and the other (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not :( Leasnam (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I found it, it's here: [[167]]; but it also admits it is uncertain, a sentiment echoed here as well [[168]]. I've hence removed it from the entry. Leasnam (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

RFV-resolved This, that and the other (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

birdysit

birdiesit

Tagged by Paul G on 29 June (“Not in Google Books”), not listed. Created by PseudoSkull. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

abscond

Sense:

• (intransitive) To withdraw from. [From mid 16th century.]^[2]

Reference:

2. Lesley Brown, editor-in-chief, William R. Trumble and Angus Stevenson, editors (2002), “abscond”, in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, 5th edition, Oxford, New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 8.

Tagged by DCDuring on 13 August, not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

goodify

The tag was changed from {{derogatory}} to {{rfv}} by 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:4DD6:8786:8A4D:2CCB on 23 August. The entry has two senses, and one, which had {{rfv-sense}}, has been through RFV. Sgconlaw removed the {{rfv-sense}} tag but not the {{rfv}} tag, thus I suppose that the first sense (“(transitive, rare, nonstandard) To make good.”) should be in RFV. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

upon

Sense (adverb):

• Being the target of an action.

  He was set upon by the agitated dogs

Tagged by 209.93.47.160 (who also added set upon to the list of derived terms) on 22 August, not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems completely nonsensical to me. Equinox ◑ 08:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I would understand, “The aggravated home owner set the dogs upon him”. Then the agitated dogs were set upon him – the other way around. If anything, the burglar or whoever was set upon by the home owner.  --Lambiam 11:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

tessitura

Sense: “(music) How a musical instrument sounds in different parts of its range.” Tagged by PUC on 9 September, not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

nomen proprium

Tagged by Dan Polansky on 11 September (“not easy to find non-italicized iin English text in Google Books and not in dicts”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

nomen appellativum

Tagged by Dan Polansky on 11 September (“the quotations that use the term in italics do not count for attestation and the 1825 quote in brackets is not a use but a mention)”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

cissplain

Tagged by 81.243.222.201 on 13 September, not listed. -sche wrote on the talk page:

“None of the citations just added meet the WT:CFI requirements for being durably archived, and I am unable to find any uses in books, journals, magazines, or even Usenet (I checked Google Books, Scholar, and Groups, and Issuu). I can only find one mention (see use-mention distinction): […]”

J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Cited. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

unionization

Sense: “(chemistry) The opposite of ionization.” Tagged by 86.145.58.222 (who changed it to “(chemistry) Synonym of deionization”) on 25 September (“Is this usage actually attested in chemistry?”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Found and added two. It seems rather non-standard and rare. Be careful: I thought I found a third citation from the 1970s but it seemed to be a scanno (Google Books wouldn't show me the entire page, but the preceding sentence looked like mashed-up garbage). Equinox ◑ 00:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Added a third cite. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

nightwandering

I can't find this in GBooks without a hyphen (night-wandering). Note it may be linked from some other entries. Equinox ◑ 00:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Adjective: [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174] (although it looks like the original 1798 version of the poem hyphenated it). Other POS (noun/verbal gerund): [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182]. 98.170.164.88 18:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

adwesch

This term exists in very early Middle English (a poem written during the late 1100s about Saint Katherine uses it in the lines "adweschde & adun weorp þe wiðerwine of helle") but GBooks shows exactly one attestation in Modern English, pretty clearly intended as an archaism. Mjolkare (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Adwesch is certainly obsolete, but it has another form, the more modern dialectal (but likely also now obsolete) adush (“to make fall or drop; fall headlong”), which we do not have an entry for yet, but I've already found one use. Leasnam (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

see the trees through the forest

English idiom - the opposite of see the forest for the trees. Can't say I've heard it before. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Easily citable but the definition needs reworking. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

saw

Seems to be a respelling of suh as in "suh, dude" (as in "[what']s u[p], dude") but a Google search only turns up puns and Urban Dictionary. Wiktionary doesn't have this meaning of suh. John Womble (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

RRoD

I feel like this will probably pass RFV easily but I don't have the time or inclination to cite it myself right now. I am mainly tagging it because it was deleted, with no discussion, after being RFV'd in 2008 and has only recently been recreated. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 21:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I added four cites, one from a paper version of a website, three from online news sources (Forbes, Engaget, PCWorld) which I consider reasonably reputable, there are many others. I think this one is reasonably widely used, but may not meet the CFI for the venues of cites. I would suggest that this is a case where the spirit of the law is met even if the letter is not. - TheDaveRoss 14:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss I was about to call this cited, but part of the problem is that there are only 2 cites with the spelling RRoD cited, the others have RROD, which is a different entry. Not sure what the policy is on verifying alternative forms though. AG202 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Alternate letter-case is a funny grey area, since almost every word can be written correctly in alternate letter-case (start of sentence, YELLING, etc.), and every word is sometimes written (correctly or incorrectly) in alternate letter-case. I wouldn't advocate for having two entries, and this form (little-o) seems to be more common among "published" usage. If the verdict is to move it to "big-O" I wouldn't object. I don't think the two are distinct terms. - TheDaveRoss 17:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

lambada

Sense 3: "A strong hit, the act of hitting someone/something with a piece of wood or club." Equinox ◑ 21:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

r-slurred

Not that many hits; nothing on Usenet from what I can see, and most hits are related to pronunciation. Ironically I saw this word for the first time a few days ago, but not on a durably archived source. Also, I feel that it should still have a derogatory tag, but I'm not 100% sure. AG202 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It's on Twitter, but given the way the ongoing poll is trending that may not be enough. 98.170.164.88 02:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion of there being "not that many hits". A quick Reddit search [183] turns up 6400 hits across multiple subreddits, with the earliest [184] dating to April 2019. A new Reddit post with r-slurred is made every few hours [185] and a new Twitter post roughly every day [186]. I would say that this word definitely falls under "clearly widespread use", meaning that 3 durably archived sources are not necessary.

Ioaxxere (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Not that many hits on places that actually fit the criteria for CFI. Also, it may have to be classified as a hot word depending on how recent it is. The clearly widespread use clause is very rarely invoked and does not apply here considering how it’s only used in online fora that don’t even currently fit CFI. AG202 (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Then what's the point of the widespread use clause if you only apply it when the term would meet CFI anyway? Ioaxxere (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere It was intended to prevent people from clogging rfv with bad-faith nominations of common words like dog, cat and the where no one had bothered as yet to add cites to the entry. When a term is nominated for rfv, it will be deleted if cites aren't provided- so people would be wasting their time finding and writing up cites just to keep basic vocabulary. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: Unfortunately, that's not how our CFI works. In theory, a word could be used millions of times online and never quality for an entry here if it's not used in print media and/or Usenet. Meanwhile, words that have only been used three times in all of recorded history are allowed as long as they appear in legacy media. IMO, this is patently ridiculous, but it's unlikely to ever change given that our recent vote to allow online cites on a case-by-case basis is in the process of being all but overturned only a few months later (despite the number of high-quality entries created since the initial vote passed). Binarystep (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The Twitter vote is at 11-8 in favour. Does that mean it's going to pass? Ioaxxere (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

6400 hits on Reddit is not widespread, 6.4 million hits would perhaps meet that standard. - TheDaveRoss 15:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

When I use the "next" function of the search, I get 298 hits on Reddit. That is quite significant use, much more than 3 quotations. Oldest ones are from Jan 2020, from what I can see. This might arguably meet the intended stadard of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling of citations that do not meet our current definition of permanently archived; Twitter will not pass for 1-year-spanning 3-attestation but that does not mean it is now forbidden altogether.

As for "clearly widespread use", there is no clear interpretation of what it means; different editors will interpret it differently. The RFV header says "Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)" Thus, you may claim clearly widespread use, and others may dispute it, with no recourse to objective criteria. The quoted passage is in contradiction with "When a term is nominated for rfv, it will be deleted if cites aren't provided". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

diprotodontoid

Rfv-sense:

1. (zoology) Any member of the Diprotodontia taxonomic order of marsupials.

Taxonomic common names in English are more regular than most people realize. With a few notable exceptions, any names that end in -oid used by scientists for animal groups refer to superfamilies, the taxonomic names of which end in -oidea. If you don't know about the superfamilies, I can see how you could guess that the "-oid" was a meaningless suffix added to one of the taxonomic names you were familiar with. I think that's what @Graeme Bartlett did here.

The Diprotodontia includes most of the better known marsupials in Australia, including kangaroos, wallabies, koalas and wombats, and members of that order are generally referred to as diprotodonts. The real diprotodontoids are a much smaller and more obscure group consisting of the diprotodontids and palorchestids, which are prehistoric beasts known only from fossils. Of course, all diprotontoids are also diprotodonts, but there a great many diprotodonts that aren't diprotodontoids.

If we can find references to anything not in the Protodontoidea as a "protodontoid", that would verify this sense. I have yet to see any of those, however, and I found at least one reference to the protodontoids as a sister group to the wombats, which would be impossible if one considers them to include the wombats. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you are correct. the animals from the order are called diprotodontians. So I have removed the order and left the superfamily definition. I checked usage, and the -oids always did belong to the superfamily only. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it worth adding more specific definitions for zoology uses in -oid and -ian? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

sleepwell

Tagged by @Mlgc1998, not listed. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I found a few hits on social media by adding code-switching words, e.g. [187], plus one post on Tumblr and a thread on Reddit. Not a lot, but when I tried searching for broader English results by e.g. using "goodnight sleepwell", all i got was hashtags. So I think this is real, if perhaps not very common. —Soap— 22:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998 You have both RFVed and RFDed this entry. Maybe one at a time would make more sense? Equinox ◑ 23:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox Oh ok. wasn't familiar with the usual process. Mlgc1998 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Added a few Twitter cites. There is definitely a strong correlation with the Philippines here. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

worldriche

Apparently not attested after Early Middle English; furthermore, the correct ME form is world-riche, not worldriche. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

heavenric

While this survived sometime longer than worldriche, it too appears to have succumbed to oblivion. There are occasional Modern English mentions and uses serving as a gloss of sorts for Old English heofonrīċe, but these don't appear to be sufficient to support a ModE entry. As a aside, if anyone wishes to move the entry, I would suggest moving it to heveneriche (the form used by Gower and Langland); this is more common than quadrisyllabic hevenriche, just as hevene is more common than heven. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

heveneriche has obviously already been created; I couldn't be bothered waiting for anyone to look at this. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

graphoning

"(maths) A generalization of graphings and graphons." I can't seem to find anything on this. Equinox ◑ 15:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

mere

Etymology 3:

1. (obsolete) Famous.

Latest OED cite is from 1390 [188]. Ioaxxere (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

For what its worth, the corresponding Middle English Compendium entry gets slightly more recent with c 1450 (a 1425). —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be removed. It's already mentioned in Etymology 1 already. Leasnam (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Moved to Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

bat fairy

1. (Internet slang, humorous) The Grim Reaper.

All I see on Google is silly Halloween merchandising and a few odds and ends that have nothing to do with this sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

RuSSian, RuSSia

Probably real but nearly impossible to cite. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

just lol, who is paying these people? Equinox ◑ 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

dead dial

"(figurative) When there is nothing interesting on the radio or television at a particular time or place."

Plausible, but just a usex in entry. From Radio Nowhere, a Bruce Springsteen song. Only two other cites needed. Many false positive hits on Google Books, eg dead dial tone. DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

grip (2)

Rfv-sense: griffin. OED appears to lemmatise this obsolete word at gripe, with a number of ModE cites for the alt form grype. No modern evidence is provided for a spelling grip. This, that and the other (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

sliving

RFV-ing etymology 2, added a couple years ago. See the edit history for the original, longer "definition." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that this should either be at slive or should be an adjective. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What are we to make of the phrase sliving board in Finnegan’s Wake?[189] Is this just another example of meaningless gibberish found therein, or is it related to the other meaning of slive, perhaps making it a synonym for a chopping board? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

tankling

Apparently a nonce word. Somebody has added a note to our entry saying that the word was used by Owen Wister. OED cites only this author for tankle and tankled, and for tankling it cites Webster only. This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

purocoll

Nothing for purocoll on Google Books, Google Scholar, or Archive.org, but Webster's has an entry for pyrocoll with this exact definition: [190]. It was probably a typo. 98.170.164.88 04:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I would speedy this, but the definition at pyrocoll is pretty terrible. The entries need merging, accounting for the fact that science has moved on since Webster's dictionary. This, that and the other (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

polyactina

The Webster entry the definition is copied from is for Polyactinia ([191]), so this is most likely a typo. That said, both forms garner some hits on Google Books, although from a brief glance I can't tell whether they are referring to the same thing or not. It doesn't help that both occur as part of binomial species names, polluting the search results.

Bonus questions: Should this be capitalized? The book capitalizes all headwords so it's unclear. And is this even English or Translingual/taxonomic Latin? Many of the relevant Google Books results for Polyactinia capitalize and/or italicize it. 98.170.164.88 04:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Compare mytilus, brought to RFV by me earlier in the year.

I won't speedy this but it should be an easy fail after a month. This, that and the other (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Among Translingual terms:

There appears to be a recent (c. 1991) genus (ichnogenus) Polyactina of "[m]icrobioerosional trace fossils".

There are seven taxa with forms of adj. polyactinus and, perhaps, noun polyactinum, mostly polyactina, as an epithet. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not planning to add entries for either. We have entries for bioerosion, bioerosional, and microbioerosion, but not microbioerosional. DCDuring (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

litate

The Webster entry appears to be lituate ([192]). There are search results for litate on Google Books, etc., but I didn't see any with this meaning, and most appear to be scannos anyway. Even the form lituate looks pretty rare outside of dictionaries. I've so far found several articles/books with T. Rupert Jones as an author ([193], [194], [195], [196], [197]), and this. It's possible more citations could be dredged up, though. Worth noting that the definition given here uses different wording (which might amount to the same general concept); maybe it would be good to incorporate that language in some way if kept. 98.170.164.88 06:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

antijapanese

google books:"antijapanese", google groups:"antijapanese", “antijapanese”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. does not seem promising. The Google Groups search finds also occurrences of "antiJapanese". Does anyone know how to force Google Books to be case-sensitive? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

occulent

Possible typo. The term in Webster is apparently occludent ([198], [199]). Worth noting that the Latin verb occulō (“to hide, cover, conceal”) does exist, but has a different meaning than occlūdō (“to shut up, close up”). For the spelling occulent, I only found this, with unclear meaning, and several scannos for flocculent. 98.170.164.88 06:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I dismissed this too quickly, e.g. [200] uses it as an adjective (but is this an error for opulent?), [201] as an adjective with unclear technical meaning, [202] as a noun related to agriculture. This paper explicitly uses occulent as a noun related to the verb occlude, which supports the current definition, even if etymologically "wrong" from a prescriptivist standpoint and even if the paper uses broken English (just look at the first sentence). I even wonder if the authors of the last article took the term from Wiktionary, since it was published after the entry; I guess we'll never know for sure. Anyway, further research is needed to tell whether this term really exists and what it means if so. 98.170.164.88 06:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

ozona

The Webster entry appears to be ozena ([203], [204]), which we define as an alt form of ozaena. Searching for ozona on Google Books yields a lot of scannos for the alt form ozœna. Does ozona exist? 98.170.164.88 07:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

praecognita

This term definitely exists with this meaning, and can be found in Google Books/Scholar. (It helps to add "the" to the search to filter for English results.) That said, I was only able to find it used in italics. Does that make it "not really an English word"? 98.170.164.88 07:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

gid (gig)

Rfv-sense: fiddle. This is actually a typo: the Webster entry is at gig. However, I can't find evidence to support even that form. Webster gives no references. I can't find this sense among OED's many definitions of gig. Century has this sense at gig, accompanying it with a dagger, attributing it to "F. Junius", and following it with the intriguing comment "It is doubtful whether this sense actually occurs in literature". This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The French word gigue has this meaning. The English word gig ("fiddle, violin") is mentioned in various sources, e.g. [205], [206], [207]. The only concrete primary source I was able to find was Chaucer, who used "gigge" ("gygges"), but which MED instead translates as "?A squeaking sound, a creak." There's also Middle English "gigour" ("fiddler"). 98.170.164.88 17:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the OP is referring to gid, Etymology 2 (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a bit confusing. Our entry gid is an obvious error, and the word actually under verification here is gig. I perhaps should have moved the sense from gid to gig and then RFV'd it, but I got lazy. Apologies for the messiness. This, that and the other (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

wrawness

Apparently only occurs in Chaucer, dictionaries, and this 2004 zine that seems to use it as part of a proper noun (?). The spelling in Chaucer is "wrawnesse" in most of the major manuscripts (Hengwrt, Ellesmere, etc.), but also "wrawnes", and it appears in the Parson's Tale near the start of the "Sequitur de Accidia" section. 70.172.194.25 20:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

antichristian

Rfv-sense: Pertaining to Antichrist.

Attested? Not in dictionaries. Antichristian would be the expected spelling. The sense needs to be attested as distinct from "against Christians". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Cited, though I would probably mark it as archaic when used outside of historical context. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

scathel

Not in the OED or EEBO; the provided quote is actually Middle English with semi-modernised spelling; the expected Modern English form would likely be scaddle, skaddle. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

outparamoured

Probably a hapax nonce, only used once by Shakespeare (first quarto: "in woman out paromord the Turke", first folio: "in Woman, out-Paramour'd the Turke"). Everything else is clearly quoting or referencing Shakespeare, e.g. [208], [209]. 98.170.164.88 22:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually I found some more uses of "out-paramoured the Turk", clearly a Shakespeare reference, but maybe this evidence supports its existence as an idiom. [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216]. Are these, along with the last link of my above comment, sufficient to keep it? If kept, should the lemma be "outparamour", "outparamoured", "outparamour(ed) the Turk", or some other similar variation (and what about the hyphen)? Here's the only use I found that doesn't use the word "Turk": [217]. 98.170.164.88 23:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Here I find, “they out-swear the French, out-drink the Dutch, and out-paramour the Turk.”  --Lambiam 09:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've added most of the above to Citations:outparamoured. Now the question is how we should present this as an entry. I think we could have an entry for the verb out-paramour, with outparamour as an alt form, and then mention in usage notes that it's usually used in the phrase "out-paramour the Turk" (which is a reference to Shakespeare). Alternatively, we could put the entry at out-paramour the Turk, since all but one of the present citations use that verbal phrase. Or we could have both. 98.170.164.88 21:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and created out-paramour, out-paramour the Turk, and a verb sense of paramour. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Camorra

Rfv-sense: "A member of this organization." The quotation is probably using "Camorras" to refer to multiple Camorra gangs, not to multiple individual Camorristas. From Wikipedia: "The Camorra was never a centralised organisation, but instead a loose confederation of different, independent clans, groups or families." 98.170.164.88 16:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

nerven

Verb: "To make nervous; innerve". First of all innerve does not mean "make nervous" (scared), but to make strong, or give nervous energy to. Secondly I can't find any form except "nervened". Entry has two citations, both for "nervened": one (1964) "a pilot of nervened skill": okay, seems like a nonce or error, but evidently means the pilots has nerves (of steel etc.). The other (1988) strikes me as gibberish of no clear meaning: "Circling like cats around a possibility that might, nervened, we touch together almost quite." Equinox ◑ 18:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"make nervous" is not supported by citation, so it's been removed. I've modified the 1987 quote to appear the way it does in print. Basically, like cats circling, they finally get up the nerve to (almost) touch. It's a poem. It still needs one more cite to stay, I'm looking... Leasnam (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that didn't take long. Added a third 1944 cite. Thanks for bringing this to attention :) Leasnam (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

mesophilia

Sense 2: a (general) preference for middle-aged people, as opposed to sense 1, the sexual preference. Equinox ◑ 19:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

repealableness

Added the only quotation I could find. 98.170.164.88 06:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Added a quote from 1657 in EEBO. OED has the 1657 quote and also cites Webster. This, that and the other (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

borscht queen

All I'm seeing is Urban Dictionary and a blog called "The Oddball Gay's Guide To Gay Slang". Nothing on Google Books, nothing on Twitter, nothing on Usenet. There are theoretically 567 Google hits in the singular, but it won't go past the second page; there is 1 hit in the plural. Besides UD and "Oddball", a couple websites use it to refer to a woman who is skilled at preparing borscht (utterly SOP). 98.170.164.88 07:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

kam

(Etymology 2) For me this word seems to be a Cantonese word spelt with the Latin alphabet, but it certainly has not gained much usage in English. – Wpi31 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

double-clean

"(typography, very rare) A type of bold font." Equinox ◑ 11:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Our friend was inferring this from the synonyms list at flush but somehow came up with this interesting definition. I would speedy it, but I see that that was turned down already... This, that and the other (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The word seems marginal in any case. Pariah S. Burke's Mastering InDesign CS5 for Print Design and Production says: "Fully justified text can be referred as such, or as flush left and right, just plain flush, forced, forced justified, no rag, and, just once by a New Zealander, double-clean type." (Who, where?) Equinox ◑ 13:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see it in use here, which is written in a way that assumes the reader knows what "a double clean bold and monoline script plus and a casual sans serif typeface" is. I suspect that's why the IP inferred that it refers to a boldface, too, but to me that line just reads like a bunch of descriptors in a list that doesn't have commas. On a related note, it shows the block was warranted, as you have to be pretty clueless to see this listed as a synonym of flush only to define it as a synonym of boldface based on a misinterpretation of a single Pinterest listing... Theknightwho (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I remember Luciferwildcat once giving an obscure word a completely wrong def because he'd found a quiz book saying "does this word mean (a) ... (b) ... (c) ..." and he just picked one. Unbelievable! Equinox ◑ 08:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

start

Rfv-sense: "tail". The NED (the first edition of the OED) notes that there is no direct evidence for the "tail" sense beyond Middle English with the following comment:

1919, “start, n.¹”, in James A. H. Murray [et al.], editors, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (Oxford English Dictionary), volume IX, Part 1, London: Clarendon Press, →OCLC, page 128:

The explanation ‘tail’ is given in many dictionaries from the 17th c. onwards, and in many modern dialect glossaries, but app. only as an assumed general or primary meaning accounting for the specific senses and the use in redstart. Evidence of any modern currency of sense 1 is wanting.

Subsequent editions of the OED see no need to alter this evaluation. Of course, it's entirely possible that we may be able to find something that the OED has passed by, but I don't see the prognosis as being particularly positive. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 20:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also used in start naked, which .... yes it's a redlink, but .... I was planning to get around to creating and citing it soon, as it's claimed to be the source of the modern stark naked. This is where my knowledge ends and my speculation begins, though, as I wonder if it was all along a euphemism for rump, not for tail specifically, hence its application to both humans and birds. It would be in line with some other languages such as Finnish, where the word perse perä can berefer to a human's bottom or the base of something, and I think Nahuatl which also uses the same basic morpheme for the buttocks and for "beginning, start" (though offhand I dont know what that morpheme is or if it can stand alone).

It's possible that some or all of the above can be true, but that the word start in its standalone form lost that meaning long ago, and it only shows up in etymologies. —Soap— 15:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no doubt that start naked is attestable, but as you note, this means nothing for the attestability of standalone start (“tail”). As for that word's relation to start (“to begin, commence”), there doesn't appear to be a direct link (as demonstrated differing vocalisms of German stürzen, Sterz), though both words may go back to the same PIE root. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

MWOnline calls start naked "a dialectal variant of stark-naked".

See also blackstart, clubstart, whitestart DCDuring (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

MWOnline calls start naked "a dialectal variant of stark-naked".

Well of course it is synchronically, but etymologically it appears to be the original form. As for the animal names you listed, blackstart and whitestart are probably analogical to redstart; clubstart may be too, in a case of proportional analogy; redtail:redstart; *clubtail (“stoat”):clubstart, as it is not particularly old. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

riche

Seemingly spurious; the OED fails to note any post-1500 use, while the term is missing from the EDD. The two quotes present at the entry are not English, but Early Scots (treated as a kind of Middle English at Wiktionary, though this status is not unambiguous or undisputed), and therefore cannot be relied upon considered to provide evidence of usage. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that this term was revived by either Victorian or modern fetishisers of Anglo-Saxon culture, but evidence is needed for this supposition. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

rike

Properly a collateral form of riche; see the RFV for that term. Two of the quotes are missegmentations of -rike, alternative form of -ric, while the other is only a mention and therefore invalid. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

slinky

"(mathematics) A three-dimensional curve — a spiral wound around a helix." Evidently from the capitalised Slinky toy. I am having trouble finding uses in mathematical texts, though (beyond the inadequate casual descriptions of certain curves as being "like" a Slinky). Equinox ◑ 13:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

women ☕

Was tagged with {{derogatory}}, but there are a range of non-durably-archived cites in the entry. This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I presume the singular, woman ☕, also needs cites, btw. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Believe me that there is no chance in hell you will find this term on anything more durable than toilet paper. But I still think we should keep the two entries (just look at the page views! [218] [219]) Ioaxxere (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Page views, especially for words like this, should not be indicative as to whether or not the words should be kept (and personally it's a strong negative). AG202 (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

ice

Rfv-sense "Any volatile chemical, such as water, ammonia, or carbon dioxide, not necessarily in solid form", as distinct from the preceding sense, which is such a chemical when solid / frozen. Wikipedia says this sense is why "Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants, and Uranus and Neptune are ice giants, even though the vast majority of the "gas" and "ice" in their interiors is a hot, highly dense fluid", but when I search google books:"ice giant" "liquid" trying to find cites, the cites generally say that "ice giants" are so called because they have significant ice (frozen, solid matter) as a distinctive feature, irrespective of whether they have other, non-distinctive features like fluid interiors that planets commonly have. And I'm not seeing any relevant uses at e.g. google books:"liquid ice" or "liquid ammonia ice". - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the definition might need to be tightened up by someone familiar with the topic but it seems to be a real thing: see the reference to a "liquid mantle composed of ice materials" here, the diagram caption here that jokes "Only astronomers could call a 2000 degree fluid “ice”", and the explanation of the "ice" in ice giants as a "hot, slushy mixture that would be more aptly described as a water-ammonia ocean" here. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

super straight

Well-documented as a hoax campaign. Citations barely span a month, let alone a full year. Needs evidence of actual lasting usage. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There's use on social media, but the news media did lose interest after about a month. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

favori

Can anyone find any more citations? The one given here even has the lemma italicized to convey foreignness. Mjolkare (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

bighorn

Rfv-sense: applied to Ovis dalli, aka thinhorn sheep, thinhorn, Dall sheep.

Probably better covered by See also references. DCDuring (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

bighorn sheep

Rfv-sense: as above DCDuring (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

benevolent dictator

benevolent dictatorship

Nominating both of these, which Equinox pointed out at RFD for benevolent tyrant. Both define a benevolent dictator as a dictator dependent on/installed by popular support, and the definition has essentially stood since 2003 on the second page and 2006 on the first. But my own understanding of the term is that it just means a dictator who cares about the people (rather than themselves) and is basically SOP.

I can't find any sources to justify the definition given here—the Wikipedia page, linked on both pages, also treats it as just benevolent + dictator—and in fact I can find some that state just the opposite: "The Confucian tradition [was] of looking for […] a benevolent dictator […] However, such a system made no provision for popular participation, either in the choice of ruler or in the formulation of policy" ([220]). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Zwollenaar

I see this used in Dutch, and at least once in English (italicized), is this used in English? - TheDaveRoss 17:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

zugtrompete

This one looks German, is it also English? - TheDaveRoss 17:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a mistake. @SemperBlotto (creator) Ioaxxere (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

azzhoe

One BGC use, but very few ghits otherwise. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection Cited. There may be only 1 Google Books result but there are uses in many Usenet posts, at least 10. I only included 2 of my favorite ones. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

devilfish

Meaning octopus / gray whale GreyishWorm (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Octopus: here and here are a couple of obvious ones, and this is made clear by the title itself. There's also an ubiquitous passage in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas where it could be just about any cephalopod- but it's definitely a cephalopod. I suppose that one could be an individual translator's choice of word to represent whatever the original French had. At any rate, searching for "devilfish" and either "octopus" or "arms" turns up enough Google Books hits for it to pass. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Gray whale: here, here and here are uses that are clearly referring to whales of some sort. There also are a ton of mentions that make it clear that the species in question is the gray whale. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A gallery would be a nice way of making the name seem plausible for all the types of creatures with this name. For the gray whale it must be the skin, covered with barnacles etc., and the baleen. DCDuring (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The mentions I referred to above tend to include explanations of the name: that the whalers gave them the nickname because the whales could be very violent toward whaler's boats when the whales were attacked- especially mothers when their children were involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

shorthead

A sucking whale less than one year old; - a few sources mention this was a term sailors used in the 19th century, but I couldn't find any actual uses. WTF was a sucking whale meant to be anyway? Today it's the name of a sex toy [really! I guess whales turn some chicks on...]. GreyishWorm (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think sucking is meant in the sense we give as "(archaic) Still nourished by the mother's milk, as an infant; suckling.". 98.170.164.88 22:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Mestizean

Nothing on Google Books/Scholar, or even Usenet or Twitter. Only 8 hits on "regular" Google, all of which appear to be Wiktionary copycats. Previously tagged for speedy deletion by an unregistered user whose IP address is in the same range as and geolocates to the same city as the page creator. 98.170.164.88 02:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

moraljak

3 hits on Google; nothing on Twitter or Usenet. The Books/Scholar hits are irrelevant, mostly scannos for German Moralsatz in Fraktur, where the ligature for tz sorta resembles k. I suspect this term was invented by the page's author, who also added an entry for the suffix -jak (which has since been deleted, following an RfV discussion). 98.170.164.88 10:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedied. Not even 1 Google hit for singular or plural, and as you say the editor seemed unsound. Equinox ◑ 19:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

blacktail

Rfv-sense: the ruff or pope GreyishWorm (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

FishBase does not have this as a name for the specified fish. Century 1911 has it for an earlier synonym.

Also, there are lots of missing derived terms to be found at FishBase. DCDuring (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Brinjaree

Rfv-sense: dog. I see plenty for Brinjaree dog, which could do with an entry BTW. Perhaps lowercase brinjaree? GreyishWorm (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Not only with "dog". One GBooks result says "I had a Brinjaree bitch". Equinox ◑ 19:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

includence

"The act of including; a receiving of something offered, with acquiescence, approbation, or satisfaction; especially, favourable reception; approval."

It does seem to be a word, but I'm not sure that this plausible meaning is the real one. It seems to be something obscure, perhaps in psychology: e.g. "Tellenbach does not attempt to account for manic phenomena in terms of includence and remanence..." Equinox ◑ 19:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The psychiatric sense is from a modern (German) coinage by Hubertus Tellenbach, Inkludenz, which is based on the original Latin meaning of inclūsiō as "confinement, imprisonment" and has no direct connection to English include. That sense does look to be securely attested. As a synonym of "inclusion", not so much. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I added the psychiatry sense as a separate etymology. I found some marginally plausible stuff on Google Books searching for "the includence", but on closer examination it looks like pretty much all of those instances are typos or catachresis for incidence (e.g., 2). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

dunter

Rfv-sense: porpoise. All I'm seeing is dialectal dictionaries, and OED agrees with me GreyishWorm (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

doegling

Apparently the beaked whale, getting its name from the Faroe Islands (dœgling?) I am sure we'd all like to know the Faroese word for this creature, too. GreyishWorm (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The Faroese is døglingur, declined like dómur. Anyway this word seems to exist, though very rare. This, that and the other (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

superfecundity

Sense 2: "(biology) An organism's ability to store another organism's sperm (after copulation) and fertilize its own eggs from that store after a period of time, essentially making it appear as though fertilization occurred without sperm." This one came from Wikipedia but their article seems quite dodgy. (However, previously our entry had basically 2 senses both with the sense #1 meaning. This one is new.) Equinox ◑ 00:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

belash

Rfv-sense "(transitive) To furnish or adorn with eyelashes". The adjective "belashed" is clearly used, but I'm not seeing it as a transitive verb. - TheDaveRoss 13:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

lunchbox

"(slang) A person or object constantly at one's side (in the manner of a lunchbox). = sidekick". Equinox ◑ 13:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

inbelch

The only cite provided is not even for this spelling, and looking for cites is not promising. - TheDaveRoss 16:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the only cite in OED. Looks like a nonce of Holland. This, that and the other (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

fortnite

This could be solved in five minutes. Does someone have OED access, or really any other resource that could quickly confirm if this is a valid alternate spelling?

The sole citation we have right now is within a character's quoted letter, and is one of a great many misspellings this character and others in that book have, such as surrymony two words later. As the author of the book almost certainly did not think the word fortnite was actually spelled as such, I don't think it counts as a valid sighting of the word. I said much the same with #paleass above, which I think was not just a deliberate misspelling but also a deliberately vulgar one.

However, I think it's certainly possible for fortnite to be alive as a valid alternate spelling independently of the Humphry Clinker book. Due to the overwhelming popularity of the video game, a normal Google search would be useless. Using Google Books to search for 20th-century cites only, I've turned up a lot of uses in scientific journals, but they're almost all capitalized, like the names of scientific projects often are. It seems to have been a brand name at one point, as was Fortniter. It took me until the bottom of the fourth page to find a single lowercase usage, which could either be

A misspelling. Even the best scientists make mistakes.

An abbreviation (like how meteorologists use trof for trough, even these days when most people have plenty of screen space).

A usage of one of the proper noun senses, lowercased for one reason or another (although it looks like a common noun usage in this context to me).

An alternate valid spelling of the word, made unusually difficult to find because of the reasons I've spelled out above.

Nearly all of the senses I've found seem to be related to science, particularly tree and soil science. It's possible this is a gap in Google Books' coverage, and I don't think I can find three cites there. But nite clearly exists, so maybe fortnite does too.

Thanks,

—Soap— 18:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the OED doesn’t list this as a variant of fortnight. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Seemingly eye dialect: [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227] (meaning unclear), [228], [229], [230], [231] (?), [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243]. Not eye dialect: [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251]. 98.170.164.88 23:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The context of these cites demonstrates pretty clearly that this is, at best, a misspelling. If we were to keep all of the misspellings represented in these cites we could probably double the entry count without adding any more actual words. - TheDaveRoss 13:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you see the second part of the list though? I don't think we can confidently call it a misspelling given it was used multiple times in the 1600s, before orthography was as stable as today. 98.170.164.88 14:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

See midnite, overnite, all-nite, to-nite, tonite, 2nite. DCDuring (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those were the main ones I was referring to, since the eye-dialect stuff is always chaos. In the latter cites many of the surrounding words are also misspelled, and not in ways which indicate that they were alternate accepted spellings, but more along the lines of someone sounding out words they weren't sure how to spell. - TheDaveRoss 15:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

How does one learn to detect such a state of mind in an author? DCDuring (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

U can ditect a unbility too spel by reedin wats rit. - TheDaveRoss 19:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd personally be inclined to keep this based on how many early citations of genuine use there are from the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s. And if "we were to keep all of the misspellings represented in these cites [and thus] double the entry count" I wouldn't necessarily see that as a bad thing, assuming the spellings were actually well-attested in sources from the 1600s and 1700s. This could be useful to readers because they might be reading an old work, come across a weirdly spelled word, and wonder what it means.

We have many entries that have less validity than this one does. Whether the template is {{obsolete spelling of}} or {{misspelling of}} doesn't matter as much to me; there should probably be a second sense for {{eye dialect of}} too. Btw, a couple of the works seem to use pretty normal spelling for the most part (the Maine Historical Society and Evening Argus ones). But those are also later, both being from the 1800s, which makes sense since spelling was more standardized by then. 98.170.164.88 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That would be eye dialect, IMHO. How can you detect "someone sounding out words they weren't sure how to spell"? DCDuring (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've always felt that the term eye dialect was meant to refer to only one thing: quoted speech within written works where a person who has poor education is assigned dialog with misspelled words in order to show they cannot spell. If we're reading a real person's own writing, by definition it can't be an eye dialect because no outside author is putting the words down for them. —Soap— 23:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

An entire work could be written in that manner. DCDuring (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be good if we had a section on pronunciation spelling at Appendix:Glossary, like we do for eye dialect, as it’s not currently clear to me what the difference is meant to be. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is one of my bugbears, I guess, because to me the difference between pronunciation spelling and eye dialect is plain as day .... eye dialect is used in writing to show how a character would spell words if they were writing them down, even though their pronunciation may be flawless. Pronunciation spelling is essentially the opposite .... the character's spelling skills are irrelevant; it's their pronunciation that's nonstandard. I don't want to distract from the discussion about fortnite, but I suspect this is going to come up again, so I would also like to get these labels into the glossary, hard and fast, with meanings we can come to agree on. —Soap— 01:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing to note that I decided to add a label for pronunciation spelling at the Glossary as we both wanted one, and that I changed the label for eye dialect. If people object to what I did, hopefully we can discuss it on the Glossary talk page or somewhere like the Beer Parlour. —Soap— 01:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A welcome move. I’ve now redefined an entry I created, yur, as a pronunciation spelling. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

In what world is "U" either eye dialect or pronunciation spelling? Doesn't matter. If you look at, for instance, the cite currently labeled 245 it has the following text:

Sir, by theas you are informd of my a Riwall hear the 24 of January note the Couts [cost?] I came to a very bad market for fish is over plenty and was sold be foor I came in for 11/3 pr hogshead the Small pox is very Cruel hear and I do Expect it Daly though we are all wale in health as yet and I Shun it as much as posiboll I have Soold our Cargo all to one man Mr Minot and he has gon to Get me a Cargo of molasses in Radines [readiness?] and I shall Go Round to the north Side to Load in a fortnites time att furtest if we continue our helths and I hope to Sail att furtest by the 20 of march for boston: I am o bludg to hier [obliged to hire?] all your Casks...

This is a letter from one person to another, so eye dialect and pronunciation spelling are not reasonable interpretations. The incorrect choice of homophones (hear), the simple misspellings (hier, gon, posiboll), the generally poor grammar, and everything about this screams that the person writing was not a highly proficient writer of the English language. I am not sure what the benefit of keeping terms which a number of people who were not competent writers or speakers have used, we could also find a lot of misspellings on the walls of a kindergarten classroom, but I don't think it is a sensible thing for us to document them. - TheDaveRoss 12:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You've quoted the document that I would say has the spelling least consistent with contemporary norms. On the other hand, consider this record from Salem, Massachusetts:

Salem ye 30^th Novembr. 1664. Phylip Cromwell Aged aboute fifty years testifyeth that Aboute a fortnite since, beinge at Mr Prices house, there was John Pickrin, ye saide Price speakinge to ye said Pickringe, aboute the turning ye wheelbarers into ye River, ye saide Pickringe made answer this was before the Agreement or writinge was made betwixt ye saide Price & Company and further this Deponent sayeth not.

I maintain that this is representative of Early Modern English. Sure, the text uses ye instead of the (which should really be þ^e), puts -e at the end of words where we wouldn't today, and the capitalization is all over the place. But all of those traits are common in texts of the era. The 1611 KJV uses þ^e, e.g. see [252]. If you want examples within the same genre, see this record from the city of Oxford, hardly known for being an illiterate part of England, which has a similar style down to the exact phrase "ye saide". The only real peculiarity is "wheelbarers", which I suppose is supposed to mean "wheelbarrows", but if that's enough to dismiss the text as illiterate then I guess you'd have to throw out almost all texts from the era. (For example, Shakespeare's first folio is full of idiosyncratic spellings like "out paromord" where we would today write "out-paramoured", not to mention all the extra e's at the ends of words, etc.) 98.170.164.88 17:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Btw, here are more early uses I missed previously: letter reprinted in a report of the House of Lords, c. 1603. Records of Westmoreland (i.e., Wyoming Valley, PA), 1772. Doncaster, England, c. 1614. North Carolina, 1698. Virginia Company of London, 1607–1626 (unfortunately preview only so I can't narrow down the date). Chipping Campden, England, can't see the date due to preview mode. Topsfield, Massachusetts, 1682. Letter, New York, 1783. How many citations do we need to gather to convince the naysayers? I suspect there are more. 98.170.164.88 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this is clearly a real obsolete / now-nonstandard spelling. We might dismiss the letter full of misspellings like o bludg, but there are plenty of other cites, as the IP has amply shown. It's in line with spellings like nite for night that go back to Middle English. Whether to have a separate sense for the modern nonstandard use a la lite for light (which is practically a standard spelling in many contexts/senses), and how to label it, I don't know; maybe {{lb|en|obsolete|or|now|nonstandard}} {{alternative spelling of|en|fortnight}} covers it... - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

wrench

Rfv-sense "to deflect or slander". The OED only has a few stray Middle English quotes for wrench in either of these senses; the feeling is of a abortive semantic innovation which failed to gain real purchase in the language, much less survive beyond Middle English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

upright

Rfv-POS “Adverb”. My sprachgefühl or experience tells me that one can’t actually use it like “perpendicularly” or “squarely” (without any difference from German aufrecht, and compare the adverb uprightly). If for instance you use it to qualify an adjective, it becomes a compound, say ”upright-aligned”, and it appears that the adverbial use has been wrongly inferred from depictive  or resultative predicative use: We have learned in the deletion discussion Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#extrem → Talk:extrem about this common mistake in the dogmatics of grammar leading to the imagination of adverbs, and as I now find already Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/April#healthy, adverb sense it has been discussed. Consequentially, all fifteen instances the Oxford English dictionary (paywalled/institutionally accessible) cites for an adverb entry are not adverbial but predicative or parts compounds; so honestly on first look and on closer look of some of their cites it is easier to understand the occurrences not as adverbials. Pinging people of the preceding discussion and historical English knowledge: @Fytcha, Theknightwho, Lambiam, Hazarasp, Leasnam Fay Freak (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I’ve checked on OneLook and McMillan, M-W, the AHD and the Cambridge Learners Dictionary all list the adverbial sense of upright, so there is lemming support for including it, fwiw. There’s less support for the verb sense but there is a specialist medical dictionary for dentists listed that claims one can ‘upright’ a tooth. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of the instances of putative adverb use are following verbs like stay, sit, stand, place, and set. In such use vertically, but not vertical can replace upright. This seems like fairly clear evidence that we would not err to follow the lemmings and show upright as sometimes an adverb. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

With these verbs we can also rather say near and still which I don’t think are adverbials then. Our entry near demands an example for its alleged adverb sense “At or towards a position close in space or time”, for still the example ”they stood still until […]” is a fake example because it is the verb stand still which is in other West Germanic languages are tantamount to a separable prefix – provided that one is likely to understand the aktionsart of the example as referring to a point time where standing commences rather than a duration where standing continues, as in stehenbleiben (“to stop move”) opposed to the SOP stehen bleiben (“to not cease to stand”), but even our example on stand still appears to extend over a duration: “stand still as an idea came” – if understood with durative aktionsart still is a depictive predicative there.

One can also stand ashamed, a very old expression and obviously not using the adjective adverbially since the standing itself is not ashamed, or stay awesome; with place and set the use would of course be resultative – I claim that in spite of the circumstance that in the very same contexts vertically would be used as an adverbial – either syntactic category can occur in this context by reason that in order to render something vertical, the motion to do so or the act of implementation also uses to be vertical; a similar pragmatic equivalence of syntactic categories is the case with an agent remaining vertical. Fay Freak (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I now have noticed that there are multiple senses of “to stand” you can refer to, I thought about the more common intransitive one above, which is also in the example at still, but there is this in one school dictionary “She stood her bike upright against the wall” claimed an adverb. Contrary to its claim it is not likely an adverb, the point and emphasis here being that the result how the bike stands in the end is upright or vertical, while not the act of “standing”—I don’t know how much one hears in schools about predicatives. There are at least many wrong pretenders to be seen, the question is what and whether something at all remains after trying to distill any actual adverbial use, which I have called into doubt. Fay Freak (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Black Speech

Moving from Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#Black_Speech, possibly for both a conlang sense and the fictional language from LOTR. - TheDaveRoss 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I added three quotations discussing Black Speech as a conlang, though the sense might need to be reworded. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

cissexual

The recently added second sense – how does it differ from the first one? I keep reading them over and over and I just can't wrap my head around it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I think under the second definition it's possible to be both transgender and cissexual, although I don't fully understand what that means. There are some uses on Twitter that do distinguish cisgender and cissexual: [253], [254], [255], [256]. These are hardly cherrypicked, it was easy to find them via Twitter search. I'm not sure they're all using it in the same way, though. 98.170.164.88 20:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, all. Please refer to the 'usage notes' I added, for clarification:

"Unlike 'cisgender', which refers to a gender identity that matches one's birth sex, cissexual may instead refer to the alignment of one's sexual identity, which may not coincide to their sex chromosomes (in the case of transsexuals), with their birth sex. For instance, while a trans-woman may biologically identify as female, despite having male sex chromosomes, a cissexual male both identifies as a biological male (someone with an XY chromosome), and in fact possesses this genetic information. In this sense, sex is characterized by reproductive role while gender is a set of behavioral and cultural traits to which a person belongs."

I'm completely open to wordsmithing / cleaning up this entry. In laymen's terms, what I'm saying is that someone who's cissexual both identifies with their biological sex and is literally their biological sex, unlike a transsexual who identifies with a biological sex other than the one they were born into. Cis-SEXUAL differs from cis-GENDER because the former pertains to biological, sexual identification, while the latter refers to behavioral/cultural, gender identification. In other words, sex is objective while gender is subjective. Hope that clears things up. Let me know if that didn't make any sense. — This unsigned comment was added by Wordbookeeper (talk • contribs) at 01:06, 28 October 2022‎.

Sense 3 also needs cites (and improvement; what's "(prescriptive) Loosely..." trying to say?). I know people who ineptly say "cis" when they mean "straight", but sense 3 is more like the super straight fad/op people were trying to make happen. It's possible, since other -sexual terms like sapiosexual are attraction to whatever the prefix denotes, but only cites will tell if it actually exists... - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I found several tweets using or mentioning this definition (examples: [257], [258], [259], [260], and others that were similar), but I don't know if it has really caught on. A corresponding sense of "transsexual" may have a similar level of attestability (examples: [261], [262], [263]). 98.170.164.88 06:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Historically (maybe still today), some post-op trans people didn't identify as transsexual/transgender after surgery, as they considered they had aligned their sex and gender are were no longer trans (“on the other side of”) anything, so it's plausible there may be cites where someone is (what would conventionally be regarded as) trans and also (post-op) cissexual... but the newly-added sense seems like the opposite of that, indeed it seems like trying to re-state sense 1 in such a way as to exclude that, if we assume that by "sexual identity" the writer meant not Sexual identity but "identity as a certain sex". Finding uses that distinguish sense 2 from sense 1 seems hard and the distinction seems questionable. The tweets look to be using a different sense, to do with not changing your body / physical sex regardless of your identity as male/female/etc; the linked tweets by transiness.com make this clear, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@- -sche "Finding uses that distinguish sense 2 from sense 1 seems hard and the distinction seems questionable". Please see the references cited under sense two. All appear to be academic IMO, and seem to distinguish sense 2 from sense 1. Let me know if you disagree.

This looks like soapboaxing concealed beneath unnecessarily complicated wording. Seriously, no dictionary definition needs to include "gametic," not if it's seeking to afford readers understanding and clarity. This probably doesn't warrant a separate sense. It has every appearance of being the first definition filtered through a gender-critical lens. The usage note should go immediately.

I believe the subtle distinction between sexual vs gender identity, as seen between sense 1 and 2, is noteworthy and warrants a separate sense. As mentioned above, "cis-SEXUAL differs from cis-GENDER because the former pertains to biological, sexual identification, while the latter refers to behavioral/cultural, gender identification. In other words, sex is objective while gender is subjective". Again, I'm open to cleaning up the wording; I see how words like "gametic" might come across as pedantic.

For a hot second I thought this might be a poorly-worded version of a definition of cisgender/cissexual that includes intersex people. Basically, some intersex people do not discover their intersexuality until later in life, and identify and live as their sex assigned at birth while possessing "opposite" sex characteristic(s). It's thus possible to conceive of them as simultaneously cis and trans. This is an extant usage that may warrant its own sense (or at least a sub-sense). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

fitch

Rfv-sense: Alternative form of vetch, but OED only contains cites for this word in the plural, fitches. This, that and the other (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Various "fitch" appearances in the singular in this 16th-century botanical: [264] (can't figure out much but "Italian Fitch or Goates Rue" is indeed a vetch) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Galega officinalis is not really a vetch, though it's in the same family. That said, the word is definitely used to refer to vetches elsewhere in the work. A complication is that this, like the Bible, is a translation of a text written somewhere else about plants that may or may not be the same as the ones the English terms refer to. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I added two cites, and Cotgrave also uses it in a definition here (I think this is a valid use because it's not a mere gloss "blanc : white", nor a usex). It's mentioned(?) in the index to this, although I can't find it in the work itself. google books:"bitter fitch" turns up various mentions, maybe there's a use in there somewhere. - -sche (discuss) 05:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I have already encountered this word but I remember it to live in fossilized compound plant names, like the cited wild fitch, and I just found another one, hatchet fitch – case closed, I guess. Apparently the same sound change as with fixen → vixen that did not cover the West Country? Fay Freak (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop trying to make fitch happen. - TheDaveRoss 13:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: I don’t recognize your possible joke. Is there any problem still? Otherwise I have added my quote and with three print quotes and as we know others I close this as cited. Fay Freak (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Sorry, 100% joke, please take the next two hours and watch Mean Girls so you get my joke. Or you can read an entry we apparently have make fetch happen. - TheDaveRoss 14:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Judeo-Banderite

Zhydo-Banderite

Encountered while cleaning up Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3Aderogatory&namespace=0. Perhaps citable in online-only sources. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Note - these (and trannify) were created by a blocked user who has added lots of dubious nonsense, I have deleted most of what they added. If quotes are found put them in the citations namespace. - TheDaveRoss 13:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

trannify

Encountered while cleaning up Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3Aderogatory&namespace=0. Looks citable in online-only sources. Googling yields a couple of blogs, Reddit and Twitter. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

grasseater

This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 10 November 2022.

Rfv-sense for the last sense. AG202 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a very widespread term but apparently it's only ever written with a hyphen. I've added three citations to grass-eater. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

While you were looking around did you see any evidence of the law enforcement definition? - TheDaveRoss 15:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not, no, but I added "Japan", "Japanese" etc. to my search query so these were likely filtered out. I did a quick search now and the police officer sense, too, seems to mainly only exist with the hyphenated spelling. There's a definition-like use of the hyphen-less variant here: [265] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

stoops

Rfv-sense - alternate spelling of steups, looking at "stoopsing" and "stoopsed" finds typos for stooping and stooped, but as this is regional Google may not be a reasonable method for finding evidence. - TheDaveRoss 19:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

fast clear down

Appears in a bunch of boring lexicons. Not a lot of actual use in published writing GreyishWorm (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

covid cut

Looks like some serious bullshit. Could have been a hot word, I suppose GreyishWorm (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

level-coil

Mentioned as level-coyl in Ben Jonson's Tale of a Tub. OED has a smattering of stuff spelled differently. Meh, it's probably passable ... GreyishWorm (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)