Wiktionary:Tea room

Please do not edit section titles as this breaks links on talk pages and in other discussion fora.

Translations of the week

1 China

2 Renaissance

3 ancient

Collaboration of the week

1 same

2 set

3 such

{{rft}}s

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

July

corgŵn, corgwn

We presently have two entries for the Welsh plural of corgi. Should thye be merged completely, or should one be marked as an alternative spelling of the other, or should they simply be linked through see also sections? — Beobach972 18:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The cor- prefix means dwarf (as in corach), whereas ci means dog, the plural of which is cŵn. The plural of corgi can be corgŵn or corgwn — the former retains the circumflex from the etymon, whilst the latter does not. Circumflecting denotes long vowels in Welsh but is only consitently applied to homographs which differ in vowel length. As there is no “corgwn” which carries a different meaning, omitting the circumflex from the plural of corgi is not incorrect. I don’t think that it’s necessary to favour one over the other. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm assuming that (as is the case with Latin) we have a policy on whether to include the circumflex in the title or not. — Beobach972 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Our (implicit) policy with Latin is to use as headwords the spellings that are used nowadays in Latin text, not the spellings that are used nowadays in Latin-English dictionaries. Our explicit policy (to omit macrons and breves, and to distinguish u from v but not i from j) is but an implementation of this. Our implicit policy with English is the same, except that there are no major differences between how English dictionaries spell things and how English running text does, so this policy is less remarked-upon. (But you'll notice that we do include various spellings for English words, as long as all the spellings are in actual use.) Our policy with Welsh should also be the same. If some Welsh speakers use the circumflex in this word and some omit it, then I don't see why we would exclude one spelling just for consistency with the superficial result of our Latin policy. —Ruakh_TALK 05:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that we do not include various spellings of English words that are no longer in use, even if they can be attested? DAVilla 17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. (Did I mis-write something? I was trying to say that for English words we do include various spellings, provided they're attested.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the plural of corgi should be marked as "corgwn or corgŵn", with the two entries linking to each other as alternative spellings. Both certainly should have entries, as if you do not know the word (a common reason for looking it up in a dictionary) you will not know wether, as here, the circumflexed and unadorned words are the same, or whether they are completely different words, e.g. "tan" (under) and "tân" (fire). 09:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

whittle

This entry needs some loving. Comparing it with OED shows that some senses are missing. I rfc’d it, but thought I’d better mention it here. H. (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You could always add it as a future Collaboration of the Week entry. Sometimes that leads to nice article cleanup. --EncycloPetey 17:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

mutton dressed as lamb

This is currently marked as "British?" - is it a UK only idiom or is it used elsewhere as well? Thryduulf 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I (a U.S.-ian) have never heard it. And mutton in general is a pretty rare word in these parts. (Not that we have a different word for it; it's just not something Americans eat. Or maybe we just call it lamb, but even then it's not a very common food here.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this phrase, but it sounds similar to the British phrase wolf in sheep's clothing. I am British.

Actually that's not just British - it comes from Aesop's Fables: Greek ~600 BC ! Wolf/lamb is hidden menace. Mutton/lamb is hidden age ! --195.137.93.171 11:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be "former Commonwealth", "non-US", or "non-North American". (It's not spanglish or mexican spanisn, either, AFAIK.) I'd heard it from UK and Oz native speakers, never from US-native speakers. Don't know about Canada, India, Caribbean, Africa. DCDuring 20:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is wiktionary a US-English dictionary, then ? I thought it was global English ? --195.137.93.171 11:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The English Wiktionary covers ALL varieties of English - but where terms do not have a universal meaning across all varieties we mark them as "UK", "US", "OZ" etc. SemperBlotto 12:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

X marks the spot

"You'll find what you're looking for under an obvious sign for it. " - original author claims pirate talke means is almost philosophical. I've heard this uttered in pirate movies before, but the definition seems to be missing something. It almost seems like an ominous meaning, like the authour is giving a coded message to someone. You'll find what you're looking for under an obvious sign for it. --Keene 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is the only "X" phrase listed in the OED - as part of the definition of X but without a definition of its own. This is what they say . . . SemperBlotto 10:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

d. Used to mark a location on a map or the like; esp. in phr. X marks the spot and varr.

1813 M. EDGEWORTH Let. 16 May (1971) 59 The three crosses X mark the three places where we were let in. 1918 J. M. BARRIE Echoes of War 5 In the rough sketch drawn for to-morrow's press, ‘Street in which the criminal resided’..you will find Mrs. Dowey's home therein marked with a X. 1928 R. KNOX Footsteps at Lock iv. 36, I wish I could be there, to see you diving in the mud on the spot marked with an X. 1968 B. NORMAN Hounds of Sparta ix. 64 A message from our alcoholic friend. X seems to mark the spot where he lives.

Frog

Definitions five and six are displaying oddly, but I cannot seem to mend it. Pistachio 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

{{context}} is broken, apparently due to a recent software change, and we haven't figured out how to fix it. —Ruakh_TALK 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The same thing is happening at beef and elsewhere. See Wiktionary:Grease pit#Another buggy template. Thryduulf 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

white tea

I added white tea here,

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tea#Derived_terms

Should I have?

Tea room was most appropriate, lol

Family Guy Guy 18:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I added red tea too :) Scott Ritchie 20:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

poof

The example sentence "Poof, he was gone." is included twice on the page. Once in the as an interjection (the definition of which reads more like an etymology), and once as a verb. I'm not certain it is either of these. It is used to mean "to vanish or disappear" (and also "to appear suddenly", but this isn't listed) , but I don't know that it is used itself as a verb ("to poof"? "poofing"?). It is almost being used as a shorthand for "to appear/disappear with a poof" - i.e. suddenly.

What do others think? Thryduulf 10:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. DAVilla 12:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

recreate, recreation

Hi, can I get a pronunciation guru to properly split this family of articles (recreate, recreation, recreating, recreated, etc.) between the differently pronounced senses relating to 'creating again' and engaging in rest-and-recreational activities? Cheers! bd2412 T 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Stari Decisis

I did some cleanup on this.

This is listed as all upper case. Is that correct?

I listed language as English although the source is, of course, Latin. Should it also have a Latin section (although it is actually 2 Latin words but one English phrase). RJFJR 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct form is stare decisis; this should probably be repackaged as an alternative spelling. I don't think phrases of this nature should have a Latin section unless they are/were idiomatic in Latin; however, the individual Latin words should of course be linked in the "Etymology" section. -- Visviva 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it except as stare decisis - and that one I've seen quite a bit. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This gets 6 Google Book Search hits, whereas stare decisis gets 2,460 Google Book Search hits. This is clearly a comparatively rare misspelling due to the mispronunciation of stare as /ˈstɑːɹi/ (instead of /ˈstɑːɹe/). If this is to be kept, it should be as a misspelling only, with the useful contents already therein fused with the contents of stare decisis. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to to use the misspelling of template.

382 googles for thsi spelling, 491,000 googles for stare decisis. I don't think this counts as a common misspelling. I'd support deletion. RJFJR 15:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

banyan day

Interesting definition...except that it says from Banyans, a caste that eats nothing that lives. I can't find anything to link Banyans to. (Also, do they mean nothing that has animal life? RJFJR 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• My understanding, from the w:Patrick O'Brian novels, is that on a banyan day (Thursday?) only things like porridge, bread and cheese etc was eaten - not even fish. The banyan is a type of fig - could that be the origin of the phrase? SemperBlotto 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The OED spells it banian-day and refers it to the caste of Hindus you mention who abstain from flesh. It's the same word as for the fig-tree, which apparently grew in ports settled by such people. Widsith 07:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Camberwell beauty

Should the B be capialized? If so should it just be moved or what? RJFJR 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging from Google Scholar hits, the capital-B version would seem to be much more common. I find this depressing, since the idea that the name for an entire species of animal is a "proper noun" is rather absurd. But we are here to document, not to judge, more's the pity...

I think it is reasonable to keep Camberwell beauty as a variant capitalization, but the content of the entry should be at Camberwell Beauty. -- Visviva 15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

enthousiastic, enthousiastically

French Wiktionary has enthousiastic and enthousiastically, as well as the o-less spellings with which I am familiar. Googles decently. Is this a UK variant? bd2412 T 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They aren't variants that I've ever come across as a native BE speaker. Without looking at the google hits, my guess would be they are errors made by non-native speakers/authors who are familiar with UK/US spelling differences like colour/color. Thryduulf 16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen that in English. The French adjective is enthousiaste (and the adverb is supposedly enthousiastement, but it's quite rare); I therefore suspect that enthousiastic might be a Gallicism. Alternatively, it might be an etymological spelling; according to the OED, enthusiastic comes from the Greek word ἐνθουσιαστικ-όϛ (enthousiastik-os). —Ruakh_TALK 16:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a UK spelling. Maybe historical, but I've never come across it. Looks more like a mistake to me. Widsith 07:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

dissertation, thesis

In the UK, a thesis is submitted for a PhD, a dissertation for an undergraduate degree and it seems to vary for a Master's degree (I'm not 100% about Scotland), which differs from US where a dissertation is submitted for a PhD, a thesis for an undergraduate degree and I don't know which for a Master's degree. I think this information should be added to dissertation and thesis but I don't know whether it ought to be in the form of two definitions or a usage note. Also, I have no idea about Canada and others. Pistachio 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the U.S., working on the thesis for my Master's degree. —Ruakh_TALK 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is the same. In the US, a dissertation is prepared for a PhD, while a thesis is prepared for a Master's degree. Undergraduate degrees may involve a thesis, but most of the time they do not. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some U.S. undergraduate programs allow students to do a "thesis" (or at least they call it that, usually a "senior thesis"). bd2412 T 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth taking too much notice over how different universities describe these things. Although I agree that convention usually distinguishes between what's written at Master's and at doctorate level, to me the difference is more to do with what kind of thing is being written. To me dissertation implies more discursiveness, whereas thesis suggests more of a central proposition. That might just be more in connotation than in practice though. Widsith 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But it sounds as though there might be a UK/US difference. If so, then that is worth worrying about and including in the definitions. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

batchelor's fare

Odd spelling but google found a note for the 1811 Vulgar Dictionary, so it may be an old spelling. On the other hand, batchelor's fare gets 20 googles but bachelor's fare gets 1520 and seems to be the same word with different spelling. RJFJR 21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In the UK at least the two are homophones so the "batchelor's" form might easily be an older or misspelling, although I was unable to find and misspelling uses on Google web but "Batchelor" is a very common surname so misspellings will be naturally harder to find. Note also that Knight Batchelor is at least an alternative spelling for Knight Bachelor. Thryduulf 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

unheeded

I was looking for the word unheeded — This unsigned comment was added by 201.143.119.133 (talk) at 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

Well, I guess you found it. -- Visviva 14:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Third World

Is Third World a proper noun? Is Third-World a proper adjective? (third-world redirects to Third-World). They are listed with caps but the headings are noun and adjective. Are they common or proper? RJFJR 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I only recall seeing it as third world and third-world. --Connel MacKenzie 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And no, there is no such thing as a "Proper adjective." --Connel MacKenzie 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've always seen the noun capitalized. A Google search on Wikisource turns up almost exclusively capitalized forms. The one that isn't is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and is not referring to the same concept. As the Third World is a specific entity (if a bit fuzzily defined), I'd call it a Proper noun, just like Old World and New World. Connel is probably right about the correct adjective form, but that doesn't mean that people are actually using the correct form. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

proper adjective & W:Proper adjective RJFJR 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Connel on this: the term "proper adjective" does exist, but is due to a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "proper noun"; there's no call for Wiktionary to start using it. (As for the capitalization, I'd capitalize "the Third World", but I'd describe a country as a "third-world country". I think capitalizing "Third-World country" is somewhat dated; a quick Google News search suggests that some writers do capitalize it, but most do not.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. A proper noun is a noun that names a particular and specific entity. Logically then, proper adjectives should describe a unique and specific thing, but they do not. Some adjectives are capitalized simply because they derive from proper nouns, but they're still just adjectives. An unusual etymology does not create a new part of speech. And I note that the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language makes no mention of "proper adjectives" at all. --EncycloPetey 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

vituperate

I see from some dictionaries that this word is in some way related to vitriol. Is it possible that salts of sulphuric agid, either sulphates or sulphites were called vituperates?--Paulwoods54 07:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Related to vitriol? Don't think so. Vitriol goes back to Latin vitrum ‘glass’, whereas vituperate is from Latin vitium ‘flaw, fault’ and parare ‘prepare’. Widsith 08:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vituperate from Latin, vituperare, to blame, speak abusively, to use bitter language.

Source: Webster´s unabridged, 2nd edition 1978 pg 2045

— This unsigned comment was added by 201.52.144.213 (talk) at 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

get/have a cob on

There are two related UK slang phrases that we don't have an entry for but should do, "have a cob on" and "get a cob on". b.g.c cites: [1] [2], [3], [4]

I'd add them but I'm not certain what part of speech header to put it under (noun? verb? adjective?), and I'm not certain where the entry or entries should be - cob, cob on, a cob on, get a cob on/have a cob on?? Thryduulf 16:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than listing them redundantly as adjective, noun and verb, you should probably just use ===Phrase===. --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Thryduulf, please do add the entry as a page. It'll enrich mah vocab, 'cuz ah dunno wotcher* talkin' 'bout but I and I lurve deckin' dis pad ova** wid colloquialisms. * = 'what you are'; ** = 'over' from decades of urban graffiti. Thecurran 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the bird, flip the bird

We currently have an out of place entry on bird for "the bird" (extending the middle finger) and a separate entry for flip the bird. Should these be kept as is, merged onto the bird, merged onto bird or something else? Thryduulf 10:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept as is. There are uses of "the bird" that do not involve the entire phrase, but the entire phrase (in various forms) has a greater meaning. We tend not to include the word "the" as part of an entry name, even in cases where "the" normally precedes the word, as in "the Alps". --EncycloPetey 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It may not be etymolygy, but why is the gesture called 'flipping the bird' ? Does it come from falconry ? Or is it rude ? Googling 'flipping the bean' doesn't find any parallels !--195.137.93.171 12:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

bear

(Etymology 1) Is the "vulgar, exchange alley" definition really different to the two finance definitions, it reads more like an explanation for the origin of the terms - and is not brilliantly worded at that. Thryduulf 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's too verbose but it seems one describes a market, another describes an investor with certain motives, and the last one describes an investor with unclear motives. Thecurran 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst meanings 3 and 4 are clearly distinct, surely meaning 6 is just a repetition of meaning 4 with explanation. I agree with Thryduulf that we should delete 6, but add to 4. Dbfirs 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just read it again, and realised that they are different, but they both refer to the same type of trader, except that one fears falling prices whilst the other greedily gains from them (e.g. Northern Rock shares!!!) Which meaning is more common amongst traders? Should they be combined? Dbfirs 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think after the verbosity was removed, you would end up with 6 being 4, but with more venom. I'd give it an rfd-redundant tag, personally. DCDuring 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've merged them, minus verbosity such as the fable of the huntsman who sold the bear’s skin before the bear was killed. Is that part of the etymology? DAVilla 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jealous

How to tell someone that he is jealous without actually using the word "jealous" ? — This unsigned comment was added by 202.177.226.184 (talk) at 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Say that he is "green-eyed", which is a reference to Shakespeare. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

currying - noun?

currying noun sense says a technique. A technique is a noun, but this sounds like something you'd do which is a verb... Noun? RJFJR 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"To curry [a function]" is indeed a verb. Also, I'm pretty sure the etymology is wrong; I always understood "to curry [a function]" as a verbification of the noun "curry function" (which in turn is named after Haskell Curry). —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it a noun the way 'wedding' is? Thecurran 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. google:"a currying" and google:"curryings" don't seem to think so, either. —Ruakh_TALK 17:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

make demands on

I'm not sure what to do with this expression. For the moment I have mentioned it in both demand and demands and put an entry into the make appendix I wonder if it qualifies for an entry by itself as an idiom? Opinions? Algrif 15:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you've done well. I don't think it's idiomatic. Thecurran 15:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ludo – wrongly capitalized?

(Discussion moved here from Talk:Ludo)

I believe that the title is wrongly capitalized – I believe that it should be ludo also for the English word, just as chess isn't capitalized either.

The word refers to a general board game, not owned or copyrighted (or patented, today at least) by a particular company. Shell-man 12:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Names of specific games are sometimes capitalized, even if it is not a registered name. For instance, my copy of Hoyle consistently capitalizes the words "Poker", "Bridge", and "Whist". As these words are names of specific games, they may be considered proper nouns, even though the majority of people today tend not to capitalize them. --EncycloPetey 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

branches of government

I created this, but I’m uncertain — is it idiomatic? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it's not talking about limbs of trees owned by the government, I'd say so. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be under branches? Given that we also have branches of banks, shops, etc.Algrif 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite an accurate analogy. Branches of banks and shops are largely independent of each other and identical in function and appearance to each other. The branches of government are separate in function, composition, and purpose. I do agree, though, that this ought to be regarded an idiomatic sense of branch, though I'm not 100% convinced of that. --EncycloPetey 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, “sum of parts” is not a valid reason for exclusion of a phrase. Therefore, this one is OK because (and I defy anyone to prove otherwise) “branch of government” cannot mean an item of arboreal state property. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. But my thinking is that the word branch has the meaning sub-division and is applied in many other situations. Family / evolutionary / etc trees spring to mind. How about a trade-off? in hospital and branches of government? :-) Algrif 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree on the branch thing. I can 'branch off' into another, follow a different 'branch' of a river, science, medicince, pædiatrics, etc. and my organisation can branch into another field, hinterland, or demographic. I think 'branch of government' gels very well with these meanings without requiring an idiom. I wouldn't disagree with an update to the definition of 'branch' if you found it lacking. BTW, 'hospital' is special in English. I can follow 'at' with 'home' or 'work'. I can follow 'in' with 'bed' or 'hospital'. I can follow either with 'church', 'college', 'day-care', 'kindergarten', 'school', 'temple', or 'university'. I can do all of this confidently without using an article or possessive pronoun in between. These terms have a status different from other common nouns in English that is very difficult for many ESOL folk to grasp. NB: 'home' even counts as an adverb. Thecurran

I don’t see how any of that is relevant. The point is that branch of government cannot be used with any of the meanings which branch has, and the specific sense of branch here seems restricted to too few idioms to justify its being added as a new sense to the entry for branch. Or have you somewhere address that point hereinbefore? (–I can’t tell!) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What I should've said is that I think the current fifth meaning of the noun "An area in business or of knowledge, research" applies here as allocative, executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are quite similar to areas of research. I do think though that that fifth meaning should be extended to include 'area of practice' as in the cases of medicine, law, or technology &c as in the examples above and, if it feels more complete, to include 'area/ field of government'. In Civil Law places like France the judical sub-branches of prosecution and investigation are usually intertwined into one. I believe there are many other examples of such intertwining, making 'branch' just like 'field'. Opinions? Thecurran 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What would clinch it for me is if this separate sense of branch (which I believe to be sufficiently distinct from the fifth sense you mention — even with your alterations — to warrant its own definition) were in use in other idiomatic phrases. If you can show that, I may begin to agree with you here. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

no singular?

What's that term for a noun that isn't used in the singular? RJFJR 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Plurale tantum. We also have {{pluralonly}}. —Ruakh_TALK 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday

The current entry is a list from the 'pedia disambiguation page.

The term itself refers to the 1905 St. Petersburg event. Neither of the two predecessors are the "Bloody Sunday" referred to in literary references, and all subsequent events use the name as a direct comparison to St. Petersburg's.

I don't see how this could be more than two dictionary definitions.

--Connel MacKenzie 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In current British usage, "Bloody Sunday" refers to the 1972 event in Northern Ireland (w:Bloody Sunday (1972)), all other uses are either clarified or part of an already well-defined other context. I would be surprised if this was not also the case in Ireland. I don't know that this was named for the St Petersberg event, it seems equally likely to an original descriptor or an naming for the earlier event. I think perhaps what we need is something along the lines of

1. A 1905 event in St Petersburg in which unarmed citizens were killed by state forces.
2. One of many similar events, see w:Bloody Sunday for a complete list.
3. Template:italbrac A 1972 event in Northern Ireland in which 7 civil rights protesters were shot and killed by a British Army regiment.

Thryduulf 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be a nice improvement from the current entry. The first definition might say "...in which as many as 4,000 unarmed..." for clarity. --Connel MacKenzie 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have never heard the term used in Ireland to mean the first three listed Irish examples, only ever used to mean the 1972 civil rights deaths. But that is like the term "The Troubles" which originally meant the 1916 - 1922 events, but later was used for 1969 onward to the ceasefires.--Dmol 19:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've replaced the entry with my proposed version above (incorporating Connel's suggestion). Thryduulf 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

sushi

Somebody has trouble with the fact that words don't always retain their shades of meaning when borrowed into a new language. Anybody who's ever gone with a Japanese friend to a western sushi bar has heard the cry of "this is not sushi". The def in the English entry is no hypercorrect to conform to the Japanese cultural view. Sadly the English word carries none of this detail and means something much closer to "raw fish on rice wrapped in seaweed". Putting a Japanese definition in the English entry doesn't change this reality. — Hippietrail 09:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; and the entry should also note that this is frequently used in English as a synonym for sashimi. -- Visviva 04:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this was mentioned on WT:TR when I edited the four entries sushi, sashimi, nigiri and sushi roll. (This was after the similar IRC conversation.) I trust these are acceptable now? --Connel MacKenzie 17:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of note: the ==Japanese== definition now incorrectly refers to the English term; it probably should not. --Connel MacKenzie 17:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Edited. I hope now it is OK... The link to the English part was left as, after all, they are referring almost same things. --Tohru 00:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"sushi" certainly has a second meaning, or at least it does in Seattle. Here, "sushi" always has rice and is specifically different from "sashimi". I'd like to add a second definition to that effect, but I'm not sure whether the distinction is regional (Seattle or maybe west coast) or just a factor of how large any city's Asian population. Rod (A. Smith) 00:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that calling it "West coast" would be over-generalizing. I don't recall that fine-grained (sorry for the pun) pedantry extending to restaurants in So. Cal. Can the Japanese definition be expanded a little, to make it clearer that it doesn't include sashimi? --Connel MacKenzie 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper Noun

Nobel Prize is a proper noun, name of the award, right? RJFJR 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobel is a proper noun

the Nobel Foundation is a proper noun

but a Nobel Prize is a noun. SemperBlotto 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall ever heading of winning a Nobel Prize, but winning the Nobel Prize (or "the Nobel Prize for ...") Since they are almost always referred to only individually, the references themselves end up being proper nouns: "The 1979 Nobel Peace Prize." Is a usage note the way to go for that, or should we list each type of Nobel Prize awarded annually, or both? --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "a Nobel Prize" certainly exists (granted, some of those are using it attributively with a singular head noun, like "a Nobel Prize winner", but it looks like those are a small minority). I think "Nobel Prize" is both a proper noun construed with the, and a common noun; likewise for the usual names of the various specific prizes ("Nobel Prize in/for economics", etc.). —Ruakh_TALK 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

<pet peeve>There Is No Nobel Prize In Economics, there is (formally) only the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" or simply "Nobel Memorial Price"</pet peeve> (Ahhh, is there some drama about that name... :) \Mike 18:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, there is no Nobel Prize for Biology; there is only an International Prize for Biology that has been awarded since 1985. Nor is there a Noble Prize for Mathematics; Nobel did not consider math to be of practical value. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said "the usual names", not "the correct names". :-) —Ruakh_TALK 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that some people have won multiple Nobel Prizes - and I don't believe that proper nouns can have plurals. SemperBlotto 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? There are many people named John Smith, ergo, many John Smiths. And I am aware of at least three Miamis. :) bd2412 T 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I guess I need to finish that draft for Appendix:English proper nouns. Proper nouns typically don't have plurals, but many can be used grammatically as common nouns, and then acquire a plural form. The division between common and proper nouns is fuzzier than textbooks would have us believe. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, this shows both "Nobel Prizes" and "Nobel prizes" in use. --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think when people use 'the Nobel prize' they mean 'the Nobel prize for physics', 'the Nobel peace prize', etc. but shorten it purely for brevity. If I read this year that a political figure just won the Nobel prize, I can assume they meant 'the Nobel peace prize for 2007'. As the context is often implied strongly enough in what I've read to support this view, 'Nobel prize' may yet be a common noun or still straddling the border. Maybe 'Nobel' has become a proper adjective like 'Hamburg' in the 'Hamburger sandwich', which is now usually known as a 'hamburger'. Thecurran 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tijuana noir

Tijuana Noir has come into common use to mean a border city, rainy, full of sin, corrupt, violent and a crime infected hell. — This comment was unsigned.

Thank you. We put brand new items like that on WT:LOP until they are widespread. For right now, it is just the title of a book. --Connel MacKenzie 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal note: My experiences in Tijuana would support such a definition, but by no means does that convey that such a term is in common use in the English language. This depiction does not stand on it's own as a linguistic component. --Connel MacKenzie 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

-ist

Is sense 4, "A person who holds biased views." (e.g. "sexist, racist") different from sense 1, "One who follows a principle or system of belief." (e.g. "Marxist, deist ¶Note, these are related to -ism, e.g. Marxism, deism")? Thryduulf 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so, yes. I think sense 4 came from sense 1 (I'm guessing sexist, ageist, etc. are by analogy with racist), and senses 1 and 4 share their parallelism with -ism words, but I think they're now fairly distinct. —Ruakh_TALK 03:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian "sono"

I would like someone who has a good command of Italian (or knows where to find information :-) to clear up for me the meaning of the word "sono". It may well be with diacritics actually, but not in the variant that I have come across.--Eate 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian does not use diacritics except in dictionaries. I suggest looking at sono. --EncycloPetey 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the Italian Wiktionary does not have a separate article on "sono", but the English one does. I shall from now on turn first to the English version, no matter what language the key word may be in.))) Great, the sono link makes sense. "con il cuore canto e quindi sono", that makes "With heart I sing and therefore I am".--Eate 10:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

continental United States

Noun? Proper noun? Phrase? bd2412 T 11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper noun might work. But I don't recall ever hearing this to refer also to Alaska (even though a technical combination of the words might refer to those 49 states, instead of the colloquial 48 conterminous ones.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going by Wikipedia for that (it indicates both usages). bd2412 T 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The US military (and others) use CONUS and OCONUS meaning contiguous US, and outside contiguous US; a few times I've seen these mis-defined as "continental". Including—ahem—a certain nearby entry ... Robert Ullmann 06:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tijuana Noir

Tijuana Noir has come into common use to mean a border city, rainy, full of sin, corrupt, violent and crime infected hell. — This unsigned comment was added by Teoarango (talk • contribs) at 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Define "common use"; I've never heard it. google books:"tijuana noir" pulls up only one hit, the name of a self-published book by Flores Campbell (you?), google groups:"tijana noir" pulls up no hits, and google:"tijana noir" only seems to pull up hits referring to the book. It almost certainly doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. —Ruakh_TALK 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note #Tijuana noir above. --Connel MacKenzie 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I need another word for subhuman i could no find enything

(Moved from Wiktionary talk:Tea room by Rod (A. Smith))

I wold apreciate eny help in finding another word for subhuman —This unsigned comment was added by 67.185.175.163 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-22T12:03:32.

Do you mean in a scientific context, or as a figurative insult? --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Untermensch (if you don’t mind the Nazi connotations)? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think troglodyte is a fine choice. --EncycloPetey 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen neanderthal used this way, too. --Joe Webster 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest australopithecine, ape, Cro-Magnon, criminal, freak, Morlock, mutant, prisoner, slave, or victim, &c depending on the context; I hope this is not being used to hurt anybody. Thecurran 16:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Canada goose

Hi,

I've always heard this as Canadian goose. But much to my surprise, a Google search shows this is just as common. Is this variation restricted by region?

--Connel MacKenzie 16:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In the UK I've almost always heard this as "Canada goose"/"Canada geese". with "Canadian goose" being regarded as an error. Thryduulf 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely; I believe "Canada goose" is unheard of, here in the US. --Connel MacKenzie 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, unheard of in your own neighborhood, maybe. In JackLumber English, it's Canada goose. (Never heard "Canadian goose" before.) Compare: .gov [5] [6], .edu [7] [8]. See also [9]. But: Canadian bacon, never Canada bacon ;-P JackLumber 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is proscribed, explains the odd numbers on .gov sites (and others) you linked. But 980 vs. 619 means is it very frequent, colloquially. So frequent, in fact, that I've never heard the prescribed form before. --Connel MacKenzie 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll back up Connel MacKenzie from what I've heard anywhere from Pennsylvania to Florida, as well as in Hawai'i (in comparison to the Nene Goose) and Western Australia from the ornithologically minded. Thecurran 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

sile

Verb sense missing? --Connel MacKenzie 19:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You left the tag, mate. What are you talking about? Thecurran 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a Northern English verb meaning to rain heavily. Eg, "it's fair silin' dahn today" 194.176.105.39 13:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Philip Melanchthan's Commonplace

I am reading Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writing. In the discourse on The bondage of the will he mentions the writings of Philip Melanchthan's Commonplace. Who is this man and were can I find a copy of Commonplaces. Luther thought his writing was worth reading.

— This unsigned comment was added by 68.5.132.180 (talk).

A dictionary is not the best place to go looking for this information. Try Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) or Wikisource (a collection of writings and documents). --EncycloPetey 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

special resolution

The resolution doesn't gain its status after the vote; it is called for specially, right? Or is this a subtle meaning specific to GB? --Connel MacKenzie 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not a meaning I'm familiar with, but don't take my opinion as definitive on this one. Thryduulf 23:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ordinary resolution

See above. --Connel MacKenzie 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

bedroomed

Should bedroomed be moved to -bedroomed, as the former is never written by itself? Same for bathroomed (eg. I live in a three-bathroomed house)

1. (When preceded by a number) Having the indicated number of bedrooms.

In the usage of Wiktionary and many other dictionaries, a title starting with "-" would suggest that this is a suffix used to form words, which it is not. -- Visviva 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it did form a word. What do you think about '-legged' in 'three-legged' or 'hairy-legged'? Maybe you're saying that '-bedroomed' is different from '-ing' in how they're appended, because the former use a hyphen but the lattermost/ last doesn't. Anyhow, the hyphen should hopefully be sufficient to tell a reader to look up both what precedes it and what follows it, which would mean a page for '--bedroomed' might be unnecessary and silly-looking. Thecurran 17:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

hunt and peck

How is hunt and peck inflected? Is "She hunted and pecked" or "she hunt and pecked" the preferred spelling? --Dictionarybuilder 12:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raw Ghits give about 15:1 in favor of "hunted and pecked" (and also "hunting and pecking"). Books results are similar but somewhat idiosyncratic, possibly due to the small sample size (only 4:1 for "hunting and pecking", but more than 20:1 for "hunted and pecked." So it seems clear that "hunt-and-peck" has not yet fossilized as a word. -- Visviva 13:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Neologisticality of embiggen

Considering that our first citation for embiggen is from 1884, is it really fair that its entry be slapped with that big, yellow, disapproving “neologism” box? As a second point, can it legitimately be tagged as a nonce, considering that it appears in an academic paper (I wouldn’t mind if the nonce tag stays, as IMO most uses of this word will be noncy). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, the current working definition of "neologism" on Wiktionary seems to be unrelated to time in use, or degree of public acceptance; per {{neologism}}, a neologism is simply a word that doesn't appear in other dictionaries. I can think of some reasons for this, but on the whole I agree that it doesn't make sense, and should be revisited. -- Visviva 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So can I. But neologism is not the right word for this. From an etymologial standpoint, we need another word, being as neo- means “new” — 123 years old is not “new” by any definition (for words anyway — geology, astronomy, and other disciplines notwithstanding). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I’ve started a discussion about this here. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This one is an archaism and a neologism. This happens in linguistics. Sorry. Thecurran 17:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK — now this entry looks totally ridiculous. What is a reader going to think, seeing neologism, archaic, and nonce tags, all for the same word‽ Either this needs to resolved, or a hefty explanatory usage note needs writing. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this entry is absolutely hilarious, in light of the colloquial meaning of 'nonce' and an episode of the Simpson's in which 'embiggen' is the star. You've made my day. Genius. Shona Isbister 16.53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a tag of 'archaic' when three of the four references date from the last twelve years just makes Wiktionary look foolish. As does having a neologism from so long ago (you can hardly expect users to look up the criteria to see just why an old word can be considered a neologism). Again, the fact that there are actually citations covering 11 years makes the tag suspect - the fact that it appears to be justified (according to Wiktionary rules) on the grounds that no other major dictionary has picked it up make it appear that Wiktionary lacks confidence in its own procedures. You don't see OED2 or MW tagging words on the basis of what other dictionaries think Moglex 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Should there be two senses, one tagged archaic and one tagged neologism? RJFJR 16:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there is only one sense being used here. I’ve removed both the neologism and the archaic tag. What little relevance the fact that this same word has been coined separately on two occasions has is now noted in the etymology section, and should not affect the entry proper as it has until so recently. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

perfidy

The def of perfidy is

1. The act of violating faith or allegiance; violation of a promise or vow, or of trust reposed; faithlessness; treachery.

Is the word reposed correct? (link is to repose.) RJFJR 15:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be. [10] -- Visviva 01:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess so, though it doesn't seem to be any of the senses at repose. Do we need an entry for trust reposed? RJFJR

Maybe it just means 'trust' that has been 'laid down' or otherwise 'ceased'. Thecurran 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

even though

Not sure of the POS - a conjunction, perhaps? bd2412 T 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, a conjunction. —Ruakh_TALK 14:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

page

Is verb sense 4 (To call or summon (someone).) used, other than as per sense 5 (To contact (someone) by means of a pager.)? Thryduulf 21:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That's where the word "pager" came from after all.... The original idea is "act as page(boy)", "send message to". Widsith 12:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'd never thought of the origin before! Is it still used, or is it now an obsolete/dated sense? Thryduulf 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. at least, it's still used in places with public address systems, such as airports. If you're not familiar with it, that probably means it's obsolete in the U.K. —Ruakh_TALK 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, to page someone would mean to send a message to their pager, although more likely these days anyone without a two-way radio system would have a mobile phone that could be called (the only users of pagers these days in the UK I can think of are on-call doctors, firemen, lifeboatmen, etc.) I don't think there is a single word in British English that means "put a message out for someone over a public address system" - I think I'd ask someone to "put out a call"/"put out a message" or "make an announcement" Thryduulf 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ruakh; this is very common in the US. I don't think Widsith was suggesting it is obsolete in the UK, though? --Connel MacKenzie 09:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not obsolete. Besides, it isn't a PA system, it's the tannoy ... ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've marked it as obsolete in the UK ({{context|transitive|US|obsolete|_|in UK}})- if it is in use in other places that normally use UK English this might need revision and/or clarification (I ummed and arred about the "US" label) . If of course I'm wrong and other Brits know of its current use on these shores, then feel free to revert me. Thryduulf 10:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Wiktionary:Wiktionarians has some geographic contributor information. I am sorry if I gave the impression this is solely a US term; I do not think it is. I'm actually surprised to hear that it may be falling out of use in the UK. Or, as you say, completely out of use. --19:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, en-gb uses 'ring' when en-us uses 'call'. I guess it's just a natural difference considering that some of these things grew up before constant trans-oceanic mass media or separate from international corporations. ~(c:) (a happy-faced balloon) Thecurran 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

namespace

Could someone please rewrite the definition of this word to be easier to understand for someone not au fait with other programming terms. I know of the word only in the wiki context, and I'm not certain whether how we use the term here is covered by that definition or not. Thryduulf 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ç' and ç'-

Does it make sense for these to be two separate entries? It seems to me that all of the senses for both of these should both be at either one or the other. bd2412 T 23:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They should be in one entry. (This is my bad; I made the French entry without checking to see how the Albanian clitic worked.) Personally, I think ç'- is preferable, as it makes clear that this attaches graphically to the following word. —Ruakh_TALK 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no aesthetic preference, but surely there must be a rule? bd2412 T 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - I poked around a bit, and no hyphen appears to be the norm (see d', l', m', n', o', t'). bd2412 T 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, hyphens are generally used for prefixes and suffixes. That in mind, I think that ç' has less opportunity to be misleading. Medellia 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we just redirect one form to the other? That way, if someone looks up the unused variation, they'll get to the definition anyway. bd2412 T 04:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate problem with entering the redirects from hyphenated to the normal unadorned versions. It does seem weird though. A hyphenated prefix is usually an optional hyphen, but sometimes included. The apostrophe functions like the hyphen for those prefixes, except that it is not optional for most of them. (The apostrophe after "O" is sometimes optional. O'Donnell vs. Odonnell, o'clock vs. oclock, O'Toole vs. OToole, etc.) In one case, the character separator is "-", in the other it is "'". Having both "'" and "-" is redundant, isn't it? --Connel MacKenzie 21:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I expected six blue-links above, not five red-links! I guess there is something to be said for the [Show preview] button. To clarify: I don't think there is anything wrong with being redundant in this way, it just seems weird to me. --Connel MacKenzie 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of the above, I've moved the content of ç'- to ç' and merged the edit histories of the pages for one comprehensively historied entry. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Connel MacKenzie, I know that in Scots, people want rid of the apologetic apostrophe but all your examples seem to me to necessitate those apostrophes unless someone was typing without use of an apostrophe input or didn't know better. Thecurran 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What does monotony mean

--24.196.94.74 19:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC) i thought it meant neevr ending but this dictonary (english) says its had somthing to do with mathmatics What do you think the definition is?

Monotony is, most simply, the state of being monotonous; that is, having one tone, without variation. Hence the figurative sense of tedium. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

chillax

I was actually going to RFV this, but google books:chillax does pull up exactly three independent English uses over a wide enough time range for this to pass CFI; but even so, some sort of sense label and/or usage note would seem to be in order. Is this restricted to a specific region? Does it have staying power? Is it possible to use this without sounding ridiculous and/or contrived? Etc. —Ruakh_TALK 05:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This might help you understand its geographical distribution. I've heard from people from ages 12-55 in Australia as well as in US media & I remember accidentally saying it years ago when I misqueued both chill out and relax at once. As those two terms increase in usage, the mixed term should continue to pop up. In the short term, I don't see a decline in either. In addition, groovy waned but never really died, long outlasting tactile groove-based records. This type of word merging around synyonyms with the same phonemic order (~ila, in this case) in the middle is a matter of fact in English and I've noticed many people creating these on the spot and others interpreting them correctly without even realizing the mistake. Real examples become portmanteaus like smog or nonce words like slithy. Some are so old, they became root words for Modern English. Tipsy seems to have been drunkenly collated from a slur of tired and sleepy and perhaps tips. Similar non-mainstream examples of verb forms include thunk, thoughten, caughten, boughten, & broughten. Thecurran 12:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

agri-food

Can anyone hazzard a guessThanks for the correction, SemperBlotto. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC) as to what this contemptible piece of business jargon means? (See Google Book Search for clues.) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To people in the health food and natural foods industry, agri-food has the added connotation of big business producing food that is not healthful. The idea is to create things that will sell for a profit but harms the client.--Memorymike 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My hazard is that the term is only ever used attributively to describe the sector of industry/commerce that makes food from agricultural products. SemperBlotto 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In the US, it is used to identify two groups: agriculture (industry) and food (industry) as a symbiotic collection of related industries. Since the term is limited to Wall Street/finance, it makes sense on one hand to distinguish the two (very different) industries, while sometimes referring to the two (related) as a single combination.

And people grouse at me for POV usage notes? Unbelievable. Guess its OK as long as it is heavily UK biased.

--Connel MacKenzie 21:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Usage note, which was just wrong. It had nothing to do with UK, by the way (right, cabal? [winks]). Widsith 09:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And left it categorized in Category:UK, with an incorrect Etymology? This would be better to delete and leave as a red-link until someone comfortable entering the financial definition decides to do so. Cabal? Well, it is an unacceptable UK-POV proscription of a GenAm finance term...a particularly ignorant and incorrect one at that. The notion that US compounds are formed from either Latin etymological roots, or UK patterns is absurd. You are correct that my tone was not helpful - but looking at the entry's history, you can understand my exasperation, right? --Connel MacKenzie 15:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that I should not have written that usage note; it was unjustifiably biased of me — as my tone hereinbefore suggests, this is not one of my favourite words, hence my critical stance thereof (however, that does not make what I did any less wrong). Other than that, the etymology is correct as far as I’m aware (perhaps it lacks the necessary detail of a reference to finance and industry, but it is nonetheless correct in essence). Since SemperBlotto and Connel MacKenzie seem to have some knowledge of what this term means, I’m sure they could write an adequate definition for it (and then take it to WT:RFC if they are unsure). As a final point, lots and lots of English neologisms are coined from the classical languages — not just UK English ones (surely you don’t need proof of that, do you Connel?). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. But this term very obviously does not come from those origins; it comes from abbreviated forms of other terms (agriculture industry and food industry.) Delete and leave as a red-link for a finance person to define. --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, its two parts, agri- and food, aren’t abbreviations of the ‘X’ industry phrases (although the industry connotation is, I believe, intended), but rather an abbreviation of agriculture and the word food, respectively. This means that the present etymology (Agri- + food) is entirely suitable, as agri- denotes agriculture. I concede that this term is not as stupid and contemptible as I first thought.

“Delete and leave as a red-link for a finance person to define” — do you believe that the present definition is incorrect? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct; I think the definition in place does not reflect how this term is used. Instead, it is tailored to match the two "one-off" citations given. --Connel MacKenzie 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that definition after reading through quite a number of b.g.c. hits for the term. I chose the two citations as the earliest limited-preview hit on b.g.c. and the most recent. (There was actually a many-way tie for most recent, so I chose the highest-ranked by b.g.c that wasn't using the term as part of the name of an institution.) Even if you think these are unrepresentative — and that's possible, as I'd never heard the term before, so had to work with what I saw on b.g.c. without relying on past impressions — I don't see that the definition can be so bad that the entire article needs to be deleted and redone. —Ruakh_TALK 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikisaurus entry

I just created wikisaurus:rapt. Could someone check it for me? (It's my first wikisaurus entry.) Is there something more I need to do? RJFJR 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't (normally) include empty sections (not even in Wikisaurus, AFAIK.) The Roget's link concerns me...where did that come from, an errant Transwiki? That Appendix needs to be checked into; if it isn't a public domain source, we cannot let it stay. --Connel MacKenzie 15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I copied the format from wikisaurus:insane which was described as an exemplar. I've commented out the headigns that aren't used (in case someone has something to add to one of them). RJFJR 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

bay

Are noun definitions 4 (# A brown colour/color of the coat of some horses.) and 8 (# (color) a reddish brown colour) really separate? Could they be combined as something like "(color) a reddish brown colour, especially the colour of the coat of some horses"? Thryduulf 09:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know. Did you check Wikipedia? They have a very active Colors Project over there. --EncycloPetey 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It can mean the horse itself, not the colour ... "somebody bet on the bay ... Doo-dah,doo-dah!", but that's not clear in the definition ! --195.137.93.171 12:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of stud

stud is a name for a type of poker game (i.e. seven card stud, five card stud, etc.). Currently, the article stud has two etymologies, and I don't know to which etymology this usage belongs. As a noob can anyone direct me to a resource that might be of assistance? --Kzollman 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It belongs under the second etymology, from a stud as used to fix something in place. In "stud" poker, you don;t get to throw away cards becuase they are stud (fixed in place). --EncycloPetey 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kudos for the very quick reply! --Kzollman 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

locum

Is the plural of locum (British word of Latin origin) locums? RJFJR 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The OED doesn't give a plural, so I assume it is regular. SemperBlotto 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Locum is an informal British abbreviation of locum tenens. The plural of the latter is locum tenentes, so the plural of the former is presumably locums (not loca or whatever else). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chambers Dictionary (1998) explicitly gives the plural as "locums". Thryduulf 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That fact is now noted as a reference in the entry. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag: Male or Female

English nouns have the genre? Is "Flag" male or female?

English nouns do NOT have grammatical gender. SemperBlotto 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While some English words represent only male or female objects, English adjectives and articles do not change to match the noun they are associated with. Only pronouns are affected by "inherent gender" in English. --EncycloPetey 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be helpful to note that a few inanimate nouns are often personified with a set gender. Ships, once christened, are figuratively referred to with feminine pronouns, as is one's native country. I know of no such tradition with flags. Rod (A. Smith) 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The US flag is occasionally given a feminine pronoun. The song "You're a Grand Old Flag" is often written or sung as "She's a Grand Old Flag", as a Google search will testify. But you're correct, there is no general tradition of doing this. --EncycloPetey 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The ship thing is kind of old-fashioned. (That's not to say no one ever uses English's female pronouns for ships, but it's much less common than formerly.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

can't help

I would propose putting help verb definition 4 as a separate entry can't help Opinions please? Algrif 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because the sense is not fixed to the verb can or the form can't. It can appear either positive or negative, and can appear with other auxiliary verbs like won't and shan't. (albeit rarely) --EncycloPetey 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a specific sense with can't help. I can't help liking him. or simply I'm sorry, but I can't help it. are not well catered for in the entry help. I understand what you are saying, which is why I placed this question here, although I would tend to disagree with the idea that won't and other negatives give the same meaning, and the same goes for the affirmative can. (BTW, I have similar queries about can't stand and can't abide, but I will leave those for the moment and concentrate on can't help which I think is more clear cut.)Algrif 11:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"I can't help how I feel." ¶ "Well, I can help how I feel; try harder. Own your emotions."

"A person can't help how they feel." ¶ "Of course they can; that they don't is another matter."

He'd gotten into a fight. Really, this time it wasn't his fault, he hadn't been able to help it — how could he watch a bully pick on a younger kid and not get involved? — but he knew his parents wouldn't believe him.

This minute of flash fiction was brought to you by Ruakh at 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for that. What catches my attention most is the fact that, any example of can help, or (not) be able to help, meaning avoid, is found within a sentence or phrase that has already used the construction can't help meaning can't avoid. The opposite of can't help is NEVER (as far as I can see) implied by can help unless can't help has already been used. Algrif 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction. Interrogative Can I help it if he is just plain stupid? But then we have yet another definition where it means be at fault. Algrif 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But should you create it as a separate entry, I shan't help but be confused. --EncycloPetey 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but think you made up the shan't help example. Any support for that usage? I certainly have never seen / heard it before. What is the real problem here? The fact that the meaning of help is totally dependant on a negative modal! would like doesn't seem to arouse any comment whatsoever. So it must be the negative that is making this one so difficult. Because I'm sure that no-one is really suggesting that can't help is not in common use, and that the meaning is fully dependant on the can't. What we should be doing is finding the correct way to deal with it. An entry under help loses it completely. Try finding this expression in other dictionaries!! Algrif 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In a, so far, vain effort to see if I could find even a single example of shan't help meaning can't avoid, or prevent, I came across the following gem in Google books:- He said it was very much like saying to the President, "We can't help your having counsel, but we'll fix it so that they shan't help you much." Here, can't help means can't avoid, or prevent, while shan't help means will not aid. -- Algrif 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered that we already have can't wait. So if you have no further objections, I will just be bold and make the entry. Thanks for your input, though. -- Algrif 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Collective noun for collectors and displayers of flags

Does the Collective noun for collectors and displayers of flags exist?

That's a vexillophile. A vexillographer designs them, vexillology is the study of flags. SemperBlotto 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Or I was about to suggest vexillologist. Widsith 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

These aren't strictly collective nouns... I would suggest "a flap of vexillophiles."  ;-) -- Visviva 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "field", personally. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A "vexation of vexillologists" is proably the most syllabically alliterative option is there a word that means "syllabic alliteration" or "syllabically alliterative"?. Thryduulf 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A "vacillation of vexillologists" ? But I hesitate to suggest this. ;-) Algrif 11:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! What about a vexillation? Widsith 10:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That I like! Thryduulf 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about adding 'IMNECTHO'

I recently came across IMNECTHO and wondered what it meant. I did a few internet searches, found it a few times, but no definition. After a few moments thought, I realised it meant 'In My Not-Even-Close-To-Humble Opinion'. There are Initialisms(?) IMO, IMHO, IMNSHO, so I suggest adding 'IMNECTHO' = 'In My Not-Even-Close-To-Humble Opinion'. I might have done it myself, but couldn't find the 'Initialism' template (like noun, verb, etc) Brewmanz 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't encourage "leet" forms, so this should probably go on WT:LOP#I. A "preload" button was never created for the "[Go]" page, as there is relatively low demand for it. Using the heading ==={{abbreviation}}=== works for that type of entry. But again, it probably does not meet our criteria, so it should instead go on our list of new and made-up terms. --Connel MacKenzie 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

globology

Colleagues were discussing 'globology' today - all are very unsure as to what it acutually is, definition etc. Has anybody heard of it, used it, or can shed some light on the word>

The 10th Google web hit gives: "globology, which simply means the science of the global or world-system.". It looks like there are sufficient books hits to verify its existence (coined in about 1972 it seems), so I'll add it when I have time. Thryduulf 08:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Cabinet Why caps?

Why is Shadow Cabinet capitalized? RJFJR 16:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's how it's spelled, then we should use caps. The best way to tell is to check articles from the British press and see what they do. If the press capitalizes it, then that's where the entry should go. --EncycloPetey 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My webster dictionary doesn't have it, my American encyclopedia doesn't have it, my UPI stylebook doesn't have. So I tried googling the BBC site [11] (per your suggestion) and got 343 hits but I see no consistant pattern to the capitalization. RJFJR 02:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the general pattern (albeit some exceptions) is that a country can have only one Shadow Cabinet — a single entity that spans conceivably for centuries — but that it can have many shadow cabinets — groups of people who constitute the Shadow Cabinet at a given point in time. Hence, references to "the Shadow Cabinet" are generally capitalized, while references to "his shadow cabinet" are generally not. —Ruakh_TALK 02:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In AU, three major parties exist alongside minor ones: the Nationals, the Liberals, and Labor. Because the first two form a coalition, it is like a two-party system. In any two-party system, there are likely to be one shadow cabinet and one cabinet. Only in the few transitional periods where three major parties function without coalition (or similar) will one find two or more shadow cabinets. Considering this rarity, and given that context is usually clear, the common noun usually can only describe one such object. For example, national references to 'the Shadow Cabinet' in AU last year referred to the federal shadow cabinet of Australian Labor. Similarly, 'the Queen' refers to the British monarch in Anglophonia, but not in Spain. Common nouns that happen to usually have only one object to refer to may thus become proper nouns and I think vice versa when a high king is needed. Thecurran 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thiefdom

Looking for a definition of "Thiefdom" — This unsigned comment was added by 149.135.97.191 (talk) at 02:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

Well, look it up. Widsith 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same. But I think he means with the capital T. -- Algrif 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a portmanteau denoting a fiefdom ruled by a thief in the sense that a fiefdom is not democratic, similar to a Kleptocracy. I recall people using "Hail to the Thief" instead of "Hail to the Chief" during the last US presidential term in reference to a notion that G. W. Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore. I'd be very wary of using this term in a public forum like this because its political loading may stir trouble. Thecurran 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

connotation of words

I am having trouble finding to connotative differences among these three words: disinformation, misspeaking, and falsifying. Could someone help me find this? I don't even know where to start looking. — This unsigned comment was added by Cindi1575 (talk • contribs) at 02:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

The best way to work out connotations is to look at the words in use and see if they're used in different contexts, so the first thing I would do is some searches on Google Books. But to me, disinformation implies some kind of official propoganda campaign, misspeaking gives a more general (and somewhat old-fashioned) sense of incorrectness, and falsifying suggests that something which already exists is being altered. Widsith 08:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Even better is to do your homework yourself, rather than asking other people to just tell you the answer. You'll learn more by the process of discovery. --EncycloPetey 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Need Help with pronunciation

I will be making a business presentation on Wednesday, August 8th and need the correct pronunciation for the following cities:

Suzhou, China -> wp ->
Guangdong, China -> wp -> listen
Toyokawa, Japan -> wp ->
Komagane, Japan -> wp ->

I would appreciate any assistance that can be offered.

Respectfully: Tom Leigl

In which languages? English, Chinese, or Japanese? --EncycloPetey 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the date has passed but if they appear again, remember that the way English speakers accent foreign words is often not totally accurate, so don't stress too much. Try using Sue-zyoe (the second part starts with the strange sound "s" makes in "pleasure" and rhymes with toe); Gwong-dong (the first part rhymes with "gong" and the second part sounds more like "don't" with a "g" instead of a "t"); Toe-yo-caw-wha (that last part is like "what" without the "t"); Koe-mah-gah-neigh (the first one rhymes with toe and the middle two rhyme with "Ha!"). The w:IPA would've been better for me to use to transcribe the words but I assumed the reader didn't know it & spoke US English. Thecurran 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to Himalayas

Should the following all redirect to Himalayas?

• Himalaya
• himalayan
• Himalayan
• himalaya

Thryduulf 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Each of those terms should have its own entry with a link to “Himalayas”, e.g. in ===Etymology=== or in ====Related terms====. Rod (A. Smith) 20:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ought or ought to

I am in the process of tidying up the English modal and semi modal verbs. Also writing a concise (I hope!) appendix about their useage. I would like opinions about the entry ought which I believe should direct to ought to in some way, as ought to is the grammatical usage as a modal auxiliary verb. Thanks in advance for your input. -- Algrif 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think ought to should redirect to ought, which is not always used with to. Sometimes it is used with the bare infinitive. It also has more archaic senses which are not used with the infinitive at all. Widsith 17:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ought is also used with an implied to, e.g. "Are you going shopping?", "I suppose I ought", "Yes, you ought, but are you?". Thryduulf 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a U.K. thing? I'm pretty sure that in the U.S., people say "I suppose I ought to" (or "I suppose I oughta") and so on. —Ruakh_TALK 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm as English as they come, and I cannot remember ever hearing "ought" without a following "to". SemperBlotto 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's that lesser dialect "Hollywood British"?  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC) That is, I agree with Ruakh; I was under the vague impression "ought" without "to" was chiefly British English. --Connel MacKenzie 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the example I gave above is how use "ought" not infrequently, although I do also use "ought to" as well. A b.g.c. search for ought - "ought to" gets over 130,000 hits. Most of these are where negation or other words (or entire clauses) are inserted between the "ought" and the "to", but there are uses like mine above.

• 1813, Jane Austin, Pride and Prejudice, T. Egerton, Page 19

“Then you would drink a great deal more than you ought,” said Mrs. Bennet; and if I were to see you at it I should take away your bottle directly.”

• 1858, Rev. William Gannaway Brownlow, Rev. Abram Pryne, Ought American Slavery to be Perpetuated?: A Debate Between Rev. W. G. Brownlow and Rev. A. Pryne, Lippincott, Page 12

...that you accept my challenger, and that the question shall be stated — “Ought American Slavery to be perpetuated” or “Ought American Slavery to be abolished,”...

• 1891 (published 2001), Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles, Courier Dover Publications, Page 140

“Then I 'ought not to hold you in this way — ought I? I have no right to you - no right to seek out where you are or to walk with you! Honestly, Tess, do you love any other man?”

• 1992, James Fenimore, The Last of the Mohicans, Wordsworth Editions, Page 48

Alice smiled; but regarding Heyward, she blushed and hesitated. ‘Indulge yourself,’ he whispered' ‘ought not the suggestion of the worthy namesake of the psalmist to have its weight at such a moment?’

However the use of ought without a to, however much is between them, appears to be archaic (not found in a book post 1900). I use it, and as these groups messages use it - What should or ought we be doing with this life?, Mrs E. says I ought, [12] Public Transport User Council ought be set up.], Bush Gains Upper Hand on UN, Ought Score Against Terrorists, Too - not resricted to the UK either, then it seems to have survived in informal writing. Thryduulf 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your investigation. :-)   Just FYI, the bold date should be the actual date of the quote, not necessarily the date your copy was published; hence, your last cite should ought to be marked, "1826, James Fenimore Cooper, The Last of the Mohicans, Wordsworth Editions (1992), page 48". (Incidentally, I don't think Americans use ought negatively nowadays — oughtn't sounds old-fashioned and/or Southern to my ear, and I can't think of an alternative phrasing that uses ought; I think people have to use shouldn't or an entirely different construction, like had better not if it's deontic ought.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I was unable to find any modern (post 1940) uses of "ought not" or "oughtn't" in Google books, which really surprised me. Google groups did bring up several thousand hits for both (far more for the former) but getting a true picture of the number is difficult as it was finding much quoting and cross-posting. From the impression I did get, "ought not" appears most in discussions of religion and philosophy, with political topics third. "Oughtn't" seems to be a primarily, but not exclusively, UK construction these days, the top subjects being the odd combination of legal philosophies and celebrity gossip - possibly the result of one or two prolific contributors, although I have not checked for this. Where I was able to identify a region in the USA, which I wasn't able to most of the time, use of "ought not"/"oughtn't" seems most common in Arizona and northern California.

All that said, Google scholar results show no pattern of either construction falling out of use with hits throughout the spectrum of dates. Neither is there an obvious correlation with region. There is a heavy bias towards philosophy and language discussion, particularly for "oughtn't", but other topics are covered. Google News archives results are probably even more interesting, in that they are exclusively American for both "ought not" and "oughtn't" (although this is likely an artefact of the sample) with "oughtn't" appearing most commonly pre 1950 but with hits as recently as 1997 and 2002; "ought not" returned nothing post 1920.

It think we can safely say they are uncommon in modern usage, possibly even rare outside academia. Both were very common up to the early-mid 20th Century though. Thryduulf 08:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying it's less common, but it's certainly not archaic and is still often found in print if not in speech. The OED has plenty of cites right up to the present day: There ought not be any doubt about it from 1992, Ought I feel ashamed of my ignorance? from the Oxford Times 1999 (both examples showing bare infinitives), and If Hirohito had been studying his in-box, as ‘a divine priest-king’ ought, he might have suspected that the US had been trying to get a rise out of him for many years from the New York Review of Books in 2001 (with infinitive implied), among others. What we require is some kind of Usage Note at ought and plenty of examples of the different kinds of use. Widsith 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I am surprised at seeing so many examples of ought without to. I think we should ought to have both entries, but the examples for ought should be real bare infinitive examples, as above. There should also be a see link to ought to with real full infinitive examples. Plus good usage notes in both entries. I will be happy to oblige, if you all agree? -- Algrif 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that "ought" can be used with or without "to" with the same meaning, I don't see why we need a separate entry for "ought to" - especially as the to parts be be split by entire clauses, e.g.

"You ought, given your noted propensity for constructing long subordinate clauses full of multisyllabic words that can confuse readers, and the designated style guidelines for the competition specifying ease of comprehension by non-native speakers as one of the key criteria, to employ the services of an editor, who ought, I'd have thought, to increase your chances of success, before submitting your entry."

"Indeed, I ought not let my chance of winning the grand prize slip by for want of an editor."

Surely what is needed is a usage note at ought explaining that it is commonly found in conjunction with "to". Thryduulf 14:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that ought to is considered to be a modal verb, and ought is statistically much less common, and that most (hesitate to say all, as I have not investigated) grammar books will give ought to but not ought as the modal verb (even though it is one by the looks of it), I think that ought to should have a separate entry. Don't forget that one of the basic rules of a modal verb is that it takes the bare infinitive, and cannot be followed by another modal. If ought to is commonly agreed to be a modal verb, then the to is essential, as it does not "belong" to the following verb. This resource is mainly about modern or common usage, with entries to reflect archaic and obsolete usages. Most interested people looking for modal verb information will be looking for ought to in the list, not ought. -- Algrif 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I think we ought have both entries. Huh? Algrif 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain I'm understanding everything here, but as

• "ought <verb>" ("You ought wash the car"*, "Yes I ought" / "No, I ought not")
• "ought ... <verb>" ("You ought really wash the car", "Yes I ought do it"* / "No, I ought not do it")
• "ought to <verb>" ("You ought to wash the car", "Yes, I ought to do it" / "No, I ought to not do it"* / "No, I ought not to do it")
• "ought ... to <verb>" ("You ought really to wash the car", "Yes, I ought really to do it"* / "No, I ought not really to do it"* / "No, I really ought not to do it")
• "ought ... to ... <verb>" ("You ought really to vigorously wash the car", "Yes, I ought really to immediately do it"* / "No, I ought really not to immediately do it"* / "No, I really ought not immediately do it" / "No, I really ought not do it immediately")

are all interchangeable in terms of meaning (although the asterisked constructions feel odd to me), the "to" is not essential, particularly not with negation? Thryduulf 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf. This information should be dealt with in a Usage Note at ought, to which ought to should redirect. I think splitting them over two pages is confusing. Widsith 09:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think using a redirect for that would be very bad. A stub entry at the less common form that points to the more common form (or its usage note) is the way we normally handle situations like this. --Connel MacKenzie 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Except for very special cases where Unicode has multiple code points for a single spelling, we should prefer “soft redirects” instead of “hard redirects”. Rod (A. Smith) 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting then? Do we make an entry for ought to with a brief usage note plus a "see" link to ought? I would accept that idea, and would instigate it if you all agree. After all, my intention is to tidy up these modal entries in an acceptable way, with a view to placing a modal usage appendix. -- Algrif 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on comments above, I would have guessed that the soft redirect would go the other way, from ought to ought to. But a soft redirect going either way is acceptable as far as I'm concerned. --Connel MacKenzie 05:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also, in fact, prefer to use ought to for the main definitions (as you already know) with a see link to ought, but I think general opinion seems to be against that. That is why I wish to clarify if it would be OK for me to create ought to with a couple of examples plus some good, clear usage notes and a see link to ought, which would remain the main entry. What do you think? -- Algrif 13:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds OK. Remember to link to ought to from ought as well if you do it though. Thryduulf 13:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm on it now. -- Algrif 10:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

C of E

I've just entered C of E as an initialism for Church of England, but I'm now wondering whether this is actually an abbreviation? How should this be linked to from the Church of England entry? Thryduulf 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The entry C of E looks OK. I've added the "abbreviated as..." link on Church of England in our normal style. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It probably has a wider meaning. It is what people like me put on forms as an easy way out - it means Protestant Christian in culture, goes to the odd baptism, marriage and funeral, but doesn't actually believe in any of it. SemperBlotto 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I often too do that, epsecially when "non" isn't an option. I've heard this described this as "de facto C of E" and "nominally C of E" before now. It this citable at all? Thryduulf 17:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

!!!I have just tried a Google "advanced book search" specifying the exact phrase c of e and get an error message telling me that I am spyware!!! SemperBlotto 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's wild. If you don't use the "advanced" link, but instead put quotes around it, the search works fine. Likewise, if you limit search results to 50, instead of 100. (Sheesh, a 403-Forbidden from Google!) --Connel MacKenzie 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd! If we can come up with a defintion, there are plenty of cites that I've managed to find searching b.g.c for "c of e" religion. [13] (p58), [14] (p348/349), [15] (p114), [16] (p310), [17] (p79), [18] (p189). Thryduulf 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just altered Anglican Church slightly to reflect its nature as something more than just the Church of England. I also made the Archbishop of Canterbury. Feel free to peruse them and change them. Thecurran 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

sysop

Is the second sense really distinct from the first? If it is, should it be marked as a self-reference or expanded to incorporate other wikis - isn't the admin hierarchy used by Wikimedia also used by (most? all?) other sites using MediaWiki? I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if other wiki software uses the same sort of thing (I've never been active on any non-MediaWiki wikis). Thryduulf 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a distinction; sysop usually means someone with root and wheel privilege, that can essentially do anything. The WM usage is much more restricted. Maybe that sense could just be a usage note? Robert Ullmann 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that to this day, I do not understand why Wikipedia (in general) is so weird about things it calls "self-references." If you could explain that, I might have fewer objections questions. But I see this term used a lot, particularly in this context. As Robert pointed out, it has quite a different meaning in older days (shudder: even pre-internet times...BBS sysops, etc.) I really would appreciate an explanation as to why genuine jargon terms specific to wikis shouldn't be defined (with or without external citations.) As long as they are tagged, I don't see what the problem is. My understanding is that this class of terms has had informal support for a long time here; during almost cyclical waves of incoming Wikipedians, the same objections are re-raised, as if this were Wikipedia. Can you Thryduulf, please try to clear this up for me? I sincerely don't understand the (Wikipedia-ish?) basis of the objection to "self-references." --Connel MacKenzie 04:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (edit) 04:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding regarding Wikipedia's objection to self-references (which may or may not be correct) is that it is primarily to keep references to project-specific links and jargon out of the main namespace (where possible) so they aren't picked up by mirrors. Where this isn't possible links outside the main namespace are enclosed in the self-reference template, so that mirrors can choose to not copy that template should they so wish. For most mirrors, the encyclopaedic content is all that is of value to them so they do not take copies of the Wikipedia: and Talk: namespaces for example - especially as these would not be editable locally and so fairly pointless, meaning that the link atop the w:Vandalism page to the Wikipedia policy about vandalism is also not useful.

My understanding regarding self-references on Wiktionary is less clear, the same issues regarding policies and internal discussion pages logically also apply (e.g. at tea room). Also it is my understanding that some Wikimedia jargon is also marked as a self reference, although I do not fully understand why this is.

My query here was in two parts - the first part "Is the second sense really distinct from the first?" has been answered by Robert Ullmann and yourself (thank you both), and the answer is that, yes it is distinct. If the answer was "no" then the definitions would have been merged and the rest of my query would be irrelevant. As this isn't the case, then the second part does come into play. This second part is rather more complicated in that it contains several options, best paraphrased as below:

1. Is this usage specific to Wikimedia sites?
   1. If yes, should this be marked as Wikimedia jargon, for example like ["[Wiktionorian]]" is?
      1. If yes, mark it
      2. If no, don't mark it.
   2. If no, expand the definition to include this.

This second part of the query has not yet been answered, so which of these should happen is not yet clear. Thryduulf 09:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: In writing this reply, I've just discovered there is a huge amount of cleanup to be done on jargon categories/templates. I am not certain where I should note this - here, the BP, the GP, RFC, RFDO? Thryduulf 09:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. For your remaining question above (the second part,) I know that MediaWiki software runs a lot of wikis, outside of WikiMedia Foundation. I do not know that such usage of the term "sysop" is attested though. I assume it is not (but maybe that is a bad assumption.) I think it should have the {{wjargon}} tag because it is specific to WMF sites. That is, using the tag as a "don't delete this definition" flag, and little else.

For assistance cleaning them up, I think the most appropriate place to post tje list of them would be WT:RFC. Or perhaps right here in this section, so context isn't lost.

--Connel MacKenzie 01:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL on the shudder, C MacK. BTW, can someone explain AGF to me? Thecurran 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Glossary#AGF. —Ruakh_TALK 01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta, heaps. Seeing that glossary made a huge difference. Thanks for your patience. Thecurran 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Admiralcy

Is "Admiralcy" a word? I can't find anything verifying it. — This unsigned comment was added by 71.194.116.228 (talk).

Yes, a search of books.google.com shows this is a valid word. I've just created an entry, with several quotations showing its use at admiralcy. The definition might do with a bit of fine tuning though. Thryduulf 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

smutch

Does anyone know the meaning of the above word. It is in this weeks New York Times crossword and I have never heard it before?

Thanks to SemperBlotto, that page is up now. :) Thecurran 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Scots / Scottish English

There is now a corpus of Scottish English and Scots online at http://www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/. Unfortunately this is copyrighted, but it may prove a useful reference for verification of Scottish English dialect/Scots language terms. Thryduulf 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• News item at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6943088.stm SemperBlotto 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff. For research on Scots words, there is an excellent online dictionary here. Widsith 08:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

nimby (acronym)

The acronym definition at nimby is currently marked Template:italbrac. The noun and adjective uses (both unmarked) are certainly common on this side of the Atlantic and I think the acronym is as well. I'm not certain enough of this though to remove the tag myself. Thryduulf 22:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not limited to the US, I've heard it often in the UK and in Australia.--Dmol 09:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It was originally U.S. (coined about 1980) but has travelled well and is well understood in the UK, despite the fact that a UK back yard evokes a small area to the rear of a low income house, not a general reference to the neighbourhood. Chemical Engineer 15:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

out of bounds (noun)

1. Is this uncountable? If it isn't, what is the plural ("out of bounds"?)
2. Does this need a context tag? I've only heard it used in relation to American Football, but I'm far from an avid watcher of sport so there are not unlikely uses I'm aware of. Thryduulf 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's uncountable, and I think it may apply to basketball. On a related note, is this also an adverb? (The ball went out of bounds.) --EncycloPetey 03:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is an adverbial usage; I'll add it. Thryduulf 08:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a prepositional phrase, sum of parts.—msh210 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We do have entries for prepositional phrases when they are set phrases; the fact that something is sum of parts is not reason in and of itself to exclude an entry, if the form is a set phrase. It may fail one criterion for CFI but still meet another. Consider that when out of bounds is used adverbially, it does not follow the same pattern as other phrases in the same position: "The ball went over the fence", "...under a chair", "...through some hoops". In each of these cases, the prepositional phrase includes a preposition followed by a determiner and a noun. In the case in question, we have a double preposition, no determiner, and a noun. It is unusual, and is a set phrase because you cannot go "out of bound", "out with bounds", or "in of bounds". So it many be sum of parts, but it still merits an entry for being a set phrase. --EncycloPetey 05:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I recant.—msh210 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the noun definition is correct. The first forty hits at google:"the out of bounds" basketball OR football don't support it. Most of them are irrelevant; those that refer to the line (or vertical plane) call it "the out of bounds line" or "the out-of-bounds line" (or plane), never "the out of bounds" alone. So you can say out-of-bounds line (or perhaps out of bounds line) refers to the line, or, far more likely, that the "out of bounds" or the "out-of-bounds" is the area outside the legal playing field and when it's used atributively in the out-of-bounds line (which should have hyphens), the whole phrase means "the line demarcating the out of bounds".—msh210 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Please use the exact entry title as the section heading, so the link from the page to here, works.
2. Yes, 'out-of-bounds' is a noun in football, here in America. http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22an+out+of+bounds%22+%28basketball+OR+football%29&btnG=Search Note that it is never "the out of bounds" but "an out of bounds" in football; in basketball it is opposite: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22the+out+of+bounds%22+%28basketball+OR+football%29&btnG=Search.
3. Please be more careful to use parenthesis when doing ORs in Google searches.

--Connel MacKenzie 08:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, that is my fault.
2. Looking at the first page of those Google searches, "an out of bounds" is about evenly split between basketball and American football, "the out of bounds" is 80% basketball. It is possible that these are exceptions and the general case is as you say. If it is do you want to write a usage note about which word is normally used in each sport? Thryduulf 09:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re #2: Nonetheless, I don't see that "out of bounds" (whether with "an" or with "the" or with neither) is a noun meaning the line or boundary, in either (any) sport. I think it's a noun meaning the area outside the field (and possibly also meaning a state that the game or the ball is in). Can you provide a quotation or quotations showing it means the line/boundary?—msh210 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For "an out of bounds", I'm surprised that I forgot the computing/programming sense. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22an+out+of+bounds%22. Pardon me while I blush. Although my recollection of it is distinctly football (not soccer,) I think most sports (basketball, golf, even soccer) seem to have similar imitative use.

RE: Line or boundary: The tenth or so example here looks like it. Or did I misunderstand your question? --Connel MacKenzie 03:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall ever hearing "out of bounds" related to soccer, commentators will usually refer to it having gone "out" or "(out for) a throw-in". In Rugby its "into touch" or "over the sideline"/"over the touchline"/"gone for a lineout". In Golf "Out of bounds" is a specifically defined area, "an out of bounds" is never used and the only use I can remember of "the out of bounds" was as part of "the out of bounds fence" or "the out of bounds area". Thryduulf 08:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Connel, for the cite showing out-of-bounds meaning "a line demarcating a field of play". I see two such cites on the page you linked to, which doesn't quite do it, of course, but doubtless there are more. Nonetheless, I think out of bounds out-of-bounds as a noun also means "the area outside the field of play".—msh210 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

to rip

What is the etymology of the internet slang word to rip? Is it from the first meaning, or maybe from to rip off?-- Rhingdrache 09:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for certain but rip off definition 3 "(idiomatic) to copy, especially illegally" seems the most likely origin. Thryduulf 11:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.-- Rhingdrache 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The verb "to rip" means "to tear off" or "to take off" (i.e. "to separate off").

dispepsic

Is this a word - meaning feeling bloated and a bit unwell? I cannot find it in Wiktionary but I am sure I have heard it used. In fact my husband heard it on Boston Legal and tried to look it up but could not find it. — This unsigned comment was added by 69.26.78.5 (talk) at 2007-08-15T21:02:49.

I think you are looking for “dyspeptic”. Rod (A. Smith) 21:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! — This unsigned comment was added by 69.26.78.5 (talk) at 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

as far as

The entry as far as (definition, (idiomatic) With respect to; as relates to) says that as far as I know is a derived term. I disagree: I think the words as far as in as far as I know are the non-idiomatic as far as meaning to the extent that. Thoughts?—msh210 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I could swear this discussion was recently had somewhere. At any rate, yes, I agree with you. —Ruakh_TALK 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I raised the same issue on RFV, where it didn't belong, and no one addressed it there. Fine: I'll make the change.—msh210 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

rubicon

The entry rubicon says that cross the Rubicon is a derived term. I disagree: I think cross the Rubicon is derived from Rubicon but not from rubicon. Moreover, I think that rubicon is derived from Rubicon or possibly even from cross the Rubicon itself. Thoughts?—msh210 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My gut instinct is to say that you are correct on both counts. At the very least, cross the Rubicon as a derived term ought not be on the rubicon page. Medellia 02:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, mostly. I don't think rubicon comes specifically from cross the Rubicon; rather, both are allusions to the same event. (The existence of each might make the other more likely to be understood, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll change it (if it's not done yet); thanks for the input. I'm new enough to enwikt that I don't know whether it was proper to raise this issue (and rubicon, above) here or on the entry's talk page. What's better?—msh210 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Either is fine, really. Bringing it here increases the chances someone will see it. Alternatively, you could just be bold to begin with. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Celtic

The pronunciation section for Celtic needs work. There are two pronunciations for the word - with a hard 'C' () and with a soft 'C' (). The article currently marks the former pronunciation as being for adjective uses ("Of the Celts; of the style of the Celts") and the latter for the proper noun ("Celitc language").

Certainly in modern UK usage both of these use the hard 'C' pronunciation, with the soft 'C' being used only for the football team. Does this differ in the US? If not, do we note the soft 'C' pronunciation that is not used for any of the definitions we have? (Whether we have entries for sports teams is an issue for the proper nouns debate, not here). Thryduulf 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In the US, the hard-C is used for the senses pertaining to the cultural group of Gaels, Welsh, etc. The soft-C is used for the basketball team. However, many people knowing only or primarily the basketball team use the soft-C pronunication when referrring to the cultural group. --EncycloPetey 14:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's my experience as well, though I have to wonder if perhaps there's a historical pronunciation of Celtic with a [s], or else I don't see how the basketball team got that name; and if so, I have to wonder if perhaps that pronunciation survives in some quarters. —Ruakh_TALK 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect it's a result of violating expectations for the pronunciation of a soft c before e or i, which is the norm in English, Spanish, etc. Putting a hard c in that position seems wrong because it is highly unusual. It's one of the difficulties of learning Classical Latin pronunciation, since all uses of c in Classical Latin are believed to be "hard". Of course, it could also be the result of sportscasters, who invariably put an extra syllable in the word sophomore too. I cringe every time they do that. --EncycloPetey 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, where do they put an extra syllable in sophomore? At the end? Widsith 08:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he means, when they pronounce the "t"...soft + more...that pronunciation is very prevalent colloquially. --Connel MacKenzie 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation given in American dictionaries and used in most American high schools and colleges is /ˈsɑːf.mɔːr/. The pronunciation used in American sports broadcasting is /ˈsɑː.fə.mɔːr/ (and in British dictionaries /ˈsɒf.ə.mɔːr/). --EncycloPetey 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so it should only have 2 syllables in the States? Interesting. Widsith 16:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I only hear the hard "C" from wiccan witches and SCA folks. (That is, quite rarely, and only to set an archaic tone.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The SCA folk I know are educated, and use the proper pronunciations. I won't deny that some are clueless, since I know some of them too. --EncycloPetey 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

From the above, it seems like the pronunciation should be marked as below (but with the IPA, etc not hard/soft "C")

UK: Sports teams: Soft "C", other uses: Hard "C"

USA: Sports teams: Soft C, other uses: Hard "C" or soft "c"

Any objections? Thryduulf 10:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As there were no objections I've now restructured the pronunciation section as above. It could do with a request for audio template, but I can't remember the name of that and have run out of time just now. Thryduulf 12:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think EP was partly objecting to my observation...so I'm not sure the US wording is OK. I must say, those tables look downright strange. There was a big push to simplify pronunciation section layouts, the tables seem to be quite the opposite. Request-For-Audio-Pronunciation is {{rfap}}. --Connel MacKenzie 03:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation "seltic" (for all meanings) was considered correct at one time. It only ceased to be acceptable within the last few decades. At one point, the spelling "keltic" was also in contention, but that seems to have dropped away, even though the associated pronunciation has been adopted. In 1926, a leading authority on English usage, H. W. Fowler, wrote in his "Modern English Usage": "The spelling C-, and the pronunciation s-, are the established ones, and no useful purpose seems to be served by the substitution of k-." 02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

erotic literature story codes

If you've ever read any erotic literature online, or even just browsed any of the alt.sex.stories* newsgroups, you will almost certainly be aware that almost every story has a string of codes (initialisms and abbreviations) that identify what takes place in the stories - e.g. "MF" for heterosexual sex between a single adult male and a single adult female, and "ff rom cons" indicating romantic (rom) consensual (cons) sex between two teenage females (ff).

These codes have been in use for a long time, probably almost as long as alt.sex.stories has existed (created in May 1992 according to w:alt.sex.stories) and are used on literally thousands (probably even hundreds of thousands) of posts, so they should meet the CFI handsomely (or at least the basic ones as MF, MFF, MFFF, MMFF, MMMMMFFF, etc are all valid codes, but I don't think you need more than two or at most three in sequence defined here). However I am not certain what context tag to use - do we have an existing one or should I create {{internet erotic literature}} or {{erotic literature}} and use that in combination with the existing {{internet}}? Thryduulf 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just use an {{internet}} tag and include the information in the def, something like designating consensual sex in pornographic writing or something. The MF stuff should already be covered at M and F, since their use as male and female is hardly limited to internet sex stories. I don't think we need a new "erotic literature" tag. Besides, "literature" might be pushing it a bit.... Widsith 08:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the use of "M" to represent an adult male in this context should be noted at M, similarly using "m" to represent a teenage male should be at m. Should there also be entries for MF, Mf, etc?

Regarding "literature" - the quality of writing varies hugely (as in any other genre) from works that are better literature than many mainstream novels (check out the works of Al Steiner and Frank Downey for example), right down to those with primary school English whose sole intention is to put a fantasy down on paper. Where the primary focus of the story is the plot (regardless of the amount/level/type of sex in it) the work is generally described as "literary". The opposite sort of work is described as a "stroke" story - your imagination should be able to fill in why! Anyway, I don't know that "literature" imparts any meaning as to the quality of the literature (compare Mills and Boon to Charles Dickens for example. Thryduulf 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While erotic literature is a set phrase, (or at least a euphemism,) I'm not sure it is a useful category, as described above. I think Widsith's idea is probably best; using {{internet}} seems more appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not edit 'cons', 'f'/ 'm', & 'rom' to contain the extra meanings of merely 'consensual', 'young female/ male', & 'romantic' and add the internet tag without adding the erotic spin. Wiktionary is accessed by minors and people who completely object to erotica but because people on alt.sex.stories will be sure they're tapping into erotica, they can fill that sense in for themselves. I hope this sounds fair to everyone. Thecurran 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

sopimus

[19] says that sopimus is Finnish for agreement, but I don't know anything about Finnish, so could someone who does add it? Thanks. Nadando 05:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hanukkah

Hello, Shouldn't there be a Hebrew audio pronunciation for the word Hanukkah along with the English pronunciation? I'm not a linguist so I don't know if this is the right way to put it, but isn't the English word nothing but a transliteration of the original Hebrew? I've always wanted to know how it was pronounced in Hebrew.
This is also true for other words such as sheik, Ramadan, haram and many more.
If there are no objections, I can provide the pronunciation to the last three words in Arabic. Gbeebani 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Those are all English words. The Hebrew pronunciation should appear at the Hebrew entry חֲנֻכָּה, not at the English entry Hanukkah. Likewise, Arabic pronunciations appear for Arabic entries (in Arabic spellings), not at the entries for English words derived from Arabic. We would still like to have those pronunciations recorded and uploaded to Commons, of course. See Help:Audio pronunciations for information about how the files should be named. --EncycloPetey 05:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

ThanksGbeebani 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

slaughter

Is the plural of slaughter really "slaughter"? Thryduulf 16:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm betting that was added by someone who didn't know how the template worked and wanted to clarify that there's no plural form. (I don't know if such a clarification would have been correct, though; and b.g.c. is unhelpful, as it tends to mis-scan daughters as slaughters.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"slaughters" is also the perfectly valid third person singular form of the verb "to slaughter", so if it is an infrequent plural it will be hard to find. Thinking about it, where more than one instance of slaughter (of people) is referred to "massacres" is generally used. For animals, "culls" seems to be the equivalent. Thryduulf 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was bypassing that problem by searching for google books:"two slaughters", but then ran into the daughters scanno problem. —Ruakh_TALK 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, "two slaughter" is incorrect, so I'm omitting the plural as better than nothing. DAVilla 09:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

powder-room

Is "powder-room" a common alternative spelling of powder room? (We have one redlinked use of this spelling and I don't know whther to make an entry as an alt spelling or to change the spelling of the link.) RJFJR 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In the first 12 pages of b.g.c hits, there are 10 independent occurrences of "powder-room" - almost all very old -

• 1735 The London Magazine, Or, Gentleman's Monthly Intelligencer
• 1744-46 The Harleian Miscellany
• 1824 A Treatise on the Laws of Commerce and Manufactures...
• 1849 Memoirs of Prince Rupert, and the Cavaliers: Including Their Private Correspondence...
• 1857 Cyclopaeda of Female Biography
• 1897 Dansk-norsk-engelsk-ordbog
• 1904 The Complete Works of Count Tolstoy
• 1913 The Quest and Occupation of Tahiti ... 1772-1776 ...
• 1958 Activities Handbook for Business Teachers
• 1996 Romeo

As there are 0 g.g.c hits in the first twelve pages for "power-room" (although there are a few for "powederoom", I've not checked these for independence, etc), I'd say that the hyphenated from deserves inclusion as an archaic alternative spelling - a b.g.c for pre-1910 publications results in a roughly even split between hyphenated and unhyphenated forms. The 1996 hit above I am thus inclined to treat as an uncommon misspelling. A post 1995 book search gets three additional hits in the first 10 pages, one of which is a 2004 edition of a Jules Verne (1828-1905) novel, and another a scanno. I'm uncertain whether the 1958 book is an outlier of the archaic usage or a misspelling.

Unless it is clearly in an archaic context, I'd change the redlink to use powder room. Thryduulf 14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed link at take a powder to use powder room. RJFJR 15:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

crack

I don't know how to define it, but I'm sure crack (verb) has some meaning in relation to the process of refining oil into petroleum etc, that is not obviously covered by any of the definitions we have. Thryduulf 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now added, using info from w:Cracking (chemistry). —Ruakh_TALK 23:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do know something about this, so I have modified, and also added to cracker. Chemical Engineer 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

heraldries

The heraldry page says that the plural is heraldries, and Webster's agrees. However, it is the name of a science/art like biology, psychology, or printing. Surely that makes that definition {{uncountable}}? Google gets about 2300 returns for heraldries and all the top hits are dictionaries, which is usually a bad sign. I can find a few quotations, but they don't seem to apply to the primary definition. Opinions? --EncycloPetey 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking through b.g.c., it appears that the countable sense is the one that refers to an armorial ensign along with its history and description. I updated “heraldry” to reflect that. Let me know if that seems off base. Rod (A. Smith) 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks OK, though heraldry in the sense of "an armorial ensign" is not a sense that heralds or "serious" heraldic writers use, so it looks odd to me. --EncycloPetey 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

asymmetrical

Are the two meanings distinct? Compare asymmetric. Which is best? DAVilla 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They weren't, I've merged them. Widsith 14:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

no lach

what is ythe meaning of "no lach" in:

"i am no lach pilot. but i do fly arazus often"

or

"great, still no lach"

— This unsigned comment was added by 83.162.20.109 (talk) at 08:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC).

"lach" is short for "Lachesis" a ship or ship type in the EVE game milieu. "arazus" is plural of "Arazu", another type. Robert Ullmann 13:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

pull somebody's leg

Shouldn't this be pull one's leg? -- Algrif 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to use the placeholder “one's” in entry names here to represent the verb's subject, usually in a reflexive sense but with the subject omitted. E.g. “feel one's oats”, “tip one's hat”, “have one's cake and eat it, too”. The placeholder pronoun we use to represent a third person is usually “somebody's” or “someone's”, one variant of which usually redirects to the other, e.g. “put words in someone's mouth”, “hot on someone's heels”, and “rattle someone's cage”. There is already a redirect from “pull someone's leg” to “pull somebody's leg”, so I think the entry at least matches convention. Rod (A. Smith) 16:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure of standard practice for this kind of phrase. -- Algrif 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. You listed several with 'one's' or 'someone's' but only one with 'somebody's'. Wouldn't it make sense to just use 'someone's' instead of 'somebody's'. Thecurran 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My listing was not extensive. google:site:en.wiktionary.org someone's -redirected and google:site:en.wiktionary.org somebody's -redirected shows that the two words are used with similar frequency for lemma entry titles (well within a decimal order of magnitude). It probably wouldn't hurt, though, to discuss the better location for lemma entries with non-reflexive personal placeholders on WT:BP. (Has that already been discussed?) Rod (A. Smith) 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

help just need the spelling for a word obviously cant spell it --repore, repour,repoir ??? help

not much just that someone help i cannot find a simple a-z english dictionary that i can just look through till i find

the word sounds like re-pour

if i had a good repour with someone means i would have a comforatble standing with them

You mean rapport SemperBlotto 09:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Or French (?) repoire. Seems to be misspelled as such all over the place. DAVilla 09:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Repoire is not a French word, except that it could be a form of a nonce from re- and the old-fashioned slang poirer meaning "to take, trap someone by surprise, grab him, overtake him". I don't know why people would misspell rapport that way. —Ruakh_TALK 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is because they think (correctly) that it is from French, and are using re + poire, which is a fairly common word, especially if your French comes (at least in part) from reading menus. Given the level of confusion, and rather impressive number of googles (15,000, including CNN :-), it is I think worth a "misspelling-of" entry? Robert Ullmann 16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

15,000 googles merits a "misspelling of" entry in my book! Thryduulf 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Persian

Visiting this article to sort out Greek translations I find it a bit of a mess. Can I tidy this entry up, specifically:

• It obviously has some history - I don't want to stand on toes.
• It's not clear why there are 2 Adjective headings.
• Is the Persian-Farsi translation template remaining - it is listed for deletion Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Template:Persian-Farsi - are the entries to be copied to the two linked articles ?

—Saltmarsh 06:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Per the RFDO, yes, the information copied and only the template deleted (with its history merged). No one seems to have objected. DAVilla 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Familial relationships (again)

Currently, of a whole series of related entries, few, such as nephew, aunt or uncle seem to have the correct single English definition, with separate translation tables for other languages. Did these (grandmother, grandfather, niece, etc.) get lost in the shuffle? The question came up again on IRC this evening. --Connel MacKenzie 04:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

写 pronunciation

写 says it can be guan4 and xie3, but I am not sure if it is right. All other dialects also Ja rendering suggests xie3 is the only right pronunciation. Or just there is a modern phenomenon I just missed. Could anyone please to enlighten me?

Thanks! --Aphaia 07:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Gitmo

The Gitmo entry says "Guantanamo Bay, the US naval base and concentration camp in the place of that name in Cuba. " Is concentration camp considered accurate/NPOV? RJFJR 00:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly fits our definition #1 at concentration camp, but it seems really wrong to me. To me "concentration camp" evokes the Holocaust, and I'd only ever use the term in referring to Nazi concentration camps or in fairly explicitly comparing something to Nazi concentration camps. (This is speaking as an American Jew. Non-Jews, especially from countries without many Jews, might not be reminded so easily of the Nazis. This might be fodder for a usage note at concentration camp; and maybe it would make sense to revise the definitions there as well.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I hope I don't offend anyone here. I think the biological, ethnic, political, & religious groups in those Nazi camps and some similar ones in proximal countries/ timeframes were concentrated into a small place from the surrounding area. This idea becomes stretched the further a captive was transported. In the case of Gitmo, the population of Afghans & Iraqis, of Arabic, Dari, & Pashto speakers , or of Sunni or Shi'ite Muslims approaches 100% inside Gitmo but approaches 0% outside and stays that way for thousands of kilometers. I would say that Gitmo as such, does not represent a concentration of the population by any conceivable stretch and therefore should not technically be called a 'concentration camp'; all metaphors aside. It seems that 'gulags' are the only thing that come close and that all of the political hubbub demonstrates that this is a somewhat new type of entity. The wars between the UN member states that filled these prisons with POWs are well and truly over, so can we agree on calling it a 'political prison'? Some of these people have not been classified as 'enemy combatants' or charged with terrorism, so 'political prison' is the only term that springs to my mind that could be technically accurate. Thecurran 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your comment is difficult to read, so I may have got this wronng, but the first part seems to be saying that Guantanamo Bay is not a "concentration camp" based on the meanings of the words "concentration" and "camp". Were "concentration camp" solely a sum of parts phrase ("SOP" in Wiktionary jargon) then you might have a point. However "concentration camp", whatever its original meaning, has taken on a specific idiomatic meaning that is not apparent from its constituent parts - otherwise we could legitimately describe the Scouts' recent centennial jamboree as a "concentration camp", as it was a camp that concentrated one group of people (Scouts) into a single area (Essex). Thryduulf 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Internment camp" might be less problematic. Note that w:concentration camp is currently a redirect to w:internment. -- Visviva 00:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for looking at this completely differently, but I think this debate is misdirected. "Gitmo" is short for "Guantanamo Bay," which also happens to be the location of a US Naval Base, (and US detention camp), but do we really need to say anything other than that it is short for "Guantanamo Bay"? We're not an encyclopedia; readers can follow the link to find out more. Dmcdevit·t 02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on all counts. As an aside, I think 'concentration camp' should include the aspect of forced labour. Thecurran 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

CV

Hi, I didn't find CV in this page when I tried to access the last 500 in history here. Please, forgive me if my computer messed up. I want to talk about CV. Around US-DC in the early '90's, CV seemed to only mean curriculum vitae (resume -- I'm having trouble adding the accents). Perhaps, I was unaware of an age/sex/culture barrier. I had close family and friends in the Navy and many of the families I knew were involved in the Air Force base. I don't remember ever having heard CV mean aircraft carrier (carrier variant). I haven't lived in the US post Sep-11, but I heard from close family in the FAA that much of the atmosphere (pun not intended, but recognized on re-read) had changed and the military was mentioned constantly everywhere. I assume CV came to mean aircaft carrier in the public mind after this change, but have not ruled out an a/s/l/culture barrier. I would like to hear of other US experience with the term CV. Us not having the aircraft carrier meaning on the CV page tempts me to believe its widespread public acceptance is recent, which is why I posed my above assumption. I have remarked on the discussion page there that I will add the aircaft carrier meaning pending a wait for objections to arise. Thecurran 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard "CV" mean "aircraft carrier" in common usage in the US. I have heard it mean "curriculum vitae" in a professional context, but usually only when a job candidate, recruiter, or hiring manager was not from the United States. Mike Dillon 01:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is an error with our definition. CV (and curriculum vitae) is widely used in academic contexts and resume is rarely used. I'm not sure the appropriate way to tag this in the definition, otherwise I would do it myself. Should it read (UK, academics)? This seems to suggest UK academics instead of UK or academics... Sorry this is an aside from thecurran's question. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I guess I've heard it in an academic context as well. As far as I understand it, a resume and a CV are different sorts of documents in that a CV is generally longer and more thorough while a resume is focused (or should be) on things that are relevant to getting a particular type of job. Mike Dillon 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. CVs are long, and usually contain most everything an academic has done within the scope of being an academic. But they are still usually limited to things specific to an academic's job (like teaching, research, departmental "service", awards, grants, etc.). Graduate student's CVs might include classes taken, information about one's dissertation, etc. This is usually only done when seeking a job. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

UK, Academic sounds great but there is a {.{.UK.}.} but no {.{.Academic.}.}. I tried to add it on the curriculum vitae page. In this case, my knowledge of wiki-formatting has failed me. I need help from someon with more experience. It would be great to hear about more US contexts for CV, but I think kzollman's suggestion represents an NPOV that'd satisfy most of us for the time being. If curriculum vitae needs to be divided and enhanced to explain that in academic contexts, it means a longer resume with both academic and employment achievements, then so be it. Thecurran 23:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be fine the way it is. CV standards are different in different countries and different fields, so being more specific might be a problem. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

resume

I looked through some of the history and couldn't find resume (sorry for not adding accents). I want to ask how resume (CV) seems to have bypassed UK English on the way from French to US English. I find Cajun and Quebecois connections tenuous and find believing that the UK dropped the term in a period of rare contact with the US easier. I would like to know for sure, though. Thecurran 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Belizean

There are two points here. 1) Why isn't Belizean listed under a derivation in the Belize page? I want to add it if nobody objects. I think some people will come up with Belizan, Belizer, Belizite, Belizman, Beliz, Belizteco, Belizian, Belizino, Belizano, etc. if they don't know the right adjective.

2) How do Belizeans spell?

— This unsigned comment was added by Thecurran (talk • contribs) at 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

1) Yes, please do! It should go in a "Derived terms" section.   2) I don't understand your question, but feel like it should be the first part of a joke! ("How does a Newfy/Polak/blonde spell?") —Ruakh_TALK 01:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's funny! You made me LOL. I am interested in trying to understand how people from different regions use English. Guyana seems to be associated with the Caribbean. Malaysia and Singapore seem to go with Oceania. Sub-Saharan Africa, Northern North America, South Asia and the British Isles are other populous regions of interconnected English use. Many specific places have uses related to nearby languages. Hong Kong may fit with SE Asia but I don't know where Belize fits in the puzzle. I don't know many Belizeans well. As for point 1, I think I should wait 24 hours after suggesting a change before implementing it in order to give each time zone a fair go because I'm a relative newbie and want to avoid getting in hot water. I just made a Beer Parlour suggestion to add National adjectives across the board. Thecurran 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1) There's no need to wait; that's exactly what the "Derived terms" section is for: listing terms that are derived from the current term. (This doesn't work for all nationalities — "American" is not derived from "United States", and I don't think "Finn" is derived from "Finland" — but it covers most. And in the latter case, it would go in the "Related terms" section.)   2) Wow, I always assumed Belize spoke Spanish! Shows how much I know. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

English and Spanish are both official languages in Belize. Mike Dillon 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. After closer reading of w:Belize, it seems that English is the only "official" language (the infobox says English, Spanish). The article text implies that most people speak a creole called Belizean and that Spanish is a common second language. This statement seems to conflict slightly with the 2000 census information noted below. Mike Dillon 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Belize article on Wikipedia has an interesting table: Languages in Belize according to 2000 Census. It shows nearly 50% claiming Spanish as the mother tongue and 32% or so claiming one of various creoles as a mother tongue. Mike Dillon 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

w:Belize#Ethnic groups, nationalities & w:Languages_of_Belize show conflicting numbers. The former gives 46% speaking Spanish as a mother tongue in 2000 census and yet the latter gives 35% percent speaking Spanish in the same census, even though there share a table. Either way, literacy and education in English is high, the lingua franca, Kriol, is derived from English; not Spanish, English is official in Belize, Belize gained its modern independence from the UK, Belize is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, & Belize is surrounded by Hispanic nations. Which figures you follow is up to you -- I just wanted to see what region Belizean English fit into and it seems that Caribbean is the fit rather than Northern North American, British, African, or an isolate category. I hoped to hear tidbits from people closer to Belize than myself, especially because Kriol is one of the few well-recognised languages that come largely from both English and continental Amerindian languages; many Caribbean ones exist. I find that fascinating. Thank you so much everyone for your help and opinions. You've enriched my worldview, made me feel less alone, and gladdened me. Thecurran 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Poker sense of cover

Hello. Cover (verb) has a specific meaning in poker which ought to be added here. However, I need some assistance. In poker, it is only used in the perfect tense. One only says "James has/had/will have Jill covered", never "James covers Jill" or "James covered Jill". What's the standard for this here? Should I add the definition to covered or to cover (or somewhere else)? Thanks --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like the perfect aspect to me (N.B. perfect aspect, not tense, BTW); the perfect aspect of to cover would be something like *"James has covered Jill." Here it seems that "covered" is acting as a predicate with "Jill" as its subject; compare "James almost had Jill believing that jacks are actually called 'james'", "James had Jill at a loss for words", etc. So, I think this would go at covered#Adjective. —Ruakh_TALK 00:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup... that sounds right. Thanks for your help (and sorry for the mistake)! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Latin in Antarctica

Antarctica#Etymology says that Antarctica comes from Neo-Latin, using the wiki markup [[neo-|Neo-]]{{L.}}; this adds the article to Category:Latin derivations. However, given the existence of Category:Late Latin derivations (and {{LL.}}), it seems that Category:Latin derivations proper is only intended for Classical Latin derivations? If that's the case, then how should this section be marked up? (Also, does anyone know whether that's indeed Greek, as opposed to Ancient Greek? Maybe we should change {{Gr.}} to read "Modern Greek" so people know not to use it for Ancient Greek derivations?) —Ruakh_TALK 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Category:Late Latin derivations says it belongs to Category:Latin derivations, which doesn't list it as a subcategory. What am I missing? —Ruakh_TALK 06:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It shows up under "L", which isn't on the first page: [20]. Looks like we also have Category:New Latin derivations. Mike Dillon 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K., fixed, thanks! (And, that seems like a bug. The category page doesn't indicate in any way that the "previous page"-"next page" thing applies to subcategories as well as entries.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I copied the above bug conversation to WT:GP#Subcategories hidden in populous categories. Please continue any discussion about the MediaWiki bug there. Rod (A. Smith) 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Left as a synonym for 'permitted'.

There is a use of the word "left" to mean "permitted" that is common in Ireland. Examples are, "We were not left go to the beach when we were young", or "They were not left through the new roadway". I want to add a colloquial meaning for this, but not sure what part of speech it would be. I though it might be verb, but not sure. Is this meaning used in the UK also.--Dmol 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, "leave" has a sense of "let, permit" for some speakers — I only use it in "leave be" (="leave alone, let be"), but I've heard some speakers use it in other contexts. (I'm not sure if it's actually productive for those speakers, or if they simply have a few more fixed expressions they use it in.) We currently don't seem to document this sense as leave (though we do have the corresponding noun sense). If Irish speakers use this sense productively but only in the passive voice, then I think that probably leave needs to document this verb sense and usage notes should explain the various regional restrictions on its use. —Ruakh_TALK 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery: That is fascinating, that in Irish English, you can use left without alone to reach that meaning. The only similar idiom I've heard is left well enough alone which I presume should redirect to leave well enough alone. --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting help with daystar.

I updated daystar a bit--it was a popular idiom in poetry, possibly going back pretty far (see [21]), where it meant "morning star". It's since become a popular bit of hacker/internet slang for "the Sun", usually in the context of "Your star burns!" or the like. I see it in some modern fantasy novels, and I think it means "Sun" there as well--a meaning I don't see in any pre-1900 quotations. (I don't have anything from 1900-1990, which is a pretty sizable gap.) Questions that I've been unable to answer are:

1. Did "daystar" ever mean the sun, as opposed to the morning star, in its classic usage?
2. If not, when (and where) did the use meaning "Sun" originate?
3. Does there exist a good reference for word's use in hacker culture, if the second definition is in fact limited to that doman?

Thanks! grendel|khan 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, daystar has often been used to mean the sun. This is from Milton's Lycidas (1637):

Sunk though he be beneath the watry floar,

So sinks the day-star in the Ocean bed,

And yet anon repairs his drooping head,

And tricks his beams, and with new-spangled Ore,

Flames in the forehead of the morning sky

I'm fairly sure Spenser uses it this way too, although I can't find a reference at present. Widsith 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A dual search for "Spencer" and "daystar" truned up nothing on Wikisource, but I did find:

• 1913 Thomas Bulfinch, The Age of Fable, ch 9

  "Ceyx was king of Thessaly, where he reigned in peace, without violence or wrong. He was son of Hesperus, the Day-star, and the glow of his beauty reminded one of his father."

• 1860 George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss, Bk2 ch 2

  But old Christmas smiled as he laid this cruel-seeming spell on the outdoor world, for he meant to light up home with new brightness, to deepen all the richness of indoor color, and give a keener edge of delight to the warm fragrance of food; he meant to prepare a sweet imprisonment that would strengthen the primitive fellowship of kindred, and make the sunshine of familiar human faces as welcome as the hidden day-star.

I also find the following figurative usage:

• 1860 George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss, Bk5 ch 4

  "But suppose, Maggie,–suppose it was a man who was not conceited, who felt he had nothing to be conceited about; who had been marked from childhood for a peculiar kind of suffering, and to whom you were the day-star of his life..."

--EncycloPetey 02:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The first of those is not referring to the Sun; Hesperus is another name for Venus. (It means either "morning star" or "evening star", I don't remember which.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology information for marble

Could someone please add the etymology information for the word marble (definition 1). It is interesting how most translations sound almost the same. Gbeebani 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One source I have found says the following.

• c.1200, by dissimilation from O.Fr. marbre, from L. marmor, from or cognate with Gk. marmaros "marble, gleaming stone," of unknown origin, perhaps originally an adj. meaning "sparkling," which would connect it with marmairein "to shine."

But this needs to be checked. Algrif 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Algrif, that is good too. Gbeebani 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would a change from "br" to "bl" be 'dissimilation'? What do b and r (whatever sound they were using for r) have in common that b and l don't? —Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would assume they mean dissimilation from the other "r" in the word "marbre". I would see the likely sequence (pure speculation) as "marmore" (ablative/dative of marmor) > "marmre" (elision of short vowel) > "marmbre" (epenthetic "b") > "marbre" (elision of nasal) > "marble" (dissimilation of liquids). Mike Dillon 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good call. So — if "curler" became "curlle", would that be assimilation to the "l" or dissimilation from the "r"? :-P —Ruakh_TALK 21:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add an entry for "epenthetic" please. I doubt I'm the only one reading this discussion not familiar with the word. Thryduulf 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. See “epenthesis” for the main entry. Rod (A. Smith) 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

superultramodern

This is a neologism claimed to be coined by someone named Kedar Joshi. So far, its sole appearance in physical works that I've found is Joshi's own Superultramodern Science and Philosophy, published through Red Lead Press, a self-described "print on demand" (i.e., "vanity") publisher. This entry was created by 61.17.193.12 (talk), who went through some effort in Summer 2006 trying to establish articles and references to Joshi and his works on Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and Wiktionary. Google Book Search turns up not a single hit for "non-spatial thinking process", Joshi's pet project, and only the book title above for "superultramodern". On Amazon.com, this unranked work has only a single review thoughtfully provided by — you guessed it — Kedar Joshi. I respectfully suggest that this is Joshi attempting to use Wikimedia to promote his work. Both Wikipedia and Wikiquote long ago deleted the relevant articles (see q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Kedar Joshi for some history), and I just found myself having to re-delete the WQ article again today.

If I understand Wiktionary policy, I should first file a request for verification on this term, which takes at least a month to review. Does Wiktionary have any procedures for fast-tracking obvious self-promotional neologisms? ~ Jeff Q 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a request for deletion ({{rfd}}), but something that should be basically shot-on-sight, {{delete}} (aka "speedy") works too; if an admin thinks it should be reviewed instead, he/she will probably move it to rfd. In this particular case: it is an admitted neologism ("coined by Kedar Joshi in 2005"), has no independent citations. If not for the spamming of various WM projects (which I have reviewed), almost certainly by him, it might be rfd'd. As it is, treated as spam and deleted. Thanks for pointing this out. Robert Ullmann 11:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Further note, this entry was added to the rfv for "NSTP theory" by the same author in June 2006, which failed rfv; it should probably have been deleted then. Robert Ullmann 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

conundrum

I was looking for etymology for this word. but it is not here. I had assumed it would be given here, because of the word's Latin "looks", it made me think it would be an easy one to find out. Does anyone here know what the etymology is? Thanks a lot in advance, and sorry if this is not a reference desk, I can ask at the language reference desk on Wikipedia instead. --Lgriot 11:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference sources all seem to say unknown, or obscure. It is a conundrum ;-) Robert Ullmann 12:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I picked the following out of a fairly reputable web site. I don't know if it is correct though. Algrif 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• 1596, Oxford University slang for "pedant," also "whim," etc., later (1790) "riddle, puzzle," also spelled quonundrum; the sort of ponderous pseudo-Latin word that was once the height of humor in learned circles.

Thanks everyone Lgriot 20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Canoe

I'm curious, does anyone knwo the etynmology of the word canoe? There's nothing in our entry. RJFJR 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I found this. But it needs to be confirmed.

• 1555, from Sp. canoa, term used by Columbus, from Arawakan (Haiti) canaoua. Extended to rough-made or dugout boats generally.

Algrif 16:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The canoa part is legit; see his journal of the 1492 expedition: "Estas son las canoas." Although interestingly Columbus usually refers to these vessels by an Arabic derivative, almidias. -- Visviva 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the ultimate root, this Taino dictionary appears to suggest that the original form was in fact canoa; of course, no authoritative dictionary of Arawakan will ever exist. canaoua may be an error which has been passed from one etymological dictionary to another (or maybe I'm just looking the wrong place). -- Visviva 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This online Carib-English dictionary provides more info. Looks like kanoa is the proper Arawakan form, canaoua being the 1655 (Fr. Breton?) spelling of Carib kanawa. -- Visviva 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the various online sources which mention the 1555 date can be bothered to tell us the title of the work in which the term first appears. Of these, Answers.com is the least uninformative.[22] It is certainly attested by 1608, when we find the form "Canowe" in John Smith's journals. [23] HTH, -- Visviva 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Gilberti, Fr. Maturino, 1901: Diccionario de la lengua Tarasca ó de Michoacán. Impreso en Mexico el Ano de 1559, reimpreso bajo la dirección y cuidado del Antonio Pel'iafiel. Mexico. Dictionary of Tarascan, apparently dated 1555, printed in Mexico in 1559, reprinted 1901. Robert Ullmann 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I should note that it doesn't say canoa is Tarascan, it uses the Sp. canoa in defining a Tarascan word (specifically the morpheme "Xu", using canoa as an example of what it applies to) Robert Ullmann 14:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was assuming that the 1555 was the (asserted) date of the word's first use in an English work. Perhaps not, though. -- Visviva 11:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

black and tan uncountable?

Even the talk page uses a plural. Algrif 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Yes, "black and tan" refers to an individual serving, not to the liquid itself. Fixed. Rod (A. Smith) 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised that this discussion was going on here, and had already changed black and tan to countable. It is a drink that can only be mixed at point of consumption, unlike say wine which can be either countable or uncountable. But that said, there is alsoan entry under Black and Tan (caps) which I think is correct.--Dmol 14:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else heard of 'Black and tan' referring to a type of dog? Thecurran 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

comprise

Per this edit, the usage note appears to be incorrect:

AP Style does not permit the statement: Fifty states compose the Union.

The correct usage would be: The Union is composed of 50 states.

What gives? DAVilla 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from possible incorrectness, that has the problem of not actually bearing on the word comprise, that the entry's supposed to be about. I'm guessing it was an anticipatory typo: he meant to say that "Fifty states comprise the Union" is incorrect, but substituted "compose" by mistake? —Ruakh_TALK 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get, for not checking the older version. We really shouldn't use the AHD example at all. Perhaps restarting the usage note with a better example (like fleet/boats or army/soldier?) would be better, particularly since there are still exact sentence matches from AHD's usage note. --Connel MacKenzie 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I did check the older version, and that's why it was removed in my edits. I can understand removing the AHD quotation, and in fact I had stripped it down some myslef. Perhaps you would like to explain why you rolled back my changes? Or how completely removing any reference to AHD doesn't constitute point-of-view pushing? DAVilla 04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• The exact text from AHD: "USAGE NOTE: The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected. See Usage Note at include."
• The exact text from DAVilla: "===Usage notes=== The third usage above, whereby the passive form effectively means “the fifty states comprise the Union”, is traditionally considered as incorrect but is an increasingly accepted usage. Strictly speaking, the Union comprises fifty states, whereas fifty states compose the Union. The American Heritage Dictionary states that "The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole.... Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating." However, with regard to journalistic writing, the Associated Press Stylebook does not allow for such a substitution. Indeed, Associated Press Style does not permit the last statement. The correct usage would be, “The Union is composed of 50 states.”"

As I said, the 50 states example should be entirely removed. The text as you reworked it, seems pretty clearly a derivative work from the earlier AHD edits. That makes it a potential copyvio which there is simply no justifiable reason to retain. When I edited it, I tried to remove sentences that matched (exactly, or nearly exactly) AHD's version. From the edit history, I tried to replace the text that was removed in lieu of the AHD's wording. Since that came out as a total mess, yes, the entire usage note as it is should be scrapped. It isn't that the current entry should be brought as close to possible to a copyvio without breaking the law; there is no need to copy their text. The text that was copied should be thoroughly expunged. We should devise a better example of our own. We should link the AHD in the ===References=== section without copying any of their verbiage. And yes, we should avoid their particular example, as that (a) was reworded wrong, (b) is indicative that we don't recognize the difference between comprise/compose ourselves; that we're only able to parrot AHD.

Do you want me to make a more genuine effort and reworking it, or would you like to? I suggested fleet/boats, army/soldier above. Perhaps machine/parts, database/rows, menu/items would also work as better examples. At this point, Union/States is just too unwieldy.

--Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that it is my text, but understand that I did not introduce the AHD quote, so reverting my changes did not correct the problem above. If you had simply removed the AHD quote, that would have accomplished your goal. Otherwise you would have had to revert to a much earlier version. Instead, you reverted my changes, thereby reintroducing the error, and then removed any reference to AHD entirely.

I am substituting the example, as you propose, and if you wish you can rework it from there. DAVilla 08:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Futhermore, you are slightly misrepresenting me. The text as I finally revised it eleven minutes later was slightly different. To be sure, this doesn't counter your point about copyvio, but it neither supports an attention to detail. DAVilla 09:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I "slightly misrepresented" your text somehow. FWIW, I did go back to a much earlier version, and mangled it when comparing the [Show changes] current version. I think the current version is OK, but should probably link AHD and APstyle in a ===References=== section. --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we say "the parts are comprised by the whole" or "the parts are comprised of the whole"? DAVilla 09:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely one is much better off not saying either, and removing this treacherous word from one's lexicon completely. I personally have gone for years without ever using "comprise" in a sentence. However, if I found myself in a life-or-death situation which required me to use "comprise" in the passive voice, I would say "comprised by." "Of" reflects that the whole is made of, or from, the parts; I don't think that would apply in reverse. -- Visviva 04:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: of course, if you are following the modern "convention" of using 'comprise' as a synonym of 'compose', as alluded to in the AHD, you would say "the whole is comprised of its parts." However, doing so will guarantee you a place in the inner circle of Grammar Hell. -- Visviva 08:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Under water current word that sounds like sishe.

Does anyone know a word for an underwater current that sounds like sishe? (si- rhyming with pie / -sh rhyming with blush) I heard it on Discovery, they were talking about Loch Ness but I don't think it is a Scottish word exclusively.--Dmol 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly seiche, aka the "bathtub wave," although I wouldn't have thought the topography of a Scottish loch would be ideal for such phenomena. -- Visviva 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it is. Google "loch ness seiche" and you'll find what you are looking for! Robert Ullmann 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was looking for.--Dmol 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Decapod/decapod

Is Decapod proper? Or should it be merged to decapod and the capitalized version delted or something? RJFJR 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would merge with lowercase and delete uppercase. SemperBlotto 21:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I merged the def from {{Decapod]] to decapod. Now what do we do about the Decapod entry? Do we make it a redirect to the lowercase or what? RJFJR 13:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A proper merge would involve deletion of target, move to target, delete (again), restore (merging edit histories), then edit to select desires pieces to be merged -- in order to preserve the edit history per the GFDL. --EncycloPetey 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the upper-case an alternative spelling for that sense. DAVilla 08:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

language

A long time ago someone added this obscure definition:

The expression of an understanding — see "Language is Understanding"

I just cannot grasp the meaning of this definition, however profound it may be. I would've simply deleted it myself, but the problem is that over time our editors have contributed a plethora of translations for this sense. So, what shall we do with it? Perhaps, someone can clarify or expand the definition in question? Dart evader 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest merging it with number 4, as "a medium of expression of ideas, such as a nonverbal system of communication" e.g. sign language, body language. DAVilla 08:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Animals gnat

I see the adjective from gnat in the table is trumpet. Any reason for this? Or can I delete it? Algrif 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It was added by user:Paul G (almost 3½ years ago!) in this edit. Given that the same edit introduced the adjacent column for the sounds animals make, I would hazard a guess that "trumpet" was intended for this column. While indeed it does sound odd, a b.g.c search does verify that a gnat does indeed trumpet [24], [25], [26]! I'll correct it now. Thryduulf 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proving once again that you learn something new every day on Wikt. :-) -- Algrif 12:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

taw

Could someone tell me why the entry for 'taw' has been removed? 'Taw' is an old word in playing marbles meaning your 'favorite marble', and is used in square dancing with a derived sense of 'favorite', 'beloved', 'partner', or 'spouse'. — This unsigned comment was added by Rsvk (talk • contribs) at 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

It was deleted because it was a redirect to tav. It never gave any of the senses you mention. Please, create the entry. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 02:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Song of the South

where does the song zipidee do-da zipidee-eay come from

See Song of the South on Wikipedia. DAVilla 08:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

latin to polynesian writing and symbols...odd question, I know.

I am getting a tattoo in the next week...
I love the English quote: "To Thine Own Self Be True" which is Latin is "tibi ipi estos fedilis"...However, I love the polynesian style of tattoos...so, wondering what the polynesian translation of this phrase would be? I have spent countless hours on tattoos sites and can't find the exact translation and/or symbol that I am wanting....truth is not the same as being true to self....I would appreciate anyone's expertise in this area...thanks.
— This unsigned comment was added by 2-23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs) at 69.149.41.74.

Can't help you on the language, but I would advise you to make very certain that it's correct, as in third and fourth opinions. DAVilla 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with DAVilla above, but note that the Samoan version may be "Tu'usa'olotoina e le faamaoni." Recommend locating a Samoan native speaker for verification. -- Visviva 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, your Latin version is wrong. I think what you're going for is "Tibi ipsi esto fidelis". Mike Dillon 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Malay has a huge number of native speakers, especially if you count Indonesians so you have a good chance of contacting one. I know several Maoris but their mother tongue is English. I've lost touch with several Hawai'ians, Samoans, & Tongans but I still keep up with a few Malays and could ask one easily. Would you accept Malay though? Most people want South Seas Islander when they refer to Polynesian. Bali is part of Indonesia, in case that helps. Thecurran 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

antropizzazione

This Italian word means "the transformation or adaptation of the environment to meet the needs of humans". Can anyone think of an English translation? (See w:it:antropizzazione) SemperBlotto 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an ecological term anthropization, which appears to have the same meaning.[27] This has also been discussed by our good friends at proz.com. -- Visviva 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: and a more robust discussion here. -- Visviva 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: interestingly, "anthropize" is scarcely used at all. -- Visviva 13:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. SemperBlotto 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the context is of another planet, then terraforming is the word used in science fiction (and iirc scientific discussion, although I've not looked for cites to back this up yet). Thryduulf 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

avarice

Is sense 2 really distinct from sense 1? If I have an avarice for X (where X may be power, books, kingdoms, edit count, etc.), does this not simply mean that I desire to gain X? Or am I missing something? And in any case, do we have any semi-standard test for what constitutes a distinct sense? -- Visviva 13:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The OED has two definitions, one literal and one figurative. --EncycloPetey 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Another question: is this countable or not? I mean, obviously it's not the sort of thing that one normally has occasion to count, but "avarices" does get a respectable number of b.g.c. hits. -- Visviva 11:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

augury

More accurately!? Are these the same definition? DAVilla 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be something like:

1. Template:ib Divination based on the appearance and behaviour of animals.
2. Template:ib An omen, prediction; a foreboding.

That is, the "divination" sense is primary, at least originally. The sense used for the result of divination is an extension, but it is now effectively the primary meaning since few if any people actually do divination based on seeing birds or their innards anymore. Mike Dillon 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, {{archaic}} may not fit, since the word itself is not archaic, just the activity it describes. I think that {{by extension}} is probably right though. Mike Dillon 16:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. DAVilla 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

breakfast

I don't see the distinction. DAVilla 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The second sense should have {{by extension}}. The distinction is between a meal that is the first meal of the day ("breaking" the "fast" of sleeping) and the food that is commonly served at that meal (which can be served at a different time). An example would be ordering pancakes and scrambled eggs in the middle of the night at a 24-hour diner. It probably isn't the eater's first meal of the day, but pancakes and scrambled eggs are normally considered "breakfast food" and the food is still called "breakfast" in this context, even if the meal isn't. Mike Dillon 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. How did I miss that example sentence? DAVilla 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this definition (which I totally agree with) a UK / Ireland thing. Should it be marked as such.--Dmol 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so -- I (American) have said things like "I don't want to have breakfast at midnight (let's not have pancakes)" Cynewulf 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

livid

Hey there! No, I'm not furiously angry. :) I do find our 'livid' to be confusing, though. I've heard of 'livid' being used for a colour of injured flesh, but the idea of it meaning dark blue contrasts starks with the idea listed of it meaning pallid or pale. My concise Aussie w:OED lists 'furiously angry' as a colloquiallism and the colour meaning as being that of lead, bluish-grey. I find this to be commensurate with pallid but dark just doesn't seem to fit. Is there a confusion with 'black and blue' or are there really one light colour and one dark colour meaning? Thecurran 03:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever encountered this used to mean "pallid." That might just be the fault of my North American education, though; can you provide some citations? FTR, I do not associate leaden with paleness either. But then I am partially colorblind. ;-) -- Visviva 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No livid means kind of bluish. The only time it means pale is when you're talking about people being pale with anger, where livid is used, and I always imagine it as being because if you have a reddish complexion then losing colour can look like you're relatively blue. Maybe that doesn't make much sense, but that's English for you.. Widsith 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This has really surprised me! I have always used livid in the sense given in these random quotes:-

• In spring the first livid red nubs of rhubarb stalks appear.
• He has livid red burn marks on his arm after his father poured boiling water....
• ...a livid red lake of blood.

  bright, and usually associated with the colour red! -- Algrif 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is also used in this way, as a sort of intensifier for other colour-names. But on its own, it means bluish-grey. Weird. Widsith 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Colourize

I found links to 'colourize' in 'colorize', which links to and from 'colourise'. Now, I believe there are 2 common spelling variants of this word; the chiefly GB 'colourise' and the chiefly US 'colorize'. I don't recognize colourize as being the common term in any large, specific dialect, but when writing to an audience that is likely to have proponents of both variants, I do use 'colourize'. The '-ize' spelling reflects both pronunciations, + the GB pronunciation where it isn't used differs markedly from the '-ise' of 'practise' & 'promise'. The '-our' spelling reflects both pronunciations, + the US pronunciation where it isn't used differs markedly from the "or" of 'or', 'torpid', etc. as well as the "our" of 'flour' & 'sour' or 'court', 'pour' & 'source'. Even though it does match the '-or' in 'terror', it has a slightly different root in w:Anglo-Norman Language/w:French Language.

Here's the dilemma, I prefer '-our' to '-or' and '-ize' to '-ise', because I like to compromize between dialects to achieve a sort of neutrality, + 'colourize' has a count of 25.0k in w:Google, similar to the 29.3k for 'colourise', but it is much less than the 1.07M for 'colorize' and I don't even know if any dictionary would list 'colourize'. My personal view on this biases me enough to feel precluded from creating 'colourize'. I want to know what others think. Thecurran 04:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From the data you give, it sounds like colourize and colourise are at the same order of magnitude; thus, I can't see any reason not to include colourize as an alternative spelling, though it should probably be labeled as {{proscribed}}. Cheers, -- Visviva 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Proscribed by whom? colourize is lemmatized by the Canadian Oxford, which goes "colourize, also colorize, especially British colourise." Not to mention that -ize endings are perfectly acceptable in Britain (see w:American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize). Truth be told, the Oxford English Dictionary lemmatizes colorize (no u, no s). JackLumber 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury

When people use the phrase "the Archbishop of Canterbury", do they mean "the head of the Church of England", or do they mean "the Archbishop of Canterbury, who as we know is the Church of England"? I suspect it's the latter, and that this term is sum-of-parts aside from its encyclopedic entailment, but as it's a phrase I hardly ever use, I thought I'd gather opinions first before RFD-ing it. —Ruakh_TALK 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, and as a Brit by birth, I always understood that this was SOP. Not the Archbishop of York for example. And that it just so happens that he is considered the leading Archbishop (given that HRH Liz is, legally, the head of the CoE. -- Algrif 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it is SOP, referring to the person or the office, in the same way that "Bishop of Bath and Wells" and "Mayor of London", etc are used. The posts and holders are encyclopaedic but not dictionaric. Thryduulf 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I started this mess but I had good intentions. If you want the nitty-gritty, check this. I'll support RFD or speedy on this one. :) Thecurran 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I create a Page

Template:How do I create a Page

Can you please tell me how Thank you cameron king

Go to the page you want to create by typing the URL in your 'Address Bar' near the top your browser window or following a link to it. Then, click on the "Edit" tab, which is the third from the left, just above the workspace, inside your the client space of your browser or you can follow the "Create this entry" link within that same workspace. Please, do check the "deletion log" and strongly consider proposing your addition in this "Tea Room" before proceeding; have fun. :) Thecurran 05:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Help:Starting a new page? --Connel MacKenzie 17:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

break water

Should this include a definition of the condition in late pregnancy? Or is it "break waters"? Or should it just be included in break? SemperBlotto 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think one would normally say "her water just broke" rather than "she just broke (her) water." So the lemma form might be something like one's water breaking? -- Visviva 12:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can use either form her water(s) just broke or she just broke water But the second is idiomatic. There is no elipsis of her. -- Algrif 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it ever "her waters just broke"? The set-phrase/idiom is "her water just broke" or "her water broke fifteen minutes ago." Or is that different over the pond? --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's also the white-water rapids sense, missing. And a boat's wake. E.g. Turning the bend of the river, they entered the break water and started paddling furiously. --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's different over the pond. I'll look for some quotes to support waters broke. -- Algrif 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My usual favourite source [click_here] -- Algrif 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow...for "her water broke": one from France, one from Japan, all the rest from the US. --Connel MacKenzie 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And for "her waters broke": UK or Commonwealth: 100% --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (edit) 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, over in AU-WA, I just came from a naming ceremony/ 1st birthday/ mother's birthday/ Father's Day this weekend. We had preggoes and bubses everywhere and the only way I heard it was '...water break...'; never 'waters'. It seems like Connel MacKenzie was using a noun distantly like 'breakwater'. Maybe the new entry should merely be 'one's water'/ 'one's waters as in 'Is your water still intact?'. Thecurran 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Could you please provide a full example sentence of how it is said in Australia-Western Australia? I was talking about the English Wiktionary's entry for break water...which should have other senses listed. Which are you talking about? --Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I heard phrases like, "We were worried about her water breaking.", "Did her water break?", "Her water was intact right through until the C-section.", &c. My first point was that, in the Commonwealth of Australia, we use 'water'. My second was that unless anyone can support phrases like "she just broke water", it would seem all phrases involved revolved around 'one's water(s)'. This would mean that if we made 'one's water'/ 'one's waters include the meaning 'one's amniotic sac', all would be solved without adding an idiom. Similarly, we could just add the meaning to 'water' or 'waters. Either way, this would also allow phrases like "Is her water still OK?". I hope this helps clarify things. Thecurran 03:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

orientate

Is this word normal outside the US? To me (American) it comes off as additionalificationifying a redundant morpheme -- we just say "orient". What kind of tag should it get? (See also disorientate) Cynewulf 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly recent back-formation, used chiefly in the UK and sometimes attacked even there. In the British National Corpus, oriented prevails by 1.56 : 1. In technical use, oriented is the norm in the UK as in the US. Object-orientated programming? Come on! JackLumber 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, one Brit in a C++ community I belong to once commented that it took him a very long time to get used to saying "object-oriented programming" and not feel that he was skipping a syllable. —Ruakh_TALK 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I always get confused over whether to say disoriented or disorientated... Widsith 09:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

'orientation' and 'disorientation' are fine. Please, try not to use 'disorientate(ed)' at all. It's just another unnecessary word that conveys no more information than 'disorient(ed)'. BTW, en-us uses 'orienteer' in the 'BSA' 'orienteering' badge, so there's no reason to point fingers at GB for frivolous terms here. :) Thecurran 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[Category:Script templates]

Can someone please do a little cleanup of the template or talk pages in this category? The following ones are unclear because they neither show a specific link to explain their meaning nor show up in w:List of ISO 15924 codes: Template:enPRchar**, Template:IPA Rhymes, Template:IPA2, Template:IPAchar**, Template:KSchar*, Template:KUchar*, Template:polytonic, Template:SAMPAchar**, Template:SDchar*, Template:lang, & Template:unicode. *=RFD'd & **=perhaps should be RFD'd. Thecurran 08:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, next time I'll use RFC. Thecurran 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

watertightness

Does this word exist? Is there a better noun that means the same? I need a link for Spanish estanquidad. Help please. -- Algrif 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. It's not very elegant though - if I were translating estanquidad I would probably rephrase to avoid using it as a noun. Widsith 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

impermeability might be better. SemperBlotto 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The problem with impermeability is that it would not be translated as estanquidad. This word is used mainly (but not exclusively) to talk about boats being watertight. Which leaves us with watertightness by the looks of it. -- Algrif 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the full sentence you are translating? Could it be rephrased using the adjective “watertight” instead? Rod (A. Smith) 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. It is from a scientific R&D project progress report:-

El primer prototipo fue desechado debido a problemas de estanqueidad en su sistema de cierre (roscado) y en el tabique interno que separa el condensador en dos compartimentos. -- Algrif 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In that example I'd be tempted just to say "leakage problems" in English - or maybe, "problems over how watertight the latch was". Widsith 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that I used leakage in the translation, in fact. But it made me think about adding the term to Wikt, and I couldn't think of anything other than watertightness. -- Algrif 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish is hilariously euphemistic. "The boat had some issues with watertightness" = "The f***er sank like a stone". Widsith 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

¡Bueno! ¡Muy bien! Jejejejejeje. -- Algrif 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there exist hermeticity and hermiticity, but they're much vaguer — usually they'd imply impermeability to gas. And even given their greater range of senses, neither outnumbers watertightness on b.g.c. (though together they do). —Ruakh_TALK 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

will

We have the following at will:

Verb

to will (third-person singular simple present will, present participle -, simple past would, past participle -)

1. Indicating intent to perform the action in the future, or expectation of an event in the future.

I will go to the store.

It will rain this afternoon.

Usage notes

• As will is an auxiliary verb, it takes the same form in all persons and both numbers.
• Historically, the present tense is will and the past tense is would.

Huh?? If it's an auxiliary verb (which it is) then it doesn't have an infinitive or a conjugation (not that I'm a grammarian or anything, but that's how I understand it at least). And if its past tense is merely historically would then why is that listed in the conjugation line? (Note that this sense I'm asking about it not the perfectly valid verb to will, meaning to wish or to try to effect something using one's will, listed under a separate etymology.)—msh210℠ 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As with other auxilliary verbs, the auxilliary sense of will is defective in that it lacks an infinitive, but it has other conjugated forms that can vary depending on tense, mood, and, according to traditional English grammar, depending on person. In the first person singular and plural, shall has traditionally been the normal future auxiliary verb, while will indicates intent. In the second and third person, the opposite is true. Similar distinction is traditionally made between would and should for for conditionals. The relatively minimal conjugation system in English makes it strange to think of shall, will, should, and would as separate entries in a conjugation table, but since English grammar is traditionally analyzed in terms of Latin grammar, traditional English grammarians consider them different conjugations of a single defective verb:

• Indicative mood present tense (i.e. plain future auxilliary):
  • 1st person (singular and plural): shall (e.g. I shall go tomorrow.)
  • 2nd and 3rd person: will (e.g. He will go tomorrow.)
• Intentional mood:
  • 1st person (singular and plural): will (e.g. I will succeed, no matter what.)
  • 2nd and 3rd person: shall (e.g. He shall make me an offering.)
• Conditional mood:
  • 1st person (singular and plural): should (e.g., if I were a millionaire, I should go...)
  • 2nd and 3rd person: would (e.g., if I were a millionaire, you would go...)

We should remove the infinitive, i.e. with {{en-verb|inf=-|...}}, but leave the inflections. Rod (A. Smith) 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again I see I really must get my finger out and write a definitive version of Appendix:English Modal verbs that I still have only in draft form. -- Algrif 10:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This entry bothered me because it, 1., buried the most common sense of simple futurity and, 2., ignored the sense of futurity cum certainty. Instead it seems locked in the animism of the time of formation of the word. I found the entry instructive precisely because it served to remind me of the force of animism in the structure of our thinking. (I've been readng Lakoff.) I'm more of a fatalist myself so I was almost offended by the treatment of the senses I refer to above. DCDuring 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To take something public

Last month, in WT:ID User:Ruakh told Maria that 'to take a company public' was not idiomatic. I can see sense in that but I just don't think that term would be grammatically correct unless we included an adverb form for public. Consider how odd "take the building green/ large" sounds. On the other hand, "make the building green/ large" is fine and "green up the building"/ "enlarge the building" would also find great support. This is 'cuz 'make' can have an adjective as a direct object when the indirect object is a noun/ noun phrase. 'take' however can't have an indirect object at all but can have an adverb/ prepositional phrase after its nounal direct object; adverbial forms are used for 'away#Adverb', 'back#Adverb', 'down#Adverb', 'forward#Adverb', 'here#Adverb', 'home#Adverb', 'in#Adverb', 'left#Adverb', 'out#Adverb', 'over#Adverb', 'right#Adverb', 'there#Adverb', 'toward#Adverb', 'under#Adverb', 'up#Adverb', & 'yonder#Adverb' when these follow the direct object of 'take'. I know some people may disagree with including 'here', 'home', 'there', & 'yonder' but I didn't put those sections in and there are so many phrasal verbs using them this way that they've fully transcended the adverb barrier. Alternatively, we could construct the idiom that Maria implied but I'd consider it rather silly just as Ruakh did. We wouldn't have this problem if the phrase used was 'make something public' but the phrase 'take something public' has established itself so we should treat it accordingly. Thecurran 08:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Take does take some adjective complements: you can take an idea public, or statewide, or national/​nationwide, or international/​global/​worldwide, or the like. In all cases the sense seems to be of making the idea known or available to a wider portion of the universe. (And similarly with other nouns besides "idea".) I guess we should document this at take. —Ruakh_TALK 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the premise that take a company public or take something public isn't idiomatic. That set-phrase/idiom means something like 'to convert ownership from a private entity, to publicly traded stocks.' --Connel MacKenzie 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find Thecurran's initial comment here to be easily readable, but when you have to define such complicate exceptions to usual rules for just one word, it seems like a good indicator of idiomaticy (idiomaticness?). In any case I agree with Connel that the meaning of this set phrase (which would merit it an entry imho) is idiomatic (which definitely merits an entry). Thryduulf 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clear up my initial comment without changing the meaning. I hope it helps. I'm sorry I didn't consider 'take something country/ nation/ province/ state/ world-wide'. I obviously 'dropped the ball'. I do consider these adverbs though because they can follow 'go', 'is known', and their ilk. I just wanted to note that if we just added an adverb form to 'public', the problem would be solved without any extra work. The problem with not allowing 'public' to be an adverb as I saw it was that it forces us to let 'take' have an indirect object, which would be altering an incredibly common word. Thecurran 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

nene and nena

These are marked as Spanish slang. As far as I know they are normal terms meaning a very young child or baby. Not slang at all, except for the term of endearment nena. Opinions please? -- Algrif 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not slang, just colloquial. Also used ironically to mean scoundrel. —Stephen 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AP in glossary?

I know we have 'AP' meaning 'Associated Press' in Wiktionary but we use it so much that I think it deserves a spot in Wiktionary:Glossary. Thecurran 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking on a typo

Excuse me if I'm being presumptuous but 'Wiktionary:Votes/header' seems to have a grammatical error that I would normally consider an obvious typo. But as it is locked, there seems to be nothing I can do.

I think the bulleted sentence "A failed votes does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future." was meant to read as "The failure of a vote does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future." or "A vote's failure does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future." or even the passive "A failed vote is NOT restricted from being created again in the future.". Any bites? Thecurran 05:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that according to 'predate', we should really use the term 'antedate' instead. Plus, it'll ensure nobody becomes afraid of their vote being preyed upon by a little account or thylacine. :) Thecurran 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Thecurran. I was not aware that “predate” was so proscribed, but I did implement your grammar correction above. By the way, are you aware of a reference we can add to our “predate” entry to validate the usage notes? Rod (A. Smith) 05:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW. --Connel MacKenzie 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"poo poo", UK slang for being dismissive.

I saw a headline in one of the UK tabloids last week that used the term "poo poo" to mean that someone is rejecting a comment or being dismissive of it. Can't remember the exact wording but it was something like "(name) poo poos talk of engagement to actor". I'm sure I have seen it before, but wanted to check before adding it, as it would be a prime candidate for RFV or RFD. Is it used enough to pass CFI, and has it been used long enough (3 years isn't it?) to qualify. Is it UK only. It is difficult to look up without getting pages on toddler toilet training.--Dmol 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an exchange from an old episode of The Simpsons, something like:

Editor: We're looking for a new food critic... someone who doesn't immediately poo-poo everything he eats

Homer: No, it usually takes me a couple of hours.

So yes, I think it's fair to say it's been around long enough to include. There are some spelling/hyphenation issues (poo poo, poo-poo, pooh pooh, etc.), which may further hinder the citation search.-- Visviva 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: Lots of cites here: [28] Looks like poo-poo is the canonical form. -- Visviva 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's usually used in a different sense than pooh-pooh, which is the standard form I've always seen in dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, "pooh pooh" does indeed seem to be a good deal more common [29]. But while "poo poo" is used primarily in reference to fecal matter, search results "poo pooed" and "poo pooing" (with or without hyphen) seem largely to reflect the same sense as pooh-pooh, viz. "to dismiss out of hand." -- Visviva 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I expect this is a recent phenomenon, resulting from the existence of the two homophones having their spellings confused in combination with the general decline in spelling skills. --EncycloPetey 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent or not, "poo poo" is the form I'm most familiar with seeing in the UK, and especially given the prevalence of the spellings without an "h" in the present and past tenses, I'd say it merits an alternative spelling entry. Thryduulf 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help and comments. Just want to note that poo poo (no letter H) was definitely the spelling used where I saw it.--Dmol 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created poo poo as an alternative spelling of pooh-pooh which exists already--Dmol 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Plural for antenna

• Moved here from my talk page (where it was getting annoying) SemperBlotto 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

antennae and antennas are plural for antenna ... is there any problem about adding a "See also" section to link the two plural forms together? Mwtoews 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. SemperBlotto 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Better yet would be to list them as synonyms (as per latices / latexes). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not sure they are synonyms: some senses of antenna require one plural, and some require the other. —Ruakh_TALK 15:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not purely synonyms, since one is for living organisms, and the other is for electronic devices. Mwtoews 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms needn’t be identical in meaning — merely close in meaning. If we only allowed words of identical meaning as synonyms, we’d have far fewer “Synonyms” sections. I believe that these two plurals — in being different only due to their glosses — are by far similar enough to be considered synonyms. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But they're completely different in sense. It would make more sense for them to list each other as related terms. —Ruakh_TALK 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, the COED says that for the aerial sense, antennas is an “also” plural form; that is, it says that antennae can also be used to mean aerials. On top of that, I’m sure that antennas is used by some as the plural of the biology sense or instinct sense. This is the case despite what our (probably valid) prescription states. I dunno; I’d say that these plurals’ meanings are close enough for them to be considered synonyms, though I probably wouldn’t say the same for cherubim / cherubs. If you three feel strongly about it, feel free to revert the section titles to “See also”. (“Related terms” sections are for terms related by etymological form, not meaning — right? –Since these two are related in both ways, I guess it doesn’t matter very much though…) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Based almost solely on this discussion, I'd say that "Synonyms" is the correct heading. Thryduulf 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

looks pluralia tantum ?

The noun sense no.2, as in good looks. Is this a pluralia tantum ? -- Algrif 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably. The only related term I can think of at the moment is "good looking". Thryduulf 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so, yes. (And another related term is looker.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so as well. Consider: "Her looks earned her a cover photo." versus "Her look earned her a cover photo." In the first sentence, it is her physical beauty, especially the face, that is being discussed. In the second sentence, it is her style, including clothing, makeup, and hair. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could one of you change the entry please? I'm not sure of the correct way to tidy it up as a pluralia tantum. Thanks. -- Algrif 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ruakh. That looks good. :-) -- Algrif 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tarantulas in articles

Hello, I was reading the article spider and I noticed there was a very graphic picture of a tarantula. Do we really need this? I happen to have arachnophobia and this picture really bugged me. Does anyone agree with me that we should replace that picture with a more tame one? Cheers, JetLover 02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have arachnophobia, perhaps it would be better if you let others patrol that (and similar) entries. --Connel MacKenzie 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is, is it neccesary to have a tarantula? Why not something like this? Cheers, JetLover 02:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, seriously? I find that picture much scarier. —Ruakh_TALK 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me about Wikipedia's simmering war about putting a spider picture at w:Arachnophobia. I can agree that having a spider picture at arachnophobia would be inappropriate and unhelpful, but it seems reasonable to have a spider picture at spider. I'm actually curious why someone with arachnophobia would want to look at the entry for spider; don't you know that there's a good chance of you finding something you're not going to like? As to whether it is a tarantula or another spider, it seems like the image you're suggesting would be scarier since the spider is facing the camera; it's not like the tarantula picture has a hand in it or something.Mike Dillon 02:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess you're right on that. But how about like a common house spider pic? Cheers, JetLover 02:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I poked around Commons and didn't see any good ones. I'd say that any high quality picture that clearly depicts a crawly thing with eight legs would be fine. I can't imagine anyone's wedded to the idea of having a tarantula in particular. Mike Dillon 15:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Other pictures are at hobo spider and brown recluse. And no snarky comments about how blurry my picture was...that sucker was huge! --Connel MacKenzie 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

one

one#Numeral has its first two senses:

1. (cardinal) The first number in the set of natural numbers (especially in number theory).
2. The cardinality of the smallest nonempty set. The number of heads a typical human has.

Am I missing something, or are these identical?—msh210℠ 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, you are the mathematician. Anyway, I guess they should probably be merged. Except for the number of heads part, of course, which doesn't make much sense. Yes, a typical human has one head, one nose, one mouth, one neck, one belly button... JackLumber 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is however by far the easiest of the definitions for a non-mathematician like myself to understand. Thryduulf 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

O.K., but hopefully even a non-mathematician knows what "one" means without having to look it up. :-)   Someone looking at that entry probably either is looking for something besides the definition (etymology, translations, derived terms, etc.), or wants a formal math-y definition. (I don't object to having the non-math-y definition as well; but it doesn't seem completely necessary.) —Ruakh_TALK 04:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the second definition specifically defines it as "the cardinality", the two definitions are synonymous. The difference is only in the underlying mathemtical approach to definition, not in any lexical sense. That is, the underlying theory of what constitutes "one-ness" is different, but the practical application should be identical. It is also possible that someone mistakenly believed that the first definition was for the symbol and the second was for the concept, but that is incorrect. All the symbols are simply different written forms of that concept, not separate definitions. --EncycloPetey 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To me (as a Swedish speaker), it's not an issue of maths/non-maths but of the abstract number, versus the count of something. The abstract number, used if you're counting "abstractly", referring to the time "one o'clock" or similar, is in Swedish always translated as ett, while if you're counting some specific objects the word is en if the objects are of common gender, but ett if of neuter (yes, these are the same words as used for the indefinite articles). Should information like that go into the translation section, the pages ett / en with merely links from the translation section, or should it be taken into account in the English definitions, that there are languages which makes such an distinction and thence that the definition needs to reflect that? \Mike 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The convention seems to be that if only a couple of languages have more senses than English then very brief (one or two word) glosses are added in the translation table entry for the languages that do. In this case that'd likely be something like "(abstract counting) ett (counting objects) en , ett Template:n". Full usage notes would be at en and ett

Where there are quite a few languages that make more distinction than English, then separate translation tables are used, each with an appropriate header gloss. Again usage notes would be in full at en and ett. Thryduulf 22:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I kind of supposed that would be better, but someone removed the reference to en [30]... so I wanted some confirmation before I started fighting for it :) \Mike 06:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That would have been me. I think en does not deserve its place there, since it is a matter of grammar whether one chooses ett or en. Basically, they are two forms of one word. Or am I mistaken here? Anyway, for e.g. adjectives, we do not want translators to enter all forms of the adjective, but only the base form, which is generally the masculine. That’s why I deleted the mention of en. Of course, a usage note and crosslink to ett would be appropriate at that page (and vice versa). H. (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a matter of grammar, just as the choice of den/det/de for the definite article (not to mention the suffixes). Or whether "her" should be translated as "hennes" or a form of "sin". But then: what would be the definition of a "form variant"? Would "denna" and "den här" be variants? Both can (best) be translated as "this" - but they differ grammatically in a way which is not visible in English. (No, I'm not out for you: I'm asking other Swedish speakers, if there are any around... :)). Well, I think we have some interesting line to draw, here somewhere... \Mike 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

etymology of cold

In a discussion I had elsewhere (i.e. not on a wiki), someone mention that cold (disease) could stand for "chronic obstructive lung disease". While I expect that this is a back-formation by some acronym-obessed doctor, we don't seem to ahve an entry for it. Since this isn't a term I've heard used before, I'm not sure what possible alternative spellings and forms to go hunting for. So... I thought I'd get input here, and maybe even citations. --EncycloPetey 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be a confusing backronym, as one would expect "chronic obstructive lung disease" to be synonymous with "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease", which is not the same thing at all. Also, as colds aren't usually chronic, hopefully. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, they are the same thing; according to Barbara Janson Cohen’s Medical Terminology: An Illustrated Guide anyhow (“Emphysema is the main disorder included under the heading of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (also called COLD, chronic obstructive lung disease)” — the underline, but not the emboldenment, is mine). I reckon this folk etymology is tosh. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was saying that a cold and COPD are not the same thing at all, and that one would expect COLD to be the same thing as COPD — which apparently it is indeed. Thanks for the ref. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Help me find words for these things

It has been said that those things for which we lack words, will slip past our conscious awareness. Thus I'm always struggling to force myself to consciously acknowledge the things of the world for which I know no name. Help me name these things. Dictionary words are best, but protologisms are fine too, especially if they're made highly memorable. Also please discuss how often you're aware of these things yourself. Feel free to add your own unnamed phenomena too.

• When you're reading/watching/listening/etc. to something, and start to imagine yourself seeing/hearing/etc. it through someone else's eyes/ears/etc. (esp. when you thereby rediscover the "magic" of something with which you're familiar, as if experiencing it for the first time)

ecstasy? vicarious-ness? —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Or just sympathy/empathy...? Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When waking up (often from a short, much needed nap), a "pulsing" sensation throughout the body but especially the head/behind the eyes

caffeine deprivation? grogginess? sleepy wakefulness or even lethargy. --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In music, when two things seem "out of synch" and yet at the same time "sound good". For example, a voice completely defies the overall tempo, but thereby greatly enhances the song. Common in rap.

syncopation? Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

harmony? counter-melody? --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps counterpoint, though it seems a bit of a stretch. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In music, when a voice is very fast, to the point of being unintelligible (but natural, not artificially speeded up a la "chipmunk voice")

Do you mean like rap or like an auction caller, or more like a legal disclaimer at the end of a commercial? --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

any of the above.. though auctioneers and legalese aren't very common in music.. but it brings up an interesting point, what IS auctioneer-speak called and what IS fast-legalese-speak called? — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

I’d go with patter. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In cartoons, when a character cries, and the tears are shown "showering" sideways out of their eyes, almost like a mist.

sobbing, boo-hooing. --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In cartoons, when a character cries, and the tears are shown as contiguous "streams" flowing down their face.

bawling, sobbing. (Bit of overlap there - distinction is only relevant to artists drawing it.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In a movie, when the protagonist is doing something important, and we are shown someone else (parents, girlfriend...) watching the protagonist (often without the protagonist's knowledge). For example, the protagonist has a revelation and shouts for joy in a parking lot, and then the director shows us that their love interest is secretly watching him do this through an apartment window.

dramatic irony? —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In television this is sometimes just called a reveal. Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

scene cut or just a cut? --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When an expected reaction is momentarily delayed, then suddenly done all at once. For example, in a video game, the hero is struck a mortal blow: for a second, she doesn't even react; then in a single frame she is lying dead.

pause for effect? pregnant pause? —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

lag / netlag (even jocularly, when game is not on the net, but local.) dropped frame (more technical sense, usually in plural.) Also, just about any creative phrasing, as it pertains to an individual game, or a special magical item of that game. --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When an expected reaction is long delayed, then gradually done. Often seen in cartoons, when a sword slashes someone, seems to have missed completely, then some time later the victim suddenly falls in half.

The example doesn't seem to match the description . . . :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't have said "the victim suddenly falls in half". It would be better to say, "the victim slowly falls in half". Often, when this specific example occurs, the victim will actually boast, "hah, looks like you missed me", before they fall in half. The phenomenon can have exceedingly long delays: a detective arrives at a crime scene, sees a person standing with their back to the detective, the detective walks up and taps them on the shoulder, the person drops dead (or falls in half or whatever). — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

delayed reaction seems to do the job. Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When you're reading a book, and start daydreaming or thinking about something else, then suddenly realize you don't anything about an entire chunk of text you just read.

— This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

• The sheen seen on a single gossamer strand; the silvery part of a cobweb you can see only momentarily, when the light hits it just right. --Connel MacKenzie 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  A scintilla? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Pronunciations wildly different across the pond. (Confer this...it really does need a lexical sounding name.)
• --Connel MacKenzie 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

virtue

What is “# a good model quality”? Is it a nuance sense of “# an exemplary quality” or does it mean something else entirely? Rod (A. Smith) 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Plural of block and tackle

Is the plural block and tackles? RJFJR 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should actually be blocks and tackle (block being count, tackle being non-count, so "two blocks and tackle" = "{two blocks} and {tackle [for each]}"). That said, Google seems to have a slight preference for block and tackles. The intermediate blocks and tackles does not seem to be popular at all (it fairs O.K., hit-count-wise, but few of the hits are in this sense). Other phrasings, like block and tackle systems and block and tackle balances, also seem to be in currency (as do their normal singulars). None of these seems anywhere near as popular as the singular block and tackle, suggesting either that this is usually used in the singular, or that the usual plural is something I haven't thought of. —Ruakh_TALK 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure Ruakh is right. I don't even think "tackle" is properly countable in this sense -- tackle already consists of multiple ropes or chains. -- WikiPedant 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the compound block and tackle itself uncountable? Are you sure the uses of "blocks and tackle" that come up on Google aren't simply erroneous? --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it can be uncountable — "a {block and tackle}" seems quite well-formed — but it might only exist in the singular. (Another such, for some speakers, is "mouse", in the computer sense: clearly "mouse" is countable and singular, but many speakers simply do not pluralize it, instead going with something like "mouse devices".) —Ruakh_TALK 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So you disagree with the references I provided below? Interesting, but not particularly useful. It is important to indicate that it is uncountable first; many (obviously not just me) consider the "pluralizing" of it, to be incorrect. Indicating an incorrect plural form as an alternate (with its own warning) seems warranted, given how many errors turn on up your Google search. --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "So you disagree with the references I provided below?": Not at all. I think you must have misunderstood my comment? —Ruakh_TALK 20:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. Perhaps you could rephrase "I really don't think it can be uncountable"? --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think maybe we're defining "uncountable" differently? You seem to be using it to mean "lacking a plural"; for me, while an uncountable noun certainly lacks a plural, that's not enough to make a noun uncountable. For me, a noun like salt is uncountable, because you can't say *"a salt". You can, however, say "a block and tackle", even if it doesn't have a plural like "block and tackles" or "blocks and tackle" or something. (I'm not sure if the word "uncountable" is ambiguous between these two senses, or if one of us is using it mistakenly.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh, you are using uncountable correctly. Connel, you mean singulare tantum. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the plural is most commonly formed indirectly... "sets of block and tackle," "block and tackle mechanisms," etc. Google Patents turns up as many of these forms as you could desire... Which doesn't help us terribly, though it does suggest that (as Connel points out above) this phrase may actually be uncountable. What concerns me about "blocks and tackle" is that it (and for that matter "blocks and tackles") arguably could refer to a single set (since by definition a block and tackle consists of at least two pulleys) -- so it may, at least in some cases, just be an alternate form of the singular.

I mean, at least according to the current definition, you couldn't say "two blocks and tackle" to refer to two separate b&t setups, because each setup already contains at least two blocks. (I'm not sure if that definition is strictly correct; my real-life winching experience has been rather limited and less than successful.) On the other hand, you could theoretically say (as some people clearly do) "two block-and-tackles." -- Visviva 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Digging just a little deeper, [31], [32], [33] and [34] all list it as singular, describing plurals. On the other hand, this lists it with the doubly-erroneous plural (so I think they just had a bad day or something, when writing it.) I know I would only write "block and tackle" to describe multiple block and tackle assemblies. --Connel MacKenzie 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Workers of the world, unite!

There's an article on this slogan at Wikipedia, which happens to contain close to 50 translations for the phrase - something very unusual for a Wikipedia entry. I was thinking of making an entry for it here and moving all those translations over. Would that be appropriate? It's almost like an idiom or a proverb, but I don't want to open the door to slogans in general. Thoughts? bd2412 T 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would work as a phrasebook entry. Providing and maintaining translations is more our job than Wikipedia's. 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs).

For sure - we have nothing to lose but our chains! —Saltmarsh 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it is done: workers of the world, unite! bd2412 T 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

chikungunya and Makonde

Is this the only word ever borrowed into English from the Makonde language? (Is the name "Makonde" even borrowed from Makonde?) If so, is it sensible to create Category:Makonde derivations? -- Visviva 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Is this the only word ever borrowed into English from the Makonde language?": No idea, except next. Re: "Is the name 'Makonde' even borrowed from Makonde?": It looks like it, yes. (It looks like the native name for the language is actually "ChiMakonde", where "chi-" is a prefix that's attached to all language names — that sort of thing is common in the Bantu languages — but in English we don't usually include that prefix, which is why English has "Swahili" rather than "Kiswahili".) Re: "If so, is it sensible to create Category:Makonde derivations?": Yes, because even if English doesn't borrow much from Makonde, other languages might, resulting in categories like Category:pt:Makonde derivations, Category:yao:Makonde derivations, etc., which would all be subcategories of Category:Makonde derivations. (So, even if English has no loanwords from a given language, it might make sense to have a "derivations" category for that language.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

premises pluralia tantum ?

pluralia tantum ? In the sense of land and deeds. -- Algrif 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I’d say. Premise means something completely different, and I don’t think that a singular form of premises can, logically speaking, be back-formed, as it’s not as if a pub’s separate elements can be considered as individual parts which compose the “premises”. Oh, and BTW, pluralia tantum is the plural form — its singular is plurale tantum. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yiddish

Does anyone know if it's tref or treyf? (Possibly something else, maybe more than one). Checking an online dictionary and Wikipedia has just confused me. (I just put it as an antonym at wikisaurus:pure.) RJFJR 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's neither in Yiddish, which is not written using the Latin alphabet. What the transliteration is into English depends on your preferred system of transliteration. As to whether either of these spellings has made it into English, I'm not sure. A cursory glance at Google Books shows both, but I haven't actually looked beyond the results page to see context and italicization.—msh210℠ 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to spell it in Yiddish though it should be טרײף. I think. My spelling in Yiddish is not perfect. --Neskaya ^talk 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

frugality/frugalness

Is there a distinction between frugality and frugalness? RJFJR 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really in meaning, although frugalness is so rare that it would hardly seem a good choice. Widsith 11:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Teochew

What's Teochew? I found it checking words used in wiktionay that aren't in wiktionary. Is it the name of a lnaguage? RJFJR 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I found it at wikipedia. Sorry. I'll add it. RJFJR 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

imbetween

I have recently deleted imbetween. It is not in any paper or online dictionary that I have access to, but there are lots of Google hits for the word. Is this just ignorance or is it an actual change in the language - the im being easier to pronounce than the in? SemperBlotto 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the pronunciation with [m] is quite common, at least in some dialects; but most people spell it "in between" no matter how they pronounce it. If the eye-dialect spelling "imbetween" has at least three genuine uses on b.g.c. — and it seems to — then I think we should include it, and simply define it as an eye-dialect spelling of "in between". (It might warrant a "rare" tag as well.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The odd thing is that it doesn't seem to primarily an eye-dialect spelling; the legitimate hits I'm finding on Scholar, Books, and Patents are generally from fairly technical material, and almost never in the depiction of spoken discourse. The vast majority of hits are scannos, just as the vast majority of web hits are probably simple illiteracies... but at least two print uses I've found seem clearly self-conscious, such as a patent which juxtaposes "imbetween X and Y" with "between A, B, and C" in the same sentence. Perhaps it is sometimes used to mean something like "sandwiched between"? Anyway, regardless of inclusion, this seems like something we may want to monitor over time, so I've started a collection at Citations:imbetween (although I guess that should probably be Citations:IMBETWEEN). -- Visviva 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "it doesn't seem to primarily an eye-dialect spelling": That is fascinating and shocking. I guess this is what citations are for: challenging our uninformed assumptions. Thanks for adding them! :-)   (What's that about Citations:IMBETWEEN instead of Citations:imbetween? Yours isn't the first mention I've seen of that, but I think I missed the actual discussion about it. I don't suppose anyone has a link handy?) —Ruakh_TALK 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

im- is not just some easy way of saying "in". it is an English prefix derived from the german "im" for "in". the prefix is applicable when in front of several consonants. "B" is one of them. ie: import, imbed. google has over 14,000 hits. i know that is not a citation but combined with legitimate elements it seems that an admittance of the fluidity of language is appropriate in this case.75.57.98.66 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish our article to assert that the use of im- to mean in comes from a recondite German etymon that somehow isn't reflected in print citations, rather than from the straightforward and common process of assimilation, you'll need to provide a source for that assertion. On the face of it, it seems to be a fairly clear example of folk etymology. —Ruakh_TALK

i'll admit an ignorance of direct etymology whether it be german or latin. the point is that in this english language there is an evolution. be the "im-" in "imbetween" derived from an inherited usage or a new usage due to the retro assigned meaning of the prefix or simply the nature of english to turn "in b,p,m" into "imb.., imp..., or imm", it is arbitrary. the fact that the prefix has historically existed by these tendencies (and i say "tendencies" not "rules") is reason enough to acknowledge its occurrence as a natural progression of english. for so long, academies refused to acknowledge the word "can't" and for what purpose? Yes "cannot" also exists but because the language had precedents of the "-n't" abbreviation in other words, it eventually happened due to undeniable presence in common speech (as well as a shift from prescription to description). "Imbetween" exists in usage whether an institution seals approval or not. This is the whole purpose of wiktionary. Web 2.0 is run by a variety of common people with a variety of dialects, unlike the Académie Française which dictates prerequisite, prescription, "correctness" and "existence" to words.75.57.98.66 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly best regarded as a variant of "inbetween" (currently a redirect)? That has a couple orders of magnitude more web hits, and its 851 b.g.c. hits seem mostly not to be scannos. -- Visviva 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone pls back up what 'scotch' means in this example.

I've got a lot of Scottish background & a lot of Pakistani mates, so pls noone take offence in this. I found this on world news so the link won't last long. It was in the article, "Musharraf set to relinquish army post By South Asia correspondent Peter Lloyd September 18, 2007 - 9:33PM Source: ABC" where ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It was in the following one-sentence paragraph->

Prime Minister Aziz has gone out of his way to scotch reports of a deal between the regime and Ms Bhutto, especially in fixing up corruption cases.

I added the emboldenment. It was followed by:

"I think the cases are still there; there's no question of renewing them. They still exist," he said.

Does 'scotch' relate to stirring stuff up somewhat like in the various types of '-scotch' like 'butterscotch' or 'yoghurtscotch/ yogurtscotch'? It all seems too odd to me, but I'm sure the addition of a verb form for scotch is in order, even if it has a derisive derivation, if the ABC can use it. BTW, my Aussie Schoolmate OED lists the transitive verb, 'scotch', as meaning "put an end to (a rumour)." Thecurran 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say your OED has it about right. Although judging from b.g.c., it is sometimes used more broadly as "to discard an idea" or "to nip in the bud," a sense which blurs into the one we have. Notably it is used as "to use a scotch to block a wheel" -- perhaps the other senses are derived metaphorically from this one? Visviva 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The OED Online has two distinct entries for the verb scotch, one pertaining to cutting or injuring or quashing, and one pertaining to blocking or impeding or hesitating. It assigns the rumor-squelching sense to the former, but says it is "perh[aps] influenced by" the latter. Make of that what you will. —Ruakh_TALK 07:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Walter Skeat says scotch is etymologically related to score, "to cut slightly". Fowler points out that its meaning in Macbeth is similar. Now it is mostly a would-be clever way of saying "kill". It has nothing to do with Scotland. It's the verb for the noun in hopscotch. I'd call it rare in the USA. --68.46.158.140 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

cum

cum, English preposition, is listed with the sense:

1. Used in constructions such as: an X-cum-Y (for one who is X, to become Y)

   • A bus-cum-greenhouse would be a (probably old) bus that has been converted to a greenhouse.

Is this correct? I always understood the word as meaning essentially "and" or "and simultaneously" (not "becoming").—msh210℠ 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I take it to mean "and", with the strong implication that the part before the cum came first, or was the original intent; hence, a "party-cum-funeral" would be quite different from a "funeral-cum-party". —Ruakh_TALK 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually substitute "with" when I'm trying to figure out what a phrase containing cum means. RJFJR 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a Latin preposition, meaning "with" or "together with" and is used in many British placenames that are typically two villages sharing a parish etc. SemperBlotto 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

what

We have:

Determiner

what

1. (Noun modifier which indicates that the precise identity of the noun is unknown, and is requested.) The speaker is asking to learn the identity of the (noun).

   What time is it?

   What kind of car is that?

Interrogative determiner

what?

1. which; which kind of.

   What shirt are you going to wear?

2. how much; how great (used in an exclamation)

   What talent he has!

   What a talent!

Are the first two of these senses identical? If so, which POS header do we use?—msh210℠ 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They seem identical to me. "Interrogative determiner" is not a standard POS header; both senses should be under "Determiner". —Ruakh_TALK 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now combined.—msh210℠ 22:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with merging the sections for Pronoun, Relative pronoun, and Interrogative pronoun. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

-mania

Cf. kleptomania, megalomania, drapetomania, mythomania, egomania, and possibly others. One of the following would seem to be true:

• There's an English suffix -mania which deserves an entry.
• These words were all borrowed as whole words.

Does anyone know which?—msh210℠ 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly -mania deserves an entry. (I don't know if those were all borrowed as whole words, but -mania is used formatively in producing nonces, like bushmania, from Bush and -mania, and bushomania, the same but with infix -o-.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

also should have -maniac. RJFJR 13:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

toxology

There are old Google Books cites and new cites for toxology, all seemingly meaning the same as toxicology, so it's attested, I think. The only question I think is whether it's an error form or an alternative form. (Or whether it was an error and is now common enough.) It was deleted thrice, but I've cited it now.—msh210℠ 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. That post wasn't clear. The reason I've tea-roomed it is to ask the question (which is hidden in the text above): Is it an error or an alternative form?—msh210℠ 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In raw googles I get 31,800 for toxology and 15,800,000 for toxicology; at least one of those googles was corrected since google build the index. I think it's an error caused by eliding the 'ic' when typing in a hurry/scannos. I didn't find it in a print dictionary; does someone want to see if OED has citations? RJFJR 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to add confusion - the OED has it as nonce word meaning "The study of the bow, i.e. archery" - they probably mean toxophily. SemperBlotto 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this sense, which I have cited, is the only legitimate meaning of this word, though it is far less common than the erroneous toxicology spelling. (At least I assume it's erroneous; I can't find any evidence that toxon ever had anything to do with poison). This seems to be a frequent issue with -ic- words; e.g. lexigraphy is a valid word in its own right, but appears far more commonly as an error for lexicography. -- Visviva 06:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

pestle and mortar

Before I add a definition - would this be more than the sum of its parts? SemperBlotto 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"mortar and pestle" is about five times as common as "pestle and mortar" (I don't know that I've ever heard the latter before) according to google counts. RJFJR 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - yes, that's what I meant. SemperBlotto 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

mortar and pestle might qualify for an entry, since mortar has more than one sense (including a firearm). When I want to be clear what kind of mortar I mean, I usually say mortar and pestle. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it qualifies as a set phrase. Nobody much says "beans and pork" or "stripes and stars", or "forth and back", so "mortar and pestle" probably ought to have an entry just to record that it almost always goes in that order. --Dvortygirl 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In my (UK) experience, one always talks of "pestle and mortar".62.30.217.57 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"not be trying to hear"

Where should we put the AAVE phrase “not be trying to hear”? I think it's always to be used in the negative sense, meaning something like “ignore”, with variations only in the conjugation of (deprecated template usage) be, e.g.:

• I’m not trying to hear that.
• She was not trying to hear him.

So, I think it belongs at “not be trying to hear”, but perhaps it belongs as sense of “try” instead. Comments? Rod (A. Smith) 18:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It should be under try. I assume you mean She was not trying not to hear him. etc. There are a number of similar phrases such as She was trying not to notice him. She was trying not to listen to him. She was trying not to see him. and so on. Algrif 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A question from es.wikipedia regarding the femeninity of boats

The Spanish Wikipedians were surprised to encounter the sentence, "She was the only German submarine to be taken into Allied service and to fight for both sides in World War II." They're puzzling over the use of "she" in regards to this ship, since English doesn't generally assign genders to things that don't naturally have them (people, animals, etc.) I've already told them that it is common enough to refer to ships (and occasionally other machines and things) as "she".

Is this just some general, agreed-upon personification, or does it have particular roots, as some of them are speculating, in anglo-saxon and/or nautical tradition? --Dvortygirl 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This custom been with us at least since the 16th century, and no one is entirely sure where it came from. A popular theory is that ships have to be "treated like a lady", but this is probably an after-the fact justification. The pronoun "she" is occasionally applied to other inanimate objects, particularly vehicles and machines. Here is some further reading; nothing terribly illuminating: w:Gender-specific_pronoun#Ships_and_countries, Wisegeek.com, Phrases.org. HTH, -- Visviva 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! very interesting reading. Chabacano.

rubbernecking

The meaning of rubbernecking. I think wiktionary has it wrong and see discussion of the word to find out why. Tom Dodson — This unsigned comment was added by Dodsontw (talk • contribs) at 19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

Conversation is at talk:rubbernecking. Please reply there. --Connel MacKenzie 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

overridden

Should override list overridden as an additional past participle with overrode? (I'm not sure how to get the linking correct in en-verb to do this). RJFJR 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so...the past participle is only overridden, not overrode. The simple past form is only overrode. (Not sure how that one slipped by.) It should be {{en-verb|overrides|overriding|overrode|overridden}}. --Connel MacKenzie 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not sure why I didn't spot that right away. RJFJR 04:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

LSP

I just made this page. The quote is a book which has the term in its title. I used the beginning of the review found at the book’s site as illustrative text. Is this allowable? What format should be used here? Probably simply a better quote can be provided. H. (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

arms'-length

There's a legal term which takes (as far as I know) two forms:

• as a noun, the proceedings were conducted at arms' length or maybe (but seemingly proscribably) at arms length; and
• as an adjective, arms'-length negotiations or maybe armslength or maybe (but seemingly proscribably) arms-length.

We have neither of these (unless that's the meaning of what we have at armslength). Can someone who knows this legal term add whichever terms are used?—msh210℠ 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The noun use is usually spelled arm's length (as in "the length of an arm"); we have at arm's length, and perhaps arm's length should redirect to it. (And it's not just a legal term, by the way; maybe it's a regional thing, but I hear it fairly often in normal contexts.) I'm not sure which alternatively-punctuated renditions warrant inclusion, nor which of these are "alternative __s" and which are "mis__s". As for the adjective sense, I really have no idea; it's not a usage I'm used to. I'd guess this is actually just an attributive use of the noun, which would imply that it should be written arm's-length, but I make no promises. —Ruakh_TALK 00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinct legal/financial sense, referring to the relationship between two independent economic actors. See w:Arm's length and w:Arm's length principle; Googling for "arm's length price" or "arm's length transaction" will also turn up a fair number of hits. I believe this is also part of a GAAP specification of some kind ... It was part of some real estate documentation I translated recently, but I can't recall the details, except that "arm's length principle" is rendered in Korean (and probably many other languages) as "independent company principle." -- Visviva 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

s**t

What part of speech would f**k, s**t, c**t, w**k etc. be? --Gapper Rapper 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say multiple, depending on how they can be used. F**k is famous for being used in most parts of speech (or infmaous?). S**t can be verb, noun, adjective. Is exclamation at POS? RJFJR 04:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally exclamation refers to the sentence, and interjection to the word. We do buck tradition about a lot of things, but this isn't one of them. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 04:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant interjection (thank you), so that POS too. RJFJR 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using the term expletive? Thecurran 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In linguistics, expletive is a technical term that applies to these words in only some of their uses — and not the uses you might expect. It's misleading to use it in the non–term-of-art sense, but it's also misleading to use it in the non-widely-known term-of-art sense, so I'd recommend that we avoid it altogether. —Ruakh_TALK 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

untechnical

what is the word for untechnical?

General, lay, popular. "A popular treatment of the subject", "a lay audience".—msh210℠ 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anglosphere

There's still a {'{'rft'}'} tag on Anglosphere. Is it still under contention whether or not it conforms to CFI? Thecurran

I'm fishing for the correct collective term for the English-using/ English-affected communities of the world; both large and small. Similar terms include: Anglosphere, Anglophonia, Anglophonie, English/ British/ English-speaking community/ diaspora/ w:sprachbund/ sprachwelt/ world, the Commonwealth of Nations, &c. Any bytes? ;) Thecurran 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The TR discussion referred to only involved two users with one paragraph each. Granted, they're both paramount editors/ admins but it feels silly to continue the {'{rft}'} when one definition comprises the other.

Personally, I think there should be two meanings listed, with the first one being linguistic only, as Anglo- can refer to 'en#English', 'Anglo-Saxon#English', 'GB-England', or 'GB' (usu. only in naming of international relationships, &c.), but the last 2, while connecting to much of the anglosphere via the Commonwealth of Nations, do not connect so with the US, a large part of the anglosphere. I would make the second definition include the people culturally, demographically, economically, geographically, or politically related to the first linguistically defined anglosphere.

BTW, I think the way anglo- refers to GB in the names of alliances, battles, events, treaties, &c should be included on the page for that entry, but as a bit of a noob, I won't make the change until the RFT on anglosphere ends. Thecurran 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Edit, and have no fear. :-) (This is an open wiki, even if *cough* certain respected participants *cough* tend to forget this fact.) In any case, {{rft}} isn't a big deal like {{rfd}} -- it just means someone is looking for information or input of some kind -- so there's no need to be especially cautious.

Re your specific points:

1. Term: "Anglosphere" does carry this meaning, but for the record "English-speaking world" is about 3x more common online.

2. Split: I'm skeptical of a separate meaning; I think "Anglosphere" basically means "English-speaking world" and the political aspect just reflects the "as we know, most of these countries are stable democracies" aspect. But if you can find citations for a second sense, please add it.

3. Anglo-: I agree.

See ya 'round! -- Visviva 15:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I view an "rft" as a simple question, not necessarily needing cleanup or verification (unless someone else echoes the question themselves.) "Be Bold" is definitely the right frame of mind, for dealing with forgotten rft's. --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

☜

What's the name for the symbol ☜, used in publications?—msh210℠ 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

☜ → %E2%98%9C → 1110 0010 1001 1000 1001 1100 → 0010 01 1000 01 1100 → 0010 0110 0001 1100 → U+261C → WHITE LEFT POINTING INDEX; ah, the joys of UTF-8. :-)   At least, that's its name in the Unicode spec — see http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf — printers might have a shorter name for it. —Ruakh_TALK 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the latter is the one I seek. I know it has a name.—msh210℠ 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

infraspanatus

An anon wrote the following at Talk:infraspanatus:

iTS A MUSCLE IN THE BACK, FURTHER FUNCTION OF THE MUSCLE NEEDS TO BE ADDED.

There are very few hits at google:infraspanatus, so I'm not sure whether it's a typo. Does anyone know? Rod (A. Smith) 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a typo for infraspinatus. —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

kop

I’ve added quite some info to the Dutch part, would be glad if a native speaker could proofread. H. (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done this, and made some adjustments. Feel free to leave me a message if you want me to look at other entries. S Sepp 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

one word

can u give me the sigle word for person having sex with the dead?

Sick. -- Visviva 04:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's looking for the noun, no? So, sicko. ;-) Also, necrophiliac. —Ruakh_TALK 05:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

necrophilia is pretty close, though sense 1:pathological attraction to dead bodies, just refers to attraction not to having sex. RJFJR 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

weight v mass

I have changed the definition of pound to define it as a unit of "weight" not "mass". Unfortunately (I would say) Wikipedia in (w:Pound (mass)) says a unit of mass (sometimes called 'weight' in everyday parlance). Put simply, all terrestrial systems measure weight (a body's attraction to the Earth) and not mass (the quantity of matter in a body). A brief look at a few dictionaries all use the word weight in their the principal definitions. Are there any comments? —Saltmarsh^Talk 07:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is reasonable on the face of it; mass and weight are equivalent in most terrestrial contexts, and "weight" is certainly the more common term in everyday use. But kilogram is defined as a unit of mass... Would you say that should be changed, or are SI units not terrestrial?  ;-) -- Visviva 07:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Off the cuff (without referral elsewhere) the kilogram is a unit of "mass" and "weight", whereas for all common purposes lbs & ozs are only used for weighing. —Saltmarsh^Talk 08:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense. So kilogram should have an additional sense (or maybe just a usage note). -- Visviva 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would add that although science/physics draws a strict distinction between weight and mass, that does not mean they aren't more interchangeable in colloquial use, older forms of English, etc. Widsith 08:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. For (and only for) the precise physics sense of the terms, the pound should be defined as a unit of weight and the kilogram as one of mass. I'm having a hard time finding references to back this up, but in an introductory physics class I took, the instructor was very insistent that a kilogram is a unit of mass but a pound is one of weight. In the SI system, weight is properly measured in newtons. I'm pretty sure there is a proper unit of mass in the Imperial system, but I don't remember its name. Rod (A. Smith) 08:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha! It's slug. Rod (A. Smith) 08:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

American engineers, when not using SI, don't actually use slug so much; rather, we acknowledge that pound (lb) is properly a unit of force, but nonetheless use it for both mass and force, or when we're feeling particularly precise, use pound-mass (lb-m or lbm) and pound-force (lb-f or lbf), with 1 lb-f = 1 lb-m × g. (Don't get me wrong; I have seen slug used, and I myself have even used it before. But it's not terribly common, and not generally convenient.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen "lb" used as 454g and "lbf" used as 4.45N.. the whole thing gives me a headache. (Incidentally, this is why we don't have a w:Mars Climate Orbiter) Cynewulf 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Our entries should definitely acknowledge the "proper" uses of these terms (assuming we can figure out what "proper" is wrt Imperial/Customary measurements). However, we can't avoid the fact that mass and weight are used almost interchangeably in practice, by lots of people who really ought to know better: "mass in pounds", "weight in kilograms". -- Visviva 08:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Google Scholar does better on pounds, but much worse on kilograms [35]; this is partly due to a boilerplate definition of the body mass index.

Do we have good context labels for these? I think I've seen a contrast drawn between, say, "zoology" and "colloquial", but "colloquial" is inaccurate or prescriptive when used this way. How about {{non-technical}} or something? —Ruakh_TALK 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, "non-technical" might also be inaccurate or prescriptive in this case: people do misuse these terms in technical contexts. Perhaps we'll need to fall back on {{proscribed}}? —Ruakh_TALK 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram has a non-SI, everyday meaning equivalent to weight, especially in weightlifting; I have never seen an Olympics telecast describe the weight lifted in the proper SI units of Newtons. Though, technically, something that "weighs" 100 kg actually has a mass of 100kg. I think a thorough Usge note is in order here. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, people mix these up because whether you ask for half a kilo of peas or a pound of peas, you get about the same amount of peas. Cynewulf 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but consider the hapless reader purchasing peas on the moon! Rod (A. Smith) 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the matter will get straightened out until we have a lunar colony, but we can certainly try to explain things for future astronauts. Cynewulf 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've made an attempt at kilogram; what do y'all think? If this is how we want to handle it, then similar definitions and tags and usage notes will be need to be crafted for various other entries affected by this issue. —Ruakh_TALK 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good from here. Maybe could be templated? -- Visviva 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the word you are looking for is kilopond. It was the unit of "weight" in the gravitational metric systems, equivalent to 1 Kgr of "mass". I think it has not been in use since 1977. --flyax 11:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

regestered dietitian

what is the meanning

Look up registered and dietician. --EncycloPetey 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

a frog in one's throat

Should a frog in one's throat be moved to frog in one's throat? --EncycloPetey 18:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No objection; we should probably have a general policy of article-stripping. However, this phrase is overwhelmingly used with the indefinite article; the exact phrase "a frog in my throat" accounts for about 96% of web hits and 75% of book hits for "frog in my throat", with most of the others being something like "a [...] frog in my throat." If it's moved, the usage notes should probably mention this. -- Visviva 05:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I expect this could turn up as, "Hope you recovered from that frog in your throat." And I agree that a general policy of article stripping looks like a good idea, with room for exceptions if they can be justified on a case-by-case basis. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Pls. translate to namibian language.

spam removed --EncycloPetey 14:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The official language of Namibia is English, so there's no need for translation. For more information please see the Wikipedia article about Namibia. -- Visviva 11:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We've had several similar requests recently, all announcing the person "respresents country X". Either this is a homework project students are failing to do on their own, or else this is an attempt to get our help translating spam. --EncycloPetey 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It hardly seems like a likely kind of spam... Can't say I'd noticed the others, but assumed it was related to a Model UN activity of some kind. -- Visviva 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the opening like from one of the most common spam messages on the internet: "Hello, I represent government X and want to send you money..." --EncycloPetey 01:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what it said; it identified its author as a fifth-grader representing Namibia. It seemed like patent nonsense to me, until Visviva offered a plausible explanation (the Model-UN one). —Ruakh_TALK 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

get off

Redundant third sense? Also, is the fourth sense transitive or not? (Note incidentally that it has the HTML comment "move to 'get off on'?".)

1. To move from being on (something) to not being on it.

   Get off your chair and help me.

2. [A second sense, not relevent.]
3. To disembark from (something).

   You get off the train at the third stop.

4. (slang) To excite; to give pleasure to

   I don't get off on champagne.

—msh210℠ 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The fourth sense is actually backward; it's the object that excites or gives pleasure to the subject. Its transitivity is not really an issue, because we don't want to have separate "transitive verb" and "intransitive verb" sections; our goal should be to merge those properly, rather than to figure out what should go in each. —Ruakh_TALK 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the third sense is redundant; to "get off the table" is not the same as "get off the train". Sense three can only be used with mass forms of public transportation -- you can get off (or get on) the bus, the train, or the subway, but you can't get off a taxi, a car, or a truck. If I were to hear someone shout, "Get off the car!" I would assume someone is standing on top of their car and is being asked to come down. But if I hear someone shout, "Get off the bus!" I would assume someone is riding within the bus and being asked to vacate or disembark.

However, I think that the first and the second sense in the entry (see the entry) are synonymous. --EncycloPetey 01:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the third is redundant because "on" is used for a bus; so "to move from being on (something) to not being on it" (the first sense) includes the third sense.—msh210℠ 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But when you get on a surfboard, you are climbing on top of it. When you get on a bus, you are climbing inside of it. You are therefore moving from the inside to the outside, and not moving from being on/atop it to off. The words get on and get off have separate senses that apply only to the use of mass transit. --EncycloPetey 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

When you get on a bus, you're climbing inside of it, correct. And after you've done so, you're said to be on the bus. So the meaning "to move from being on (something) to not being on it" (the first sense of get off) includes the bus meaning: when you get off a bus, you're moving from being on the bus to not being on the bus. This seems so obvious to me that I wonder if I'm being unclear.—msh210℠ 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Otoh, the second and first senses aren't redundant (imo): the second is transitive while the first is not.—msh210℠ 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the first sense is reflexive, not intransitive. The only reason it doesn't currently look that way in the examples is that they're both imperative constructions. Rephrase it as "He got off the chair." or "She got off her ass." and you can see they're reflexive, not intransitive. Both examples can insert the understood pronoun "himself/herself" as the object. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Semantically speaking, intransitive got is synonymous with transitive got + a reflexive pronoun; but I don't see how that makes intransitive got reflexive. —Ruakh_TALK 03:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the Oxford Companion to the English Language seems to agree with me. They define reflexive as a "verb, pronoun, or construction that works on identity of reference between two grammatical units, chiefly the subject and object.", and they note that "intransitive verbs do not have objects." A reflexive verb therefore cannot be intransitive, because its object is the subject of the sentence. The CGEL has a novel interpretation of trans./intrans. (big surprose); they call this situation an "unexpressed reflexive object" in a Type III trans-intrans pair. --EncycloPetey 05:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, as your quotes from the Oxford Companion exactly match my own understanding (that "He got himself off the chair" has a reflexive verb, and "He got off the chair" has an intransitive one). —Ruakh_TALK 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would call the second example reflexive as well, with an understood/unexpressed object. My understanding is that an intransitive verb is one where there is no object, not simply where it wasn't expressed explicitly. So "The child washed the dog" is transitive; "The child washed (himself)." is reflexive, whether or not the reflexive pronoun is expressed; but "The child slept." is intransitive and must be so because there is no object, nor is one even possible. --EncycloPetey 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But of course, sleep does take one sort of object; consider "slept the sleep of", which gets 33.5kGhits of which all seem to be in the relevant sense. (This is called a Cognate object.) By your line of argument, one might as well say that sleep is actually a transitive verb with the implied object "a sleep". And, would you consider "I shaved" to be reflexive? If not, how is it different; and if so, how did you decide that the implied object is "myself" rather than "my beard" or "my face"? —Ruakh_TALK 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And that's why the CGEL has a totally different take on trans./intrans. They have a whole densly packed section on just this issue waiting for your eager perusal! --EncycloPetey 03:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

CGEL's tendency to use terminology in a nonstandard way is fraught with peril. Their claim that "noun possessives don't exist" is one example of how they discredit themselves as a serious reference; that direct conflict with Wiktionary terminology is a source of never-ending aggravation. Reflexive verbs in Wiktionary terminology refer to transitive verbs with a reflexive pronoun only. So, if the object of that transitive verb can be either a reflexive pronoun or another object, we don't call it a "reflexive verb" as that would be a silly distinction. The only time it is a relevant distinction, is when the object cannot be some other object. "She perjured herself" is very different from "She shaved her legs" or even "She shaved." --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

trapezium

The first two definitions and synonyms given for (deprecated template usage) trapezium and those for (deprecated template usage) trapezoid, as well as w:Trapezoid, Mathworld, and Math OpenRef indicate that the terms have exactly swapped meaning on opposite sides of the pond! The most authoritative reference in it all seems to be “Bronshtein, I. N. and Semendyayev, K. A. Handbook of Mathematics, 3rd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997, p. 174”. It would be great if somebody could dictly quote that reference in our entry since it's such a remarkable difference. I added a usage note to each, but perhaps it should be more clearly explained. Rod (A. Smith) 00:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Both meanings have been used in England. The sense of a quadrilateral having only one pair of parallel sides is said by the OED to have been restriction introduced by Proclus, whoever he is, and they add "The specific sense in Eng. in 17th and 18th c., and again the prevalent one in recent use." For the other sense, where no sides are parallel, they comment, "The usual sense in England from c1800 to c1875. Now rare. This sense is the one that is standard in the U.S., but in practice quadrilateral is used rather than trapezium. This is the trapezoid of Proclus". There is also a general Euclidean sense, of any irregular quadrilateral which is not a parallelogram. Widsith 10:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

thomes hobbes

who was thomes hobbes

Is there some reason youre asking this question on a dictionary web site? You ought to try an encyclopedia. --EncycloPetey 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Völundarkviða

This entry says English language; is this correct? sewnmouthsecret 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Finnish to me. There is probably a similar Anglicised version. SemperBlotto 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Finnish includes the letter ð. It looks more like Old Norse to me. --EncycloPetey 13:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be correct; see the referenced 'pedia article. Robert Ullmann 13:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

swaths vs. swathes

As far as I knew, swaths was a misspelling of swathes. Indeed, the first page of b.g.c. search results for "swathes" lists more plurals of swath than swathe. Is swathes the only correct plural for both swath and swathe? More misleading, is that swaths now does seem to be (mis)used a lot. Looking at news.g.c. suggests that "swath/swathe/swaths/swathes" is confused consistently around the world, not immediately tied to any specific region. --Connel MacKenzie 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

knuckle

I was looking up the word hernia in a medical dictionary and found this entry

Hernia: Protusion of a loop or knuckle of an organ or some tissue through an abnormal opening.

(I added it to the talk page for knuckle as a citation). What does knuckle mean in this case? RJFJR 02:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that knuckle is the rounded end of any bone that forms a protrusion when a joint is bent. Presumably here an organ could mean a bone. SemperBlotto 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a generalization of the bone sense to non-bone organs. So that would mean any part that protrudes the way my knuckles stick out. RJFJR 13:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

notwithstanding/Citations

I've started a citations page for notwithstanding, but am having doubts about the part of speech for some of the quotations from Shakespeare. Does anyone think that one or more of the quotes in misplaced? (Out of courtesy, please delay any transfer of citations between sections for at least a few days, lest later contributors to the discussion become confused by the discussion as a result.) --EncycloPetey 04:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

dead as a doorknob or dead as a doornail

I believe the redirect should be reversed. All the research I have managed so far seems to indicate that doornail is by far and away more common than doorknob. For instance Google hits show 117,000 / 823. Similar results elsewhere. Algrif 17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit more research shows dead as a doornail dates back to at least 1350 The Vision of Piers Plowman. It also appears in Shakespeare’s Henry IV. So seems also to pre-date doorknob. Algrif 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• How odd - I've only ever heard of the doorknob version. SemperBlotto#

  I've heard both, as well as "dead as a dodo" and "dead as a Dalek" (though with considerably less frequency). --EncycloPetey 00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stranger and stranger, I've heard 'dead as a dodo' 75%

'Dead as a doornail' 20%

'dead as a doorknob' 5%

(all approx) 87.114.138.55 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I had always heard "dumb as a doorknob" and "dead as a doornail", but quick web searches don't really support that distinction. Rod (A. Smith) 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Could I, at least, remove the hard redirect and put a definition plus a "Related terms" or "See also" heading pointing to dead as a doorknob, or something? Whatsay? Algrif 11:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite the changes that have been made, I still believe that for both statistical and etymological date reasons, this entry should be dead as a doornail directing to the other possibilities. If not, then the decision flies in the face of the excellent reasoning used for other entries in Wikt, where stats and dates have had the overriding power for reaching consensus. Algrif 12:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn right. I support the “primary entry” being “housed” at dead as a doornail. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead as doornail as primary, based in quantitative evidence. It also fits my experience in US. The others have been much rarer in my experience. Is there a UK or Commonwealth vs. US difference in relative frequency ? DCDuring 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I’m aware; in order of frequency in my experience:

1. dead as a doornail
2. dead as a dodo
3. dead as a doorknob

† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

incurrent

Why was this word deleted with no useful explanation?

It was in the headline requested word list and is a not uncommon word in biology and botany. A google book search shows over 700 entries and it appears in both MW and OED.

Even if the person who deleted it had some cogent reason for doing so, surely it would have been common courtesy to actually fill in the log to show why s/he was deleting a perfectly valid word. 87.114.138.55 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, you could have inquired directly on my talk page, no? You wish a public spectacle instead? I shall try very hard to AGF anyhow. Your term appears in other dictionaries, but not with that meaning. It is easier to restart an entry, when nonsense is not in the way. If the b.g.c. hits, do any match your meaning? In general, when a term has a common, or widely understood meaning, we enter that first. A definition such as yours might merit a full WT:RFV review; in my opinion, not. --Connel MacKenzie 17:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't find any way of looking at what I actually entered (although since Visviva seems to have found some wording from the entry it is presumably possible). I checked that the word exists in OED2 and MW online. I then checked the meanings listed in OED2, one of which was new to me.

Doing some further research MW gives: "giving passage to a current that flows inward" whereas OED2 gives: "Running in; penetrating into the interior; falling within (a period)." Whilst my entry (from memory) certainly needed some wording added it was not (again, from memory) fundamentally wrong and could have easily been corrected. 87.114.138.55 09:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would indeed be common courtesy to explain the reason for deletion. While we're on the subject, I would have to say that use of the snide "explanation of deletion" auto-summary is one of the most egregiously rude behaviors on Wiktionary. The speedy deletion of this entry was clearly inappropriate; on the other hand, it seems that the sense added had nothing to do with biology or botany. Further, the phrase "incurrent to" scores no relevant hits on Google Books. -- Visviva 18:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking closer, yes, the speedy deletion was wrong. My apologies. --Connel MacKenzie 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The "explanation of deletion", apart from anything else, promises more than it delivers. When you select it, expecting to find out why an entry has gone, all you get is a list of every possible reason an entry might have been deleted. In most cases (e.g. "john doe is gay"), it's quite obvious but occasionally it isn't and that leaves editors unsure of what they did wrong, and, I'm sure, puts newcomers off contributing in the future. For example, "so much" had been sitting at the beginning of the requested entries for some time before I decided to risk putting in the effort to try and describe the term in a way that would be useful to a non English speaker knowing that some high-handed admin might well come along two minutes later and decide the entry was unnecessary (it's survived so far) and summarily delete it. 87.114.138.55

I see that VisVisa has now struck out his objection to "explanation of deletion". Whilst I'd agree that it isn't snide, and is not rude per se, it is unhelpful and is effectively rude when a entry that has been made in good faith (which should not be hard to differentiate from wanton stupidity) has been deleted. Surely it would not be too much to expect people to use preselectables of such things as 'nonsense/incorrect definition/sum of parts/encyclopaedic/vandalism'. 87.114.138.55 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

street smarts/streetwise/street-smart

Touching an etymology, I found we're missing an entry for the original form street smarts. But spot-checking other dictionaries, it is reported backwards, with "streetwise" (the most recent of all three forms) somehow being used in the 60s? Should these go through RFV? I am pretty sure the "intentionally incorrect" form "street smarts" caught on only because it was intentionally incorrect; the others followed later (late 80s.) Anyone know a good way to find (adequate?) supporting evidence in some tricky way I've overlooked? --Connel MacKenzie 04:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. NYT archives have "street smarts" first in 1972, "street-smart" in 1971, and "streetwise" in 1968. <shrug> Still seems backwards to me, but b.g.c. can't seem to antedate any of those (omitting errors of date reported vs. date actually published, that is.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you are saying "street smarts" is intentionally incorrect. From personal experience (I haven't made any dictionary check), "Smarts" is a plural only noun indicating wisdom or intelligence, and having "street smarts" means having elements of wisdom or intelligence relating to "the street", i.e. being streetwise. "Streetwise", OTOH, is obviously an adjective. In England, certainly, the term streetwise was common well before "street smarts", which is quite rare here, but I couldn't give you any dates. Possibly the two terms crossed the Atlantic in opposite directions? 87.114.138.55 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

lepton

I've just added a second definition, but I suspect the entry needs to be tidied / reorganised so that it looks "standard" (whatever that is in these kind of cases ;-)) Algrif 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Luckily they have slightly different etymologies; I'll amend the page. Widsith 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Excellent work! Algrif 16:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Appalachian capitalized?

Should the word Appalachian be capitalized? RJFJR 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so, yes. —Ruakh_TALK 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

what's loyalty

loyal

The definition at loyalty seems to say it very well. Is there something in particular you feel is missing or unclear? RJFJR 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Krämer

Sense 2: Seinfeld character. Does this belong there? Also, it's listed under the ==German== heading. If we keep th current sense 2 should it be moved? RJFJR 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any umlauts in the Seinfeld character's name, so I would delete the sense. sewnmouthsecret 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it based on that argument. Thank you. RJFJR 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

up against

IMHO I think this should be moved to be up against as a phrasal verb. Algrif 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

what of go up against then? Separate entry? --Connel MacKenzie 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Along with run up against, rub up against and all the other phrasal verbs that have yet to be added. (There are well over 3,000 in most phrasal verb dictionaries). Algrif 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think these can all be handled with up against as a compound preposition (there are a few in English). Particularly so, since as the uses above show that it appears in conjunction with many different verbs. I don't see this as a case of a phrasal verb. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's going to make life impossible. What about stand up against? I'll keep looking for more. Up against, while not as common as some other double particles, is a well recognised phrasal verb combination. By allowing up against and trying to include all the phrasal verb definitions there, you will 1) be making it impossible for users to find the entries, 2) losing the correct classification in the category list, and 3) opening the door to out against, up for, in for, and a huge etc. of double particle entries. A phrasal verb is a phrasal verb, and should be entered correctly as such. What, in heaven's name, is up against? It says in the entry preposition. As far as I am aware, there is no POS called preposition that consists of two other prepositions / adverbs joined in this way. Algrif 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Heavens above!! Some of them are already there!!! This is a bad joke or what??? Algrif 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are compound prepositions composed of more than one word. They are recognized by the CGEL, the Oxford Companion to the English Language, and the Chicago Manual of Style as prepositions, and each of those works discusses them. So if you weren't aware of this before, please be aware of it now. I didn't make this up, I looked it up. If you wish to disagree with three major reference works, please provide a thorough reasoning. --EncycloPetey 13:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend to dispute reference works. (Edit added later:- in between is a good example of what you are saying.). But, if a proposition IS a preposition, then it will not be limited to 4 or 5 verbs. It should be useable in any situation. So up against means "Facing; challenging, or opposing." does it? So if a tree grows up against the garden wall, it is challenging or opposing it. Please. This is NOT the "meaning" of up against. It is, on the other hand, the meaning of be up against. As any good dictionary will show (except of course this one!) Algrif 13:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I added

1. In contact with, abutting.

   If the tree grows up against the garden wall either the tree will be crowded and stunted or the wall will be pushed out.

RJFJR 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if every preposition could indeed be used with any verb in any situation, but that doesn't actually happen. You can "walk into the room", "shout into the room" and "saunter into the room", but you can't "eat into the room", "think into the room", or "categorize into the room". Prepositions only work in certain circumstances, so it's not reasonable to expect that a preposition will be useable in just any situation. On the other hand, I do agree with the added definition of up against, and I do agree with the underlying general principle you give that a preposition can be distinguished from a component of a phrasal verb if the verb can change without altering the basic meaning of the putative preposition. A second test is to ask whether the potential preposition has a complement; and a third test is to ask whether the potential prepositional phrase answers a typical adverbial question or can be replaced by an adverb. --EncycloPetey 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A real improvement, IMO. If general opinion is that this is a two word preposition then that definition works as a preposition of position that can be used with most relevant verbs and nouns.

I still don't understand how an idiomatic tag can be placed with a preposition, though, in the first entry. It is only idiomatic when placed with about ½dozen verbs, and the meaning differs somewhat with each one. Which is why I still maintain that the first definition is incorrect and should be under be up against. I will be adding some phrasal verbs shortly, and will leave it up to anyone who cares to do so, to RFV them. Algrif 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Or RFD them, more suitably.  ;-) I think if we can have entries for off and get off, we should be able to have entries for up against and go up against (etc. etc.), provided a reasonable showing of idiomaticity. -- Visviva 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, RFD is what I meant to put. I do think it is important to distinguish between The chair is up against the table from I'm up against the committee. Wouldn't you agree? Even slightly? Algrif 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is idiomaticity, and that we should make the distinction. However, I would put that information on the entry for up against rather than the combination. Note, however, that the majority of prepositional uses are in some way idiomatic, so I'd be hesitant to mark it as "idiomatic" without a lot of thought. --EncycloPetey 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

pommy bastard

I'm not sure that this is a plain, old sum of its parts pommy and bastard, so didn't RFD it, but it seems to be. Does anyone know?—msh210℠ 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not really sum of parts since there are no parallel terms I can think of such as British bastard, yanky bastard, kiwi bastard, aussie bastard, etc. It's pretty subtle though and I wouldn't want to be the one to define it. — Hippietrail 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Yankee bastard(s)" does actually get a fair number of Google hits (though not so many as "pommy bastard(s)"). —Ruakh_TALK 01:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course straightforward phrases with no special meaning often get many Google hits ("red car", "and the" etc). So while a phrase getting no hits could rule out its existence, it is not enough on its own to say that it does exist as a special meaning. As a native speaker of Australian English I can say "pommy bastard" has a life of its own and "yankee bastard" does not. Maybe it does in the southern US but I wouldn't know. — Hippietrail 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Yank equivalent of "pommy bastard" is actually "damn Yankee". (A Yank myself, however, I might not be the one to decide.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As an Englishman I've always known pommy bastard as a friendly, if not particularly respectful term used by Austrailians usually used in a jocular sense. Thus the definition given (which is pure SOP) seems wrong. Moglex 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

haber

According to http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=he&oldid=3113636, the second person singular (familiar) positive imperative of (deprecated template usage) haber is (deprecated template usage) hé. According to es:haber, (deprecated template usage) he is a common erroneous form and the correct form is (deprecated template usage) habe or (deprecated template usage) habé. Which is right? Rod (A. Smith) 06:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The RAE Diccionario de Dudas says:- "En cuanto al imperativo, las formas heredadas del latín son habe y habed, aunque carecen de uso en la actualidad, pues este verbo, al haber sido desplazado con sentido posesivo por tener, no se conjuga hoy en imperativo." That is one point of view. I must admit that having lived in Spain for many years now, I don't think I've ever heard or read an imperative of haber. So generally speaking, I would tend to agree with the RAE on this one. Algrif 11:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up, Algrif. I edited (deprecated template usage) haber and its conjugation table accordingly. Rod (A. Smith) 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

dandelion

Being today's WOTD it caught my attention. Why is this described as a weedy plant? True, in the middle of a well tended lawn, it is a weed. But then so is grass a weedy plant in the middle of a well tended dandelion bed in a herbal garden. It is an authentic herbal diuretic. (French piss en lit). Algrif 12:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it grows rapidly and spreads invasively. It grows opportunistically in cracks of sidewalks and in disturbed areas. If we had a decent entry for weedy, then it would make more sense because we would have the botanical defiinition. --EncycloPetey 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

postpartum

We define postpartum as "postnatal", but it seems to me that postpartum means "after giving birth" while postnatal means "after being born". Granted, this implies a bit of pragmatic overlap, since mother and child are still typically viewed as a unit in the period right after birth, but I think the definitions are a bit different. However, other dictionaries don't seem to really differentiate between the two, so maybe I've just invented a distinction for myself that doesn't actually exist? —Ruakh_TALK 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have. The etymological distinction is not very big anyway, and in practice the two words are identical, bar a few connotational differences. Widsith 10:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See also post-partum, which is set up slightly different. Anyone know the meaning of L. partum? I thought postpartum meant "after seperation". RJFJR 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging from b.g.c, postnatal is used as the more general term, meaning simply "after birth." Thus one can find references to "postnatal depression," etc., where the term is clearly used to refer to the mother's experience. On the other hand, "postpartum" seems to be used exclusively in reference to the mother. -- Visviva 12:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What Visviva says is also my personal experience. As to Latin (deprecated template usage) partum, it's the singular accusative of partus, for wich I will tidy up the entry. In short the root of natal means "being born", while the root of partum means "giving birth". --EncycloPetey 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter translations

Did we ever decide if we can have modern foreign words that are translations of invented words from Harry Potter and the like - I was about to add dissennatore (the translation of dementor). SemperBlotto 09:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How many indiependant sources can you find? If it is only used in translations of the Harry Potter books (the individual books not being indepedent of each other) then we don't need it since it is clear from context in the book (usually because someone is point at it and describing it). Which doesn't answer your question of if it was decided, rather it is just part of deciding. RJFJR 13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if we allow the source words, I imagine; it appears that heretofore no entry has been created for dementor or Dementor (is that possible?), so the question may be unresolved. Given the impressive body of secondary and peripheral treatments which the Potterverse has already spawned, I would say these have to be included -- and if the English words are included, it would be absurd to exclude their translations. However, this may be a question which still has to be banged out at RFD. (The policy-neutral option would be to put the entry at Appendix:Fictional characters/dissennatore).-- Visviva 13:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider the first sentence of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#General rule: “A term should be included if it’s likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means”; unless there are examples of the use of these words where they have not been thitherto defined and the meanings of which are not clear from the contexts, then noöne will come here “want[ing] to know what [they] mean”. In such situations, I don’t think these coinages warrant entries. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two ways of interpreting that statement: that the Potterverse has not become part of the contemporary discourse, or that there is no-one left on Earth who is not already familiar with these terms. I'm not sure which is more bizarre (probably the first), but I don't see how sentences such as this: 'The joy is sucked out of the game for them as if by Dementors' [36] -- can be considered clear from context. -- Visviva 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant is: noöne would need to look up “dementor” here if the thing which they’re reading is discussing Harry Potter et cetera. The link you provided shows the word’s use outside of such context, and therefore supports our inclusion of “dementor(s)”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

right interjection

This page still does not have the header Interjection. I would put it there myself, but which etymology. There is some discussion on Talk:right, but no entry. There are at least two interjection uses that I can think of. (maybe more). Can somebody who knows put this "right"? Algrif 13:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Both uses (assuming I'm thinking of the same two that you are) go under Etymology 1. The interjection comes from the same root as the adjective/noun, not from the Old English verb/adverb. --EncycloPetey 16:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put the entry in the right place now. Algrif 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

glossogenetic

I saw this word in an article about the rate of change of the form of verbs in this week's "Nature". I can't find a definition, so have made a guess. Please improve, if you know any better. SemperBlotto 16:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you include the quote you saw? --EncycloPetey 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I shall have to revisit my local library - Monday at the earliest (no hits on the website - they don't include the text of research articles). (A "news" item about the article is here [37] but it doesn't include the word. SemperBlotto 16:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? That "news" item lists two articles as references, and unless I'm missing something, neither uses the word glossogenetic anywhere in its full text, nor in any figures or tables. (I didn't look through the "supplemental information", as none of it looked likely to contain the word, and anyway supplemental information doesn't appear in the hard-copy journal.) That said, one does use the word phylogenetic a bunch of times; perhaps that's what you're thinking of? —Ruakh_TALK 18:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait till Monday. SemperBlotto 18:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, here, I found the article you're presumably thinking of; it's actually not a journal article, per se, but rather another "news" article. (Visviva's cited our article now, anyway, so I guess it doesn't much matter.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

drum

I just finished talking on the phone to an Australian client who used the phrase "Not a drum, mate" meaning "It's no problem." Is this a common usage in Australia? Algrif 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

well mannered and well-mannered

I believe well mannered and well-mannered should be merged correctly(imho) in the hyphenated form. Algrif 16:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. DAVilla 04:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

generalization

There is a redirect here; I'd like to go and just put a definition in its place with an alternate spelling of generalisation. Would that be alright? sewnmouthsecret 15:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see Ruakh's taken care of it, but, for the future, yes, that's fine.—msh210℠ 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! sewnmouthsecret 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

yid

I don't believe that this is a back-formation as claimed (rather than a borrowing of Yiddish איד (w:yi:), pronounced "yid", which means "Jew"). I also don't know why it was moved from capital to lowercase.—msh210℠ 19:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, authorities disagree with you. I think early uses of the word tend to be among those who were unlikely to know any Yiddish words - although they would know the word Yiddish itself. Widsith 12:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good, thanks. What about the capitalization part of my question?—msh210℠ 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

man boob and moob

User 81.151.103 has defined these terms as gynecomastia with a link to the Wikipedia article. Firstly, should a definiton be a definition? (Could it be See Also instead?) Secondly, should it be there in the first place, and if so, should it be a Wikipedia link? sewnmouthsecret 21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the entry man boob, the definition is now a wiktionary link instead of a wikipedia link. RJFJR 15:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it — what's the difference between definitions 1 and 2? —Ruakh_TALK 16:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. sewnmouthsecret 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I merged the senses. RJFJR 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

yawp

I've a general copyright question here.

Looking at yawp, it calls out as its reference Webster's 1913.

Oddly, the original entry looked something like that. Now, it bears a stunning resemblance to dictionary.com's entry.

To me, is seems like this should simply be deleted, then the original version(s) selectively restored. What do other people think about this one? Isn't this far too similar to the copyright protected version? (With the addition of a bizarre "example.")

And isn't it obsolete anyhow? Only used in (archaic) reference to Walt Whitman, right?

--Connel MacKenzie 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Loud or coarse talk" is the definition that matches the most closely. It looks like SB introduced that with some others, so we can trust him on it. A slight modification may be sufficient if you're worried. The history can be defended as coincidence, unless SB also feels uneasy about the similarity. DAVilla 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Kossa Regal

does anyone know what Kossa Regal means? I'm thinking it might just be a made-up name. — This comment was unsigned.

Where did you encounter it? —Ruakh_TALK 23:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

sufferance

Would anyone be against me placing the references in the talk page? All of those references are unsightly. sewnmouthsecret 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be. The references should appear in any article-content mirror, even the ones that don't copy discussion pages. —Ruakh_TALK 23:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the section to Dictionary notes. You can move them to Citations:SUFFERANCE if they're really needed. Personally I'm not sure that the links are necessary but I won't challenge it. DAVilla 04:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I have one against, I'll leave it alone. This is why I like to ask first. sewnmouthsecret 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the references aren't really references, and aren't needed, I've no objection to simply removing them; but it's not helpful to put references (real or otherwise) on the talk-page. —Ruakh_TALK 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have a different header than "References" for these sorts of external links to other dictionaries, but one does not seem to be available at WT:ELE. In any event, WT:ELE#References clearly upholds the inclusion of links to other dictionaries under the "References" header. And, like the author of the standard at WT:ELE, I believe it is very important for Wiktionary's credibility that we support the content of our entries, especially the entries for relatively uncommon terms. I have changed the header back from "Dictionary notes" (which is not a WT standard header) to "References" and have added the subheader "Dictionaries". -- WikiPedant 22:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

References sections should house lists of authorities which are used to back up specific assertions in the entry, whereas Dictionary notes should just state whether a given dictionary lists a term, or (re alternative spellings) in what order, perhaps linking thereto, and so forth. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe it would be better as a list? Or just delete them all. Or just mention MW "and many modern dictionaries", although it would be much more interesting to state when it was first attested, or where it isn't found. DAVilla 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAICS, Dictionary notes sections exist to make Wiktionary seem more reliable — someone can come along, see the entry for sufferance, and think “Oh; it’s listed in nine ‘proper’ dictionaries … it’s probably kosher, then”. What the section’s called is pretty irrelevant; whereas “notes” is not ideal, I reckon it should still have “dictionary” in it somewhere. I’ve added a rel-table this entry’s Dictionary notes section — is that an acceptable solution? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dictionary notes" is gaining pretty wide acceptance here; using such a header helps to make it clear that these are not references, and are not sufficient in themselves to support the content of the entry. -- Visviva 10:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, note that the "level 4" headers mentioned in WT:ELE are not an exhaustive list; there is no policy list of L4 headers (yet). Dictionary notes has been used for a while, as have Scientific names and a few others, without having their formal status specified. Robert Ullmann 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "References" is not an entirely satisfactory header, but "Dictionary Notes" doesn't strike me as an improvement, since these are not notes at all, just external links to relevant, supportive definitions. -- WikiPedant 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in such cases I don't see any reason we should include the section at all. The only reason to include dictionary notes is when there is something interesting to say about how other dictionaries have treated a term; we should state explicitly what makes those particular dictionaries' treatment interesting. (e.g. "* The Classic Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue defines this as 'a leper with a speckled tongue,' but this usage is not attested elsewhere.") Otherwise whatever relevance or support we intend these links to provide will remain obscure. -- Visviva 13:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

English translation of Tamil valaikappu

what is the english name for the tamil word valaikappu? — This unsigned comment was added by Calayeganesh (talk • contribs) at 13:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

வளைகாப்ப, "wearing bangles". We don’t really have a word for it, so you could call it the bangle ceremony. —Stephen 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

bearing fruit

bearing fruit. I would have thought that this should be a verb entry to bear fruit. Opinions? Algrif 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, moved. —Ruakh_TALK 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

wide stance

Someone apparently thinks this entry is intended to be a joke, but it's very much a real term that has entered widespread usage. Chris Matthews used it as recently as last week. It has been used as a metaphor for conservative views on sexuality. And let's not forget the AP story of course. The anchor at NPR stated he's used the phrase himself. There are some questions as to whether it will stick, but if series of tubes gets to have its own entry, the news agencies seem to agree that this does too. — This comment was unsigned.

Our objection is not that it is a joke, but that it is a protologism. After a year or two, if it survives and has appeared in print, it would be welcome here. SemperBlotto 22:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently theres been a bit of a fuss over this one. I created the series of tubes and Infobahn pages, and I was about to create this one... but it's been protected. I'm still new to wiktionary or I'd weigh in further, but FWIW, I concur with the above statement. At the same time I can see why you'd object to such a recent coinage so all I can say is watch the term closely because it seems to be sticking (so far). Monak 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Midas

Midas needs discussion of the term's figurative uses, either as their own senses, or as a usage note. It's a tricky one, because the figurative uses go both ways; in the legend, Midas' condition is seen as a bad thing — a rose that's dwarfed by its thorn, if you will — and some allusions retain this quality, but then, the phrase "the Midas touch" is generally a positive one, suggesting e.g. business success. —Ruakh_TALK 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fire contained 0-100%

What above actually means? I'd like to understand what means if fire has contained 10% ? Ten % of what? All replys are appreciated. Thanks, JayKay

Ten percent of the fire. It is a contraction of "the fire has been 10% contained"; the kind of shorthand often used on the radio. Robert Ullmann 12:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

particulate

The definition should be at particulates. This is not, as far as I am aware, ever used as a singular. The singular would be particle. See wikipedia for more info. Opinions? Algrif 11:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

??? What about "The antidote was administered in the form of a particulate." --EncycloPetey 13:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My brain is probably particulating. lol. Algrif 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

flatfeet

I was going to just redirect this to flat feet, but I saw it was an entry made by SemperBlotto. So I'm asking first. Algrif 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Although, of course flatfeet is the plural of flatfoot. But the medical condition is two separate words. Algrif 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What do the word laissezlesbontenpsrouler means

I need to know what do laissezlesbontenpsrouler means for my 5 grader

Let the good time roll. DCDuring 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Laissez les bons te*M*ps rouler. I missed the misspelling. DCDuring 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we now have (deprecated template usage) laissez les bons temps rouler. Rod (A. Smith) 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Malay!

Can anyone translate the followinwords into malay for me 'Home is where you are' any help would be grately appreciated.

Atheroslerosis

Could some one please tell me the deffinitoin of Atheroslerosis? I know it has to do with the cardiovascular system if that helps any — This comment was unsigned.

atherosclerosis is the correct spelling. --Connel MacKenzie 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF (translations)

Shouldn't the translations of an abbreviation (etc) also be abbreviations (rather than translations of the full text)? SemperBlotto 18:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether you would actually translate the abbreviation with another abbreviation or not. Usually I would have thought that's the case. Widsith 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fart

I would like to add "big stinky" to synonyms for the word "fart". Any problems?

dumbing

The "Dumbing" of America

I'm not familiar with this literature. Does it say that "mass media", "the administration", "advertisers", and "textbook publishers" are making Americans stupid or treating Americans as if they were stupid (or both). I know they don't mean the "silencing of America". DCDuring 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It says they're treating Americans as stupid, which in turn makes Americans stupid(er). --EncycloPetey 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There's yet another sense of dumbing down something's intellectual content, I realized. You can dumb somebody by dumbing the material they read and also dumb a person by telling others how dumb that person is, apparently. I am dumbfounded, but not struck dumb. I'm not sure about how common these are, but I've found examples of each, I think. DCDuring 15:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Adjectives with numerical definitions.

I was wondering what 'material' meant, if anything, in the very common use in accounting (SEC filings and the like), as in "not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company". In pharmacology, there are numerical definitions: "The United States has no regulatory definition that explicitly delineates events as common, infrequent, or rare based on their frequency of occurrence; the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) III/V working groups have recommended the following standard categories of frequency: common (frequent): > 1/100 and < 1/10 (> 1 and < 10 percent); uncommon (infrequent): > 1/1,000 and < 1/100 (> 0.1 percent and < 1 percent); rare: > 1/10,000 and < 1/,1000 (> 0.01 and < 0.1 percent) (CIOMS, 1999)." -http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10882&page=126 Similarly, I think 'couple' often means two or more; a few is generally three or more. So, I'm here wondering if any of these terms are well enough defined to have a numerical representation (or several) in their definitions. I found none. It seems most such terms just don't have a consensus definition: http://www.unc.edu/~uwolt2/cepor/v2n1.htm#focus (unfortunately, the paper mentioned is $100) -Elvey , 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Help me decide what is the definition of Guthix on runescape?

I have had people say Guthix is a mercenary, or he is the best god ever or..I personally think that he is truly the god of balance, But I need enough people to say this is so so I may help publsh his definition in Wiktionary. Thank you. By the way, My username is Cat Lover657 just was thinking u might want to msg me for further info giving. Thank you again.

This isn't material of the sort you'd find in Wiktionary. (see WT:CFI) --EncycloPetey 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, what makes you think that “enough people [saying] this” (or any other thing), would make it correct? That’s a logical fallacy — an argumentum ad numerum. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually semantics is the one area where an argumentum an numerum is perfectly valid, since words derive their "meanings" precisely from the way in which they are commonly interpreted/understood. Widsith 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether you take an entirely descriptivist stance, and on your ignoring internal word structures (as in rune- -scape). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A.K.A.

Also known as is correct. What I question is why this is not at aka which is by far the most common way of using this abbreviation or intialism. [[38]] for example. I think the redirect is misleading. Algrif 12:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen, and use, a/k/a, fwiw.—msh210℠ 16:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

to-be

I am considering how best to enter to-be. We have mother-to-be, which is fine. But on the other hand it is possible to put quite a large selection of nouns-to-be. Ideas? Opinions? Algrif 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put something up at -to-be, but I'm not sure how intelligible it would be to someone not already familiar with the term. Improvements are (as always) more than welcome. —Ruakh_TALK 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Algrif 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you call this letter: ì

What is the name for this letter, 'ì', an i with a little accent grave over it (I think that's what the French call it)? Used in Scottish Gaelic. e.g. pìobaireachd. RJFJR 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's called an i with a grave accent, if you believe w:Scottish Gaelic#Vowels. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 02:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For Gaelic, I've heard it called "I-fada", though I'm uncertain how "fada" shoud be spelled for this particular sense. "Long-I" would be the translation if the "fada" spelling is correct. --EncycloPetey 13:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oz Linux

The third definition at Oz is for a version of Linux. It has a link to WP, but WP deleted its article (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oz Linux). The third sense is a name, wasn't there a discussion on whether we kept sense like that? What was the decision? RJFJR 13:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Totally spam. —Ruakh_TALK 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

alveolar

In the pronunciation section of alveolar, there are entries for Schoolbook Phonetics and Last Resort Phonetics. We're not using these are we? At least, not according to WT:PRON --Keene 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are other pages using these --Keene 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Last Resort Phonetics should only be used when someone is trying to add a crude pronunciation to a page that has no pronunciation yet, and only by a person who does not know any of the other systems. "Schoolbook Phonetics" has been modified here to {{enPR}}, because "Schoolbook Phonetics" is not a standard system, and varies between schoolbooks and dictionaries that use it. It can be used, but should be enclosed in the {{enPR}} template. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Piss in someone's pocket

In my travels in the 80s in Oz, I heard this expression once or twice. It was explained to me that it had to do with whispering in someone's ear, which put the male urinary apparatus in the appropriate relation to another male's pants pocket. When I looked for quotes I found some, but they seemed to be about the pisser flattering the pissee. Does anyone have any first-hand knowledge of this? Has anyone already done research on it? I will see what on-line sources say. DCDuring 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Various dictionaries say: "To flatter someone", "To ingratiate yourself with someone", "To be friendly with someone". Usage often doesn't seem to always follow this, with some meanings more like "tell someone something that will upset them" or "piss on them". Also seems to be used in UK. Anyone? DCDuring 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

---well,have a look on this sentence,"He is of the habit to piss in everyone's pocket due to his honest friendly nature".This is how it is usually used.I think such friendly nature will not allow to be a matter of trouble for someone.So it is mainly used in meaning of "To be friendly with someone" as you also mentioned.--Etymologist 18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

biphasic note

I extracted this from biphasic. Is it music or acoustics or ?. DCDuring 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

--I think biphasic always can't be treated as music.It can be taken as acoustics. This approach is also supported by physics. --Etymologist 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

mooses

Just searching for the heck of it, it looks like mooses was at one time used as plural of moose. [39] the 4th entry down shows usage in John/Abigail Adams' letter(s). Should this be listed as rare, dated, archaic? I am unsure. sewnmouthsecret 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What language are you referring to?—msh210℠ 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

English, apparently; see <http://books.google.com/books?id=wkgMY68hQ2oC&pg=PA272&dq=mooses>. —Ruakh_TALK 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought John Adams would have given it away. :) Anyway, English. sewnmouthsecret 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

impact

The question I have here is what labels should be applied to the figurative definitions of the word "impact". Currently the noun is labelled "colloquial" and the verb "nonstandard"; in my opinion neither term is accurate. At best the usage should be described as "disputed".

I guess part of the problem is that I'm not sure what these terms mean other than that they're intended to be negative. According to the Merriam Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (p 406), the figurative verb usgae first appeared in literary contexts such as Christopher Morley and the Times Literary Supplement. Although it later became associated with politics, the usage is very widespread. Google News returns 200,000+ hits for the term, and the majority of them are the figurative use. The label "colloquial" thus seems wrong to me, and I don't see how something that is used that widely in the copy-edited prose of newspapers can be considered "nonstandard". No print dictionary I looked at gave any special label to the figurative senses, although they attached usage notes discussing the controversy.

The usage notes are generally in favor of the usage; the Random House says "Although recent, the new uses are entirely standard and most likely to occur in formal speech and writing."

— This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) at 23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. —Ruakh_TALK 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't quite follow this. What has been proposed? What has been agreed?

• Is the noun sense "A significant or strong influence. An effect. (Disputed)" to remain "Disputed" or to be considered standard?
• Is the verb sense "(nonstandard) To influence; to affect; to have an impact on" to remain "nonstandard" or become "Disputed"?
• What is the appropriate placement and capitalization for these indicators?

I interpret "nonstandard" to be more strongly negative about a usage, suggested some kind of consensus among relevant experts and "disputed" as meaning lack of such consensus. I had the general impression that the figurative usage of the verb "impact" was more negatively viewed than the figurative noun usage. Is that impression correct? If it is, I would have thought that the noun sense has become standard, but could be considered "disputed", but that the verb sense might remain in "dispute", but can no longer be viewed as nonstandard. DCDuring 01:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing that this word is neither colloquial nor nonstandard. (Some contributors — none of our regulars, I don't think, but mostly anons who drop in once and make a few tweaks — appear to think that "colloquial" means "this is technically wrong, but it's so common that I guess it's O.K. in colloquial speech". They are mistaken. Also, some contributors appear to think that "nonstandard" means "I don't like this usage" or perhaps "widely used and widely reviled"; this is an iffier point, but I'd say that they're mistaken as well.) {{proscribed}} might be O.K., though. —Ruakh_TALK 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted "proscribed" for the verb use of "impact" and removed "colloquial" from the "effect" sense of the noun, based on the above. DCDuring 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

irregardless

Another hot button topic, but the labels and usage note on the "irregardless" page seem out of sync with the quotations. There are five quotations given, spanning 130 years. Three are academic publications from university presses, and one was written by a judge in a court opinion. Given those citations, labels like "nonstandard", "illiteracy", "usually inappropriate in formal contexts" and "jocular" seem odd. I think what probably needs to be done is to expand the quotations list to show more informal uses of the term, and perhaps expand the usage note as well, but I'm not completely sure how this should be done. — This comment was unsigned.

That's because the labels and usage note were written by "anti" editors, and the quotations were added by "pro" editors. Personally, I think the usage note is actually quite fine; it looks like an accurate description of the word's status. The labels should probably be replaced with {{proscribed}}, which is our catch-all "this exists, but not everyone's happy about it" label (c/o Rodasmith). —Ruakh_TALK 16:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Inserted proscribed, left in mainly US and jocular. DCDuring 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we've dealt with this one pretty well, on balance. Widsith 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

due course

I am not sure that due course is or was an idiom. It might have just been SoP until the last two or three centuries. "In due course" would seem to be an idiom, especially if "due course" alone is not. I have 4 usage examples, but am not happy with my third attempt to define it. DCDuring 23:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would put the entry as in due course with label Category:English prepositional phrases Algrif 14:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

loyal to a fault

what does it mean?
loyal to a fault
— This comment was unsigned.

It means “so loyal that it could be considered a fault”; perhaps the person being described is loyal even when the object of his loyalty is shown not to deserve it. —Ruakh_TALK 22:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Clinton uses the word "speeded"

Clinton used the word "speeded" when talking about how the campaign "will be" in the next couple of months. Isn't "speeded" a pst tense form of the word "speed?" — This comment was unsigned.

Yes, past tense and past participle. American adults only use it for (deprecated template usage) speed's transitive sense ("We speeded it up", "It was speeded up"), and even then it's only questionably standard; our entry suggests that the British might use it more freely. —Ruakh_TALK 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not in my experience. It’s sped that’s used in all cases (bar by the ridiculed ineducated). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come to think of it, “he was speeded to his destination” is standard… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Seems that sped is used when the subject is acting intransitively ("The car sped up", "He sped home"), but that speeded is often used when the subject is acting transitively on another object ("We speeded up the process"), and regularly used when the subject is passive ("He was speeded to his destination"). Not, of course, that use is universally divided for transitive/intransitive (as Dorem. points out). --EncycloPetey 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Halacha

60+ cites of "Halachas" as plural on b.g.c. Don't know how to do transliteration to compare the transliterated Hebrew plural, DCDuring 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean when you talk of transliteration. Note these other statistics:

1. 654 Google Book Search hits for halachot;
2. 642 GBS hits for halachoth; and,
3. 407 GBS hits for halachos.

The plural forms already given are far more common than halachas. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good guess!!! That's what I wanted to know. DCDuring 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh would be the one to ask really, but I’ve noticed that this class of Hebrew words have singular forms ending in -a and/or -ah and plural forms ending in -ot and/or -oth — whence your -os -terminal form came is unknown to me. BTW, are you sure that the ‘+s’ plural can be considered standard? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that (deprecated template usage) -oth, (deprecated template usage) -ot, (deprecated template usage) -os, and (deprecated template usage) -s are all acceptable. ((deprecated template usage) -os reflects the Ashkenazim's traditional pronunciation, something like /ɔs/ or /əs/, which many still use, and which is also — no coincidence — the Yiddish pronunciation. Indeed, this word — like many en:Hebrew derivations — can equally be considered an en:Yiddish derivation.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Caps?—msh210℠ 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheerios

Shouldn't the entry be capitalized as Cheerios? That is how it seems to appear in the hundreds of fiction b.g.c. hits. DCDuring 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved it. A bot had moved it in 2005, presumably without checking usage frequency. Can it be protected from bot capitalization changes, if the capitalization is agreed as appropriate ? DCDuring 18:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And, not to worry: that was a single-run bot. (Previously Wiktionary was like Wikipedia, in that article titles automatically started with capital letters. When this was changed to allow lowercase entry titles, that bot moved all existing entries to their lowercase forms.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it was all visible, I didn't think I'd attract too much hostility. Visible one-entry boldness shouldn't be bad for Wiktionary. DCDuring 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bardolino

1st sense is the town (proper noun); 2nd sense is the wine variety, now shown as a noun and uses "en-noun" The only visible difference in the entry is the display of the (red) plural. Of course, the putatively unique town called "Bardolino" might turn out not to be unique or a philosopher wishing to use Bardolino to illustrate the problems of the concept of uniqueness might wonder how to make its plural. But seriously, folks, isn't Bardolino in the wine sense a proper noun? Many proper names have plural forms. (Is that "Clancys" or "Clancies"?) Why mess up PoS to show plurals? DCDuring 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The names of wines are a parennial problem. SemperBlotto could tell tyou about his many researches, and others here have done investigating as well. They do not function as proper nouns, so you can say "I tasted three different Chardonnays.". Oddly some wine names are occasionally capitalized, but this does not seem to be consistent. So, I would say the wine name is not a proper noun and a plural is possible.

As for the town name, it is a proper noun. Yes, it's true that many English proper nouns can be used in a plural form in unusual circumstances, those are usually statements where the referent is not to a specific entity, so it isn't really being used as a proper noun. If you talk about "All the Parises of the world." then you are not referring to a specific location, so you are not using Paris as a proper noun. This is possible for most proper nouns in English, but is a highly unusual construction, and not a normal part of the grammar of proper nouns as proper nouns. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

When I taught, I needed to keep track of how many Johns and Sergeis I had in the class to make sure that I didn't call on one for something and get an answer from the other. In Wikipedia, DAB pages are often about multiple instances of things with the same proper names. It doesn't seem all that exceptional to me. It is an old exercise in US geography to name all the states that have Springfields. When doing Wiktionary work, I have to check both my Websters (Merriam-Websters (Collegiate and 3rd unabridged)) and both of my Fowlers. And let's not get started on my library, e.g., with a couple of Principles of Psychologys and Getting Things Dones. DCDuring 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I rely on Wiktionary's definition of "proper noun"? "The name of a particular person, place, organization or other individual entity; it is normally written with an initial capital letter". If so, the entry for "Smith" is wrong because it says "Smith" is a proper noun, but refers to not to a specific Smith, but to all members the class of all persons with the name Smith. In any event, "Smith" case has parallels to the case situation of "Bardolino", the wine. It doesn't seem like there is a clear bright line between a proper noun, defined as (possibly non-unique) identifiers of unique individuals, and "capitalized-nouns-which-are-not-proper-nouns". DCDuring 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please wait for me to finish the Appendix on English Proper nouns. You can see the very crude draft here, but it needs lots of work before it's complete. I may work on it over Thanksgiving or Christmas holiday. I don't want to have to rewrite all of this each time the question arises, which it has been doing with some regularity of late.

Smith is a proper noun because it usually is used in a way that refers to a particular person named "Smith". When someone says "Have you seen Smith?" they are not referring to all members of the class of persons with the name Smith. The part of speech is dependent on usage, not on abstractions. Yes, the line between common and proper noun is fuzzy as times. Suffice it to say the best discussions of what makes a noun "proper" are by Locke and John Stuart Mill, and they were more concerned with the underlying concept the specifics and practicalities. --EncycloPetey 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly wait for you with bated breath, but unfortunately I'm like a dog with a bone with a subject like this.

It seems as if you are saying that the words we lable in Wiktionary as "proper nouns" are not, in fact, in and of themselves "proper nouns". E.g., "Milton" does not uniquely identify any unique person, but is used principally to identify persons, whom we specifically treat as unique. By this emerging definition of proper noun, the Properness of a noun is ultimately connected to instances of use. Is "Wiktionary properness" ("WikP") something with quantitative empirical criteria? Probably not. It is more likely that we will be identifying and formalizing the social conventions that say that require that every Tom, Dick and Harry, pets, human assemblages, and places of human importance be granted eligibility for proper nouns, whereas IP addresses; street addresses; non-pet animals, trees, and rocks (except very big ones) are not. Planets, stars, comets, galaxies yes? Certain periods of time. Trademarks. There would seem to be at least two kinds of proper names in Wiktionary:

• Type 1: names that, practically speaking, uniquely identify in the speech of some group of humans unique objects deemed worthy of having a proper name: the "Foreign Minister", "Jimbo Wales", the Pentagon, Sol, Sadie Hawkins' Day, "Spot", Halley's Comet.
• Type 2: words nearly exclusively used to constitute names of the first type. Sadie, Jimbo, Hawkins, Wales; but not day, spot, comet, pentagon, foreign, minister. This would boil down to given names and surnames (and corresponding entities in other naming systems).

Type 1 might not warrant including plurals. But Type 2 would. That they are used in multiple instances to make up names would certainly require the ability to make plural forms of "Henry", "Clancy", "Jimbo", "Hawkins". DCDuring 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language makes a big to do about this distinction, in a way that most sane people never bother with and which we don't worry about here on Wiktionary. They call individual proper elements "proper nouns" and the labels (either of one word or more) that name a specific item "proper names". But we don't make that distinction here. --EncycloPetey 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put up another version of the page that treats "Bardolino" as if it were a proper name like a trademark, many of which have plurals. This requires using "en-noun" under the "Proper noun" heading, manually inserting the "English proper nouns" category, and labelling the senses as countable and countable, as appropriate. It seems barbaric in appearance and likely to complicate bot design and operations. Another approach would have two "Proper noun" headers, one with "en-noun", the other with "en-proper". Also, we could deem all trademarks and trademark-like names to be nouns, not proper nouns. Or we could allow the proper name template to have plurals, defaulting to non-plural, of course, and not displaying "uncountable". DCDuring 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, {{en-proper noun}} will work for that as well; it accepts plural and uncountable markers. However, did you notice that the page we're discussing is marked Italian? It should have an Italian inflectional template, category, and should follow Italian plural forms. --EncycloPetey 05:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I hadn't noticed, probably because it didn't have all the usual accoutrements of a non-English entry. And thank you for the info on the options of the proper noun template. DCDuring 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have split this into English and Italian sections - the Italian plural is shown in the De Mauro dictionary. I am concerned that it uses lowercase though (may just be their typographical convention). I take the English plural to mean either different versions of the wine, or more than one glass of it. SemperBlotto 08:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read a little and realize more about the issues having to do with proper nouns. I would hazard a guess that many would-be contributors to Wiktionary are as uninformed as I was about the true def. of proper noun and with the same misplaced confidence in their ignorance. There are many Beer Parlor issues in this. DCDuring 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The various proper noun discussions we had last summer were the impetus behind my researching and drafting the (forthcoming) Appendix on English proper nouns. --EncycloPetey 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

hoi palloi

Is this an alternative spelling of the far more common hoi polloi (GBS: hoi polloi–hoi palloi = 835:11), or is it just a fairly uncommon (but just about verifiable) misspelling? As what (if anything) is it listed in other dictionaries? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is primarily a typo/misspelling and not a valid spelling. It certainly doesn't make sense as a transliteration from Greek. I've not seen it listed in any other dictionary. --EncycloPetey 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Shall we list it as a {{rare}} {{misspelling of|hoi polloi}} or just delete it? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(If we do the former, we’ll have to do something clever with the template to omit the “common” part of it. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

countercounterpoint

Here's a neat word I recently ran into. countercounterpoint. It has three hits at bgc, all from the same document it looks like. And 22 hits at usenet. So it could scrape past requirements for inclusion. I dunno though, I don't think it's very common in practice. Who here has heard/used this interesting word in their everyday lives? It's a cool word and whether or not we include it today, I'll definitely keep an eye on it since it could be useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would try "counter-counterpoint". There are a few Google Books hits. DCDuring 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don’t think it’ll satisfy the CFI, you can add all the citations you can find to Citations:countercounterpoint; if more are found in future, an entry with a definition can then be created. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, wiktionary has "counter-" (with the hyphen, as prefix) and "counterpoint". DCDuring 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rebrebate" is it a word an if so, what does it mean?

"reprebate" is a word that i've heard a few times used to describe someones character. Was wondering what the true meaning of it is. Or is it just a slang word? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.246.11.122 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

rebrobate or reprobate ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

--The actual word used much for describing character is reprobate not reprebate. Usually people use this word for the person who is of no worth,generally.--Etymologist 13:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebrobate is another old term, used in Christian religious contexts, apparently with about the same meaning as reprobate, appeared in print while reprobate was also in use. "Rebrebate" could easily have been a scanno for rebrobate. DCDuring 15:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

cinematography question

What do you call the mark placed on a film near the end of a reel that flashes on the screen to tell the projectionist to switch reels? In Italian it is segnalatore di passaggio. SemperBlotto 14:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A cue mark. —Ruakh_TALK 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. SemperBlotto 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the movie "Fight Club it is know in the film industry as a "cigarette burn", which may have some currency if you wanted to look into it. - [The]DaveRoss 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And according to en:wp's article on cue marks, the term "cigarette burn" was invented for said movie. \Mike 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

creations

It looks like a bit of bot gone astray on a template. I tried to fix it but was unsuccessful. Makearney 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

dinna

Would dinna be classed as Scots or English? --Keene 01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's marked as "Geordie", which is regarded as a dialect of English. However, it might also exist in Scots. --EncycloPetey 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly for lexicographers, the dialect boundary does not equate to the border between England and Scotland. Many (most?) Scots words are also found in Northern English dialects, especially Geordie which has held on to a lot of unqiue bits of vocab etc. Widsith 07:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

climb

There are other past and past participles of "climb" in dialectical use, but it's hard to know which ones should be included and with what comments. A google search brings up hits for clim, clom, clum, clombed, clumbed, clambed, clomb, clumb, clamb, and climb. I don't know which of these are misspellings, or get enough hits to count as "real" uses. Any comments?

boiloff

what does "boiloff" mean? (in "liquid oxygen" article)

quote from "liquid oxygen" article:

"LOX was also used in some early ICBMs, although more modern ICBMs do not use LOX because its cryogenic properties and need for regular replenishment to replace BOILOFF make it harder to maintain and launch quickly."

boiloff = boil off = evaporation DCDuring 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

found it it's in "vacuum flask" article quote:

"the leakage of heat into the extremely cold interior of the bottle results in a slow "boiling-off" of the liquid"

Thanks for asking. Missing word. DCDuring 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

you-know-who

"You-know-who" has singular the same as plural. The entry gives two senses, one for the singular, one for the plural, that formerly were almost exactly parallel and are now exactly parallel, with pari passu adjustments for number. I found that I felt compelled to read both carefully to understand why two senses were being given. Is it really necessary to have two senses, either to:

• draw the reader's attention to the identical spelling of singular and plural or
• simplify the wording of the definition? DCDuring 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Widsith 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

stiff

The two senses seem identical to me, and I was going to merge them but they appear to have different translations in Kurdish. Am I missing something? Widsith 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea about Kurdish, but there are two definitions that need to be entered more clearly. 1) unbendable applied to a thing 2) inflexible applied to a person. Translators will just have to sort it out later. Algrif 13:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at 3 senses for the adjective. I also noted that there are RfVs for two verb senses, which I began to verify, but noted no discussion heading. I'm not sure that all three senses don't come down to "cheated of money". There may also missing senses: one relating to "breaking an appointment or similar social obligation" and another like "stonewall", but of broader application than just with respect to answering a question. Another possible sense is something like punch or, more specificly, cold cock. DCDuring 15:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice. I added another adj sense. There is also "stiff drink" which seems to be an idiomatic collocation of its own. Widsith 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Forgot that sense. Not much of a drinker, myself. DCDuring 17:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've added "stiff muscles". - Algrif 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

les dim up

French speakers! Came across this one in a book recently . . . was completely new to me. I think I worked out the meaning OK.. But is there any other word for these, or would you just use this proprietary name, which is what it seems to be? Widsith 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a "French speaker" any more than you are — and I'm not even good with the English terms for such things — but searching Google for explicit explanations of what they are (trying things like "dim up ce" and so on), it seems that there's no other general name for these; rather, people use "les dim up" as a generic name, and when pressed to explain it use full sentences. Personally, I think (deprecated template usage) autocollant would have been cleverer ((deprecated template usage) collant being “tights”), but what can you do? :-P   Incidentally, it might be worth linking to w:fr:Dim (lingerie), which is a fr.wiki article on the company that introduced them. —Ruakh_TALK 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I'm still pleased - I always wondered how to say this in French. Not that I get the chance very often, but it's nice to think one'll be prepared. Widsith 21:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

let freedom ring

As what PoS should a phrase like this be presented. It IS a phrase, but it is a verbal phrase, following the inflection of let. "Freedom" is not inflected. What is the role of the Phrasebook in this? My own preference would be to present it as a Verb, use the idiom template, categorize it as a verb, but NOT have all of the inflections appear. That means NOT using the en-verb template. I can't find a policy on this. Has it been discussed? DCDuring 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think {{en-verb}} should have a nolinks=1 parameter or something; the inflections would then still appear, but they wouldn't be links. We can use it for idioms like this, where links wouldn't be helpful because the linked pages should just be redirects to the main entry. —Ruakh_TALK 00:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're saying they should appear without the inflected forms having links, but presumable with "inf=let freedom ring". Why couldn't those links be automatic? DCDuring 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that inflected forms of this have any currency, though. Isn't this more of a fixed, set-phrase? --Connel MacKenzie 01:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This phrase may become passe, apearing only in historical works by conservative writers harkening back to the old days when Reagan "let freedom ring" (past), if they can't talk about how some future Repubican president is "letting freedom ring" can (present participle). Whether it is worth displaying them is a separate question, but they can be readily exemplified and perhaps verified (at least if you don't make me find three for each form). DCDuring 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good point … properly speaking, I guess it's actually a full clause, in the imperative mood but not intended as a true imperative; it has the same structure as "let's talk" or "let me ask around", where you're not really instructing the listener to "let" something. (I think this sort of meaning is properly called "jussive" or something like that, though I've also heard it described as a "third-person imperative".) I don't know what part of speech that would be under our system; an idiom or interjection, I guess. That said, google books:"(lets OR letting) freedom ring" gets 21 hits, and google books:"(have OR having) let freedom ring" gets seven, so the entry might warrant a genuine verb sense that formed by extension. Regardless, my suggestion about {{en-verb}} was not intended just for this entry, but for many other such. I mean, does "given up" really need its own entry just because we have give up? —Ruakh_TALK 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would fully support that intiative. As you know, I add a lot of phrasal verbs and idiomatic verbal phrases. At the moment I am obliged to put the individual words in brackets and add category:English verbs at the end. Not very satisfactory. nolinks=1 would be a great solution. As for the original question; I would opt for Phrase: let freedom ring. Any future searcher checking for letting freedom ring would, as a normal course, search the infinitive phrase anyway. Algrif 14:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The recommendation to make the PoS = "Phrase" leaves the user to wonder whether the phrase is inflected as well as how. I've changed my mind about NOT having the inflections appear. I still don't like all the red links and having to type all of the inflected forms in. DCDuring 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides having all those (long) red-links, there is another problem with that technique: you might end up inventing unused variations. --Connel MacKenzie 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) you also would be giving undue weight to some very rare forms. --Connel MacKenzie 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. If each separate word is bracketted, it links directly to the base page showing all the inflections. A long phrase or idiom or proverb (whatever you prefer) would only bracket the important words. That's what I was taught when I started working here, anyway. And it still makes good sense to me IMHO ;-) Algrif 12:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got that impression - that is the Wikipedia convention (AFAIK,) but on Wiktionary, all the component words are supposed to be wikified. --Connel MacKenzie 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I just checked damned if you do and damned if you don't and see that all the words are wikified even though repeated. I understood that words like conjunctions and prepositions didn't need to be wikified in long phrases. There are many entries that do not follow this convention. I'll change them whenever I see them. Algrif 13:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with highlighting each component and expecting the phrasal inflection to be inferrable from that. To wit, only one word in a phrase like "let freedom ring" can be inflected while retaining the meaning given. "Freedom" can't be plural and "ring" isn't inflected either (although for a more grammatical reason). I think we are trying to get more out of the wikilinks than they can unambiguously communicate. DCDuring 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

letting freedoms ring gets 8 google hits... all to the same source. But it can be found with both let and freedom inflected.
Connel's points above are over-riding "all those (long) red-links" and "inventing unused variations." It is why I asked for guidance on this when I started. Firstly, someone looking the phrase up might well need to know what a component word means. Secondly, they might need to know how to inflect it, even if it is only to "inventing unused variation" for creative purposes. Algrif 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I got 2 blog hits for "let freedoms ring", too. We will always have creative extension of the language, but a dictionary is not primarily a guide for poets and bloggers trying to attract hits. WT documents the standard language; they play around with it. What I would think we would want is to point users to the main inflection explcitly and allow the wikilinks to be a kind of first-cut etymology and analysis tool, which supports creative writing and other uses. DCDuring 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Right - the convention on en.wikt is to send people to the component word pages for inflections. That practice doesn't jive well with other conventions that advocate duplication. It also is not followed (probably 20% of the time - presumably with good reason, for individual exceptions) all of the time. While I agree it is better to not list out inflections of set-phrases, some idioms might require proper inflection. I think that was the original question about this term - which I still do not know how to answer. Comparative web-hits show the standard form to have an overwhelming lead - perhaps it should just be left alone? --Connel MacKenzie 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I knew I had it somewhere. From your good self on my talk page, I quote: Please don't use full inflection for verb phrases. For all multi-word entries, the component terms only are supposed to have inflection. Please take a look at how I split jack it in from jack in. Thanks for your neat contributions! --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) -- ;-) -- Algrif 15:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, not too bad to keep specific inflection for this one because "freedom" is rarely inflected. If it were never inflected, it might be a more clear-cut case.

To summarize the more general case, to avoid unrewarding proliferation of phrasal entries, the idea would be to refer the user to the component words for inflection, by making sure that we were using the "inf=", "pos=", and "sg=" template options. Exceptions would be allowed where there was a good reason, such as not all possible inflections being legitimate (or to allow a link to a particularly common participle form ?). This is not a policy or a guideline, but might eventually become one. Is that a good summary? DCDuring 16:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

warna

Hi. I joined Wiktionary about a month back with the intention of beefing up the Malay vocabulary here. At the time, colour was one of the Translations of the Week, so I thought that I would start there. I have finally managed to put together an article for User:Nestum82/warna at my User Page, and I was wondering if I could get some feedback before appending it to warna. Nestum82 10:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! One minor thing, the English word varna is not a cognate - it hasn't descended from Sanskrit in the same way but was borrowed wholesale into the language. You need to say something like compare English varna. Widsith 10:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning! Gawd. I was under the impression that any two words with a common ancestor could be considered cognates. D'oh! Am I right in assuming that the compare English varna goes under the Etymology header?

Another thing that I should probably draw attention to is the Pronounciations. AFAIK, the major dictionaries do not give IPA pronounciations. Kamus Dewan only goes as far as using an é to differentiate from . So the pronounciations that I have given are both based on what comes out of my own mouth. Does this fall under original research? (Actually, I should put this question in the Talk Page. I've already got one lengthy postscript in there.) Nestum82 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, feel free to give your own pronunciations. Heck, we have a guideline or policy page somewhere that tells people they can write things like "KON-takt" if they don't know any formal transcription system. So, home-rolled IPA is really A-OK. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 22:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the pointers. I've finally gotten round to tacking the entry on to warna.

Ruakh: Now that you mention it, it does say that more or less in the ELE. Can't believe I forgot about that. Nestum82 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the hungarian christian name : Ibolya

I think this means Violet in english. Would anybody be able to confirm that ? thanks

john

Well yes and no. There is a Hungarian word ibolya that does mean violet (both the flower and the color), and there is a Hungarian masculine feminine name Ibolya that apparently derives from the name of the flower. However, it would be misleading to say that the feminine name means "violet", just as it would be misleading to say that the English girl's name Heather means "a low growing plant in the Ericaceae". They both share a spelling and an etymological origin, but not a current meaning. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibolya is definitely a feminine given name. But Viola and Violetta are also Hungarian names, so you cannot talk about translations, rather about variants of a theme.--Makaokalani 11:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have rechecked my book on Hungarian names; thanks for the correction. --EncycloPetey 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

pwn

I have a feeling the current definitions don’t accurately cover the usage found in this hilarious comic: http://xkcd.com/341/. Could a native speaker add a definition, and maybe the quote? H. (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is a usage of the "defeat" sense, "You just got defeated pretty thoroughly, maybe you should sit down" might be a rephrasing. - [The]DaveRoss 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:fr-conj-er

Looking in Template:fr-conj-er, I've noticed the "surcomposed past" been put in. Do other publications call it the surcomposed past? In French it's known as the passé fr:surcomposé, and is rarely used. As a holder of a degree in French, I've been made aware of it, but the teachers generally told me never to use it, as it's a kind of dialectic thing. Is it worth it being included in Template:fr-conj-er? Or is it too obscure? I suppose there's no harm in having it. Still, an entry for surcomposed could be needed. --Haunted wigwam 12:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (Yes, is blatantly Wonderfool, am leaving this account after this comment)

(1) I don't think there is a standard English name for it; Google Books suggests that most English texts just stick to the French name, but I don't think we can consider surcomposé to be a real loanword into English. (2) I don't think the surcomposé is a "dialectic" thing; my impression is that it's just an odd blend of literary French (where a distinction is drawn between the passé antérieur and the plus-que-parfait) and non-literary French (where the passé simple is systematically replaced with the passé composé). In true literary French you'd say « dès qu'il eut fait […] », and in normal French you'd say « dès qu'il avait fait […] », but in surcomposé-accepting French you'd say « dès qu'il a eu fait […] » (all meaning "once he'd done […]"). —Ruakh_TALK 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My Collins-Robert French Dictionary translates (deprecated template usage) surcomposé as "double-compound", though I don't know whether anyone uses that in grammatical contexts. --EncycloPetey 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard that before, but searching b.g.c., it looks like that is indeed the most popular name (at least of those I knew to look for). —Ruakh_TALK 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I've lived in France and in Morocco, and I don't think I've ever seen the surcomposé used in real life! Widsith 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Responsible to or responsible for?

I run into what I believe to be the misuse of the word responsible fairly frequently when reviewing Standard Operating Procedures. Each SOP has a section that specifies who is accountable for performing the procedure. I frequently see something like "The Manager of Customer Service is responsible to initiate customer complaint..." and it doesn't seem right. Is this correct? Should this not be "... is responsible for initiating customer..."? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MTLer (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. One is responsible for carrying out a duty. I often hear responsible to used in the same sense as accountable to and answerable to. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While "is responsible to initiate" is stilted, I'd not say it's wrong. Parse it as "is responsible" + "to initiate" (not as ... + "responsible to" + ...), and it has in the end the same meaning as "is responsible for initiating". As I say, though, it is stilted.—msh210℠ 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As usual, there is no Academy of English. But normal usage is: Responsible for a duty / department / etc.; and responsible to the head of dept. or similar person or dept above you (although you can be responsible to your clients, etc, also). Algrif 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If we talk about the standard English ,then "responsible for" is the correct use,if we look for the preposition usage.In various countries where English is taught as subject, usage of responsible with 'to' is usually considered as common error or gramatically wrong.However, I think this flexibility to use 'responsible to' instead of 'responsibility for' is making its place in nowadays English speakers.--Etymologist 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

'responsible to + gerund' seems to find frequent use in non-American newspapers, judging from Google News. — This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) at 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

comparative of polite

Is the comparative of polite politer or more polite, (or both)? RJFJR 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Google Books supports both, with some preference for the latter. I, however, am less tolerant: "politer" sounds incredibly wrong to me. :-P   —Ruakh_TALK 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sums up my opinion rather well. Currently polite lists 'more polite' but I find politer in my paper dictionary. I'm going to change it, but it sounds like it needs a usage note on how it sounds wrong to some people. Any suggestions on wording? RJFJR 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What my experience tells as i have gone through many English writings ,both forms are supported.In daily use i've seen people talking as ,"She should say this in politer way."So i think you need not to change it.Rather politer and superlative degree being politest sounds better than 'more polite' and 'most polite'.But what standard English suggests ,i am bit doubtful about it ,not really ,but to some extent.--Etymologist 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Politer and politest both both [sic] sound and look wrong to me (the comparative form more so than the superlative form); however, since they both exist, they ought to be listed, with a usage note added to the entry fo polite and links pointing thither added to the entries for politer and politest. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As a native speaker of American English (midwest), I see nothing wrong with politer or politest; I use both myself. — This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) at 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

RJFJR, FYI: the {en-adj} template handles this case, see entry. I concur in thinking "more polite" and "most polite" look and sound much more familiar than "politer" and "politest", which both look odd ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanx. I've also updated bitter - Algrif 13:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How much is it

I was thinking this should be moved to how much is it, due to caps. If anyone disagrees, please let me know; if I don't hear otherwise I will go ahead and move it. sewnmouthsecret 21:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

set versus put

Possibly stupid question (I blame my non-nativity), but: when you place something somewhere, is there any difference between "setting" it there, and "putting" it there? \Mike 11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever. You can put, put it down, place, set, set it down, there. As you wish. Algrif 13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Although. To my ear set seems of a slightly more formal register. There is also often a connotation of placing something more deliberately in a specific place, which is more obvious in phrases like "the diamond was set in precious stones" or something like that. I think put is slightly more neutral, slightly more casual. Widsith 13:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i strongly agree with 'widsith' explanation.To put,just mean to just put something orderly or un-arranged but when we talk about ,'setting it',this reflects a sense of arrangement or order.And secondly,not think your questions stupid,just ask and remove your ambiguity related to any word.--Etymologist 14:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not stupid. Answering these questions forces native speakers to be explicit about rules they may well have no conscious awareness of. Sometimes when we try to state the rules that we actually follow flawlessly, we make mistakes in trying to articulate them. I certainly use "set" only in contexts where the "putting" is supposed to be more careful in relationship to other objects. In more abstract applications, compare "putting that behind you" to "setting that aside for the moment". Perhaps the second is more specific, setting something aside for use in a short time, rather than forgetting it entirely. DCDuring 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help - most dictionaries I've seen (English that is) simply explain "set" (in this sense) with "put" (more or less) and vice versa. And then I compare to Swedish which uses three different verbs for that notion, and they are only rarely interchangeable... :P (Yes, I had hoped there were some minor difference I could benefit from when trying to define the words lägga, sätta and ställa, respectively, a bit more clearly - in how they differ). \Mike 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• The word "lay" physically means placing or setting a longish object on a flat surface or in a containing space. Is that like lägga?
• To "stand" something physically means to place or set an object in an upright or erect position. Is that like ställa?

Sometimes the physical meanings provide a good place to start. I don't know that I've gotten the English exactly right, but you can check me. DCDuring 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the physical orientation constitutes a very good first approximation :) But then there is sätta (literally, to put in a sitting position) which confuses things, sometimes synonymous with "lägga", sometimes with "ställa" and sometimes the only option. Hmm...., I think I was too concentrated on which nouns to use with which verb, there... I think it should be possible to get something decent out of it (at least I think I've managed to include most variations of lägga by now). But thanks for your help! :) \Mike 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, no, it is never(?) quite synonymous with lägga, at least.... just need to make a fine cut to separate them ;) \M

help yourself

Should this be listed under help#Verb, meaning 1? It seems to me to be slightly different- but I can't pinpoint why. Conrad.Irwin 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I also find that reflexives(?) like this give me pause, even though the definitions do seem to include them. It's even worse that it is easy to focus on the imperative form. Unfortunately the WT solution would probably be "help oneself", which would not be likely to be found by an ordinary user groping for help. DCDuring 22:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think help oneself would be a correct entry. But also help yourself as a phrase book entry. Algrif 11:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to ask was, is this a correct usage of the first meaning of help - or is it completely different? Conrad.Irwin 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The first entry is really in the sense God helps those who help themselves. I think help yourself to some food is not the sense nº1. IMHO. Algrif 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

incomparable

"Incomparable" is shown in our entry as having no comparative form.

• Oscar Wilde, Collected Works of Oscar Wilde (1997), page 1096

  I know of nothing in all drama more incomparable from the point of view of art, nothing more suggestive in its subtlety of observation, than Shakespeare's […].

Was Oscar Wilde jesting or are we wrong? DCDuring 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it I see no reason why there can't be gradations of comparability... Widsith 09:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Our editors seem to suffer from lapses of imagination with respect to countability for nouns and comparability for adjectives and adverbs. I understand how easy it is to succumb to it, but it leaves a lot of cleanup. DCDuring 10:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The editors do not suffer from lapses of imagination; we are describing the norm in the inflection lines rather than the exceptions (which are many in English). Please apologize for this personal attack. --EncycloPetey 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is perhaps not so much lack of imagination, but a long-cherished superstition within prescriptive grammar of the "absolute adjectives" that cannot be compared. It is a long-settled issue in linguistics that a form like "more incomparable" means "being closer to incomparable" or "having more of the quality of incomparable", but the prescriptionists continue to claim this is somehow imprecise, unclear, or illiterate. — This comment was unsigned.

Not simply superstition, but an understanding of what the words mean. The word (deprecated template usage) incomparable means "not comparable"; it can't be compared. The word (deprecated template usage) not is a binary operator. It isn't logically feasible to say that something is "more not comparable" or "most not comparable", just as it isn't logically feasible to say that something is "more dead", "more frozen", or "more omnipotent". Each of the base terms is binary, without gradations. That doesn't mean that such forms aren't used by people, just that they do not make logical sense. --EncycloPetey 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that that's a superstitious application of logical formalisms to an informal and illogical language. Two things can be roughly comparable — apples and oranges, say — or fairly incomparable — oranges and toothbrushes, say. But oranges and love are even more incomparable than these, because you can't even apply market prices to compare them. Technically, any two things can be compared, and when we say "incomparable", we do not in fact mean that comparison is simply impossible. Likewise, "more omnipotent" can be meaningful in discussing solutions to the Omnipotence paradox. That said, I agree with you that it's not a big deal to label an adjective absolute if its comparative and superlative forms are rare and nonce-y. —Ruakh_TALK 04:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken to checking for the actual occurences of instances of use of comparable forms before changing indications of non-comparability. That's what lead me to the Oscar Wilde quote above. Given his notorious wit, I wanted to check whether I had not gotten a joke he was playing on his readers. I doubt if anyone will use a comparable form of something when it doesn't make sense because we say that an adjective is comparable in one of its senses. The trouble with the incomparability marker is that it applies to all senses (including those added after the non-comparability marker is added) and all contexts. It also seems much more proscriptive than Wiktionary philosophically seems to be. DCDuring 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that Wilde's usage, as well as other instances of "more incomparable" and "most incomparable" are using the word simply in a sense of "great to an extent of having no equal". It is a word that grew beyond its roots, and in this sense is no longer a meaningful prefix+root word combination. Discussions of actual "comparisons" (oranges and toothbrushes) is quite erroneous to this sense. It's an adjective borne out of the notion of being matchless, peerless, unrivaled — but is an independent, self-sustaining description, like "magnificent". It connotates comparison, but does not refer directly to it. Casting off any active (verb) sense of comparison, the new, independent, etymologically created word is pronounced in-COMP-arable. For the senses you've been discussing, the better term is "not comparable".
That said, I think listing the comparative and superlative at incomparable is excessive. The truth is that the word lacks a comparative form, thus the necessary use of the word more. Listing such is wholly unnecessary and cluttered. -- Thisis0 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"What a bitter sweet irony of it"

What does it really mean?How many meanings it carries,both in negative and positive sense?Anyone??--Etymologist 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

comparative of negative terms

When forming the comparative of a negative term (a word formed from a prefix such as un- in- a- etc) it seems to me that while I could put more before the negative I'm more likely to put less before the positive form. e.g. for inappropriate it sounds better to use less appropriate than more inappropriate. Does this seem like a general rule? Should anything be noted in the entry for negative terms? RJFJR 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a good example of a Usage notes entry. - Algrif 11:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But less appropriate doesn't mean the same thing as more inappropriate. At a black-tie event, a shirt with button cuffs is less appropriate than cufflinks, but still appropriate, not inappropriate. Jeans would be more inappropriate than a business suit, both are inappropriate. Robert Ullmann 11:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good point, and good examples. Hmmmm... - Algrif 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fathometer

We have an entry for the trademark Fathometer and not for fathometer. I haven't counted, but there seem to be more uses of the uncapitalized generic form. How should this be presented? I would argue for both entries cross-referenced, but a redirect from one to the other with both trademark and generic uses could work. If the latter which one is the redirect? DCDuring 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not use redirects. Use two entries, like Apple. DAVilla 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that at Fathometer the gloss only reads "A trade mark". We do not know what else Fathometer produces or especially what it will produce, therefore it is not necessary to say anything about what is possibly being produced under the brand. A separate entry fathometer then explains what the gadget is about. I do not know whether fathometers are called fathometers because of Fathometer or vice versa. Without further research I would not write anything about the relationship in the etymology -section. In fact, I did these changes already. Hekaheka 21:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we should just delete the trade mark just as at least for the time being is the solution with Bobcat, which is being discussed somewhat further below. Hekaheka 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

atop

The adverb was listed as not having a comparative form. I found two quotes that seem to illustrate otherwise, but are otherwise interpretable. Any thoughts. DCDuring 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Try searching using further and furthest atop. You'll find stacks of quotes. Algrif 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Does "further" count as making a "real" comparative form. In my mind, only "more" could make a comparative. Are there other such words that make "real" comparatives. DCDuring 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And younger is then not a "real" comparative? Better? \Mike 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant that I thought that "more" was the only full word that could make a comparative.

I was interested in whether there was a comparative form (and a superlative one as well) for the adverb "atop". I found two quotes for "more atop". The suggestion of "further atop" raised the question in my mind as to what the meaning of "comparative" form really was. Is "more" the only adverb that makes a "real" comparative form for those adjectives and adverbs that don't form the comparative "morphologically", like by adding "-er", as "young" does? "Further atop" (surprisingly, no real hits for "farther atop") and "more atop" seem to mean about the same thing.

"Farther" and "further" seem to work like "more" for many adverbs that have to do with spatial relationships, possibly figurative ones. "Farther" "up/down"; "in/out"; "over/under"; "ahead/behind"; "on", "across", "back", "east", etc.; "left/right"; "forward/backward"; "away/anear"; "above/below"; "overhead", "beneath", "alee", "abaft", "afore". DCDuring 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Further' does seem to be preferred to farther for comparative forms. No idea why, tho. A tangential aside... I've often thought it might be good to appendix all adj / adv that can take further as comparative. You missed a few. upstairs, downstairs, uphill, downhill, ahead, around, round, and I'm certain there are more. Algrif 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other words besides more than can be used to form the comparative, especially less. Comparatives can either increase or decrease the relative degree in the comparison. However, I'm not convinced that further atop is an extension of the pattern. This looks to me like a case of the adverb (deprecated template usage) further modifying the adverb (deprecated template usage) atop, just as you could say further in, further on, or further out. I can't find this addressed in the books I have on English grammar. --EncycloPetey 03:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I remain very uncertain about this: "She rested more atop him."

"More" would seem to be modifying the prepositional phrase "atop him". Therefore "atop" is, in fact, not comparable. This leaves me needing some kind of good usage example or quote for the adverbial usage of "atop", which is actually what got me started on all this. DCDuring 04:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In that example (deprecated template usage) atop is a preposition, not an adverb. The adverb (deprecated template usage) more is modifying the adverbial phrase atop him. The original question applies to adverbial situations like "Clicking on this option will place the window further atop." I can't imagine "more atop" being used this way. --EncycloPetey 04:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see the error of my ways about the comparative form of the adverb. My question now is for a good example of the adverbial use.

• "He placed it atop." doesn't seem right, except in very unusual circumstances. Perhaps: "She placed hers next to the pillow; he placed his atop {hers or the pillow]." DCDuring 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I would call that a preposition still, with an understood implied object because of the parallelism. A better example might be "The scout went atop to look along the cliffs." The adverbial use will sound strange because it's not common in modern English. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Adverbially it's almost archaic now. In older books, you will regularly see sentences along the lines of, "The castle was black and forbidding, with a tattered flag flying atop." It used to be written as two words which is making it hard for me to find good results on b.google. Widsith 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it merit an indicator of its not-current usage? What is the canonical format for such an indicator? "dated"? "archaic"? "obsolete"? DCDuring 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe (deprecated template usage) ...? Widsith 16:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a couple of cites and the context tags. Widsith 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel much better now. -- And the entry is vastly better. DCDuring 17:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

word of faith

The phrase "word of faith" is fairly common in Christian writings and is apparently SoP, non-idiomatic. There is a "Word of Faith" movement, not an organization, for which the phrase has a particular meaning, which most users of the phrase "word of faith" may not be aware of, would not accept, and might strongly disagree with. The entry, though uncapitalized, is about "Word of Faith" as a belief, presumably of those in the "Word of Faith" movement.

• Should the entry be capitalized?
• How should the meanings separate from those of the movement be handled?
• Should the context be "religion" or "Word of Faith"?
• Does it belong in Wiktionary?

Although there might well be a BP discussion in this, the concrete case might provide a more focussed discussion, if anyone is interested. DCDuring 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

pilmanie

does anybody know the correct spelling of a soup called(pilmanie) and its possible origin? 15:21 17 November 2007 (UTC) 75.41.123.55

• This morning I walked down the street to see what I could see, and happened upon an Uzbekistani restaurant, where I had breakfast.

Couldn't read a single thing on the menu, because it was written in Russian. So I just told the guy to bring me something he thought I'd like.

It was terrific. Something called Pelmani, which included beef dumpling soup, some sort of egg and ham salad, plus bread and yogurt with an interesting tang. An excellent choice next time you stay at the Diplomat Hotel in Dubai.[40] DCDuring 22:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Best spelling for finding more would probably be pelmeni. DCDuring 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a beehive fireplace?

What is a beehive fireplace?

See picture here.

A traditional beehive is kind of dome shaped (as in beehive hairdo, etc). A beehive fireplace is a masonry or stone dome enclosure over the fire forming a sort of oven. RJFJR 04:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

unmade

The entry claims to have a citation supporting "more unmade" as the comparative, but I think this is parsed incorrectly. I believe the quote is not "(more unmade) and remade" but rather "more (unmade and remade)". That is, I think (deprecated template usage) more is being used in its adverbial sense to modify an adjective phrase rather than in its analytical sense to form the comparative. --EncycloPetey 04:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

By George, I think you're right. I added a couple of other quotes that seem to support the comparative/superlatives, but I may have misread them too. Please take a look. DCDuring 13:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All but the 1984 quote, which is comparing aunmade versus made, and not forming a comparative of unmade. I'd argue that the original quote from the page and the 1984 one should be removed. --EncycloPetey 15:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented your suggestions. Formation of plurals and comparatives is way more complicated than I had realized. -- And I still have trouble slowing down enough to parse things correctly. DCDuring 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New word or another language

I'm really struggling to find any meaning for the word "Absolom". Is this a new word created by the masters of Hollywood or A word in another minor language they've found and used. — This unsigned comment was added by Pagey (talk • contribs).

See Wikipedia: w:Absalom. Mike Dillon 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Random addendum: Robertson Davies used to use his own coinage absalonism to describe habitual rebellion against one's father. Widsith 12:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

get down with the kids

Should this instead be at get down with or possibly even get down?—msh210℠ 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"get down" doesn't cover it. There's another idiom (AAVE?) down with, I think, too, possibly related. DCDuring 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We may need additional sense(s) of down to provide the building block(s) for these phrases. DCDuring 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of examples of get down with + other noun groups being used as a phrasal verb in Google and bgc. This seems to be quite new, as it is not a dictionary entry that I can find (yet), but there appears to be durability. So I vote for get down with as the entry. Algrif 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want an entry for it, I'm down with it. DCDuring 12:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy with my entry at get down with, which seems to have at least two citeable meanings, then that makes get down with the kids SoP. - Algrif 12:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm down[=OK] with the entry, but I wish I could think of a good search to capture some quotes using "get down" not in the senses given there, but more like the sense in get down with. Can it be used with any other prepositions? My homeys don't talk like that and the people who do wouldn't talk that way in front of me. DCDuring 14:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your Q, but perhaps you want get down among ? - Algrif 16:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not happy that the two senses in "get down" really capture one or more ways the phrase is used. To get it right I would need to look at a few examples. I can't think how to do a good search that doesn't yield thousands of hits I don't want. If "with" is not the only additional preposition the phrase is used with, then there is a good case for adding an additional sense to "get down". But "get down" without another preposition also may have another sense, for which the one-preposition-at-a-time strategy that you imply would be ineffective. DCDuring 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I thought so. I misunderstood your Q.

I don't do anything sophisticated. Just search and wade through the results. I often find that newspaper searches help to support and clarify gbc searches. Using this method, I came out with the 2 definitions given. There might be more, but I haven't come across any yet.
The definitions at get down with do not coincide with any definition of get down nor get down + with. So I believe get down with is a clear phrasal verb with clear definitions. If you find any more, please feel free to add (It's Wiki policy, after all ;-)) - Algrif 17:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

-illo

I was just wondering how best to enter Spanish suffix -illo -illa meaning little. As in mercado - mercadillo, mentira - mentirilla, etc. Is there a specific format for this? Algrif 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You could use -ito as an example. It looks pretty solid. Mike Dillon 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm onto it now. Algrif 16:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

template:irregular plural of

Template:irregular plural of is a "form-of" template that puts "Irregular plural form of [foo]" on the definition line and adds the page to Category:English irregular plurals. While I think that the category is great, I think the definition line should just say "Plural form of", for the following reason. Someone who doesn't know what "irregular plural" means might well think that "Irregular plural form of" means "Uncommon plural form of" (i.e., that there is another, more common, plural). What think you all?—msh210℠ 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another option is to have "irregular" link to Appendix:Glossary, where it can be explained in detail. If that's not enough, maybe a tooltip could offer a brief explanation. Rod (A. Smith) 19:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we'd have an Appendix:English nouns with a section on regular and irregular plurals, and the template would like to that. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I like any presentation that is kind to an ordinary user, while remaining accurate. The word "irregular" at the beginning of a definition line has the potential to confuse (especially native speakers). If it would be valuable for some users to know that a given plural is irregular without having to look at the categories, perhaps the definition line could read "plural form (irr.) of". To prevent the ordinary user from wasting too much time "irr." could be wiki-linked to a helpful section of a page that explained what "irregular" meant in this context. Putting a wiki-linked "irregular" at the beginning of the line may lead to many users hitting a link that won't tell them anything they want to know. DCDuring 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good.—msh210℠ 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with msh210; that message just seems pointless. Anyone who knows English will know, given a plural noun and its corresponding lemma, whether they'd consider it irregular; I don't see the benefit in imposing our definition of "irregular" into our definitions of all irregular plurals. (Obviously we need our own definition of "irregular" for the sake of categorization, but I don't see that it's useful for much more than that.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the current entry for (deprecated template usage) women seems unenlightening for readers who don't already know the plural of (deprecated template usage) woman. Of course, this ties into the lack of consensus we have regarding whether to show such inflection details in the headword/inflection line or in definition lines. In any event, this conversation probably belongs at WT:BP, right? Rod (A. Smith) 01:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Msh210 and Ruakh: The category is useful, the preset definition is unhelpfully misleading. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. When you see women defined as "irregular plural of woman", the immediate reaction is to think "So what the hell is the regular plural?" Widsith 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we change the definition to be identical with the one provided {{plural of}}, but retaining the auto-catting? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see a few problems:
  1. Most dictionaries don't include entries for regular "form of"s but do for irregulars. So while they typically don't use the word "irregular" in their definitions they make these terms stand out by their mere inclusion. Wiktionary now has no way to make these stand out yet they are very much more important than regular "form of" entries.
  2. Categories are useful but they apply to an entire page and thus do not stand out on a page such as men which has nine entries and sixteen categories.
  3. The argument about confusing words in definitions is a bit of a red herring considering we have more confusing words such as infinitive, tense, participle, and uncountable in very many "form of" definitions.
• Why not treat irregularity in a consistent manner as with other "attributes" of words such as countability, transitivity, archaic, obsolete, pejorative, etc:

  men

  1. (irregular) Plural of man.

— Hippietrail 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That still (to me at least) implies that there exists a valid regular version. Widsith 14:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Me, too.—msh210℠ 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And what about when dictionaries list regular plural forms? –The COED, if my memory serves me correctly, explicitly lists prospectuses as the plural form of prospectus. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To enfishen?

Do we have a word in English for the French empoissonner, meaning to populate or stock with fish? enfish, fishify, enfishen, or just "add fish to"? There should be a word for it, like when fisherman overfish and there's not much fish left in the sea so they need to wait a while until the sea become more enfished? --Rural Legend 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a word for it, or if there is most people ignore it in favour of saying "replenish fish stocks" or something. You could always coin an English word empoisson or impescate... Widsith 14:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the next time I write a novel I shall talk about how fisherman need to reimpescate the oceans after the depescation. Hell, I'll name character after you too. --Rural Legend 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'll keep an eye out for The Sockpuppet Years. Widsith 15:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No precise word, but restock is the word typically used and the context usually makes a modifier unnecessary. DCDuring 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

cup

cup's English etymology section says it comes from Old English, earlier from Latin, earlier from Hebrew, earlier from PIE. Since when does Hebrew derive from PIE, or Latin from Hebrew (unless, for the latter, it's a loan, in which case it should say so)?—msh210℠ 20:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've commented out that bit for now. It appears to be random weirdness. Widsith 10:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

interoperability

Meaning 3 appears to me to be a specific instance of meaning 2. Can I just delete meaning 3? What's the protocol? - dougher 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To be cautious: insert rfd-sense template (which I just did). But that sense def. is so bad that probably no-one would have minded it you would have deleted it. DCDuring 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

zinc

Can someone add a correct {{en-verb}} inflection for zinc#Verb, it seems that it has a couple of possible inflections - zinckig/zincing/zincked/zinced...I'd coin a new past tenses for zinc at zanc and zunc if I could. --Rural Legend 11:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the verb was galvanize - Algrif 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Less-used synonym. DCDuring 17:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is less used? The word we know how to inflect correctly: to galvanize, or the word which does not seem to have any clear inflection: to zinc (??) BTW, I do not have zinc as a verb in any of my dictionaries, but then I don't have that many, I'm afraid. - Algrif 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My MW3 gives the "ck" inflections (not zanc amd zunc) as well as the "c" ones. I have never seen of read "zinc" as a verb, though I don't doubt that it is in usage. I don't like the look of the "ck" spellings, but they do avoid the pronunciation confusion of the "c" versions. Let me look up the en-verb template to see how to do it. DCDuring 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about how we treat this problem with other metals.. The most common procedure is to add -plate to the metal noun. Some few metals have special verbs, such as zinc - galvanise, and gold - guild. Some make verbs directly, such as to lead, and to tin. Silver and chrome seem to be used as verbs at times also, but -plate is preferred. I think it will be difficult (but not impossible tho) to find anything verifyable for zinc as a verb. Zinc-plate and galvanise are by far and away the most obvious solutions. Good luck in finding verificatons for the inflections. - Algrif 13:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC) I just noticed. That should read gild! .. Doh.. Algrif 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The only one I wasn't able to find on Google Books was zincs. --Ptcamn 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder whether the -ed forms are simply adjectival, and the -ing forms nouns or adjectives, in the examples you have found. Handle with care !! - Algrif 17:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

street market

I am considering adding this item, but is it a SoP? Reasons in favour of the entry would include the fact that souq, mercadillo, and mercatino all mean street market. Opinions? - Algrif 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't we want to make this a matter of policy? If it works under existing policy, then it's in. If it doesn't, then it might be an opportunity to review the policy for the newbies like me. I remember that in a recent discussion the translation-from-a-single-word rationale was said not to be policy.

This looks SoP and is not in MW3. But maybe there is more to it. Does a street market necessarily involve closing a street to some classes of traffic, for example? In NY area, we have "farmers' markets" (fresh produce and other food products, not necessarily farmers, sometimes held in parking areas or other public spaces), "street fairs" (more than a market, closes the street), "sidewalk sales" (store-owners allowed to partially obstruct the sidewalk in front of their store), "street vendors", (licensed or unlicensed merchant without premises, selling from sidewalk). We have a few special-purpose buildings for "markets", both wholesale, retail, and mixed, as well as arcades; in these, the mechants can have stores or stalls. We also have "flea markets", typically weekend-only markets for all sorts of goods. Not too many folks from here would think of the phrase "steet market" when looking for meaning. DCDuring 17:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To me it's a set phrase. I totally think it deserves an entry. Widsith 07:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be more of a UK thing than US, judging from DCDuring's comment. But I'm leaning more towards a real entry, because both the above comments made me realise that in UK a street market can be found in a car park or other non-street location. The meaning is a temporary market not located in a fixed market building. (More or less!). If I can justify this meaning with cites, then I will enter it. Any help in finding quotes would be appreciated. - Algrif 12:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone here said "street market" we would have some expectations about what it was, but I would argue that here it is fundamentally SoP.

There are abundant quotations in travel, geography, history, and sociology. I'm not sure how to find the ones that illustrate the 'setness' of the phrase. Here's an interesting cite from a history book:

• 1956-2000, H. P. R. Finberg, Joan Thirsk, Edith H. Whetham, Stuart Piggott, H. E. Hallam, Edward Miller, G. E. Mingay, E. J. T. Collins, The agrarian history of England and Wales, page 992

  It was not the custom of London consumers to walk any distance for their food, or any other goods. As a result of this and the inability of the London County Council to establish a single authority to regulate existng markets and establish properly regulated new ones when the need arose, the irregular street market set up in densely populated districts was a feature of the capital. In 1891 there were 112, all unauthorised, and containing 5,292 stalls, of which 65 percent were set aside for the sale of perishable commodities.

There's lots more in this mammoth multi-volume source about markets elsewhere in England and Wales. DCDuring 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Great. Thanks. I've put another couple of good quotes and entered it with a 'pedia link. - Algrif 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

how do i create my avatar?

Tea room i am at a loss i can't seem to do anything,how can i start to have fun, i need to make a avatar to chat

eye dialect

This definition bothers me a bit because of the put-down of the speakers of the dialects transliterated this way. I am not saying that the definition is not often accurate. I am saying that not all transliterations of dialect are done to mock the speaker. AAVE is arguably a species of eye dialect that has some effective PR agents and lobbyists. I had wanted to add entries for some New York area eye-dialect (dey, dem, dose, dese, dat for starters, but all of Damon Runyon and Finley Peter Dunne [and others] awaits) and was bothered by the implication of the definition that such entries were not appropriate. Are they? Is it only the usual CFI standards that apply? DCDuring 12:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the definition rewrite. I would guess that Wiktionary would want to have as many eye-dialect entries as possible, especially cited. It is a kind of documentation of popular English that is not readily available by other means and fits with the need of users reading dialog in dialect. DCDuring 00:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever is rewriting this, you may wish also to rewrite Category:Eye dialect and Appendix:Glossary#E.—msh210℠ 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

jacquetta

Can anyone tell me the meaning of this name. The tribe that it can from was around Preg Oklahoma. I was named after a girl that went to school there.

Thank you

stockingfeet

in one's stockinged feet is listed as an adverb; I was hoping to place stockingfeet as a term of its own, but am unsure what part of speech it would be or how best to define it. It appears in L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, among many other books at b.g.c. Any ideas? sewnmouthsecret 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a noun. Though I usually see it as two words, or hyphenated. Widsith 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it was a noun, but in trying to define it, I keep thinking stockinged feet, which is an adjective. b.g.c. has many print cites with it as one word. sewnmouthsecret 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, "stockinged feet" is a compound noun too – a noun phrase if you like, but no one likes that term here. And the singular stocking-foot seems to exist also, by the way. Widsith 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We do have stockinged, the past participle of the verb "stocking", which is used as an adjective in both phrases: "in one's stockinged feet" and "stockinged feet". The entire first phrase is adverbial. Both "one's stockinged feet" and "stockinged feet" are noun phrases. At least, I think that's all correct. DCDuring 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Stocking-foot" doesn't seem to usually refer to a foot with a stocking in it. A "stocking-foot wader" is a wader that has a stocking-like foot, which is worn inside socks (for abrasion protection) and an oversized shoe. It contrasts with a "boot-foot wader" which makes direct contact with the rocks and grit of a stream. A "stocking-foot" also seems to refer to the foot part of a stocking. It makes me think that one reason that the somewhat awkward "stockinged feet" has survived is to differentiate "stocking-feet" from "stockinged feet". We could try to preserve the distinction by marking stockingfeet in the sense of "stockinged feet" in some way as a common misspelling (or something) or just note distinct senses. DCDuring 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's the other way round. stocking-foot is the part of a stocking that goes round the foot, ie the bottom bit. "In your stocking-feet" was just a way of saying that you had no shoes on over them (first attested 1802), but as the term got less common, people started hearing it as "stockinged feet" (first attested 1862). Widsith 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

humbug

I was wanting to add the well known quote from A Christmas Carol from Wikiquotes [41] to the Interjection. But I'm not sure how to do it. - Algrif 12:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is, is there a special template or approved format to link to wikiquotes? - Algrif 16:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What I need to know is nothing difficult. w: takes a link to wikipedia. s: takes a link to wikisource. What is the way to link to wikiquotes, please? Thanks. - Algrif 12:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. q:Charles_Dickens#A_Christmas_Carol. Widsith 13:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanx. My fault for not being clear in the first place! ;-) - Algrif 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobcat

I've been trying to find the meaning of Bobcat that i found in a leadership book, but it seems like it's nowhere to find. The book speaks about a landscaping company and how they run their business. As I quote here, it says, "Their equipment - including trucks, trailers, and 'Bobcat'". Can someone help me here, please? — This unsigned comment was added by 61.94.126.30 (talk).

Seems like they're a digging-machinery company. See w:Bobcat Company. Widsith 12:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good example of the trademaker's craft. Common word, play on bob- as in "bobbed" and "Cat", short for "Caterpillar", now being defended against genericization of the term bobcat, sense 2. DCDuring 14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yea. They make small-scale earth-moving equipment, often used by contractors who need to work in small spaces around existing structures. DCDuring 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

help me ...

There's this sentence that says: "The new President imposed much-needed organization and order on the fledgling company." Can somebody help me to re-phrase it, please?

Pice, is it a coin or a currency?

I notice the word pice has a definition of "A small copper coin of the East Indies, worth less than a cent". But is this correct, as I thought pice or more correctly paisa is a currency rather than an actual coin. Obviously it can be both like cent, but I'm also sure that pice is plural, which makes it unlikely that it means a particular coin. Help appreciated.--Dmol 23:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

knows

How should the slang/dialect/illiterate(?) inflection of the verb "know" and the results of the inflection be presented? It certainly seems like a complete separate inflection of the same infinitive lemma: I/you/he/we/they knows, knowing (knowin'???), knowed, knowed. This kind of thing must have been discussed before. DCDuring 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Knowed seems to handled adequately. I willhave done something similar for knows. How is it to be handled on the page for know? DCDuring 15:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did something ,if fine,it's good,otherwise it will be removed.--Etymologist 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

against time

Is this an idiom? It can be used adjectivally and adverbially. It is part of set phrases like a "race against time". DCDuring 16:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a prepositional phrase. It just needs to have Category:English prepositional phrases added. - Algrif 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. Not sure about it being an adjective though?? Algrif 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is used with nouns describing actions, usually vigorous actions. I often find the semantics renders the grammatical structure invisible to me. Somehow against didn't look like a preposition for a while. DCDuring 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

the world is your oyster

This doesn't conform with our other entry names. Standard would be world be one's oyster or the world be one's oyster, but those are terrible. Not sure what to do about this. Maybe just leave it where it is. In any event, there should be redirects from the world is his oyster, world is my oyster, the world was her oyster, etc., I suppose.—msh210℠ 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly enough, world be one's oyster is correct. DAVilla 08:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately we can salt the entry with examples that have all the most common phrases in actual use so that the search button will find it for the user. DCDuring 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

you hear it. you thuoght it, you have done it / see

does this make you reconize the simplcity of actions

Category:Filmology

If it was up to me, I would move this to Category:cinematography and update all the entries to use a proper context tag. Does anyone agree or disagree? SemperBlotto 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Widsith 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalized.—msh210℠ 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No. SemperBlotto 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all the topic categories' names capitalized? (I'm referring to the first letter only, of course.)—msh210℠ 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Yes, all categories on Wiktionary have their first letter capitalized, though I'm unsure whether the software requires it and some templates we use require this. However, "cinematography" is too narrow a term to cover the category. Filmology exists as a word because cinematography refers to the art of making motion pictures, specifically to aspects of lighting and camera choices. It does not cover other aspects of filmmaking. If another name must be used, I would choose Category:Filmmaking. --EncycloPetey 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

secret

I think we're missing a sense:

1. • 1981, P. L. Travers, Mary Poppins, revised edition, chapter 10,

     Jane and Michael watched the dance, the Hamarynd secret and still between them.

I'm not sure what secret means here. (Note that the Hamarynd was not hiding or, as far as I can tell, obscured from sight.)—msh210℠ 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What's a Hamarynd? Is it physical? MW3 has some 9 adj. senses for secret, all them involving hiding, stealth, mystery in one way or another. DCDuring 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In the book the Hamarynd seemed to be some kind of snake-god. Physical, yes: having the form of a snake.—msh210℠ 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So, a smart snake, then. There's a sense of secret: secretive. By being/holding itself still, the snake seems to be playing an active role. A divine or magical snake may not be all that physical. I doubt if we can do much better than guess at a more precise meaning other than the emotional content of something esoteric and powerful shared by Jane and Michael. DCDuring 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, okay. Thanks.—msh210℠ 05:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

power processor

I want to ask what is the difference between power processors and micro processors.

One possibility is that "power processor" refers to w:IBM POWER, a particular architecture of microprocessors developed by IBM. Another possibility is that is slang of jargon for a microprocessor that is considered particularly powerful (as opposed to a small and simple processor that is intended more to be cheap than powerful). Can you put the question in conhtext? RJFJR 14:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

just as well

I'm struggling to make a good entry for this phrase. I think just as well or perhaps be just as well, as in It's just as well you came when you did! and similar expressions. In Spanish it would translate as menos mal (if that helps at all). But how to define it well? Any input, ideas, etc would be most appreciated. - Algrif 13:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I would drop the "be" because the SoP adverbial phrase "just as well" ("He did it just as well as she did.") serves as the virtual etymology of the more idiomatic-seeming other ways of using the phrase. "Just as well" can be used as an expression of agreement. "They took her driver's license away." "Just as well." for: "Just as well they did." for: "It is just as well that they did." DCDuring 15:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The second sense in the entry for as well nearly captures the meaning for the "as well" part, I think. "might as well", "may as well" are other collocations that come to mind. We should consider adding a sense to "as well" in the course of the "just as well" effort. DCDuring 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of nuances which I find hard to define and categorise in all these phrases. I agree that they probably should be melded in some way to avoid having a whole heap of minor entries which are hard to find. As usual, I tend to put myself in the position of a hypothetical English L2 speaker trying to understand a paragraph which includes one of the above phrases. How would he find it? What should be in the entry so that he can understand it. I'm finding this phrase surprisingly difficult to pin down. Sense 2 in as well is just about OK for the phrase might as well, but gets nowhere near the positive/negative idea of fortunate + or else contained in the exchange I did my homework - It's just as well! or I have a spanner in the car. - It's just as well! and so on. - Algrif 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Acca Dacca

Can anyone help verify and date this nickname? I can only find one example in Google Books, but there's a number of news hits, all of which are from the 21st century. Would anyone be able to find some attestations from the 70s or 80s? --Ptcamn 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It just looks like the name of an Australian-based AC/DC tribute band, as you must have suspected. DCDuring 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So does this rock band deserve a dictionary entry? --EncycloPetey 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have the band sense for AC/DC. Until we do, I can't see the point of having an entry for a mere w:tribute band. Nor would I care if w:AC/DC never made Wiktionary. I am aware of them, but not really familiar with them or their work. There are other proper name efforts I would much rather engage in. Sorry I couldn't be more help. DCDuring 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

RfD'd. bd2412 T 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was (and is) a nickname for the original band before the tribute band took it as its name. --Ptcamn 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, not dictionary material. bd2412 T 16:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? --Ptcamn 22:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be if it is used to describe AC/DC electrical devices. I'd be surprised if it weren't in at least limited actual usage in Oz, though I couldn't find any cites. DCDuring 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mobile Directory Number

What is it?

Contraction 'ns

Can anyone tell me what the contraction 'ns means (or could mean) in Southern American English? I came across this in utterance "That'ns cut!" but for the love of God I cannot figure out what it could mean, exactly. --130.209.6.42 14:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Being from London I'm just guessing, but I would interpret it as "that one is cut", whatever that may mean. Widsith 14:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. I would have expected it to be written "that un's cut" with un's being a slurred pronounciation of one's, the contraction for one is. RJFJR 14:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You'ns got that right or 'most right. I wonder how to write double contractions: "that'n's"? Or is that spelling the possessive singular? Wiktionary ought to have uns and either 'ns or -'ns or something to capture this. What should it be? DCDuring 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

epilogue 3rd sense

The current third sense of epilogue is 3 A brief oration or script at the end of a literary piece; an afterword. Is oration the correct term to describe something in a literary piece? I think of oration as something spoken while a piece of literature as soemthing read. RJFJR 14:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if all the senses given in epilogue were intended to include both orally delivered pieces and those in writing. Maybe the phrase "literary piece" should be replaced with "oral or written work" or "work". "Literary" seems to exclude oral performances, even of written works. In any event, it can mislead people as it does in the def. under discussion, I think. DCDuring 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Double contractions

Just to keep this separate from that'un's above, although closely related.
It seems to be unconfirmed policy, or something like that, to avoid double contractions. I wonder if this can be clarified? What exactly is wrong with can't've, that'll've, and other doubles that an Eng L2 might come across in a text? - Algrif 10:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If in print, I don't see any problem with double contractions. See 'tisn't, 'twasn't, 'tweren't, I'd've, it'sn't, shouldn't've, and wouldn't've. Why would they be avoided if in use, no matter how much people may dislike them? I'm sure there are many more. sewnmouthsecret 04:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any more of these that could be added to Category:English double contractions? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are. You don't even have fo'c'sle yet! Robert Ullmann 14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Now added. Feel free to add any others you can think of to the category. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

'Tisn't hard to find them. Make a game of it. The young'uns'll find plenty that we old'uns've already forgotten. The real question is whether they deserve the be entered here if they are eye-dialect. You for'em or 'gin'em? Gotta go now. Be back in an hour if my car'll get me there'n'back. If mine won't, maybe my neighbor's'll do the trick. DCDuring 17:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If they’re attested, they should be listed. BTW, most of the examples you gave are not double contractions, being instead for ‛em (minus the space), ‛gin ‛em (ditto), there ‛n’ back (same again), and neighbo(u)r’s’ll (where the ’s is not a contraction, but rather the English possessive enclitic). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just an impatient amateur. Thanks for the feedback. DCDuring 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... why are you using the opening quotation mark instead of an apostrophe? DAVilla 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m not — « ‛ » is the leading apostrophe, whereas « ‘ » is the opening quotation mark — both are distinct from « ’ », the apostrophe-cum-closing quotation mark. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What about triple contractions? fo'c's'le Cynewulf 00:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm… Thinking about it, I’m not sure that (deprecated template usage) fo’c’sle and (deprecated template usage) fo’c’s’le count as double contractions, being as they’re both single words, simply split in two/three places. All the others listed in Category:English double contractions contain contractions of two words as clitics ((deprecated template usage) it → (deprecated template usage) ‛t; (deprecated template usage) not → (deprecated template usage) n’t; (deprecated template usage) would or (deprecated template usage) should → (deprecated template usage) ’d; (deprecated template usage) have → (deprecated template usage) ’ve; (deprecated template usage) is → (deprecated template usage) ’s; and, (deprecated template usage) will or (deprecated template usage) shall → (deprecated template usage) ’ll). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends how you define "contraction". If "contraction" means that the "'" indicates missing letter(s), then (deprecated template usage) fo’c’sle is a double contraction of forecastle. Algrif 11:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I defined a double contraction in Category:English double contractions; whereatop is written “Double contractions are those words which contain two contractional clitics, such as (deprecated template usage) n’t and (deprecated template usage) ’ve. Both contractions are marked with apostrophes.” — under that definition, (deprecated template usage) fo’c’sle is a contraction, but not a double contraction. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Where d'you get that definition from? fo'c'sle is contracted twice - it's a double contraction. The OED defines the relevant sense of contraction as shortening "by omitting or combining some elements". fo'c'le is shortened in this way twice. The amount of actual words involved is not relevant (or how do you view o'clock which cuts an entire word out of "of the clock"?). PS, I'm pretty sure whereatop isn't a word, but if it is I suspect you're the first person in 200 years to try and get away with it! Widsith 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did some checking: both (deprecated template usage) hereatop and (deprecated template usage) whereatop are vanishingly rare (though I did find one person who’s used (deprecated template usage) whereatop — not two centuries ago, but only last year), whereas, bizarrely enough, (deprecated template usage) thereatop is rather common (in patents no less). BTW, I should be genuinely interested to hear on what grounds you state whether something is or is not a word… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that if fo'c'sle is neither a single nor a double contraction, then what is it? A multiple contraction? But that would be pointless hair-splitting IMHO. I've put bo's'n in catagory double contraction, and I think fo'c'sle and fo'c's'le should be there also. - Algrif 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The OED’s pertinent definition of (deprecated template usage) contraction doesn’t actually conflict with the one I gave — it says nowhere that the “omitt[ed] or combin[ed] … elements” must be adjacent. However, perhaps that really would be hair-splitting. I’m unsure what to call (deprecated template usage) o’clock — perhaps it is indeed a double contraction. To twist the “rules” a bit — (deprecated template usage) bo’s’n could be viewed as “(deprecated template usage) boat → (deprecated template usage) bo’* ” + “(deprecated template usage) swain → (deprecated template usage) s’n* ”, whilst (deprecated template usage) fo’c’sle and (deprecated template usage) fo’c’s’le could be viewed as “(deprecated template usage) fore → (deprecated template usage) fo’* ” + “(deprecated template usage) castle → (deprecated template usage) c’sle* or (deprecated template usage) c’s’le* ”. Otherwise, we’d need Category:English triple contractions just for (deprecated template usage) fo’c’s’le… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of any more examples of o' = of the apart from o'clock and jack o'lantern. Also, are there any other examples where the apostrophe indicates the loss of an entire word? - Algrif 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

chaos

I am looking for information on the word tohubohu. I was told that it means chaos. If there is any info out there in the great wide web, please send it out. tohubohu sounds like something sad or crying;I know that it is more than what it sounds like, I find myself thinking about what it could mean.

boohoo sounds more like some one is crying or sad... and thus one is easily mislead into thinking that tohubohu could mean that aswell... but it is not, it comes from Hebrew tohu wa-bhohu, from tohu (formlessness) and bhohu (emptiness), so a formless emptiness. Reference: New York Times Letter to the Editor March 26, 1995 --BigBadBen 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Hebrew is תהו ובהו (tohu vavohu), from the second verse in Genesis. It means "תהו (tohu) and בהו (bohu)", but what those are beats me. If I recall correctly, major classical Bible commentators differ about them.—msh210℠ 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Shinola

I have often wondered about how one should pronounce the word "Shinola", which was as though carved in stone when the famous slang/colloquial phrase appeared and spread.))) Not for use in my speech, personally, but just for knowing, because eventually I have to read it aloud from books. Is the shoe-polish named [ʃɪ`nəʊlə]? [`ʃɪnələ]? [ʃaɪ`nəʊlə]? Eate 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the notation, but first syllable rhymes with "shine", accent is on second syllable, as I've heard it. The commercial logic of the rhyme with "shine" would make me willing to bet a lot of money at long odds that that part of the pronunciation was encouraged by the manufacturer as well. I'm not as sure about the accent. DCDuring 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha...So it is probably "Shy-NO-la". The analogy with the slang word "payola", which I know to bear stress on the second syllable, encourages me to think that the stress falls indeed on the second one. The slang suffix "-ola" is generally stressed in words that include it. Thanks. Eate 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

яблочко от яблоньки недалеко падает

Is currently categorised as English idioms and English proverbs. Can s/o who knows change to the correct cats, please? - Algrif 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now in Category:Russian idioms and Category:Russian proverbs. To change the {{idiom}} template, you had to add |lang=ru : {{idiom|lang=ru}}. — Beobach972 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

cumberbund

Anyone know where the conversation for this went? This should be listed as an alternative spelling, not a misspelling, right? --Connel MacKenzie 00:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think of it as a Freudian misspelling. It reflects the deep-seated hostility of many of those forced to encumber themselves with such "monkey suits". MW3 doesn't include this spelling. DCDuring 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do recall it being discussed previously, but I can't seem to find which spelling variant it was WT:TR listed under. --Connel MacKenzie 06:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2006#cumberbund Robert Ullmann 07:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rats. I didn't realize that conversation died out before it began. (I wasn't asking what the OED says...I was asking for confirmation of the American pronunciation that I've always used. Do other Americans share that experience, or have I simply mispronounced (and misheard it) all my life?) --Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally common mispronunciation and misspelling. I just answered someone last month in "real life" who was wondering which was which. But indeed, completely an outright mispronunciation and misspelling. An older actual spelling variant in use was kummerbund. The commonness of cumberbund, i believe, is influenced phonetically by Cumberland and cumbersome (by phonetics, not Freudian hostility, DC) :) -- Thisis0 19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not having seen the word in writing often (ever?), I didn't have strong expectatons about its spelling. "Cumberbund" didn't strike me as obviously wrong when I saw it. Because (1) I associate formal dress with England, (2) the English have the habit of not pronouncing certain consonants and syllables, and (3) I was not aware of the Asian etymology, I might have writen "cumberbund" if asked. DCDuring 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Serbian translation change

An anon recently changed the Serbian translation of thither from (deprecated template usage) to (deprecated template usage) . Though Serbian can be written in both the Cyrillic script and the Latin script, these two translations are not transliterations of each other. Is this correction, vandalism, POV-pushing, or what? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The same user has made many similar edits to other pages, including blanking some pages. Ivan and Dijan ought to have a look at the contributions form this user. --EncycloPetey 01:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Basic word list ALMOST done

The basic word list of 18,000 words is all but done. There are less than 100 words left, all beginning with 'N' (in fact, they all begin 'non'.) If we all grab a couple of words we can have this DONE. The remaining few words are at Wiktionary:Requested_articles:English/DictList/N. RJFJR 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely sixty-five remain. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

They have all now been added. The last word on the list to be added was (deprecated template usage) nonstriking. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I probably missed the point of nonredeemable and some other law-related words, and there's an atomic physics sense of nonsecular I can't figure out (which may just belong on secular), so I'd appreciate additional viewpoints here. Cynewulf 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done everyone. As for nonsecular, it seems to be used as non-secular more often, and I can't get a handle on the mathematical meaning (nothing in Mathworld). SemperBlotto 17:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Secular in econometrics always refers to longer-term, usually non-cyclical phenomena, contrary to the RfVd sense of secular as meaning short-term. I'd be amazed if any of the sciences used the word too differently, although what constitutes longer term is always relative to the context, which, in physics, could be femtoseconds. DCDuring 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The OED has (in a long entry) the following - 7. In scientific use, of processes of change: Having a period of enormous length; continuing through long ages. a. Astr. Chiefly of changes in the orbits or the periods of revolution of the planets, as in secular acceleration, equation, inequality, variation. The terms secular acceleration, secular variation were formerly also used (with reference to the sense ‘century’ of L. sæculum) for the amount of change per 100 years; similarly secular precession (see quot. 1812). secular equation is also used more widely to designate any equation of the form |aij-bij| = 0 (i,j = 1,2, . . ., n), in which the left-hand side is a determinant and which arises in quantum mechanics. SemperBlotto 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the basic list is complete - maybe it would be a good idea to rebuild Index:English. Kipmaster automated this well over a year ago, but is too busy in the real world to repeat the process. SemperBlotto 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he resurfaced on IRC this week... --Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

X of Xes

What's the proper place, if any, to note this pattern in English? as in "Lord of lords", "code of codes", "lie of lies", etc. DAVilla 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - but there is a similar (just as troublesome) pattern - as in "cricketer's cricketer", "editor's editor", "pianist's pianist" - i.e. a professional admired by his peers. SemperBlotto 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Are these a form of reduplication? (And should we have entries for food food, car car, and house house?) DAVilla 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of those have sufficient use (e.g. b.g.c.) to merit entries? --Connel MacKenzie 16:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also man's man, and gentleman's gentleman, which don't quite fit that pattern. (of professional admired by peers) Robert Ullmann 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What about reduplication across part of speech? I think of the forms "X y an X" or "X y no Xes". "[F]ind me a find, catch me a catch" from Fiddler on the Roof. "Joke us no jokes". "Riddle me a riddle, riddler." It doesn't seem to work at the WT entry level. WP? DCDuring 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a theme entry on this at Wikiquote:X me no X's quite a while ago. If a list of quotes containing such themes can be generated with proper citation, it can go there. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Well, name me a name. Construct me a construct. Are there names for these constructions? The "X me no Xes" construction is referred to in Pinker (2007), The Stuff of Thought. DCDuring 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is snowclone. bd2412 T 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think having pattern entries is unwarranted. If you are trying to describe reduplication then link reduplication. If you'd like to make an entry for Lord of Lords then make that entry - the list is not infinite. --Connel MacKenzie 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There could be a nice appendix, though. Perhaps only if there were good specific terms (Sorry, BD, not snowclone) for the constructs so that someone might actually find them. Maybe it is more for Wikipedia? DCDuring 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not forgetting tautological phrases such as folks are folks, life is life, sure as eggs is eggs, and any other that might warrant an entry. - Algrif 10:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

working

S.v. working, adjective, we have the following definitions, inter alia:

1. That suffices but requires additional work.

   a working copy of the script

2. Enough to allow one to use something.

   a working knowledge of computers

The first of these is not how I understand the phrase "working copy of the script" (or "working script"). I have always understood that phrase to mean "a copy of the script that we will accept for the sake of [something: [[for the sake of argument|argument], peacemaking, whatever] (even though it's not ideal)". That is, the stress on "requires additional work", which seems to relate this definition to the headword, seems misplaced: working means, the way I understand it, "that works (suffices) well enough to be used". (Whether I'm right or the current entry is, the same sense of working is found in "working hypothesis" and "working definition".) What think you all?—msh210℠ 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if I'm right, then is the second sense I quoted to be merged with the first? They both seem to mean "sufficient to be used".—msh210℠ 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't combine senses.

• One sense (2) seems to mean that further efforts are not required, that the knowledge or the voting margin is enough for practical purposes, for some other project, or perhaps that the means are sufficient to accomplish ends.
• The other sense (1) seems to suggest that the prototype or draft is sufficient in some aspect(s) to allow further work on other aspect(s) of the same project.

This vocabulary of work has never struck me as having been very well done in dictionaries. So I'm not so sure that you will find very precise help from other dictionaries. I looked at MW3. They have 2 senses.

• Is there a third sense, that just means functional, or is that the same as sense 1 or is that the present participle of the verb (which needs no definition)? DCDuring 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That (your reason not to combine) seems eminently reasonable to me. Since you asked, there are other senses, yes, including the one you mention; I didn't quote them all. My main question, incidentally, which you did not really address, was whether the first sense I quoted needs rewriting, though.—msh210℠ 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it does. I think it refers to a thing which maintains its identity but itself needs successive and/or parallel work. The thing being worked in is an "end". That does not come across. The other sense implies that the thing does not itself need work, it functions well enough to be used as a tool, a "means". DCDuring 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I see any definition like working temperature, working speed etc. - Algrif 10:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

ablings

I was researcing a requested new entry "ablings" and came upon the following:

The New English - Page 15 by T[homas] L[aurence] Kington Oliphant - English language - 1886 There is the curious Scotch adverb ablings, aiblins (fortasse) ; compounded of able to be, and the adverbial ending ling.

I do not know my way around these parts and would offer this for others to complete. DCDuring 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that as a Scot - Google finds "aiblins" in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.--195.137.93.171 12:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

man up

Can you guys help me comprehend all the senses of man up. It has a verb sense, as in... "A lot of people are expecting me to provide for them, I'd better man up". And I have a vague notion it has an interjection sense in sports ("Man up!") or something. Looking at b.g.c. it's difficult to research. A little easier to research "manning up" but that confuses me more because it seems to have LOTS of distinct unrelated meanings. Language Lover 09:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more like an oblique figurative use, not a set phrase, to me. --Connel MacKenzie 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a set phrase, attributive verb use of the word "man", as in "doing the things a good man is traditionally expected to do". In use since at least the 50's, often in military circles. Search BGC "have to man up" for some examples. Used with influence from "own up" and "buck up" (for the want of a stronger emphatic) in situations such as this: one who impregnates a girl out of wedlock will be told to "man up" and marry the girl or otherwise provide for her; one can "man up" and finally confront his abusive coach or employer; one can "man up" and quit crying about a particular tragedy. To "be a man about it". I'll try to find some good cites for the entry. -- Thisis0 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also I should note the team-sports, macro-economics/staffing, and procedural-military uses:

  (Am. football, basketball, etc.; rare) Man up! -- "Get on your man!" (Each of you, guard the opponent to whom you were assigned and stay on him vigorously.)

  (of personnel - industrial, etc.) to man up -- to staff adequately; to staff up; to successfully fill all needed labor positions.

  -...it will become even more difficult to man up industrial occupations to which outmoded conceptions of status...[42]

  -To man up the last batch of capital goods produced, entrepreneurs are scraping up the remnants of the reserve of unemployed labour...[43]

  -...it will be impossible to find the labour to man up all the available capital equipment for productive use. [44]

  (of military personnel in a unit) to man up -- to assemble, each person manning (attending to) his station, prepared for departure of an aircraft, ship, etc. [45] [46]

• It is now my opinion that other uses arose from the military-assembling use. The sports use is rare, and most players would more readily recognize "Get on your man!". If a player is told to Man up! on the field, in context it may be, for example, a hunched-over out-of-breath player being told to "buck up", "stay in the game", "be a man" -- precisely the first sense we discussed. Further, the staffing use has become outdated, while politically correct society no longer favors referring to "manpower", "manning" a position, etc. -- Thisis0 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

throw-down

“A big row or argument.” –That is how I interpreted this word when it was used in the episode of Heroes I recently watched. I’m unfamiliar with this term, so I’d like some confirmation or correction. The quotation can be read in the entry, and the original programme can be watched here. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While we’re discussing this, the verb (deprecated template usage) throw down could also use a little attention. The definition seems incompatible with the use in the phrase (deprecated template usage) throw down the gauntlet… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the verb throw down look a bit better now? - Algrif 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've only said it/heard it as an invitation/threat to fight, e.g. "Yo, I'll throw down, right now!" but I assume that form is not hyphenated. The literal definition really doesn't help much. The idiomatic sense is of dropping whatever you are doing/holding, to engage violently (no holds barred.) I've never heard it said so mildly/sweetly, as in that TV show. So anyhow, yes, I can confirm that I've heard/used that meaning, but don't have any idea what other confirmation you're looking for. --Connel MacKenzie 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Defining it as "A big row or argument" has certain problems. First, Americans don't usually say "row", plus that's a awfully nice sideline commentary for what a "throw-down", "throw down", or "throwdown" implies. I believe the modern term did evolve from the idiom throw down the gauntlet, and implies that an unrestricted violent clash is possible, with one's honor at stake. Because of the fear in such a "you don't know how far I'm willing to take this" animalistic clash, the usage of the term doesn't always necessarily result in such actual violence, but is often an effective form of puffing the mane or fanning the tail feathers. The Heroes use was in hyperbole to this violent possibility -- not saying "Well, we'll discuss this when I get back," but rather, "Even though I'm forced to leave right now, when I can address this, you should know I view your transgression with ultimate seriousness, and you should sit here and be anxious for my return when I will visit my wrath upon you." -- Thisis0 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• throw down now abundantly cited und ekschpanded! throw-down is next. -- Thisis0 00:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone identify this word?

The word is in some song lyrics which go like this: "Hold up, hold up, check my linguistics, let me break it down to you ______________" It sounds like "abalistic" but that doesn't seem to be a word.

You can hear the lyrics in question starting at 0:48 at this video: [47] Language Lover 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have guessed cannabalistic or catabolistic, but lyrics.com says it's "Afrolistic". [tumbleweed moment] --EncycloPetey 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From the artist's own lyric page, it's "afrolistic". (You might have to click on "Give Me All Your Love"; their HTML is buggy). There is at least one other rap artist who goes by "Afrolistic", and Run-D.M.C. once used the word in their 1990 song Party Time. The Run-D.M.C. sense (adjective) seems to be something like "psychedelically funky and hip-hop infused", but the unrelated Afrolistic Barber Shop may be combining "Afro" with "holistic" -- (only a guess). I can't really get A.K.-S.W.I.F.T.'s adverb use (Let me break it down to you afrolistically?), though lyrics.com seems to think it's more of an interjection. If I were forced to analyze, I would say the most encompassing definition would be "in a black way" or "reflecting the self-celebrated aspects of black art, worldview, and lifestyle". -- Thisis0 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, it's an interesting word and I appreciate your analysis. I've found that some rappers are incredibly brilliant linguists, their command of practical English is sublime. Language Lover 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

it's on the tip of my toungue

what's the word for a period of time where you work. I really need to know. — This unsigned comment was added by 220.240.161.105 (talk) at 22:37, 7 December 2007.

In some types of occupations, (deprecated template usage) shift (or the dialectical variant (deprecated template usage) trick, as in I'm tired lately because I'm working third trick.) describes the period of time when someone works in a particular position. Is that the word you seek? Rod (A. Smith) 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly (deprecated template usage) tenure? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

catachresis + -phobia = ?

I need a word meaning “fear of the misuse of words”; I assume that the word and suffix linked in the title would do the trick. If so, how would they combine? The COED states that the adjectival form is (deprecated template usage) catachrestic, and that the noun derives from Latin, from (Ancient?) Greek (deprecated template usage) katakhrēsis, from (deprecated template usage) — if any of that helps. I can’t figure it out — maybe (deprecated template usage) catachresophobia, or (deprecated template usage) catachrestophobia, or (deprecated template usage) catachretophobia perhaps? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

further as comparative

Following from part of the discussion above in atop: the question was never resolved of whether further and furthest can be classified equally as more / most and less / least to form comparative and superlatives of certain adjectives and adverbs with a particularly spacial frame of reference. For instance there is quite a long list in the section above at atop.
My personal point of view is that an adverb such as upstairs is a better entry stating a comparative form as further upstairs than stating (not comparable), particularly as this is plainly not true. Comments invited. - Algrif 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

U-usage notes. Def'nally u-u-usage notes. -- Thisis0 17:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the en-adv template be forced to display "See Usage notes." without messing up anything else? DCDuring 18:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is needed in only a scant few (read: one) entries, why mess with templates? Just write it in. -- Thisis0 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

One reason would be in order to allow it to show up inside the parentheses that are generated by the template. Mike Dillon 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a single entry. This applies to dozens of adverbs derived from (or related to) prepositions of place, incuding afield, along, apart, away, down, in, left, out, right, up... So it would be very useful to be able to set the template to show further/furthest instead of more/most. --EncycloPetey 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sold. I get it now. How do we do it? -- Thisis0 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the template entry at upstairs. If everyone agrees, perhaps we could draw up a list and I'll go through them modifying them as appropriate similarly. - Algrif 13:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have a parameter option akin to the "|er" that would do this. Is that an easy adjustment to the template, or a difficult adjustment to the template? In any case, that format doesn't match the norm, which would put (deprecated template usage) further and (deprecated template usage) furthest in bold as part of the form. --EncycloPetey 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

katus

Please see Citations:katus. Anyone know what this word means? Or are the quotations simply of someone’s name and a scanno, respectively? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the second, but the first appears to be a surname, since the same source has: "Mr. Katus was duly qualified, and entered on the discharge of his duties as a judge or inspector of election, and continued so to act until the poll closed." --EncycloPetey 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Noun or adjective

I stumbled upon a Wikipedia category, the name of which doesn't sound quite right in my ears. Category:Municipal owned companies of Norway. Shouldn't it be municipality here? __meco 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Either that, "municipal-owned", or municipally. --EncycloPetey 22:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

plural proper nouns

Names can be pluralised, right? It is clear they can because saying "there are three Davids in my class, two Samanthas, a couple of Simpsons and five Joneses." If that's the case all entries in Category:Given names should take the template {{en-proper noun|s|-}} or {{en-proper noun|s|-}}. Firstly; this is grammatically correct, right? Secondly; could a bot, like our Cheatbot, be adapted to auto-add entries such as {{plural of|Simpson}}, {{plural of|David}}? I'm beginning to appreciate 'bot work a lot more. --Keene 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, proper nouns cannot be made plural. A proper noun in its "plural" form is no longer a proper noun (in most cases, that is; Alps is an exception). So, a proper noun changes its part of speech to a common noun when it's pluralized. We're not at all equipped to handle or explain this phenomenon on Wiktionary, and we certainly should not go around adding plural forms to all the proper nouns. Please wait for me to finish Appendix:English proper nouns so that I don't have to give all this explanation over and over. (This is, I think, the fifth or sixth time this issue has come up this year.) I would rather we simply link all English proper nouns to the Appendix when it's completed. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of previous discussions on this subject. Could you point them out? As for plurals, I'm aware they become common nouns in the pluralised form, but it would make sense to link e.g. Simpsons from Simpson. As for this proper nouns appendix, what do you have in mind for it. Maybe I'll help out with the appendix. --Keene 16:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Having a proper noun linked to a common noun, and vice versa doesn't make sense in the usual ways that we handle it. Every user will think it's a mistake and try to "fix" it unless we come up with an alternative way to handle it. I'd point you to the discussions, but they've occurred over several months under several names in multiple locations. I haven't tried to keep track of all of them, though I do know that one concerned the word multiverse, so you might follow the "what links here" to find a very metaphysical (and lengthy) conversation on what constitutes a proper noun. As I say, I don't recall where the others are located. They involved the days of the week, names of games, wines, awards, and I forget what else.

While I would like help with the Appendix, it's not feasible yet to coordinate that. I have several pages of notes in tiny cramped handwriting which have not yet been entered. What I do have typed is in an incomplete draft of just the introductory material, not the evidence and patern description. My aim is to make a go at finishing the first draft over my Christmas holiday, so if you check back around the end of December, I might be ready to have the second mind and pair of eyes help with the missing information and necessary polishing. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know; I've added Potteries as another real plural proper noun. - Algrif 14:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

hmph

I have entered hmph as an interjection, which seems OK. G.b.c. has revealed usage of "hmphs" as noun and as verb. I would expect "hmphing" and "hmphed". "ah" and "ahem", as well as other onomatopoietic [sp?] entries would have the same usage. Should these be accepted as entries if attestable? If these are all accepted, what should be done with variants with repetitions of the constituent letters: "hmmph", "aaaahhhh", etc. Keep the basic ones and put everything else in usage notes for the related entry? DCDuring 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See ah and aah, which actually aren't synonymous. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged

can anyone help me with the meaning of "Guilty as charged", please? — This unsigned comment was added by 61.94.124.138 (talk) at 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

See guilty and charge verb sense 3 (To formally accuse of a crime.) . as often means exactly equal. So the whole phrase means guilty of the exact crime one was accused of. Ciao - Algrif 13:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

דבר / לדבר / מדבר

At first glace דבר means "thing", לדבר means "to speak", and מדבר means "desert".

At a closer look מדבר can also be the masculine singular present of "to speak".

How about מדבר as "of/from the thing" and לדבר as "to/for the thing"? — Hippietrail 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

דבר is davar, "thing", and is one way of spelling diber, "he spoke", the third-person, masc., sing., past tense of "speak", which Ruakh will tell you is the lemma form.

לדבר is l'daber, "to speak", infinitive form of that same verb. Yes, it's also ladavar, "to the thing", which is davar plus prefixes. I suppose it can also be l'davar, "to a thing", again davar plus a prefix.

מדבר is m'daber, "he speaks/is speaking", the masc., sing., present tense of that same verb again. It's also (seemingly unrelatedly) midbar, "desert", noun, barren area. And I suppose it can also be midavar, "from a thing", again davar plus a prefix.

But "from the thing" would have to be mehadavar, מהדבר.

There's an old paal-construction verb davar, "speak", too, though, which would open uo possibilities for other meanings of all three words.

And in Talmudic Aramaic, at least, דבר is a way of writing di bar, "who/that the son of" (as in John, di bar William ihu,, "John, who is the son of William,"), or "that the son of" (as in kevan di bar William ihu, "because he is the son of William"). (The Hebrew counterpart incidentally is sheben, שבן.) But Aramaic, of course, is a whole other story.

I hope that this helps.—msh210℠ 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I might just add that it's not at all unusual (though I have no stats) to find homographs in Hebrew when one ignores vowels.—msh210℠ 06:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs about (deprecated template usage) מהדבר (meihaddavar), since (deprecated template usage) מדבר (middavár) and (deprecated template usage) מדבר (midd'vár) both exist. —Ruakh_TALK 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. All I said was that מהדבר was a word, and that it's the way to say "from the thing".—msh210℠ 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

He was making a point about identically spelled words/phrases; you're right that he slightly mistranslated one of said phrases, but that didn't really diminish his point at all. —Ruakh_TALK 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I might also add some forms I left out. Ruakh mentioned d'var, "thing of", which is also spelled דבר, but with yet different vowelization; it, too can take the prefixes that make it לדבר or מדבר. And in Aramaic, the same word di bar can also mean "that outside" or "that besides"; the Hebrew counterpart is שחוץ.—msh210℠ 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another: dever, "plague" and "plague of", each of which also can become לדבר or מדבר.—msh210℠ 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a thorny issue. From a syntactic standpoint, (deprecated template usage) לדבר (laddavár) is really two words in traditional Hebrew, and perhaps two-and-a-half in ordinary modern Hebrew. The French Wiktionary does attempt to include such compounds (and does a bad job of it, but don't tell it I said so), but I don't know if we should. One of the most annoying things about looking up Hebrew words in a paper dictionary is trying to figure out what letter the lemma starts with; we aim to avoid this issue by including pages for non-lemmata (and as y'all know by now, I advocate having non-lemma pages link to lemmata so that our readers can actually learn something instead of being completely dependent on the crumbs we give them), but if we don't include these clitic compounds, we haven't completely solved the problem (though granted, it's a lot easier for a Wiktionary reader to try both the with- and without-clitic versions to see which is right than it would be for a paper-dictionary reader). On the other hand, are we really going to include a separate entry for each series of words where all but the last is a one-letter word? Would the phrase (deprecated template usage) ושמהפה (v'shemmeihappéh) get an entry? I think that for now we should bar such entries (except in the case of idioms and fixed expressions, obviously, just as we'd do if the phrases were written with spaces as in English), but perhaps we should revisit this question once we have decent coverage of actual words. (That said, things like (deprecated template usage) הפה (happéh) are probably worth allowing even now, since while in one sense they're sum-of-parts, in another sense they're words in their own right, at least in traditional Hebrew.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by being two (or 2.5) words syntactically?—msh210℠ 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean just that: syntactically, it's the preposition (deprecated template usage) ל- (l'-) plus the nominal (deprecated template usage) הדבר (haddavár). (The .5 thing is because it's kind of debatable whether (deprecated template usage) ה- (ha-) is syntactically a word or an affix in Modern Hebrew. In colloquial Hebrew it's very word-y, e.g. in always going at the beginning of the noun phrase or adjective phrase it's attached to, but formal Hebrew still obeys the traditional rule that mandates e.g. (deprecated template usage) בית הספר (beit hasséfer), so it seems to be a bit blurry, depending on register and whatnot.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with barring entries such as ושמהפה for now. (As most people can't read that, let me explain that it consists of the two-letter word meaning mouth, preceded by four one-letter prefixes.) I think such entries, while clearly far from being a priority, are words, and, as we seek to include all words in all languages, should be included if someone has the (admittedly odd) urge to add them. Certainly we should not delete them. (But I know I differ with Ruakh on this. He, for example, has taken Tbot-created Hebrew infinitive verb entries, moved them to the lemma form, rewritten them, and deleted the redirect. I would never do that. I might or might not add the lemma form, but would not delete the infinitive. It is a word, after all.) What do you all think?—msh210℠ 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your explanation: in Modern Hebrew it's a two-letter word "mouth", preceded by four clitics — one-letter words, really — two conjunctions, a preposition, and the definite article. (In older forms of Hebrew, I guess it's a three-letter word "the mouth" and three clitics.) Hence, until we expand our mandate to "all strings of characters in all languages", I don't think it warrants inclusion. ;-)   (To see that it's not a word, consider Template:Hebr "and that out from his mouth came a lie", which is Template:Hebr): the five words, though written together without spaces, don't even form a constituent in the larger structure of the sentence.) I certainly agree with you that to-infinitives should have some sort of entry, but the redirects are bad, because they're essentially redlinks, but aren't instantly recognizable as such. —Ruakh_TALK 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Subjunctive after estimate (verb)?

Does estimate take a subjunctive in the subordinate clause? Would it be "I estimate that the target arrive ..." or "I estimate that the target arrives ..."? I know that the latter is allowed since subjunctives are optional in English, but would the former be valid usage? --MathiasRav 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion verbs, such as think, reckon, guess, suppose, etc, including estimate, normally take a modal such as will, might, could, etc. No hard and fast rules (as usual in English) but the suggested subjunctive form above sounds odd to me. I don't remember using it or seeing it. (Which doesn't mean it can't be found, of course.) - Algrif 18:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Stroke count for

Hello,

Reference page: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BE%A1

By my understanding, the stroke count for this word (at least in Japanese) is 12, not 11 as listed on Wiktionary.

Does anyone else agree?

Character: 御

Kind regards, Kevin — This unsigned comment was added by Kevinarpe (talk • contribs).

Indeed, fixed. The different stroke count was not in the Unihan database 4 years ago, and still is not! Robert Ullmann 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

that is to say

I was about to add this phrase, but I'm not sure of the POS. Is it an adverb? - Algrif 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

By analogy: "namely" is deemed an adverb. The phrase functions almost identically, like for example, that is, to wit. We're better off to have it entered and get it corrected. Isn't this adverb month? DCDuring 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my reasoning exactly for asking if adverb was a correct assessment. Perhaps you might be able to improve the basic entry I've made. - Algrif 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. A usage example is always nice, even when it seems trivial. Maybe I'll put in a basic usage note. DCDuring 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A name used to sign documents?

What is the word to describe the special name that certain dignitaries use to sign documents instead of their actual name? e.g. The Bishop of Durham signs as Dunelm (or Dunelmensis). nom de plume or pen name don't seem right. SemperBlotto 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Latin signature" would seem to do fine, that's what these usually are. Robert Ullmann 10:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

phonoaudiologist or phonotherapist

As a matter of fact, I just want to know whether people have seen or heard one of the above written words or, if not, they have the proper word to define the matter.

Similes and idioms

Could similes be categorised as idioms? I've just made the category Category:Similes and wondered if it should be asubcategory of Category:Idioms. I assume so, because e.g. blind as a bat doesn't mean blind as a bat. Also, lpease take a look at Template:simile, which should probably be tweaked. --Keene 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've often thought about adding this cat. My personal thought is that it should be a sub of Category:Idioms. I'm all for using this database in as many constructive ways as possible. I think this is a useful addition. - Algrif 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

erica

I would like to see how you spell erica in Greek

Έρικα —Saltmarsh^Talk 09:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian translations of hair

I was doing the Translations of the Week when I noticed that the Indonesian translations for hair looked a bit off. In Malay, rambut refers to hair from the human head; whereas bulu is from anywhere else on the human body, as well as animals, plants and anything else. The Indonesian translations seem to be in reverse.

I've learnt from experience that I'm not qualified to meddle in Indonesian affairs, so could somebody take a look at this? Nestum82 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Security Clearance

The initials SAR stand for what in reference to a secret security clearance?

Special Access Required; e.g. the information is compartmented, and only available if someone is "read into" a SAP (Special Access Program), it is more specific than levels 5-6-7 etc. (this is all in reference to the U.S. DoD). Robert Ullmann 10:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Himself

I defined it as "The reflexive pronoun for God." but this could be tweaked. Any suggestions? --Keene 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

just in case

See talk:just in case. --Connel MacKenzie 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments posted. --EncycloPetey 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

what is a free verse

help what is a free verse!?

See free verse and w:Free verse. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oaxacaner

How is this a plural (plus Oaxacan says that it is not countable...)? Nadando 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My template-substitution emulator had a bug. I've added code to skip {{en-adj|-}} (which replaced {{en-adj|-|-}} some time ago.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the heading ===Noun===, (not the result of the template substitution,) seems to have caused the bot confusion. --Connel MacKenzie 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

equivalate

I'd never heard of this, and would have put it down to slang or ignorance if I'd seen it somewhere. But there are plenty of reputable-looking b.google hits, so is this acceptable in the States or should we mark it as {{slang}} or what? It's not in any of my dictionaries either... Widsith 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the nature of the g.b.c. hits it can't be slang. It has too wide a range of usage to be jargon. It's not informal, looking at the kind of hits. I don't think it's very common in spoken English in the US. It's also not in MW3, a good source for US usage. If it means someting different from equate (and it might), it might just be a not-too-common word with increasing usage. Equate may imply a more exact correspondence of multiple attributes, where equivalate implies some kind of single all-encompassing dimension of value on which things are equal despite lack of equality on various attributes. Are there other single words that have this meaning. The first cite I found was art historian/critic Bernard Berenson in 1954, but I wasn't looking that hard. DCDuring 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in MW Online. We might want to think through the five senses we have and see whether they all would pass RfV. DCDuring 15:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

kurundu

Kurundu is a sinhalese ( main language of the sri lankans)term for cinnamon

Synonym for bathroom attendant?

The guys who hang out in the restrooms at fancy restaurants and country clubs with hand towels and the like, is there another word or name for that profession? Even tho we don't yet have an entry for it, Wikipedia has it .- [The]DaveRoss 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Standard name in the US is restroom attendant. "bathroom" (usually) isn't standard, unless it is an athletics club. Is amusing to watch tourists from the US ask in a restaurant "where is the bathroom"? (you want to take a bath?) They are afraid apparently of the word "toilet". (and "napkin" is even funnier! You want WHAT?!) Oh, and I really like "bog troll". Robert Ullmann 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that "bathroom" isn't standard in the US? That's news to me. In my experience, the room is called a "bathroom" (and "restroom" is slightly more polite). The "toilet" is the thing you do your business on; I've never heard an American call the room a "toilet", unless it's a portable toilet (more commonly called a portapotty). Mike Dillon 21:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

From England: standard term would be cloakroom attendant, both bathroom~ and restroom~ would be rarities here. —Saltmarsh^Talk 10:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

quay

I would like to merge the two definitions. Although Collins (2005) seeks to differentiate quay as parallel to water's edge (cf pier), others (SOED, Webster, Chambers) do not. —Saltmarsh^Talk 10:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, this is (yet another) case of user CORNELIUSSEON adding in a definition from a US military text, entirely ignoring the fact that the definition is already there. Look at the last version < CORNELIUSSEON's edits. Robert Ullmann 10:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

done —Saltmarsh^Talk 11:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

will

This entry seems to need at the very least a sense that does not require intent on an entity's part. As it is, it is guilty of POV: animism. The application of the a word derived from the idea of intent to futurity is possibly an indication of our animist past. In any event, I couldn't find simple futurity without actor and intent. Perhaps I'm missing something. The entry looks like it could stand a look in general. It is too basic a word for me to trust myself to do it properly. DCDuring 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's on my "to do" list. The modal verb form is in fact much more complex than the entry currently given. Also I'm dubious about the willing entry nº2. Is that really from the verb root? We are lacking such items as "moment of decision", "promise", "future event that is beyond one's control", and much more besides. I'll (promise) get a round tuit soon. - Algrif 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

posh git

I read the term Posh Git in a book. What does it mean? — This comment was unsigned.

Did you consider looking at the definitions for posh and git? SemperBlotto 15:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Tibeaten word

Dzogchen should be added.

meaning: the natural great perfection

Entitled. Most dictionaries, including this one, define "entitled" as the past tense of "entitle," which means "to own, demand or receive something," or, alternatively, "to give a title to."

Titled is defined as the past tense of the word "title," which has a definition of "the name of a book, movie, etc."

I do not think the word "entitled" is synonymous with the word "titled." Yet most speakers and writers seem to use them as if they are synonymous.

For example, I think the sentence, "Mark Twain is the author of a book entitled 'Tom Sawyer,'" is more correctly, "Mark Twain is the author of a book titled 'Tom Sawyer.'"

Which is correct?

entitle also means to give a title to a book, film, play, etc.. I shall add that definition now. Thanks for pointing out the omission. - Algrif 11:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

bullcrap

Marked {{US|UK}}. Is that correct? Not elsewhere?—msh210℠ 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have never even heard it in the UK - bullshit (or just bull) is quite common. SemperBlotto 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• I've heard it in the UK, but mainly from Americans. Maybe change to {{mostly|US}} --Keene 19:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

common misuse of the word "at"

Can someone describe the technical reason why use of the preposition at is incorrect and redundant in a sentence such as "where is he at?" I find that more and more Americans are using this syntax, which sounds so very wrong. Thank you. Diane

I thought that using a preposition at the end of a sentence was incorrect, but when I tried to find that rule in a book on English grammar, I just couldn't. My English teacher, however, did say that it's incorrect to say "Where is he at", but I don't remember if she gave the reason. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no technical reasons why any particular usage is "wrong". Language is continually evolving and any syntactical structure is valid if it communicates what the user means to say. Specifically, Wiktionary is supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, so this may not be the place to ask. SemperBlotto 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of error up with which I will not put. - To quote Churchill. There is no rule as such. In fact nearly all preposition containing quetions in English place the preposition at the end. E.g. Where are you going to? rather than To where are you going? The Churchill quote was really about breaking up phrasal verbs incorrectly. Personally, I see no problem at all with "where is he at?" - Algrif 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it depends on whom you are talking with or writing for. "Where is he at?" is not a part of high-class, "educated" English. It would often be disadvantageous to say in class at school, in many job interviews, in court, and in writing. One very useful thing to learn is how to communicate in the way appropriate to the situation you are in. Because there are many habitual elements of speech, it can be risky to establish a habit of using "Where is he at?" if you hope to operate in the world where people look down on such a trun of phrase. Some people are very good at switching in and out of such different styles of speech. DCDuring 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Diane's point is not that the preposition is stranded, but that it's redundant. Since He is where? is more proper than *He is at where?, the preposition in *Where is he at? is unnecessary, leaving Where is he? as the proper form of the question. We should probably add a usage note to at or where to explain that the commonly used collocation *where ... at is inappropriate in contexts requiring proper English. Rod (A. Smith) 18:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I assumed this was a standard US usage. In UK it would be an informal question, not about physical position, rather something like What is he thinking about?. As DCDuring points out, certainly not to be used in a formal situation. - Algrif 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The "what are you thinking" sense was common in the 60s and 70s in the US, has certianly declined, and may be "dated" here now. Knowing that makes me feel old: that's where I'm at. DCDuring 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. also, "where is he at?" can be metaphorical, like in "where is he at in the process?" or "where is he at in the book?". The "what is he thinking about?" sense is news to me, but I'm only 23, so given DCDuring's comment, I guess it just predates me. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's redundant, per se, since "where" doesn't always imply "at". In modern-day English, "where" can mean "[at] where" ("where is he?"), "[to] where" ("where is he going?"), or neither ("where is he from?"), and for speakers without the "where … at" and "where … to" constructions, it's entirely up to context to distinguish. I'll grant that context is usually sufficient, but there are plenty of constructions where it's so-called "proper English" that objects to context-based determination (e.g. mandating "Are you new here?" instead of "You new here?"); we can hardly pretend that the rules of "proper English" are determined by logic. I do think we should have a usage note, but I think it should be more neutral than what you describe, essentially saying that many speakers have one or both of these constructions, but that many others find them objectionable, considering the prepositions redundant or unnecessary. —Ruakh_TALK 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In slang, "Where's he?" allows for a vague answer: "He gone.". "Where he at?" is more insistent on a specific location. DCDuring 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

them

1. Are the two senses really different?
2. The last example contains "they" not "them". Does this example belong here?

Panda10 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say (1) yes (2) no. --EncycloPetey 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Galápagos

Do we prefer Galápagos or Galapagos? Wikipedia likes Galápagos, others dicitonaire prefer the latter to the former.

I would prefer the accent for Spanish, but without for English. Wikipedia tends to preserve original language spelling of proper nouns, whenever possible. --EncycloPetey 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

mought

Can anyone add any history of the word mought. A past tense of may perhaps, or just archaic might? --Keene 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be an archaic or dialectical form of might:

• 1883 - Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island, part I chapter 1

  What you mought call me? You mought call me captain. Oh, I see what you're at--there"; and he threw down three or four gold pieces on the threshold.

• 1917 - Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Oakdale Affair, chapter VI

  Then he scratched his head and looked admiringly at the youth. "What mought yer name be?" he asked.

--EncycloPetey 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this is eye-dialect rather than archaic. Then again, it could be both. You can still hear this in the north-west UK. - Algrif 13:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

manoeuvre and maneuver

There is an instruction in manoeuvre that if you edit this page, add the same modifications to maneuver to keep the two in sync. Can we just point one to the other without duplicating the work? Panda10 03:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. There is an ongoing debate about how best to handle this, but must editors here agree that we can't simply redirect one to the other, and there are many reasons for this, including the fact that usage of one spelling may be regional, the quotes will be different, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

brusque

Citations in this entry point to a different page. Is this a current standard? Panda10 13:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, as I understand it, a possible placement of citations. It seems to be almost essential in some of the really long pages where citing multiple senses could really make the page hard to use. I suppose that in some cases the only available citations for RfV don't provide very good usage examples, too. In this particular case, I would argue for bringing the citations back to the main page because the above considerations don't apply. DCDuring 14:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To add to what DCDuring has said: see Wiktionary:Quotations#Subpages. —Ruakh_TALK 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We have recently voted for a new namespace Citations:, and the plan is to shift to a new system of citations placement. This changeover has stalled, but the general idea is that all citations should appear on the related citations subpage, with selected examples remaining on the main entry. However, there should always be a Quotations section header on the main entry, and not just a link as on the (deprecated template usage) brusque page. See (deprecated template usage) parrot for an example that is well-formatted under the old way of doing things. The only change that will need to happen is shifting the Citations page into the new namespace (which needs to happen to all such pages). --EncycloPetey 16:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed you added the Quotations section. Another thing: it seems that the brusque/Citations page cannot be edited. If I compare it to parrot/Citations, there should be another edit button for the subsection. Panda10 17:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have that problem. Could it be something in your preferences, or caching? DCDuring 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I have not really changed the default preferences. When I click the edit link that is on the same level as the head word "Citations of brusque", I get this: "No such section. You tried to edit a section that doesn't exist. Since there is no section 1, there's no place to save your edit. Return to Template:Citation". Panda10 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to fix that. (It's a consequence of putting the header in a template: the edit-link tries to edit the template, and finds the template doesn't actually have sections.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

apparent

I don't really see a difference between the first two senses at apparent; at least, I can't imagine a use of apparent in the first sense that's not also in the second sense.

Also, I just added a usage note; input/corrections/tweaks/whatnot would be nice, if anyone has any. :-)

—Ruakh_TALK 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The first sense is "physically or tangibly visible", the second sense is "figuratively apparent, perceivable by the mind". A motive can be "apparent" in the second sense without being physically seen by the eye. --EncycloPetey 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K., I think I see what you're saying, thanks. But then, the Milton quote seems to be mis-sorted, as it's the mind that perceives the moon to be queen. (I don't think Milton is trying to say, "Oh yeah, and the moon? A queen. And not invisible. Imagine that!") I'm not sure it's actually worth separating the two senses. —Ruakh_TALK 19:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Milton quote is iffy. He could mean that the moon is currently visible (sense 1) or is obvious ruler (sense 2). It's always worthwhile to sort a literal sense from a figurative one, sense those will often have different synonyms or translations, and will mean different things to English learners. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should RFV sense 1? If we can find any quotes that clearly belong to sense 1 and not sense 2, perhaps those quotes will make the situation more clear. —Ruakh_TALK 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading Roman numerals

How does one read Roman numerals? As for example Henry VIII - is he Henry the Eighth or Henry Eight? Is the rule always the same or does it depend? It would be nice, if someone found the time to write a usage note about this e.g. in the article Roman numeral. Hekaheka 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't a standard way to read them, because sometimes they stand for a cardinal number like 2007 (A.D. MMVII) or 17 (page xvii), and other times they represent an ordinal number like eighth (Henry VIII) or second (John Paul II). --EncycloPetey 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lombard rate

There are 165 g.b.c. hits for Lombard rates in the plural. I have been instructed that this is a proper noun and that there are no plurals. How should I interpret that mass of evidence? "The Lombard rate" is the single rate that is quoted at any one point in time, but authors compare them. DCDuring 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give examples of its use in the plural? The definition will need to be changed if this is not a proper noun, because the current definition is suitable only for a proper noun. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the def. to reflect its being a generic term for the rate charged on loans to banks backed by approved collateral. The German rate might deserve special mention because of its influence. I find it hard to swallow that any such rates deserve to be deemed proper nouns. They may be capitalized by convention, but they are discussed in the plural regularly, esp. by economists and financial writers. The capital L in Lombard is only attributable to the historical importance of an Italian banking family in the Renaissance, just as the capital F in Fed funds rate is atributable the US Federal Reserve Bank. One thing I thought I had learned here is the weak connection between something being capitalized and being used as a proper noun. I will pursue what other references say about the term in current financial practice. DCDuring 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did some research and edited the article accordingly adding specific reference to Bundesbank and noting that the rate has been discontinued after introduction of euro and Bundesbank becoming a branch of the European Central Bank. I did not (at least yet) have the energy to find out the names of corresponding central bank rates in UK and US. The existence of plural seems evident to me. Other languages do not capitalize Lombard as it seems to be derived from the Italian province of Lombardia and not from a single banking family. Hekaheka 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but surely one can compare the Lombard rates between different months or years, etc. - Algrif 14:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but there you're comparing temporally, and all bets are off that a plural implies anything. You can talk about all the Vaticans through the ages, but that doesn't mean Vatican isn't a proper noun. The existence of a possible plural form doesn't tell you whether or not a noun is proper; though the lack or rarity can be a tantalizing hint. --EncycloPetey 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. "Lombard rates" yields almost 4000 Google hits, relevant-looking stuff. Hekaheka 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what some of the books on g.b.c. do. They also mention broad trends that involved multiple central banks all raising their Lombard rates. To me it seems obvious that such a thing would be countable, even if there were only one rate at a particular point in time.

I'm also not sure that the singular Bundesbank Lombard rate ever could have been characterized as a proper noun, even if it might have been entirely capitalized in a Bundesbank press release. But the question of plurals of proper names is only a matter of degree. I also think it would be useful if Wiktionary could inform people how to pluralize names {Cathys or Cathies?, Marys or Maries?). As with ordinary noun plurals, it is really only important where the plural can be irregular. DCDuring 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is best handled through an Appendix (already in progress), since the "plural" of a proper noun (1) is relatively rare, and (2) isn't itself a proper noun. --EncycloPetey 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

bad

Etymology 2 reads: "Intentionally incorrect". I was not aware of intention being part of etymology. Beneath are:

1. Noun: "fault", as in "sorry, my bad." This seems to me to be a simple use of an adj as a noun within the same general sense as the basic adjective "bad".
2. Adj: "slang; fantastic", i.e., very good. The conversion of the meaning of a word to its opposite in slang isn't all that unusual, is it? Is there a name for this phenomenon?

The noun seems to belong in Etymology 1. I would have thought that the slang adj does too. Is there anything marker used for that kind of reversal of sense? DCDuring 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fun when you see an etymology and instantly know which editor wrote it. :-)   I think "Intentionally incorrect" could be part of an etymology — e.g. at O.K. — but I don't know if it applies here. (The editor did not supply any evidence or references for his claim.) Even if these are in fact "[originally] intentionally incorrect" usages, though, I think they warrant separate etymology sections, as they're clearly separate incorrections. —Ruakh_TALK 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So the idea would be reflect the "branching" from the original ety of "bad" as a separate ety, presumably referring to the original unknown ety of "bad". Is there a name for the reversal of meaning from "bad" (std., bad) to "bad" (slang, very good)? It certainly isn't irony. It seems to reflect a deliberate attempt to create a way of communicating that doesn't allow members of the white and/or adult culture to understand. This can't be the only instance of it. Is there a name for the use of an adjective as a noun? That would seem also seem a fairly likely occurence. DCDuring 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arab

This entry contains a Hungarian section which is not correct. The word is written with small case in Hungarian (arab). I would like to start a new entry for that. I discovered this when I tried to add the new hu-adj and hu-noun templates to Arab, but that immediately displayed the words with a capital. --Panda10 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Try it again under arab (was an old redirect). SemperBlotto 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just created arab for the Hungarian entry. It did not exist before even after your change. How can I delete the Hungarian section from Arab? Also, maybe a redirect should be added to arab pointing to Arab. I've seen that in other entries. I don't think I can add redirects. --Panda10 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We just add the {{see}} template to the top of the page, and list it in the translations. The Hungarian section of Arab should simply de deleted with an edit summary of "content moved to arab". --EncycloPetey 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done it already. SemperBlotto 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

perspicacious

Are these two senses really distinct?

1. Having the power of seeing or understanding clearly; quick-sighted; sharp-sighted.
2. (figuratively) Of acute discernment; keen; mentally perceptive.

I can't perceive any real difference betwen them. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "or understanding" was a late addition to the 1st sense. If so, it might have once been sense 1 relating to vision, sense to relating to figurative vision or understanding. That would be a nice way of expressing a possible drift in meaning from literal to figurative meaning, though that might have already happened in Old French or in Latin. DCDuring 22:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, 2.3 years old edit made just that change. I will correct it. DCDuring 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --EncycloPetey 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

how do u use the word naive in a sentence?

do any of ya'll noe how to use the word naive in a sentence? -- unsigned

Here's where a combination of Google and Wikisource can help out. Click on this link for lots of non-copyrighted example sentences. -- A-cai 10:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

right as rain

This phrase functions as an adjective and an adverb. It did not show any comparative or superlative. The phrase "righter than rain" would appear to be functionally equivalent to the missing comparative and has 19 raw g.b.c. hits. Should it be presented as such in the inflection line? I do not think that there is a superlative. This phenomenon would, I think, characterize almost all adjectival phrases that are similes. A scan of the cat list for similes and quick g.b.c. check suggests that such forms occur in the wild. DCDuring 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No superlative that I can find, and the comparative is so utterly rare, it might be better to refer it to a Usage notes section. Certainly a comment about the rarity of the comparative is worthwhile, at a minimum. I'd be curious to see this used as an adverb, since I can't think of an example sentence. Do you have a quotation? --EncycloPetey 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I remember something like: "Next morning, he came right as rain."

I have found that many comparatives and superlatives and plurals are not common, but attestable. 19 g.b.c hits is a lot more than many of our entries get. If rarity were a criterion, then we should alter the en-adj template to facilitate the suppression of superlatives, which seem to be quite rate for many adjectives.

User:Keene suggested presentation under "Related terms" on the grounds that it is not a true comparative form. The rule for transforming the phrase into the phrase that functions as comparative is certainly more elaborate than adding merely -er or more, but broadly applicable. What makes a functional comparative form a "true" comparative form? DCDuring 17:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear it in things like:

You've been under the weather lately, but now you look right as rain.

I'm righter than rain! I just won the contest! I'm rich!

Or somesuch... Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit section titles as this breaks links on talk pages and in other discussion fora.

Translations of the week

1 China

2 Renaissance

3 ancient

Collaboration of the week

1 same

2 set

3 such

{{rft}}s

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

July

corgŵn, corgwn

We presently have two entries for the Welsh plural of corgi. Should thye be merged completely, or should one be marked as an alternative spelling of the other, or should they simply be linked through see also sections? — Beobach972 18:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The cor- prefix means dwarf (as in corach), whereas ci means dog, the plural of which is cŵn. The plural of corgi can be corgŵn or corgwn — the former retains the circumflex from the etymon, whilst the latter does not. Circumflecting denotes long vowels in Welsh but is only consitently applied to homographs which differ in vowel length. As there is no “corgwn” which carries a different meaning, omitting the circumflex from the plural of corgi is not incorrect. I don’t think that it’s necessary to favour one over the other. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm assuming that (as is the case with Latin) we have a policy on whether to include the circumflex in the title or not. — Beobach972 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Our (implicit) policy with Latin is to use as headwords the spellings that are used nowadays in Latin text, not the spellings that are used nowadays in Latin-English dictionaries. Our explicit policy (to omit macrons and breves, and to distinguish u from v but not i from j) is but an implementation of this. Our implicit policy with English is the same, except that there are no major differences between how English dictionaries spell things and how English running text does, so this policy is less remarked-upon. (But you'll notice that we do include various spellings for English words, as long as all the spellings are in actual use.) Our policy with Welsh should also be the same. If some Welsh speakers use the circumflex in this word and some omit it, then I don't see why we would exclude one spelling just for consistency with the superficial result of our Latin policy. —Ruakh_TALK 05:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that we do not include various spellings of English words that are no longer in use, even if they can be attested? DAVilla 17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. (Did I mis-write something? I was trying to say that for English words we do include various spellings, provided they're attested.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the plural of corgi should be marked as "corgwn or corgŵn", with the two entries linking to each other as alternative spellings. Both certainly should have entries, as if you do not know the word (a common reason for looking it up in a dictionary) you will not know wether, as here, the circumflexed and unadorned words are the same, or whether they are completely different words, e.g. "tan" (under) and "tân" (fire). 09:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

whittle

This entry needs some loving. Comparing it with OED shows that some senses are missing. I rfc’d it, but thought I’d better mention it here. H. (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You could always add it as a future Collaboration of the Week entry. Sometimes that leads to nice article cleanup. --EncycloPetey 17:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

mutton dressed as lamb

This is currently marked as "British?" - is it a UK only idiom or is it used elsewhere as well? Thryduulf 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I (a U.S.-ian) have never heard it. And mutton in general is a pretty rare word in these parts. (Not that we have a different word for it; it's just not something Americans eat. Or maybe we just call it lamb, but even then it's not a very common food here.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this phrase, but it sounds similar to the British phrase wolf in sheep's clothing. I am British.

Actually that's not just British - it comes from Aesop's Fables: Greek ~600 BC ! Wolf/lamb is hidden menace. Mutton/lamb is hidden age ! --195.137.93.171 11:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be "former Commonwealth", "non-US", or "non-North American". (It's not spanglish or mexican spanisn, either, AFAIK.) I'd heard it from UK and Oz native speakers, never from US-native speakers. Don't know about Canada, India, Caribbean, Africa. DCDuring 20:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is wiktionary a US-English dictionary, then ? I thought it was global English ? --195.137.93.171 11:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The English Wiktionary covers ALL varieties of English - but where terms do not have a universal meaning across all varieties we mark them as "UK", "US", "OZ" etc. SemperBlotto 12:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

X marks the spot

"You'll find what you're looking for under an obvious sign for it. " - original author claims pirate talke means is almost philosophical. I've heard this uttered in pirate movies before, but the definition seems to be missing something. It almost seems like an ominous meaning, like the authour is giving a coded message to someone. You'll find what you're looking for under an obvious sign for it. --Keene 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is the only "X" phrase listed in the OED - as part of the definition of X but without a definition of its own. This is what they say . . . SemperBlotto 10:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

d. Used to mark a location on a map or the like; esp. in phr. X marks the spot and varr.

1813 M. EDGEWORTH Let. 16 May (1971) 59 The three crosses X mark the three places where we were let in. 1918 J. M. BARRIE Echoes of War 5 In the rough sketch drawn for to-morrow's press, ‘Street in which the criminal resided’..you will find Mrs. Dowey's home therein marked with a X. 1928 R. KNOX Footsteps at Lock iv. 36, I wish I could be there, to see you diving in the mud on the spot marked with an X. 1968 B. NORMAN Hounds of Sparta ix. 64 A message from our alcoholic friend. X seems to mark the spot where he lives.

Frog

Definitions five and six are displaying oddly, but I cannot seem to mend it. Pistachio 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

{{context}} is broken, apparently due to a recent software change, and we haven't figured out how to fix it. —Ruakh_TALK 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The same thing is happening at beef and elsewhere. See Wiktionary:Grease pit#Another buggy template. Thryduulf 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

white tea

I added white tea here,

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tea#Derived_terms

Should I have?

Tea room was most appropriate, lol

Family Guy Guy 18:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I added red tea too :) Scott Ritchie 20:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

poof

The example sentence "Poof, he was gone." is included twice on the page. Once in the as an interjection (the definition of which reads more like an etymology), and once as a verb. I'm not certain it is either of these. It is used to mean "to vanish or disappear" (and also "to appear suddenly", but this isn't listed) , but I don't know that it is used itself as a verb ("to poof"? "poofing"?). It is almost being used as a shorthand for "to appear/disappear with a poof" - i.e. suddenly.

What do others think? Thryduulf 10:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. DAVilla 12:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

recreate, recreation

Hi, can I get a pronunciation guru to properly split this family of articles (recreate, recreation, recreating, recreated, etc.) between the differently pronounced senses relating to 'creating again' and engaging in rest-and-recreational activities? Cheers! bd2412 T 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Stari Decisis

I did some cleanup on this.

This is listed as all upper case. Is that correct?

I listed language as English although the source is, of course, Latin. Should it also have a Latin section (although it is actually 2 Latin words but one English phrase). RJFJR 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct form is stare decisis; this should probably be repackaged as an alternative spelling. I don't think phrases of this nature should have a Latin section unless they are/were idiomatic in Latin; however, the individual Latin words should of course be linked in the "Etymology" section. -- Visviva 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it except as stare decisis - and that one I've seen quite a bit. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This gets 6 Google Book Search hits, whereas stare decisis gets 2,460 Google Book Search hits. This is clearly a comparatively rare misspelling due to the mispronunciation of stare as /ˈstɑːɹi/ (instead of /ˈstɑːɹe/). If this is to be kept, it should be as a misspelling only, with the useful contents already therein fused with the contents of stare decisis. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to to use the misspelling of template.

382 googles for thsi spelling, 491,000 googles for stare decisis. I don't think this counts as a common misspelling. I'd support deletion. RJFJR 15:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

banyan day

Interesting definition...except that it says from Banyans, a caste that eats nothing that lives. I can't find anything to link Banyans to. (Also, do they mean nothing that has animal life? RJFJR 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• My understanding, from the w:Patrick O'Brian novels, is that on a banyan day (Thursday?) only things like porridge, bread and cheese etc was eaten - not even fish. The banyan is a type of fig - could that be the origin of the phrase? SemperBlotto 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The OED spells it banian-day and refers it to the caste of Hindus you mention who abstain from flesh. It's the same word as for the fig-tree, which apparently grew in ports settled by such people. Widsith 07:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Camberwell beauty

Should the B be capialized? If so should it just be moved or what? RJFJR 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging from Google Scholar hits, the capital-B version would seem to be much more common. I find this depressing, since the idea that the name for an entire species of animal is a "proper noun" is rather absurd. But we are here to document, not to judge, more's the pity...

I think it is reasonable to keep Camberwell beauty as a variant capitalization, but the content of the entry should be at Camberwell Beauty. -- Visviva 15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

enthousiastic, enthousiastically

French Wiktionary has enthousiastic and enthousiastically, as well as the o-less spellings with which I am familiar. Googles decently. Is this a UK variant? bd2412 T 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They aren't variants that I've ever come across as a native BE speaker. Without looking at the google hits, my guess would be they are errors made by non-native speakers/authors who are familiar with UK/US spelling differences like colour/color. Thryduulf 16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen that in English. The French adjective is enthousiaste (and the adverb is supposedly enthousiastement, but it's quite rare); I therefore suspect that enthousiastic might be a Gallicism. Alternatively, it might be an etymological spelling; according to the OED, enthusiastic comes from the Greek word ἐνθουσιαστικ-όϛ (enthousiastik-os). —Ruakh_TALK 16:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a UK spelling. Maybe historical, but I've never come across it. Looks more like a mistake to me. Widsith 07:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

dissertation, thesis

In the UK, a thesis is submitted for a PhD, a dissertation for an undergraduate degree and it seems to vary for a Master's degree (I'm not 100% about Scotland), which differs from US where a dissertation is submitted for a PhD, a thesis for an undergraduate degree and I don't know which for a Master's degree. I think this information should be added to dissertation and thesis but I don't know whether it ought to be in the form of two definitions or a usage note. Also, I have no idea about Canada and others. Pistachio 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the U.S., working on the thesis for my Master's degree. —Ruakh_TALK 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is the same. In the US, a dissertation is prepared for a PhD, while a thesis is prepared for a Master's degree. Undergraduate degrees may involve a thesis, but most of the time they do not. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some U.S. undergraduate programs allow students to do a "thesis" (or at least they call it that, usually a "senior thesis"). bd2412 T 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth taking too much notice over how different universities describe these things. Although I agree that convention usually distinguishes between what's written at Master's and at doctorate level, to me the difference is more to do with what kind of thing is being written. To me dissertation implies more discursiveness, whereas thesis suggests more of a central proposition. That might just be more in connotation than in practice though. Widsith 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But it sounds as though there might be a UK/US difference. If so, then that is worth worrying about and including in the definitions. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

batchelor's fare

Odd spelling but google found a note for the 1811 Vulgar Dictionary, so it may be an old spelling. On the other hand, batchelor's fare gets 20 googles but bachelor's fare gets 1520 and seems to be the same word with different spelling. RJFJR 21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In the UK at least the two are homophones so the "batchelor's" form might easily be an older or misspelling, although I was unable to find and misspelling uses on Google web but "Batchelor" is a very common surname so misspellings will be naturally harder to find. Note also that Knight Batchelor is at least an alternative spelling for Knight Bachelor. Thryduulf 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

unheeded

I was looking for the word unheeded — This unsigned comment was added by 201.143.119.133 (talk) at 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

Well, I guess you found it. -- Visviva 14:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Third World

Is Third World a proper noun? Is Third-World a proper adjective? (third-world redirects to Third-World). They are listed with caps but the headings are noun and adjective. Are they common or proper? RJFJR 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I only recall seeing it as third world and third-world. --Connel MacKenzie 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And no, there is no such thing as a "Proper adjective." --Connel MacKenzie 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've always seen the noun capitalized. A Google search on Wikisource turns up almost exclusively capitalized forms. The one that isn't is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and is not referring to the same concept. As the Third World is a specific entity (if a bit fuzzily defined), I'd call it a Proper noun, just like Old World and New World. Connel is probably right about the correct adjective form, but that doesn't mean that people are actually using the correct form. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

proper adjective & W:Proper adjective RJFJR 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Connel on this: the term "proper adjective" does exist, but is due to a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "proper noun"; there's no call for Wiktionary to start using it. (As for the capitalization, I'd capitalize "the Third World", but I'd describe a country as a "third-world country". I think capitalizing "Third-World country" is somewhat dated; a quick Google News search suggests that some writers do capitalize it, but most do not.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. A proper noun is a noun that names a particular and specific entity. Logically then, proper adjectives should describe a unique and specific thing, but they do not. Some adjectives are capitalized simply because they derive from proper nouns, but they're still just adjectives. An unusual etymology does not create a new part of speech. And I note that the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language makes no mention of "proper adjectives" at all. --EncycloPetey 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

vituperate

I see from some dictionaries that this word is in some way related to vitriol. Is it possible that salts of sulphuric agid, either sulphates or sulphites were called vituperates?--Paulwoods54 07:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Related to vitriol? Don't think so. Vitriol goes back to Latin vitrum ‘glass’, whereas vituperate is from Latin vitium ‘flaw, fault’ and parare ‘prepare’. Widsith 08:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vituperate from Latin, vituperare, to blame, speak abusively, to use bitter language.

Source: Webster´s unabridged, 2nd edition 1978 pg 2045

— This unsigned comment was added by 201.52.144.213 (talk) at 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

get/have a cob on

There are two related UK slang phrases that we don't have an entry for but should do, "have a cob on" and "get a cob on". b.g.c cites: [48] [49], [50], [51]

I'd add them but I'm not certain what part of speech header to put it under (noun? verb? adjective?), and I'm not certain where the entry or entries should be - cob, cob on, a cob on, get a cob on/have a cob on?? Thryduulf 16:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than listing them redundantly as adjective, noun and verb, you should probably just use ===Phrase===. --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Thryduulf, please do add the entry as a page. It'll enrich mah vocab, 'cuz ah dunno wotcher* talkin' 'bout but I and I lurve deckin' dis pad ova** wid colloquialisms. * = 'what you are'; ** = 'over' from decades of urban graffiti. Thecurran 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the bird, flip the bird

We currently have an out of place entry on bird for "the bird" (extending the middle finger) and a separate entry for flip the bird. Should these be kept as is, merged onto the bird, merged onto bird or something else? Thryduulf 10:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept as is. There are uses of "the bird" that do not involve the entire phrase, but the entire phrase (in various forms) has a greater meaning. We tend not to include the word "the" as part of an entry name, even in cases where "the" normally precedes the word, as in "the Alps". --EncycloPetey 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It may not be etymolygy, but why is the gesture called 'flipping the bird' ? Does it come from falconry ? Or is it rude ? Googling 'flipping the bean' doesn't find any parallels !--195.137.93.171 12:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

bear

(Etymology 1) Is the "vulgar, exchange alley" definition really different to the two finance definitions, it reads more like an explanation for the origin of the terms - and is not brilliantly worded at that. Thryduulf 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's too verbose but it seems one describes a market, another describes an investor with certain motives, and the last one describes an investor with unclear motives. Thecurran 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst meanings 3 and 4 are clearly distinct, surely meaning 6 is just a repetition of meaning 4 with explanation. I agree with Thryduulf that we should delete 6, but add to 4. Dbfirs 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just read it again, and realised that they are different, but they both refer to the same type of trader, except that one fears falling prices whilst the other greedily gains from them (e.g. Northern Rock shares!!!) Which meaning is more common amongst traders? Should they be combined? Dbfirs 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think after the verbosity was removed, you would end up with 6 being 4, but with more venom. I'd give it an rfd-redundant tag, personally. DCDuring 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've merged them, minus verbosity such as the fable of the huntsman who sold the bear’s skin before the bear was killed. Is that part of the etymology? DAVilla 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jealous

How to tell someone that he is jealous without actually using the word "jealous" ? — This unsigned comment was added by 202.177.226.184 (talk) at 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Say that he is "green-eyed", which is a reference to Shakespeare. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

currying - noun?

currying noun sense says a technique. A technique is a noun, but this sounds like something you'd do which is a verb... Noun? RJFJR 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"To curry [a function]" is indeed a verb. Also, I'm pretty sure the etymology is wrong; I always understood "to curry [a function]" as a verbification of the noun "curry function" (which in turn is named after Haskell Curry). —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it a noun the way 'wedding' is? Thecurran 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. google:"a currying" and google:"curryings" don't seem to think so, either. —Ruakh_TALK 17:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

make demands on

I'm not sure what to do with this expression. For the moment I have mentioned it in both demand and demands and put an entry into the make appendix I wonder if it qualifies for an entry by itself as an idiom? Opinions? Algrif 15:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you've done well. I don't think it's idiomatic. Thecurran 15:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ludo – wrongly capitalized?

(Discussion moved here from Talk:Ludo)

I believe that the title is wrongly capitalized – I believe that it should be ludo also for the English word, just as chess isn't capitalized either.

The word refers to a general board game, not owned or copyrighted (or patented, today at least) by a particular company. Shell-man 12:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Names of specific games are sometimes capitalized, even if it is not a registered name. For instance, my copy of Hoyle consistently capitalizes the words "Poker", "Bridge", and "Whist". As these words are names of specific games, they may be considered proper nouns, even though the majority of people today tend not to capitalize them. --EncycloPetey 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

branches of government

I created this, but I’m uncertain — is it idiomatic? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it's not talking about limbs of trees owned by the government, I'd say so. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be under branches? Given that we also have branches of banks, shops, etc.Algrif 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite an accurate analogy. Branches of banks and shops are largely independent of each other and identical in function and appearance to each other. The branches of government are separate in function, composition, and purpose. I do agree, though, that this ought to be regarded an idiomatic sense of branch, though I'm not 100% convinced of that. --EncycloPetey 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, “sum of parts” is not a valid reason for exclusion of a phrase. Therefore, this one is OK because (and I defy anyone to prove otherwise) “branch of government” cannot mean an item of arboreal state property. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. But my thinking is that the word branch has the meaning sub-division and is applied in many other situations. Family / evolutionary / etc trees spring to mind. How about a trade-off? in hospital and branches of government? :-) Algrif 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree on the branch thing. I can 'branch off' into another, follow a different 'branch' of a river, science, medicince, pædiatrics, etc. and my organisation can branch into another field, hinterland, or demographic. I think 'branch of government' gels very well with these meanings without requiring an idiom. I wouldn't disagree with an update to the definition of 'branch' if you found it lacking. BTW, 'hospital' is special in English. I can follow 'at' with 'home' or 'work'. I can follow 'in' with 'bed' or 'hospital'. I can follow either with 'church', 'college', 'day-care', 'kindergarten', 'school', 'temple', or 'university'. I can do all of this confidently without using an article or possessive pronoun in between. These terms have a status different from other common nouns in English that is very difficult for many ESOL folk to grasp. NB: 'home' even counts as an adverb. Thecurran

I don’t see how any of that is relevant. The point is that branch of government cannot be used with any of the meanings which branch has, and the specific sense of branch here seems restricted to too few idioms to justify its being added as a new sense to the entry for branch. Or have you somewhere address that point hereinbefore? (–I can’t tell!) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What I should've said is that I think the current fifth meaning of the noun "An area in business or of knowledge, research" applies here as allocative, executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are quite similar to areas of research. I do think though that that fifth meaning should be extended to include 'area of practice' as in the cases of medicine, law, or technology &c as in the examples above and, if it feels more complete, to include 'area/ field of government'. In Civil Law places like France the judical sub-branches of prosecution and investigation are usually intertwined into one. I believe there are many other examples of such intertwining, making 'branch' just like 'field'. Opinions? Thecurran 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What would clinch it for me is if this separate sense of branch (which I believe to be sufficiently distinct from the fifth sense you mention — even with your alterations — to warrant its own definition) were in use in other idiomatic phrases. If you can show that, I may begin to agree with you here. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

no singular?

What's that term for a noun that isn't used in the singular? RJFJR 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Plurale tantum. We also have {{pluralonly}}. —Ruakh_TALK 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday

The current entry is a list from the 'pedia disambiguation page.

The term itself refers to the 1905 St. Petersburg event. Neither of the two predecessors are the "Bloody Sunday" referred to in literary references, and all subsequent events use the name as a direct comparison to St. Petersburg's.

I don't see how this could be more than two dictionary definitions.

--Connel MacKenzie 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In current British usage, "Bloody Sunday" refers to the 1972 event in Northern Ireland (w:Bloody Sunday (1972)), all other uses are either clarified or part of an already well-defined other context. I would be surprised if this was not also the case in Ireland. I don't know that this was named for the St Petersberg event, it seems equally likely to an original descriptor or an naming for the earlier event. I think perhaps what we need is something along the lines of

1. A 1905 event in St Petersburg in which unarmed citizens were killed by state forces.
2. One of many similar events, see w:Bloody Sunday for a complete list.
3. Template:italbrac A 1972 event in Northern Ireland in which 7 civil rights protesters were shot and killed by a British Army regiment.

Thryduulf 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be a nice improvement from the current entry. The first definition might say "...in which as many as 4,000 unarmed..." for clarity. --Connel MacKenzie 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have never heard the term used in Ireland to mean the first three listed Irish examples, only ever used to mean the 1972 civil rights deaths. But that is like the term "The Troubles" which originally meant the 1916 - 1922 events, but later was used for 1969 onward to the ceasefires.--Dmol 19:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've replaced the entry with my proposed version above (incorporating Connel's suggestion). Thryduulf 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

sushi

Somebody has trouble with the fact that words don't always retain their shades of meaning when borrowed into a new language. Anybody who's ever gone with a Japanese friend to a western sushi bar has heard the cry of "this is not sushi". The def in the English entry is no hypercorrect to conform to the Japanese cultural view. Sadly the English word carries none of this detail and means something much closer to "raw fish on rice wrapped in seaweed". Putting a Japanese definition in the English entry doesn't change this reality. — Hippietrail 09:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; and the entry should also note that this is frequently used in English as a synonym for sashimi. -- Visviva 04:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this was mentioned on WT:TR when I edited the four entries sushi, sashimi, nigiri and sushi roll. (This was after the similar IRC conversation.) I trust these are acceptable now? --Connel MacKenzie 17:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of note: the ==Japanese== definition now incorrectly refers to the English term; it probably should not. --Connel MacKenzie 17:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Edited. I hope now it is OK... The link to the English part was left as, after all, they are referring almost same things. --Tohru 00:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"sushi" certainly has a second meaning, or at least it does in Seattle. Here, "sushi" always has rice and is specifically different from "sashimi". I'd like to add a second definition to that effect, but I'm not sure whether the distinction is regional (Seattle or maybe west coast) or just a factor of how large any city's Asian population. Rod (A. Smith) 00:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that calling it "West coast" would be over-generalizing. I don't recall that fine-grained (sorry for the pun) pedantry extending to restaurants in So. Cal. Can the Japanese definition be expanded a little, to make it clearer that it doesn't include sashimi? --Connel MacKenzie 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper Noun

Nobel Prize is a proper noun, name of the award, right? RJFJR 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobel is a proper noun

the Nobel Foundation is a proper noun

but a Nobel Prize is a noun. SemperBlotto 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall ever heading of winning a Nobel Prize, but winning the Nobel Prize (or "the Nobel Prize for ...") Since they are almost always referred to only individually, the references themselves end up being proper nouns: "The 1979 Nobel Peace Prize." Is a usage note the way to go for that, or should we list each type of Nobel Prize awarded annually, or both? --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "a Nobel Prize" certainly exists (granted, some of those are using it attributively with a singular head noun, like "a Nobel Prize winner", but it looks like those are a small minority). I think "Nobel Prize" is both a proper noun construed with the, and a common noun; likewise for the usual names of the various specific prizes ("Nobel Prize in/for economics", etc.). —Ruakh_TALK 18:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

<pet peeve>There Is No Nobel Prize In Economics, there is (formally) only the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" or simply "Nobel Memorial Price"</pet peeve> (Ahhh, is there some drama about that name... :) \Mike 18:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, there is no Nobel Prize for Biology; there is only an International Prize for Biology that has been awarded since 1985. Nor is there a Noble Prize for Mathematics; Nobel did not consider math to be of practical value. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said "the usual names", not "the correct names". :-) —Ruakh_TALK 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that some people have won multiple Nobel Prizes - and I don't believe that proper nouns can have plurals. SemperBlotto 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? There are many people named John Smith, ergo, many John Smiths. And I am aware of at least three Miamis. :) bd2412 T 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I guess I need to finish that draft for Appendix:English proper nouns. Proper nouns typically don't have plurals, but many can be used grammatically as common nouns, and then acquire a plural form. The division between common and proper nouns is fuzzier than textbooks would have us believe. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, this shows both "Nobel Prizes" and "Nobel prizes" in use. --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think when people use 'the Nobel prize' they mean 'the Nobel prize for physics', 'the Nobel peace prize', etc. but shorten it purely for brevity. If I read this year that a political figure just won the Nobel prize, I can assume they meant 'the Nobel peace prize for 2007'. As the context is often implied strongly enough in what I've read to support this view, 'Nobel prize' may yet be a common noun or still straddling the border. Maybe 'Nobel' has become a proper adjective like 'Hamburg' in the 'Hamburger sandwich', which is now usually known as a 'hamburger'. Thecurran 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tijuana noir

Tijuana Noir has come into common use to mean a border city, rainy, full of sin, corrupt, violent and a crime infected hell. — This comment was unsigned.

Thank you. We put brand new items like that on WT:LOP until they are widespread. For right now, it is just the title of a book. --Connel MacKenzie 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal note: My experiences in Tijuana would support such a definition, but by no means does that convey that such a term is in common use in the English language. This depiction does not stand on it's own as a linguistic component. --Connel MacKenzie 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

-ist

Is sense 4, "A person who holds biased views." (e.g. "sexist, racist") different from sense 1, "One who follows a principle or system of belief." (e.g. "Marxist, deist ¶Note, these are related to -ism, e.g. Marxism, deism")? Thryduulf 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so, yes. I think sense 4 came from sense 1 (I'm guessing sexist, ageist, etc. are by analogy with racist), and senses 1 and 4 share their parallelism with -ism words, but I think they're now fairly distinct. —Ruakh_TALK 03:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian "sono"

I would like someone who has a good command of Italian (or knows where to find information :-) to clear up for me the meaning of the word "sono". It may well be with diacritics actually, but not in the variant that I have come across.--Eate 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian does not use diacritics except in dictionaries. I suggest looking at sono. --EncycloPetey 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the Italian Wiktionary does not have a separate article on "sono", but the English one does. I shall from now on turn first to the English version, no matter what language the key word may be in.))) Great, the sono link makes sense. "con il cuore canto e quindi sono", that makes "With heart I sing and therefore I am".--Eate 10:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

continental United States

Noun? Proper noun? Phrase? bd2412 T 11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper noun might work. But I don't recall ever hearing this to refer also to Alaska (even though a technical combination of the words might refer to those 49 states, instead of the colloquial 48 conterminous ones.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going by Wikipedia for that (it indicates both usages). bd2412 T 06:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The US military (and others) use CONUS and OCONUS meaning contiguous US, and outside contiguous US; a few times I've seen these mis-defined as "continental". Including—ahem—a certain nearby entry ... Robert Ullmann 06:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tijuana Noir

Tijuana Noir has come into common use to mean a border city, rainy, full of sin, corrupt, violent and crime infected hell. — This unsigned comment was added by Teoarango (talk • contribs) at 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Define "common use"; I've never heard it. google books:"tijuana noir" pulls up only one hit, the name of a self-published book by Flores Campbell (you?), google groups:"tijana noir" pulls up no hits, and google:"tijana noir" only seems to pull up hits referring to the book. It almost certainly doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. —Ruakh_TALK 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note #Tijuana noir above. --Connel MacKenzie 16:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I need another word for subhuman i could no find enything

(Moved from Wiktionary talk:Tea room by Rod (A. Smith))

I wold apreciate eny help in finding another word for subhuman —This unsigned comment was added by 67.185.175.163 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-22T12:03:32.

Do you mean in a scientific context, or as a figurative insult? --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Untermensch (if you don’t mind the Nazi connotations)? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think troglodyte is a fine choice. --EncycloPetey 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen neanderthal used this way, too. --Joe Webster 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest australopithecine, ape, Cro-Magnon, criminal, freak, Morlock, mutant, prisoner, slave, or victim, &c depending on the context; I hope this is not being used to hurt anybody. Thecurran 16:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Canada goose

Hi,

I've always heard this as Canadian goose. But much to my surprise, a Google search shows this is just as common. Is this variation restricted by region?

--Connel MacKenzie 16:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In the UK I've almost always heard this as "Canada goose"/"Canada geese". with "Canadian goose" being regarded as an error. Thryduulf 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely; I believe "Canada goose" is unheard of, here in the US. --Connel MacKenzie 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, unheard of in your own neighborhood, maybe. In JackLumber English, it's Canada goose. (Never heard "Canadian goose" before.) Compare: .gov [52] [53], .edu [54] [55]. See also [56]. But: Canadian bacon, never Canada bacon ;-P JackLumber 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is proscribed, explains the odd numbers on .gov sites (and others) you linked. But 980 vs. 619 means is it very frequent, colloquially. So frequent, in fact, that I've never heard the prescribed form before. --Connel MacKenzie 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll back up Connel MacKenzie from what I've heard anywhere from Pennsylvania to Florida, as well as in Hawai'i (in comparison to the Nene Goose) and Western Australia from the ornithologically minded. Thecurran 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

sile

Verb sense missing? --Connel MacKenzie 19:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You left the tag, mate. What are you talking about? Thecurran 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a Northern English verb meaning to rain heavily. Eg, "it's fair silin' dahn today" 194.176.105.39 13:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Philip Melanchthan's Commonplace

I am reading Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writing. In the discourse on The bondage of the will he mentions the writings of Philip Melanchthan's Commonplace. Who is this man and were can I find a copy of Commonplaces. Luther thought his writing was worth reading.

— This unsigned comment was added by 68.5.132.180 (talk).

A dictionary is not the best place to go looking for this information. Try Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) or Wikisource (a collection of writings and documents). --EncycloPetey 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

special resolution

The resolution doesn't gain its status after the vote; it is called for specially, right? Or is this a subtle meaning specific to GB? --Connel MacKenzie 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not a meaning I'm familiar with, but don't take my opinion as definitive on this one. Thryduulf 23:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ordinary resolution

See above. --Connel MacKenzie 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

bedroomed

Should bedroomed be moved to -bedroomed, as the former is never written by itself? Same for bathroomed (eg. I live in a three-bathroomed house)

1. (When preceded by a number) Having the indicated number of bedrooms.

In the usage of Wiktionary and many other dictionaries, a title starting with "-" would suggest that this is a suffix used to form words, which it is not. -- Visviva 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it did form a word. What do you think about '-legged' in 'three-legged' or 'hairy-legged'? Maybe you're saying that '-bedroomed' is different from '-ing' in how they're appended, because the former use a hyphen but the lattermost/ last doesn't. Anyhow, the hyphen should hopefully be sufficient to tell a reader to look up both what precedes it and what follows it, which would mean a page for '--bedroomed' might be unnecessary and silly-looking. Thecurran 17:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

hunt and peck

How is hunt and peck inflected? Is "She hunted and pecked" or "she hunt and pecked" the preferred spelling? --Dictionarybuilder 12:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raw Ghits give about 15:1 in favor of "hunted and pecked" (and also "hunting and pecking"). Books results are similar but somewhat idiosyncratic, possibly due to the small sample size (only 4:1 for "hunting and pecking", but more than 20:1 for "hunted and pecked." So it seems clear that "hunt-and-peck" has not yet fossilized as a word. -- Visviva 13:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Neologisticality of embiggen

Considering that our first citation for embiggen is from 1884, is it really fair that its entry be slapped with that big, yellow, disapproving “neologism” box? As a second point, can it legitimately be tagged as a nonce, considering that it appears in an academic paper (I wouldn’t mind if the nonce tag stays, as IMO most uses of this word will be noncy). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, the current working definition of "neologism" on Wiktionary seems to be unrelated to time in use, or degree of public acceptance; per {{neologism}}, a neologism is simply a word that doesn't appear in other dictionaries. I can think of some reasons for this, but on the whole I agree that it doesn't make sense, and should be revisited. -- Visviva 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So can I. But neologism is not the right word for this. From an etymologial standpoint, we need another word, being as neo- means “new” — 123 years old is not “new” by any definition (for words anyway — geology, astronomy, and other disciplines notwithstanding). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I’ve started a discussion about this here. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This one is an archaism and a neologism. This happens in linguistics. Sorry. Thecurran 17:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK — now this entry looks totally ridiculous. What is a reader going to think, seeing neologism, archaic, and nonce tags, all for the same word‽ Either this needs to resolved, or a hefty explanatory usage note needs writing. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this entry is absolutely hilarious, in light of the colloquial meaning of 'nonce' and an episode of the Simpson's in which 'embiggen' is the star. You've made my day. Genius. Shona Isbister 16.53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a tag of 'archaic' when three of the four references date from the last twelve years just makes Wiktionary look foolish. As does having a neologism from so long ago (you can hardly expect users to look up the criteria to see just why an old word can be considered a neologism). Again, the fact that there are actually citations covering 11 years makes the tag suspect - the fact that it appears to be justified (according to Wiktionary rules) on the grounds that no other major dictionary has picked it up make it appear that Wiktionary lacks confidence in its own procedures. You don't see OED2 or MW tagging words on the basis of what other dictionaries think Moglex 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Should there be two senses, one tagged archaic and one tagged neologism? RJFJR 16:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there is only one sense being used here. I’ve removed both the neologism and the archaic tag. What little relevance the fact that this same word has been coined separately on two occasions has is now noted in the etymology section, and should not affect the entry proper as it has until so recently. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

perfidy

The def of perfidy is

1. The act of violating faith or allegiance; violation of a promise or vow, or of trust reposed; faithlessness; treachery.

Is the word reposed correct? (link is to repose.) RJFJR 15:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be. [57] -- Visviva 01:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess so, though it doesn't seem to be any of the senses at repose. Do we need an entry for trust reposed? RJFJR

Maybe it just means 'trust' that has been 'laid down' or otherwise 'ceased'. Thecurran 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

even though

Not sure of the POS - a conjunction, perhaps? bd2412 T 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, a conjunction. —Ruakh_TALK 14:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

page

Is verb sense 4 (To call or summon (someone).) used, other than as per sense 5 (To contact (someone) by means of a pager.)? Thryduulf 21:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That's where the word "pager" came from after all.... The original idea is "act as page(boy)", "send message to". Widsith 12:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'd never thought of the origin before! Is it still used, or is it now an obsolete/dated sense? Thryduulf 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. at least, it's still used in places with public address systems, such as airports. If you're not familiar with it, that probably means it's obsolete in the U.K. —Ruakh_TALK 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, to page someone would mean to send a message to their pager, although more likely these days anyone without a two-way radio system would have a mobile phone that could be called (the only users of pagers these days in the UK I can think of are on-call doctors, firemen, lifeboatmen, etc.) I don't think there is a single word in British English that means "put a message out for someone over a public address system" - I think I'd ask someone to "put out a call"/"put out a message" or "make an announcement" Thryduulf 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ruakh; this is very common in the US. I don't think Widsith was suggesting it is obsolete in the UK, though? --Connel MacKenzie 09:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not obsolete. Besides, it isn't a PA system, it's the tannoy ... ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've marked it as obsolete in the UK ({{context|transitive|US|obsolete|_|in UK}})- if it is in use in other places that normally use UK English this might need revision and/or clarification (I ummed and arred about the "US" label) . If of course I'm wrong and other Brits know of its current use on these shores, then feel free to revert me. Thryduulf 10:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Wiktionary:Wiktionarians has some geographic contributor information. I am sorry if I gave the impression this is solely a US term; I do not think it is. I'm actually surprised to hear that it may be falling out of use in the UK. Or, as you say, completely out of use. --19:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, en-gb uses 'ring' when en-us uses 'call'. I guess it's just a natural difference considering that some of these things grew up before constant trans-oceanic mass media or separate from international corporations. ~(c:) (a happy-faced balloon) Thecurran 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

namespace

Could someone please rewrite the definition of this word to be easier to understand for someone not au fait with other programming terms. I know of the word only in the wiki context, and I'm not certain whether how we use the term here is covered by that definition or not. Thryduulf 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ç' and ç'-

Does it make sense for these to be two separate entries? It seems to me that all of the senses for both of these should both be at either one or the other. bd2412 T 23:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They should be in one entry. (This is my bad; I made the French entry without checking to see how the Albanian clitic worked.) Personally, I think ç'- is preferable, as it makes clear that this attaches graphically to the following word. —Ruakh_TALK 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no aesthetic preference, but surely there must be a rule? bd2412 T 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - I poked around a bit, and no hyphen appears to be the norm (see d', l', m', n', o', t'). bd2412 T 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, hyphens are generally used for prefixes and suffixes. That in mind, I think that ç' has less opportunity to be misleading. Medellia 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we just redirect one form to the other? That way, if someone looks up the unused variation, they'll get to the definition anyway. bd2412 T 04:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate problem with entering the redirects from hyphenated to the normal unadorned versions. It does seem weird though. A hyphenated prefix is usually an optional hyphen, but sometimes included. The apostrophe functions like the hyphen for those prefixes, except that it is not optional for most of them. (The apostrophe after "O" is sometimes optional. O'Donnell vs. Odonnell, o'clock vs. oclock, O'Toole vs. OToole, etc.) In one case, the character separator is "-", in the other it is "'". Having both "'" and "-" is redundant, isn't it? --Connel MacKenzie 21:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I expected six blue-links above, not five red-links! I guess there is something to be said for the [Show preview] button. To clarify: I don't think there is anything wrong with being redundant in this way, it just seems weird to me. --Connel MacKenzie 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of the above, I've moved the content of ç'- to ç' and merged the edit histories of the pages for one comprehensively historied entry. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Connel MacKenzie, I know that in Scots, people want rid of the apologetic apostrophe but all your examples seem to me to necessitate those apostrophes unless someone was typing without use of an apostrophe input or didn't know better. Thecurran 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What does monotony mean

--24.196.94.74 19:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC) i thought it meant neevr ending but this dictonary (english) says its had somthing to do with mathmatics What do you think the definition is?

Monotony is, most simply, the state of being monotonous; that is, having one tone, without variation. Hence the figurative sense of tedium. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

chillax

I was actually going to RFV this, but google books:chillax does pull up exactly three independent English uses over a wide enough time range for this to pass CFI; but even so, some sort of sense label and/or usage note would seem to be in order. Is this restricted to a specific region? Does it have staying power? Is it possible to use this without sounding ridiculous and/or contrived? Etc. —Ruakh_TALK 05:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This might help you understand its geographical distribution. I've heard from people from ages 12-55 in Australia as well as in US media & I remember accidentally saying it years ago when I misqueued both chill out and relax at once. As those two terms increase in usage, the mixed term should continue to pop up. In the short term, I don't see a decline in either. In addition, groovy waned but never really died, long outlasting tactile groove-based records. This type of word merging around synyonyms with the same phonemic order (~ila, in this case) in the middle is a matter of fact in English and I've noticed many people creating these on the spot and others interpreting them correctly without even realizing the mistake. Real examples become portmanteaus like smog or nonce words like slithy. Some are so old, they became root words for Modern English. Tipsy seems to have been drunkenly collated from a slur of tired and sleepy and perhaps tips. Similar non-mainstream examples of verb forms include thunk, thoughten, caughten, boughten, & broughten. Thecurran 12:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

agri-food

Can anyone hazzard a guessThanks for the correction, SemperBlotto. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC) as to what this contemptible piece of business jargon means? (See Google Book Search for clues.) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To people in the health food and natural foods industry, agri-food has the added connotation of big business producing food that is not healthful. The idea is to create things that will sell for a profit but harms the client.--Memorymike 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My hazard is that the term is only ever used attributively to describe the sector of industry/commerce that makes food from agricultural products. SemperBlotto 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In the US, it is used to identify two groups: agriculture (industry) and food (industry) as a symbiotic collection of related industries. Since the term is limited to Wall Street/finance, it makes sense on one hand to distinguish the two (very different) industries, while sometimes referring to the two (related) as a single combination.

And people grouse at me for POV usage notes? Unbelievable. Guess its OK as long as it is heavily UK biased.

--Connel MacKenzie 21:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Usage note, which was just wrong. It had nothing to do with UK, by the way (right, cabal? [winks]). Widsith 09:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And left it categorized in Category:UK, with an incorrect Etymology? This would be better to delete and leave as a red-link until someone comfortable entering the financial definition decides to do so. Cabal? Well, it is an unacceptable UK-POV proscription of a GenAm finance term...a particularly ignorant and incorrect one at that. The notion that US compounds are formed from either Latin etymological roots, or UK patterns is absurd. You are correct that my tone was not helpful - but looking at the entry's history, you can understand my exasperation, right? --Connel MacKenzie 15:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that I should not have written that usage note; it was unjustifiably biased of me — as my tone hereinbefore suggests, this is not one of my favourite words, hence my critical stance thereof (however, that does not make what I did any less wrong). Other than that, the etymology is correct as far as I’m aware (perhaps it lacks the necessary detail of a reference to finance and industry, but it is nonetheless correct in essence). Since SemperBlotto and Connel MacKenzie seem to have some knowledge of what this term means, I’m sure they could write an adequate definition for it (and then take it to WT:RFC if they are unsure). As a final point, lots and lots of English neologisms are coined from the classical languages — not just UK English ones (surely you don’t need proof of that, do you Connel?). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. But this term very obviously does not come from those origins; it comes from abbreviated forms of other terms (agriculture industry and food industry.) Delete and leave as a red-link for a finance person to define. --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, its two parts, agri- and food, aren’t abbreviations of the ‘X’ industry phrases (although the industry connotation is, I believe, intended), but rather an abbreviation of agriculture and the word food, respectively. This means that the present etymology (Agri- + food) is entirely suitable, as agri- denotes agriculture. I concede that this term is not as stupid and contemptible as I first thought.

“Delete and leave as a red-link for a finance person to define” — do you believe that the present definition is incorrect? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct; I think the definition in place does not reflect how this term is used. Instead, it is tailored to match the two "one-off" citations given. --Connel MacKenzie 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that definition after reading through quite a number of b.g.c. hits for the term. I chose the two citations as the earliest limited-preview hit on b.g.c. and the most recent. (There was actually a many-way tie for most recent, so I chose the highest-ranked by b.g.c that wasn't using the term as part of the name of an institution.) Even if you think these are unrepresentative — and that's possible, as I'd never heard the term before, so had to work with what I saw on b.g.c. without relying on past impressions — I don't see that the definition can be so bad that the entire article needs to be deleted and redone. —Ruakh_TALK 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikisaurus entry

I just created wikisaurus:rapt. Could someone check it for me? (It's my first wikisaurus entry.) Is there something more I need to do? RJFJR 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't (normally) include empty sections (not even in Wikisaurus, AFAIK.) The Roget's link concerns me...where did that come from, an errant Transwiki? That Appendix needs to be checked into; if it isn't a public domain source, we cannot let it stay. --Connel MacKenzie 15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I copied the format from wikisaurus:insane which was described as an exemplar. I've commented out the headigns that aren't used (in case someone has something to add to one of them). RJFJR 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

bay

Are noun definitions 4 (# A brown colour/color of the coat of some horses.) and 8 (# (color) a reddish brown colour) really separate? Could they be combined as something like "(color) a reddish brown colour, especially the colour of the coat of some horses"? Thryduulf 09:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know. Did you check Wikipedia? They have a very active Colors Project over there. --EncycloPetey 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It can mean the horse itself, not the colour ... "somebody bet on the bay ... Doo-dah,doo-dah!", but that's not clear in the definition ! --195.137.93.171 12:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of stud

stud is a name for a type of poker game (i.e. seven card stud, five card stud, etc.). Currently, the article stud has two etymologies, and I don't know to which etymology this usage belongs. As a noob can anyone direct me to a resource that might be of assistance? --Kzollman 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It belongs under the second etymology, from a stud as used to fix something in place. In "stud" poker, you don;t get to throw away cards becuase they are stud (fixed in place). --EncycloPetey 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kudos for the very quick reply! --Kzollman 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

locum

Is the plural of locum (British word of Latin origin) locums? RJFJR 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The OED doesn't give a plural, so I assume it is regular. SemperBlotto 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Locum is an informal British abbreviation of locum tenens. The plural of the latter is locum tenentes, so the plural of the former is presumably locums (not loca or whatever else). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chambers Dictionary (1998) explicitly gives the plural as "locums". Thryduulf 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That fact is now noted as a reference in the entry. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag: Male or Female

English nouns have the genre? Is "Flag" male or female?

English nouns do NOT have grammatical gender. SemperBlotto 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While some English words represent only male or female objects, English adjectives and articles do not change to match the noun they are associated with. Only pronouns are affected by "inherent gender" in English. --EncycloPetey 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be helpful to note that a few inanimate nouns are often personified with a set gender. Ships, once christened, are figuratively referred to with feminine pronouns, as is one's native country. I know of no such tradition with flags. Rod (A. Smith) 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The US flag is occasionally given a feminine pronoun. The song "You're a Grand Old Flag" is often written or sung as "She's a Grand Old Flag", as a Google search will testify. But you're correct, there is no general tradition of doing this. --EncycloPetey 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The ship thing is kind of old-fashioned. (That's not to say no one ever uses English's female pronouns for ships, but it's much less common than formerly.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

can't help

I would propose putting help verb definition 4 as a separate entry can't help Opinions please? Algrif 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because the sense is not fixed to the verb can or the form can't. It can appear either positive or negative, and can appear with other auxiliary verbs like won't and shan't. (albeit rarely) --EncycloPetey 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a specific sense with can't help. I can't help liking him. or simply I'm sorry, but I can't help it. are not well catered for in the entry help. I understand what you are saying, which is why I placed this question here, although I would tend to disagree with the idea that won't and other negatives give the same meaning, and the same goes for the affirmative can. (BTW, I have similar queries about can't stand and can't abide, but I will leave those for the moment and concentrate on can't help which I think is more clear cut.)Algrif 11:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"I can't help how I feel." ¶ "Well, I can help how I feel; try harder. Own your emotions."

"A person can't help how they feel." ¶ "Of course they can; that they don't is another matter."

He'd gotten into a fight. Really, this time it wasn't his fault, he hadn't been able to help it — how could he watch a bully pick on a younger kid and not get involved? — but he knew his parents wouldn't believe him.

This minute of flash fiction was brought to you by Ruakh at 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for that. What catches my attention most is the fact that, any example of can help, or (not) be able to help, meaning avoid, is found within a sentence or phrase that has already used the construction can't help meaning can't avoid. The opposite of can't help is NEVER (as far as I can see) implied by can help unless can't help has already been used. Algrif 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction. Interrogative Can I help it if he is just plain stupid? But then we have yet another definition where it means be at fault. Algrif 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But should you create it as a separate entry, I shan't help but be confused. --EncycloPetey 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but think you made up the shan't help example. Any support for that usage? I certainly have never seen / heard it before. What is the real problem here? The fact that the meaning of help is totally dependant on a negative modal! would like doesn't seem to arouse any comment whatsoever. So it must be the negative that is making this one so difficult. Because I'm sure that no-one is really suggesting that can't help is not in common use, and that the meaning is fully dependant on the can't. What we should be doing is finding the correct way to deal with it. An entry under help loses it completely. Try finding this expression in other dictionaries!! Algrif 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In a, so far, vain effort to see if I could find even a single example of shan't help meaning can't avoid, or prevent, I came across the following gem in Google books:- He said it was very much like saying to the President, "We can't help your having counsel, but we'll fix it so that they shan't help you much." Here, can't help means can't avoid, or prevent, while shan't help means will not aid. -- Algrif 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered that we already have can't wait. So if you have no further objections, I will just be bold and make the entry. Thanks for your input, though. -- Algrif 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Collective noun for collectors and displayers of flags

Does the Collective noun for collectors and displayers of flags exist?

That's a vexillophile. A vexillographer designs them, vexillology is the study of flags. SemperBlotto 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Or I was about to suggest vexillologist. Widsith 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

These aren't strictly collective nouns... I would suggest "a flap of vexillophiles."  ;-) -- Visviva 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "field", personally. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A "vexation of vexillologists" is proably the most syllabically alliterative option is there a word that means "syllabic alliteration" or "syllabically alliterative"?. Thryduulf 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A "vacillation of vexillologists" ? But I hesitate to suggest this. ;-) Algrif 11:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! What about a vexillation? Widsith 10:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That I like! Thryduulf 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about adding 'IMNECTHO'

I recently came across IMNECTHO and wondered what it meant. I did a few internet searches, found it a few times, but no definition. After a few moments thought, I realised it meant 'In My Not-Even-Close-To-Humble Opinion'. There are Initialisms(?) IMO, IMHO, IMNSHO, so I suggest adding 'IMNECTHO' = 'In My Not-Even-Close-To-Humble Opinion'. I might have done it myself, but couldn't find the 'Initialism' template (like noun, verb, etc) Brewmanz 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't encourage "leet" forms, so this should probably go on WT:LOP#I. A "preload" button was never created for the "[Go]" page, as there is relatively low demand for it. Using the heading ==={{abbreviation}}=== works for that type of entry. But again, it probably does not meet our criteria, so it should instead go on our list of new and made-up terms. --Connel MacKenzie 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

globology

Colleagues were discussing 'globology' today - all are very unsure as to what it acutually is, definition etc. Has anybody heard of it, used it, or can shed some light on the word>

The 10th Google web hit gives: "globology, which simply means the science of the global or world-system.". It looks like there are sufficient books hits to verify its existence (coined in about 1972 it seems), so I'll add it when I have time. Thryduulf 08:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Cabinet Why caps?

Why is Shadow Cabinet capitalized? RJFJR 16:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's how it's spelled, then we should use caps. The best way to tell is to check articles from the British press and see what they do. If the press capitalizes it, then that's where the entry should go. --EncycloPetey 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My webster dictionary doesn't have it, my American encyclopedia doesn't have it, my UPI stylebook doesn't have. So I tried googling the BBC site [58] (per your suggestion) and got 343 hits but I see no consistant pattern to the capitalization. RJFJR 02:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the general pattern (albeit some exceptions) is that a country can have only one Shadow Cabinet — a single entity that spans conceivably for centuries — but that it can have many shadow cabinets — groups of people who constitute the Shadow Cabinet at a given point in time. Hence, references to "the Shadow Cabinet" are generally capitalized, while references to "his shadow cabinet" are generally not. —Ruakh_TALK 02:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In AU, three major parties exist alongside minor ones: the Nationals, the Liberals, and Labor. Because the first two form a coalition, it is like a two-party system. In any two-party system, there are likely to be one shadow cabinet and one cabinet. Only in the few transitional periods where three major parties function without coalition (or similar) will one find two or more shadow cabinets. Considering this rarity, and given that context is usually clear, the common noun usually can only describe one such object. For example, national references to 'the Shadow Cabinet' in AU last year referred to the federal shadow cabinet of Australian Labor. Similarly, 'the Queen' refers to the British monarch in Anglophonia, but not in Spain. Common nouns that happen to usually have only one object to refer to may thus become proper nouns and I think vice versa when a high king is needed. Thecurran 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thiefdom

Looking for a definition of "Thiefdom" — This unsigned comment was added by 149.135.97.191 (talk) at 02:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

Well, look it up. Widsith 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same. But I think he means with the capital T. -- Algrif 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a portmanteau denoting a fiefdom ruled by a thief in the sense that a fiefdom is not democratic, similar to a Kleptocracy. I recall people using "Hail to the Thief" instead of "Hail to the Chief" during the last US presidential term in reference to a notion that G. W. Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore. I'd be very wary of using this term in a public forum like this because its political loading may stir trouble. Thecurran 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

connotation of words

I am having trouble finding to connotative differences among these three words: disinformation, misspeaking, and falsifying. Could someone help me find this? I don't even know where to start looking. — This unsigned comment was added by Cindi1575 (talk • contribs) at 02:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

The best way to work out connotations is to look at the words in use and see if they're used in different contexts, so the first thing I would do is some searches on Google Books. But to me, disinformation implies some kind of official propoganda campaign, misspeaking gives a more general (and somewhat old-fashioned) sense of incorrectness, and falsifying suggests that something which already exists is being altered. Widsith 08:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Even better is to do your homework yourself, rather than asking other people to just tell you the answer. You'll learn more by the process of discovery. --EncycloPetey 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Need Help with pronunciation

I will be making a business presentation on Wednesday, August 8th and need the correct pronunciation for the following cities:

Suzhou, China -> wp ->
Guangdong, China -> wp -> listen
Toyokawa, Japan -> wp ->
Komagane, Japan -> wp ->

I would appreciate any assistance that can be offered.

Respectfully: Tom Leigl

In which languages? English, Chinese, or Japanese? --EncycloPetey 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the date has passed but if they appear again, remember that the way English speakers accent foreign words is often not totally accurate, so don't stress too much. Try using Sue-zyoe (the second part starts with the strange sound "s" makes in "pleasure" and rhymes with toe); Gwong-dong (the first part rhymes with "gong" and the second part sounds more like "don't" with a "g" instead of a "t"); Toe-yo-caw-wha (that last part is like "what" without the "t"); Koe-mah-gah-neigh (the first one rhymes with toe and the middle two rhyme with "Ha!"). The w:IPA would've been better for me to use to transcribe the words but I assumed the reader didn't know it & spoke US English. Thecurran 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to Himalayas

Should the following all redirect to Himalayas?

• Himalaya
• himalayan
• Himalayan
• himalaya

Thryduulf 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Each of those terms should have its own entry with a link to “Himalayas”, e.g. in ===Etymology=== or in ====Related terms====. Rod (A. Smith) 20:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ought or ought to

I am in the process of tidying up the English modal and semi modal verbs. Also writing a concise (I hope!) appendix about their useage. I would like opinions about the entry ought which I believe should direct to ought to in some way, as ought to is the grammatical usage as a modal auxiliary verb. Thanks in advance for your input. -- Algrif 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think ought to should redirect to ought, which is not always used with to. Sometimes it is used with the bare infinitive. It also has more archaic senses which are not used with the infinitive at all. Widsith 17:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ought is also used with an implied to, e.g. "Are you going shopping?", "I suppose I ought", "Yes, you ought, but are you?". Thryduulf 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a U.K. thing? I'm pretty sure that in the U.S., people say "I suppose I ought to" (or "I suppose I oughta") and so on. —Ruakh_TALK 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm as English as they come, and I cannot remember ever hearing "ought" without a following "to". SemperBlotto 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's that lesser dialect "Hollywood British"?  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC) That is, I agree with Ruakh; I was under the vague impression "ought" without "to" was chiefly British English. --Connel MacKenzie 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the example I gave above is how use "ought" not infrequently, although I do also use "ought to" as well. A b.g.c. search for ought - "ought to" gets over 130,000 hits. Most of these are where negation or other words (or entire clauses) are inserted between the "ought" and the "to", but there are uses like mine above.

• 1813, Jane Austin, Pride and Prejudice, T. Egerton, Page 19

“Then you would drink a great deal more than you ought,” said Mrs. Bennet; and if I were to see you at it I should take away your bottle directly.”

• 1858, Rev. William Gannaway Brownlow, Rev. Abram Pryne, Ought American Slavery to be Perpetuated?: A Debate Between Rev. W. G. Brownlow and Rev. A. Pryne, Lippincott, Page 12

...that you accept my challenger, and that the question shall be stated — “Ought American Slavery to be perpetuated” or “Ought American Slavery to be abolished,”...

• 1891 (published 2001), Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles, Courier Dover Publications, Page 140

“Then I 'ought not to hold you in this way — ought I? I have no right to you - no right to seek out where you are or to walk with you! Honestly, Tess, do you love any other man?”

• 1992, James Fenimore, The Last of the Mohicans, Wordsworth Editions, Page 48

Alice smiled; but regarding Heyward, she blushed and hesitated. ‘Indulge yourself,’ he whispered' ‘ought not the suggestion of the worthy namesake of the psalmist to have its weight at such a moment?’

However the use of ought without a to, however much is between them, appears to be archaic (not found in a book post 1900). I use it, and as these groups messages use it - What should or ought we be doing with this life?, Mrs E. says I ought, [59] Public Transport User Council ought be set up.], Bush Gains Upper Hand on UN, Ought Score Against Terrorists, Too - not resricted to the UK either, then it seems to have survived in informal writing. Thryduulf 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your investigation. :-)   Just FYI, the bold date should be the actual date of the quote, not necessarily the date your copy was published; hence, your last cite should ought to be marked, "1826, James Fenimore Cooper, The Last of the Mohicans, Wordsworth Editions (1992), page 48". (Incidentally, I don't think Americans use ought negatively nowadays — oughtn't sounds old-fashioned and/or Southern to my ear, and I can't think of an alternative phrasing that uses ought; I think people have to use shouldn't or an entirely different construction, like had better not if it's deontic ought.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I was unable to find any modern (post 1940) uses of "ought not" or "oughtn't" in Google books, which really surprised me. Google groups did bring up several thousand hits for both (far more for the former) but getting a true picture of the number is difficult as it was finding much quoting and cross-posting. From the impression I did get, "ought not" appears most in discussions of religion and philosophy, with political topics third. "Oughtn't" seems to be a primarily, but not exclusively, UK construction these days, the top subjects being the odd combination of legal philosophies and celebrity gossip - possibly the result of one or two prolific contributors, although I have not checked for this. Where I was able to identify a region in the USA, which I wasn't able to most of the time, use of "ought not"/"oughtn't" seems most common in Arizona and northern California.

All that said, Google scholar results show no pattern of either construction falling out of use with hits throughout the spectrum of dates. Neither is there an obvious correlation with region. There is a heavy bias towards philosophy and language discussion, particularly for "oughtn't", but other topics are covered. Google News archives results are probably even more interesting, in that they are exclusively American for both "ought not" and "oughtn't" (although this is likely an artefact of the sample) with "oughtn't" appearing most commonly pre 1950 but with hits as recently as 1997 and 2002; "ought not" returned nothing post 1920.

It think we can safely say they are uncommon in modern usage, possibly even rare outside academia. Both were very common up to the early-mid 20th Century though. Thryduulf 08:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying it's less common, but it's certainly not archaic and is still often found in print if not in speech. The OED has plenty of cites right up to the present day: There ought not be any doubt about it from 1992, Ought I feel ashamed of my ignorance? from the Oxford Times 1999 (both examples showing bare infinitives), and If Hirohito had been studying his in-box, as ‘a divine priest-king’ ought, he might have suspected that the US had been trying to get a rise out of him for many years from the New York Review of Books in 2001 (with infinitive implied), among others. What we require is some kind of Usage Note at ought and plenty of examples of the different kinds of use. Widsith 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I am surprised at seeing so many examples of ought without to. I think we should ought to have both entries, but the examples for ought should be real bare infinitive examples, as above. There should also be a see link to ought to with real full infinitive examples. Plus good usage notes in both entries. I will be happy to oblige, if you all agree? -- Algrif 13:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that "ought" can be used with or without "to" with the same meaning, I don't see why we need a separate entry for "ought to" - especially as the to parts be be split by entire clauses, e.g.

"You ought, given your noted propensity for constructing long subordinate clauses full of multisyllabic words that can confuse readers, and the designated style guidelines for the competition specifying ease of comprehension by non-native speakers as one of the key criteria, to employ the services of an editor, who ought, I'd have thought, to increase your chances of success, before submitting your entry."

"Indeed, I ought not let my chance of winning the grand prize slip by for want of an editor."

Surely what is needed is a usage note at ought explaining that it is commonly found in conjunction with "to". Thryduulf 14:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that ought to is considered to be a modal verb, and ought is statistically much less common, and that most (hesitate to say all, as I have not investigated) grammar books will give ought to but not ought as the modal verb (even though it is one by the looks of it), I think that ought to should have a separate entry. Don't forget that one of the basic rules of a modal verb is that it takes the bare infinitive, and cannot be followed by another modal. If ought to is commonly agreed to be a modal verb, then the to is essential, as it does not "belong" to the following verb. This resource is mainly about modern or common usage, with entries to reflect archaic and obsolete usages. Most interested people looking for modal verb information will be looking for ought to in the list, not ought. -- Algrif 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I think we ought have both entries. Huh? Algrif 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain I'm understanding everything here, but as

• "ought <verb>" ("You ought wash the car"*, "Yes I ought" / "No, I ought not")
• "ought ... <verb>" ("You ought really wash the car", "Yes I ought do it"* / "No, I ought not do it")
• "ought to <verb>" ("You ought to wash the car", "Yes, I ought to do it" / "No, I ought to not do it"* / "No, I ought not to do it")
• "ought ... to <verb>" ("You ought really to wash the car", "Yes, I ought really to do it"* / "No, I ought not really to do it"* / "No, I really ought not to do it")
• "ought ... to ... <verb>" ("You ought really to vigorously wash the car", "Yes, I ought really to immediately do it"* / "No, I ought really not to immediately do it"* / "No, I really ought not immediately do it" / "No, I really ought not do it immediately")

are all interchangeable in terms of meaning (although the asterisked constructions feel odd to me), the "to" is not essential, particularly not with negation? Thryduulf 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf. This information should be dealt with in a Usage Note at ought, to which ought to should redirect. I think splitting them over two pages is confusing. Widsith 09:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think using a redirect for that would be very bad. A stub entry at the less common form that points to the more common form (or its usage note) is the way we normally handle situations like this. --Connel MacKenzie 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Except for very special cases where Unicode has multiple code points for a single spelling, we should prefer “soft redirects” instead of “hard redirects”. Rod (A. Smith) 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting then? Do we make an entry for ought to with a brief usage note plus a "see" link to ought? I would accept that idea, and would instigate it if you all agree. After all, my intention is to tidy up these modal entries in an acceptable way, with a view to placing a modal usage appendix. -- Algrif 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on comments above, I would have guessed that the soft redirect would go the other way, from ought to ought to. But a soft redirect going either way is acceptable as far as I'm concerned. --Connel MacKenzie 05:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also, in fact, prefer to use ought to for the main definitions (as you already know) with a see link to ought, but I think general opinion seems to be against that. That is why I wish to clarify if it would be OK for me to create ought to with a couple of examples plus some good, clear usage notes and a see link to ought, which would remain the main entry. What do you think? -- Algrif 13:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds OK. Remember to link to ought to from ought as well if you do it though. Thryduulf 13:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm on it now. -- Algrif 10:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

C of E

I've just entered C of E as an initialism for Church of England, but I'm now wondering whether this is actually an abbreviation? How should this be linked to from the Church of England entry? Thryduulf 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The entry C of E looks OK. I've added the "abbreviated as..." link on Church of England in our normal style. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It probably has a wider meaning. It is what people like me put on forms as an easy way out - it means Protestant Christian in culture, goes to the odd baptism, marriage and funeral, but doesn't actually believe in any of it. SemperBlotto 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I often too do that, epsecially when "non" isn't an option. I've heard this described this as "de facto C of E" and "nominally C of E" before now. It this citable at all? Thryduulf 17:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

!!!I have just tried a Google "advanced book search" specifying the exact phrase c of e and get an error message telling me that I am spyware!!! SemperBlotto 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's wild. If you don't use the "advanced" link, but instead put quotes around it, the search works fine. Likewise, if you limit search results to 50, instead of 100. (Sheesh, a 403-Forbidden from Google!) --Connel MacKenzie 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd! If we can come up with a defintion, there are plenty of cites that I've managed to find searching b.g.c for "c of e" religion. [60] (p58), [61] (p348/349), [62] (p114), [63] (p310), [64] (p79), [65] (p189). Thryduulf 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just altered Anglican Church slightly to reflect its nature as something more than just the Church of England. I also made the Archbishop of Canterbury. Feel free to peruse them and change them. Thecurran 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

sysop

Is the second sense really distinct from the first? If it is, should it be marked as a self-reference or expanded to incorporate other wikis - isn't the admin hierarchy used by Wikimedia also used by (most? all?) other sites using MediaWiki? I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if other wiki software uses the same sort of thing (I've never been active on any non-MediaWiki wikis). Thryduulf 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a distinction; sysop usually means someone with root and wheel privilege, that can essentially do anything. The WM usage is much more restricted. Maybe that sense could just be a usage note? Robert Ullmann 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that to this day, I do not understand why Wikipedia (in general) is so weird about things it calls "self-references." If you could explain that, I might have fewer objections questions. But I see this term used a lot, particularly in this context. As Robert pointed out, it has quite a different meaning in older days (shudder: even pre-internet times...BBS sysops, etc.) I really would appreciate an explanation as to why genuine jargon terms specific to wikis shouldn't be defined (with or without external citations.) As long as they are tagged, I don't see what the problem is. My understanding is that this class of terms has had informal support for a long time here; during almost cyclical waves of incoming Wikipedians, the same objections are re-raised, as if this were Wikipedia. Can you Thryduulf, please try to clear this up for me? I sincerely don't understand the (Wikipedia-ish?) basis of the objection to "self-references." --Connel MacKenzie 04:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (edit) 04:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding regarding Wikipedia's objection to self-references (which may or may not be correct) is that it is primarily to keep references to project-specific links and jargon out of the main namespace (where possible) so they aren't picked up by mirrors. Where this isn't possible links outside the main namespace are enclosed in the self-reference template, so that mirrors can choose to not copy that template should they so wish. For most mirrors, the encyclopaedic content is all that is of value to them so they do not take copies of the Wikipedia: and Talk: namespaces for example - especially as these would not be editable locally and so fairly pointless, meaning that the link atop the w:Vandalism page to the Wikipedia policy about vandalism is also not useful.

My understanding regarding self-references on Wiktionary is less clear, the same issues regarding policies and internal discussion pages logically also apply (e.g. at tea room). Also it is my understanding that some Wikimedia jargon is also marked as a self reference, although I do not fully understand why this is.

My query here was in two parts - the first part "Is the second sense really distinct from the first?" has been answered by Robert Ullmann and yourself (thank you both), and the answer is that, yes it is distinct. If the answer was "no" then the definitions would have been merged and the rest of my query would be irrelevant. As this isn't the case, then the second part does come into play. This second part is rather more complicated in that it contains several options, best paraphrased as below:

1. Is this usage specific to Wikimedia sites?
   1. If yes, should this be marked as Wikimedia jargon, for example like ["[Wiktionorian]]" is?
      1. If yes, mark it
      2. If no, don't mark it.
   2. If no, expand the definition to include this.

This second part of the query has not yet been answered, so which of these should happen is not yet clear. Thryduulf 09:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: In writing this reply, I've just discovered there is a huge amount of cleanup to be done on jargon categories/templates. I am not certain where I should note this - here, the BP, the GP, RFC, RFDO? Thryduulf 09:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. For your remaining question above (the second part,) I know that MediaWiki software runs a lot of wikis, outside of WikiMedia Foundation. I do not know that such usage of the term "sysop" is attested though. I assume it is not (but maybe that is a bad assumption.) I think it should have the {{wjargon}} tag because it is specific to WMF sites. That is, using the tag as a "don't delete this definition" flag, and little else.

For assistance cleaning them up, I think the most appropriate place to post tje list of them would be WT:RFC. Or perhaps right here in this section, so context isn't lost.

--Connel MacKenzie 01:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL on the shudder, C MacK. BTW, can someone explain AGF to me? Thecurran 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Glossary#AGF. —Ruakh_TALK 01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta, heaps. Seeing that glossary made a huge difference. Thanks for your patience. Thecurran 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Admiralcy

Is "Admiralcy" a word? I can't find anything verifying it. — This unsigned comment was added by 71.194.116.228 (talk).

Yes, a search of books.google.com shows this is a valid word. I've just created an entry, with several quotations showing its use at admiralcy. The definition might do with a bit of fine tuning though. Thryduulf 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

smutch

Does anyone know the meaning of the above word. It is in this weeks New York Times crossword and I have never heard it before?

Thanks to SemperBlotto, that page is up now. :) Thecurran 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Scots / Scottish English

There is now a corpus of Scottish English and Scots online at http://www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/. Unfortunately this is copyrighted, but it may prove a useful reference for verification of Scottish English dialect/Scots language terms. Thryduulf 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• News item at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6943088.stm SemperBlotto 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff. For research on Scots words, there is an excellent online dictionary here. Widsith 08:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

nimby (acronym)

The acronym definition at nimby is currently marked Template:italbrac. The noun and adjective uses (both unmarked) are certainly common on this side of the Atlantic and I think the acronym is as well. I'm not certain enough of this though to remove the tag myself. Thryduulf 22:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not limited to the US, I've heard it often in the UK and in Australia.--Dmol 09:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It was originally U.S. (coined about 1980) but has travelled well and is well understood in the UK, despite the fact that a UK back yard evokes a small area to the rear of a low income house, not a general reference to the neighbourhood. Chemical Engineer 15:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

out of bounds (noun)

1. Is this uncountable? If it isn't, what is the plural ("out of bounds"?)
2. Does this need a context tag? I've only heard it used in relation to American Football, but I'm far from an avid watcher of sport so there are not unlikely uses I'm aware of. Thryduulf 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's uncountable, and I think it may apply to basketball. On a related note, is this also an adverb? (The ball went out of bounds.) --EncycloPetey 03:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is an adverbial usage; I'll add it. Thryduulf 08:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a prepositional phrase, sum of parts.—msh210 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We do have entries for prepositional phrases when they are set phrases; the fact that something is sum of parts is not reason in and of itself to exclude an entry, if the form is a set phrase. It may fail one criterion for CFI but still meet another. Consider that when out of bounds is used adverbially, it does not follow the same pattern as other phrases in the same position: "The ball went over the fence", "...under a chair", "...through some hoops". In each of these cases, the prepositional phrase includes a preposition followed by a determiner and a noun. In the case in question, we have a double preposition, no determiner, and a noun. It is unusual, and is a set phrase because you cannot go "out of bound", "out with bounds", or "in of bounds". So it many be sum of parts, but it still merits an entry for being a set phrase. --EncycloPetey 05:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I recant.—msh210 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the noun definition is correct. The first forty hits at google:"the out of bounds" basketball OR football don't support it. Most of them are irrelevant; those that refer to the line (or vertical plane) call it "the out of bounds line" or "the out-of-bounds line" (or plane), never "the out of bounds" alone. So you can say out-of-bounds line (or perhaps out of bounds line) refers to the line, or, far more likely, that the "out of bounds" or the "out-of-bounds" is the area outside the legal playing field and when it's used atributively in the out-of-bounds line (which should have hyphens), the whole phrase means "the line demarcating the out of bounds".—msh210 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Please use the exact entry title as the section heading, so the link from the page to here, works.
2. Yes, 'out-of-bounds' is a noun in football, here in America. http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22an+out+of+bounds%22+%28basketball+OR+football%29&btnG=Search Note that it is never "the out of bounds" but "an out of bounds" in football; in basketball it is opposite: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22the+out+of+bounds%22+%28basketball+OR+football%29&btnG=Search.
3. Please be more careful to use parenthesis when doing ORs in Google searches.

--Connel MacKenzie 08:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, that is my fault.
2. Looking at the first page of those Google searches, "an out of bounds" is about evenly split between basketball and American football, "the out of bounds" is 80% basketball. It is possible that these are exceptions and the general case is as you say. If it is do you want to write a usage note about which word is normally used in each sport? Thryduulf 09:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re #2: Nonetheless, I don't see that "out of bounds" (whether with "an" or with "the" or with neither) is a noun meaning the line or boundary, in either (any) sport. I think it's a noun meaning the area outside the field (and possibly also meaning a state that the game or the ball is in). Can you provide a quotation or quotations showing it means the line/boundary?—msh210 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For "an out of bounds", I'm surprised that I forgot the computing/programming sense. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22an+out+of+bounds%22. Pardon me while I blush. Although my recollection of it is distinctly football (not soccer,) I think most sports (basketball, golf, even soccer) seem to have similar imitative use.

RE: Line or boundary: The tenth or so example here looks like it. Or did I misunderstand your question? --Connel MacKenzie 03:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall ever hearing "out of bounds" related to soccer, commentators will usually refer to it having gone "out" or "(out for) a throw-in". In Rugby its "into touch" or "over the sideline"/"over the touchline"/"gone for a lineout". In Golf "Out of bounds" is a specifically defined area, "an out of bounds" is never used and the only use I can remember of "the out of bounds" was as part of "the out of bounds fence" or "the out of bounds area". Thryduulf 08:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Connel, for the cite showing out-of-bounds meaning "a line demarcating a field of play". I see two such cites on the page you linked to, which doesn't quite do it, of course, but doubtless there are more. Nonetheless, I think out of bounds out-of-bounds as a noun also means "the area outside the field of play".—msh210 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

to rip

What is the etymology of the internet slang word to rip? Is it from the first meaning, or maybe from to rip off?-- Rhingdrache 09:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for certain but rip off definition 3 "(idiomatic) to copy, especially illegally" seems the most likely origin. Thryduulf 11:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.-- Rhingdrache 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The verb "to rip" means "to tear off" or "to take off" (i.e. "to separate off").

dispepsic

Is this a word - meaning feeling bloated and a bit unwell? I cannot find it in Wiktionary but I am sure I have heard it used. In fact my husband heard it on Boston Legal and tried to look it up but could not find it. — This unsigned comment was added by 69.26.78.5 (talk) at 2007-08-15T21:02:49.

I think you are looking for “dyspeptic”. Rod (A. Smith) 21:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! — This unsigned comment was added by 69.26.78.5 (talk) at 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

as far as

The entry as far as (definition, (idiomatic) With respect to; as relates to) says that as far as I know is a derived term. I disagree: I think the words as far as in as far as I know are the non-idiomatic as far as meaning to the extent that. Thoughts?—msh210 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I could swear this discussion was recently had somewhere. At any rate, yes, I agree with you. —Ruakh_TALK 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I raised the same issue on RFV, where it didn't belong, and no one addressed it there. Fine: I'll make the change.—msh210 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

rubicon

The entry rubicon says that cross the Rubicon is a derived term. I disagree: I think cross the Rubicon is derived from Rubicon but not from rubicon. Moreover, I think that rubicon is derived from Rubicon or possibly even from cross the Rubicon itself. Thoughts?—msh210 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My gut instinct is to say that you are correct on both counts. At the very least, cross the Rubicon as a derived term ought not be on the rubicon page. Medellia 02:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, mostly. I don't think rubicon comes specifically from cross the Rubicon; rather, both are allusions to the same event. (The existence of each might make the other more likely to be understood, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll change it (if it's not done yet); thanks for the input. I'm new enough to enwikt that I don't know whether it was proper to raise this issue (and rubicon, above) here or on the entry's talk page. What's better?—msh210 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Either is fine, really. Bringing it here increases the chances someone will see it. Alternatively, you could just be bold to begin with. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Celtic

The pronunciation section for Celtic needs work. There are two pronunciations for the word - with a hard 'C' () and with a soft 'C' (). The article currently marks the former pronunciation as being for adjective uses ("Of the Celts; of the style of the Celts") and the latter for the proper noun ("Celitc language").

Certainly in modern UK usage both of these use the hard 'C' pronunciation, with the soft 'C' being used only for the football team. Does this differ in the US? If not, do we note the soft 'C' pronunciation that is not used for any of the definitions we have? (Whether we have entries for sports teams is an issue for the proper nouns debate, not here). Thryduulf 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In the US, the hard-C is used for the senses pertaining to the cultural group of Gaels, Welsh, etc. The soft-C is used for the basketball team. However, many people knowing only or primarily the basketball team use the soft-C pronunication when referrring to the cultural group. --EncycloPetey 14:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's my experience as well, though I have to wonder if perhaps there's a historical pronunciation of Celtic with a [s], or else I don't see how the basketball team got that name; and if so, I have to wonder if perhaps that pronunciation survives in some quarters. —Ruakh_TALK 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect it's a result of violating expectations for the pronunciation of a soft c before e or i, which is the norm in English, Spanish, etc. Putting a hard c in that position seems wrong because it is highly unusual. It's one of the difficulties of learning Classical Latin pronunciation, since all uses of c in Classical Latin are believed to be "hard". Of course, it could also be the result of sportscasters, who invariably put an extra syllable in the word sophomore too. I cringe every time they do that. --EncycloPetey 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, where do they put an extra syllable in sophomore? At the end? Widsith 08:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he means, when they pronounce the "t"...soft + more...that pronunciation is very prevalent colloquially. --Connel MacKenzie 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation given in American dictionaries and used in most American high schools and colleges is /ˈsɑːf.mɔːr/. The pronunciation used in American sports broadcasting is /ˈsɑː.fə.mɔːr/ (and in British dictionaries /ˈsɒf.ə.mɔːr/). --EncycloPetey 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so it should only have 2 syllables in the States? Interesting. Widsith 16:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I only hear the hard "C" from wiccan witches and SCA folks. (That is, quite rarely, and only to set an archaic tone.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The SCA folk I know are educated, and use the proper pronunciations. I won't deny that some are clueless, since I know some of them too. --EncycloPetey 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

From the above, it seems like the pronunciation should be marked as below (but with the IPA, etc not hard/soft "C")

UK: Sports teams: Soft "C", other uses: Hard "C"

USA: Sports teams: Soft C, other uses: Hard "C" or soft "c"

Any objections? Thryduulf 10:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As there were no objections I've now restructured the pronunciation section as above. It could do with a request for audio template, but I can't remember the name of that and have run out of time just now. Thryduulf 12:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think EP was partly objecting to my observation...so I'm not sure the US wording is OK. I must say, those tables look downright strange. There was a big push to simplify pronunciation section layouts, the tables seem to be quite the opposite. Request-For-Audio-Pronunciation is {{rfap}}. --Connel MacKenzie 03:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation "seltic" (for all meanings) was considered correct at one time. It only ceased to be acceptable within the last few decades. At one point, the spelling "keltic" was also in contention, but that seems to have dropped away, even though the associated pronunciation has been adopted. In 1926, a leading authority on English usage, H. W. Fowler, wrote in his "Modern English Usage": "The spelling C-, and the pronunciation s-, are the established ones, and no useful purpose seems to be served by the substitution of k-." 02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

erotic literature story codes

If you've ever read any erotic literature online, or even just browsed any of the alt.sex.stories* newsgroups, you will almost certainly be aware that almost every story has a string of codes (initialisms and abbreviations) that identify what takes place in the stories - e.g. "MF" for heterosexual sex between a single adult male and a single adult female, and "ff rom cons" indicating romantic (rom) consensual (cons) sex between two teenage females (ff).

These codes have been in use for a long time, probably almost as long as alt.sex.stories has existed (created in May 1992 according to w:alt.sex.stories) and are used on literally thousands (probably even hundreds of thousands) of posts, so they should meet the CFI handsomely (or at least the basic ones as MF, MFF, MFFF, MMFF, MMMMMFFF, etc are all valid codes, but I don't think you need more than two or at most three in sequence defined here). However I am not certain what context tag to use - do we have an existing one or should I create {{internet erotic literature}} or {{erotic literature}} and use that in combination with the existing {{internet}}? Thryduulf 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just use an {{internet}} tag and include the information in the def, something like designating consensual sex in pornographic writing or something. The MF stuff should already be covered at M and F, since their use as male and female is hardly limited to internet sex stories. I don't think we need a new "erotic literature" tag. Besides, "literature" might be pushing it a bit.... Widsith 08:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the use of "M" to represent an adult male in this context should be noted at M, similarly using "m" to represent a teenage male should be at m. Should there also be entries for MF, Mf, etc?

Regarding "literature" - the quality of writing varies hugely (as in any other genre) from works that are better literature than many mainstream novels (check out the works of Al Steiner and Frank Downey for example), right down to those with primary school English whose sole intention is to put a fantasy down on paper. Where the primary focus of the story is the plot (regardless of the amount/level/type of sex in it) the work is generally described as "literary". The opposite sort of work is described as a "stroke" story - your imagination should be able to fill in why! Anyway, I don't know that "literature" imparts any meaning as to the quality of the literature (compare Mills and Boon to Charles Dickens for example. Thryduulf 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While erotic literature is a set phrase, (or at least a euphemism,) I'm not sure it is a useful category, as described above. I think Widsith's idea is probably best; using {{internet}} seems more appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not edit 'cons', 'f'/ 'm', & 'rom' to contain the extra meanings of merely 'consensual', 'young female/ male', & 'romantic' and add the internet tag without adding the erotic spin. Wiktionary is accessed by minors and people who completely object to erotica but because people on alt.sex.stories will be sure they're tapping into erotica, they can fill that sense in for themselves. I hope this sounds fair to everyone. Thecurran 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

sopimus

[66] says that sopimus is Finnish for agreement, but I don't know anything about Finnish, so could someone who does add it? Thanks. Nadando 05:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hanukkah

Hello, Shouldn't there be a Hebrew audio pronunciation for the word Hanukkah along with the English pronunciation? I'm not a linguist so I don't know if this is the right way to put it, but isn't the English word nothing but a transliteration of the original Hebrew? I've always wanted to know how it was pronounced in Hebrew.
This is also true for other words such as sheik, Ramadan, haram and many more.
If there are no objections, I can provide the pronunciation to the last three words in Arabic. Gbeebani 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Those are all English words. The Hebrew pronunciation should appear at the Hebrew entry חֲנֻכָּה, not at the English entry Hanukkah. Likewise, Arabic pronunciations appear for Arabic entries (in Arabic spellings), not at the entries for English words derived from Arabic. We would still like to have those pronunciations recorded and uploaded to Commons, of course. See Help:Audio pronunciations for information about how the files should be named. --EncycloPetey 05:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

ThanksGbeebani 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

slaughter

Is the plural of slaughter really "slaughter"? Thryduulf 16:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm betting that was added by someone who didn't know how the template worked and wanted to clarify that there's no plural form. (I don't know if such a clarification would have been correct, though; and b.g.c. is unhelpful, as it tends to mis-scan daughters as slaughters.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"slaughters" is also the perfectly valid third person singular form of the verb "to slaughter", so if it is an infrequent plural it will be hard to find. Thinking about it, where more than one instance of slaughter (of people) is referred to "massacres" is generally used. For animals, "culls" seems to be the equivalent. Thryduulf 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was bypassing that problem by searching for google books:"two slaughters", but then ran into the daughters scanno problem. —Ruakh_TALK 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, "two slaughter" is incorrect, so I'm omitting the plural as better than nothing. DAVilla 09:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

powder-room

Is "powder-room" a common alternative spelling of powder room? (We have one redlinked use of this spelling and I don't know whther to make an entry as an alt spelling or to change the spelling of the link.) RJFJR 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In the first 12 pages of b.g.c hits, there are 10 independent occurrences of "powder-room" - almost all very old -

• 1735 The London Magazine, Or, Gentleman's Monthly Intelligencer
• 1744-46 The Harleian Miscellany
• 1824 A Treatise on the Laws of Commerce and Manufactures...
• 1849 Memoirs of Prince Rupert, and the Cavaliers: Including Their Private Correspondence...
• 1857 Cyclopaeda of Female Biography
• 1897 Dansk-norsk-engelsk-ordbog
• 1904 The Complete Works of Count Tolstoy
• 1913 The Quest and Occupation of Tahiti ... 1772-1776 ...
• 1958 Activities Handbook for Business Teachers
• 1996 Romeo

As there are 0 g.g.c hits in the first twelve pages for "power-room" (although there are a few for "powederoom", I've not checked these for independence, etc), I'd say that the hyphenated from deserves inclusion as an archaic alternative spelling - a b.g.c for pre-1910 publications results in a roughly even split between hyphenated and unhyphenated forms. The 1996 hit above I am thus inclined to treat as an uncommon misspelling. A post 1995 book search gets three additional hits in the first 10 pages, one of which is a 2004 edition of a Jules Verne (1828-1905) novel, and another a scanno. I'm uncertain whether the 1958 book is an outlier of the archaic usage or a misspelling.

Unless it is clearly in an archaic context, I'd change the redlink to use powder room. Thryduulf 14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed link at take a powder to use powder room. RJFJR 15:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

crack

I don't know how to define it, but I'm sure crack (verb) has some meaning in relation to the process of refining oil into petroleum etc, that is not obviously covered by any of the definitions we have. Thryduulf 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now added, using info from w:Cracking (chemistry). —Ruakh_TALK 23:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do know something about this, so I have modified, and also added to cracker. Chemical Engineer 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

heraldries

The heraldry page says that the plural is heraldries, and Webster's agrees. However, it is the name of a science/art like biology, psychology, or printing. Surely that makes that definition {{uncountable}}? Google gets about 2300 returns for heraldries and all the top hits are dictionaries, which is usually a bad sign. I can find a few quotations, but they don't seem to apply to the primary definition. Opinions? --EncycloPetey 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking through b.g.c., it appears that the countable sense is the one that refers to an armorial ensign along with its history and description. I updated “heraldry” to reflect that. Let me know if that seems off base. Rod (A. Smith) 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks OK, though heraldry in the sense of "an armorial ensign" is not a sense that heralds or "serious" heraldic writers use, so it looks odd to me. --EncycloPetey 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

asymmetrical

Are the two meanings distinct? Compare asymmetric. Which is best? DAVilla 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They weren't, I've merged them. Widsith 14:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

no lach

what is ythe meaning of "no lach" in:

"i am no lach pilot. but i do fly arazus often"

or

"great, still no lach"

— This unsigned comment was added by 83.162.20.109 (talk) at 08:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC).

"lach" is short for "Lachesis" a ship or ship type in the EVE game milieu. "arazus" is plural of "Arazu", another type. Robert Ullmann 13:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

pull somebody's leg

Shouldn't this be pull one's leg? -- Algrif 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to use the placeholder “one's” in entry names here to represent the verb's subject, usually in a reflexive sense but with the subject omitted. E.g. “feel one's oats”, “tip one's hat”, “have one's cake and eat it, too”. The placeholder pronoun we use to represent a third person is usually “somebody's” or “someone's”, one variant of which usually redirects to the other, e.g. “put words in someone's mouth”, “hot on someone's heels”, and “rattle someone's cage”. There is already a redirect from “pull someone's leg” to “pull somebody's leg”, so I think the entry at least matches convention. Rod (A. Smith) 16:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure of standard practice for this kind of phrase. -- Algrif 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. You listed several with 'one's' or 'someone's' but only one with 'somebody's'. Wouldn't it make sense to just use 'someone's' instead of 'somebody's'. Thecurran 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My listing was not extensive. google:site:en.wiktionary.org someone's -redirected and google:site:en.wiktionary.org somebody's -redirected shows that the two words are used with similar frequency for lemma entry titles (well within a decimal order of magnitude). It probably wouldn't hurt, though, to discuss the better location for lemma entries with non-reflexive personal placeholders on WT:BP. (Has that already been discussed?) Rod (A. Smith) 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

help just need the spelling for a word obviously cant spell it --repore, repour,repoir ??? help

not much just that someone help i cannot find a simple a-z english dictionary that i can just look through till i find

the word sounds like re-pour

if i had a good repour with someone means i would have a comforatble standing with them

You mean rapport SemperBlotto 09:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Or French (?) repoire. Seems to be misspelled as such all over the place. DAVilla 09:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Repoire is not a French word, except that it could be a form of a nonce from re- and the old-fashioned slang poirer meaning "to take, trap someone by surprise, grab him, overtake him". I don't know why people would misspell rapport that way. —Ruakh_TALK 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is because they think (correctly) that it is from French, and are using re + poire, which is a fairly common word, especially if your French comes (at least in part) from reading menus. Given the level of confusion, and rather impressive number of googles (15,000, including CNN :-), it is I think worth a "misspelling-of" entry? Robert Ullmann 16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

15,000 googles merits a "misspelling of" entry in my book! Thryduulf 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Persian

Visiting this article to sort out Greek translations I find it a bit of a mess. Can I tidy this entry up, specifically:

• It obviously has some history - I don't want to stand on toes.
• It's not clear why there are 2 Adjective headings.
• Is the Persian-Farsi translation template remaining - it is listed for deletion Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Template:Persian-Farsi - are the entries to be copied to the two linked articles ?

—Saltmarsh 06:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Per the RFDO, yes, the information copied and only the template deleted (with its history merged). No one seems to have objected. DAVilla 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Familial relationships (again)

Currently, of a whole series of related entries, few, such as nephew, aunt or uncle seem to have the correct single English definition, with separate translation tables for other languages. Did these (grandmother, grandfather, niece, etc.) get lost in the shuffle? The question came up again on IRC this evening. --Connel MacKenzie 04:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

写 pronunciation

写 says it can be guan4 and xie3, but I am not sure if it is right. All other dialects also Ja rendering suggests xie3 is the only right pronunciation. Or just there is a modern phenomenon I just missed. Could anyone please to enlighten me?

Thanks! --Aphaia 07:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Gitmo

The Gitmo entry says "Guantanamo Bay, the US naval base and concentration camp in the place of that name in Cuba. " Is concentration camp considered accurate/NPOV? RJFJR 00:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly fits our definition #1 at concentration camp, but it seems really wrong to me. To me "concentration camp" evokes the Holocaust, and I'd only ever use the term in referring to Nazi concentration camps or in fairly explicitly comparing something to Nazi concentration camps. (This is speaking as an American Jew. Non-Jews, especially from countries without many Jews, might not be reminded so easily of the Nazis. This might be fodder for a usage note at concentration camp; and maybe it would make sense to revise the definitions there as well.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I hope I don't offend anyone here. I think the biological, ethnic, political, & religious groups in those Nazi camps and some similar ones in proximal countries/ timeframes were concentrated into a small place from the surrounding area. This idea becomes stretched the further a captive was transported. In the case of Gitmo, the population of Afghans & Iraqis, of Arabic, Dari, & Pashto speakers , or of Sunni or Shi'ite Muslims approaches 100% inside Gitmo but approaches 0% outside and stays that way for thousands of kilometers. I would say that Gitmo as such, does not represent a concentration of the population by any conceivable stretch and therefore should not technically be called a 'concentration camp'; all metaphors aside. It seems that 'gulags' are the only thing that come close and that all of the political hubbub demonstrates that this is a somewhat new type of entity. The wars between the UN member states that filled these prisons with POWs are well and truly over, so can we agree on calling it a 'political prison'? Some of these people have not been classified as 'enemy combatants' or charged with terrorism, so 'political prison' is the only term that springs to my mind that could be technically accurate. Thecurran 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your comment is difficult to read, so I may have got this wronng, but the first part seems to be saying that Guantanamo Bay is not a "concentration camp" based on the meanings of the words "concentration" and "camp". Were "concentration camp" solely a sum of parts phrase ("SOP" in Wiktionary jargon) then you might have a point. However "concentration camp", whatever its original meaning, has taken on a specific idiomatic meaning that is not apparent from its constituent parts - otherwise we could legitimately describe the Scouts' recent centennial jamboree as a "concentration camp", as it was a camp that concentrated one group of people (Scouts) into a single area (Essex). Thryduulf 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Internment camp" might be less problematic. Note that w:concentration camp is currently a redirect to w:internment. -- Visviva 00:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for looking at this completely differently, but I think this debate is misdirected. "Gitmo" is short for "Guantanamo Bay," which also happens to be the location of a US Naval Base, (and US detention camp), but do we really need to say anything other than that it is short for "Guantanamo Bay"? We're not an encyclopedia; readers can follow the link to find out more. Dmcdevit·t 02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on all counts. As an aside, I think 'concentration camp' should include the aspect of forced labour. Thecurran 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

CV

Hi, I didn't find CV in this page when I tried to access the last 500 in history here. Please, forgive me if my computer messed up. I want to talk about CV. Around US-DC in the early '90's, CV seemed to only mean curriculum vitae (resume -- I'm having trouble adding the accents). Perhaps, I was unaware of an age/sex/culture barrier. I had close family and friends in the Navy and many of the families I knew were involved in the Air Force base. I don't remember ever having heard CV mean aircraft carrier (carrier variant). I haven't lived in the US post Sep-11, but I heard from close family in the FAA that much of the atmosphere (pun not intended, but recognized on re-read) had changed and the military was mentioned constantly everywhere. I assume CV came to mean aircaft carrier in the public mind after this change, but have not ruled out an a/s/l/culture barrier. I would like to hear of other US experience with the term CV. Us not having the aircraft carrier meaning on the CV page tempts me to believe its widespread public acceptance is recent, which is why I posed my above assumption. I have remarked on the discussion page there that I will add the aircaft carrier meaning pending a wait for objections to arise. Thecurran 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard "CV" mean "aircraft carrier" in common usage in the US. I have heard it mean "curriculum vitae" in a professional context, but usually only when a job candidate, recruiter, or hiring manager was not from the United States. Mike Dillon 01:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is an error with our definition. CV (and curriculum vitae) is widely used in academic contexts and resume is rarely used. I'm not sure the appropriate way to tag this in the definition, otherwise I would do it myself. Should it read (UK, academics)? This seems to suggest UK academics instead of UK or academics... Sorry this is an aside from thecurran's question. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I guess I've heard it in an academic context as well. As far as I understand it, a resume and a CV are different sorts of documents in that a CV is generally longer and more thorough while a resume is focused (or should be) on things that are relevant to getting a particular type of job. Mike Dillon 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. CVs are long, and usually contain most everything an academic has done within the scope of being an academic. But they are still usually limited to things specific to an academic's job (like teaching, research, departmental "service", awards, grants, etc.). Graduate student's CVs might include classes taken, information about one's dissertation, etc. This is usually only done when seeking a job. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

UK, Academic sounds great but there is a {.{.UK.}.} but no {.{.Academic.}.}. I tried to add it on the curriculum vitae page. In this case, my knowledge of wiki-formatting has failed me. I need help from someon with more experience. It would be great to hear about more US contexts for CV, but I think kzollman's suggestion represents an NPOV that'd satisfy most of us for the time being. If curriculum vitae needs to be divided and enhanced to explain that in academic contexts, it means a longer resume with both academic and employment achievements, then so be it. Thecurran 23:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be fine the way it is. CV standards are different in different countries and different fields, so being more specific might be a problem. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

resume

I looked through some of the history and couldn't find resume (sorry for not adding accents). I want to ask how resume (CV) seems to have bypassed UK English on the way from French to US English. I find Cajun and Quebecois connections tenuous and find believing that the UK dropped the term in a period of rare contact with the US easier. I would like to know for sure, though. Thecurran 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Belizean

There are two points here. 1) Why isn't Belizean listed under a derivation in the Belize page? I want to add it if nobody objects. I think some people will come up with Belizan, Belizer, Belizite, Belizman, Beliz, Belizteco, Belizian, Belizino, Belizano, etc. if they don't know the right adjective.

2) How do Belizeans spell?

— This unsigned comment was added by Thecurran (talk • contribs) at 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

1) Yes, please do! It should go in a "Derived terms" section.   2) I don't understand your question, but feel like it should be the first part of a joke! ("How does a Newfy/Polak/blonde spell?") —Ruakh_TALK 01:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's funny! You made me LOL. I am interested in trying to understand how people from different regions use English. Guyana seems to be associated with the Caribbean. Malaysia and Singapore seem to go with Oceania. Sub-Saharan Africa, Northern North America, South Asia and the British Isles are other populous regions of interconnected English use. Many specific places have uses related to nearby languages. Hong Kong may fit with SE Asia but I don't know where Belize fits in the puzzle. I don't know many Belizeans well. As for point 1, I think I should wait 24 hours after suggesting a change before implementing it in order to give each time zone a fair go because I'm a relative newbie and want to avoid getting in hot water. I just made a Beer Parlour suggestion to add National adjectives across the board. Thecurran 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1) There's no need to wait; that's exactly what the "Derived terms" section is for: listing terms that are derived from the current term. (This doesn't work for all nationalities — "American" is not derived from "United States", and I don't think "Finn" is derived from "Finland" — but it covers most. And in the latter case, it would go in the "Related terms" section.)   2) Wow, I always assumed Belize spoke Spanish! Shows how much I know. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

English and Spanish are both official languages in Belize. Mike Dillon 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. After closer reading of w:Belize, it seems that English is the only "official" language (the infobox says English, Spanish). The article text implies that most people speak a creole called Belizean and that Spanish is a common second language. This statement seems to conflict slightly with the 2000 census information noted below. Mike Dillon 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Belize article on Wikipedia has an interesting table: Languages in Belize according to 2000 Census. It shows nearly 50% claiming Spanish as the mother tongue and 32% or so claiming one of various creoles as a mother tongue. Mike Dillon 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

w:Belize#Ethnic groups, nationalities & w:Languages_of_Belize show conflicting numbers. The former gives 46% speaking Spanish as a mother tongue in 2000 census and yet the latter gives 35% percent speaking Spanish in the same census, even though there share a table. Either way, literacy and education in English is high, the lingua franca, Kriol, is derived from English; not Spanish, English is official in Belize, Belize gained its modern independence from the UK, Belize is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, & Belize is surrounded by Hispanic nations. Which figures you follow is up to you -- I just wanted to see what region Belizean English fit into and it seems that Caribbean is the fit rather than Northern North American, British, African, or an isolate category. I hoped to hear tidbits from people closer to Belize than myself, especially because Kriol is one of the few well-recognised languages that come largely from both English and continental Amerindian languages; many Caribbean ones exist. I find that fascinating. Thank you so much everyone for your help and opinions. You've enriched my worldview, made me feel less alone, and gladdened me. Thecurran 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Poker sense of cover

Hello. Cover (verb) has a specific meaning in poker which ought to be added here. However, I need some assistance. In poker, it is only used in the perfect tense. One only says "James has/had/will have Jill covered", never "James covers Jill" or "James covered Jill". What's the standard for this here? Should I add the definition to covered or to cover (or somewhere else)? Thanks --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like the perfect aspect to me (N.B. perfect aspect, not tense, BTW); the perfect aspect of to cover would be something like *"James has covered Jill." Here it seems that "covered" is acting as a predicate with "Jill" as its subject; compare "James almost had Jill believing that jacks are actually called 'james'", "James had Jill at a loss for words", etc. So, I think this would go at covered#Adjective. —Ruakh_TALK 00:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup... that sounds right. Thanks for your help (and sorry for the mistake)! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Latin in Antarctica

Antarctica#Etymology says that Antarctica comes from Neo-Latin, using the wiki markup [[neo-|Neo-]]{{L.}}; this adds the article to Category:Latin derivations. However, given the existence of Category:Late Latin derivations (and {{LL.}}), it seems that Category:Latin derivations proper is only intended for Classical Latin derivations? If that's the case, then how should this section be marked up? (Also, does anyone know whether that's indeed Greek, as opposed to Ancient Greek? Maybe we should change {{Gr.}} to read "Modern Greek" so people know not to use it for Ancient Greek derivations?) —Ruakh_TALK 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Category:Late Latin derivations says it belongs to Category:Latin derivations, which doesn't list it as a subcategory. What am I missing? —Ruakh_TALK 06:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It shows up under "L", which isn't on the first page: [67]. Looks like we also have Category:New Latin derivations. Mike Dillon 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K., fixed, thanks! (And, that seems like a bug. The category page doesn't indicate in any way that the "previous page"-"next page" thing applies to subcategories as well as entries.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I copied the above bug conversation to WT:GP#Subcategories hidden in populous categories. Please continue any discussion about the MediaWiki bug there. Rod (A. Smith) 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Left as a synonym for 'permitted'.

There is a use of the word "left" to mean "permitted" that is common in Ireland. Examples are, "We were not left go to the beach when we were young", or "They were not left through the new roadway". I want to add a colloquial meaning for this, but not sure what part of speech it would be. I though it might be verb, but not sure. Is this meaning used in the UK also.--Dmol 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, "leave" has a sense of "let, permit" for some speakers — I only use it in "leave be" (="leave alone, let be"), but I've heard some speakers use it in other contexts. (I'm not sure if it's actually productive for those speakers, or if they simply have a few more fixed expressions they use it in.) We currently don't seem to document this sense as leave (though we do have the corresponding noun sense). If Irish speakers use this sense productively but only in the passive voice, then I think that probably leave needs to document this verb sense and usage notes should explain the various regional restrictions on its use. —Ruakh_TALK 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery: That is fascinating, that in Irish English, you can use left without alone to reach that meaning. The only similar idiom I've heard is left well enough alone which I presume should redirect to leave well enough alone. --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting help with daystar.

I updated daystar a bit--it was a popular idiom in poetry, possibly going back pretty far (see [68]), where it meant "morning star". It's since become a popular bit of hacker/internet slang for "the Sun", usually in the context of "Your star burns!" or the like. I see it in some modern fantasy novels, and I think it means "Sun" there as well--a meaning I don't see in any pre-1900 quotations. (I don't have anything from 1900-1990, which is a pretty sizable gap.) Questions that I've been unable to answer are:

1. Did "daystar" ever mean the sun, as opposed to the morning star, in its classic usage?
2. If not, when (and where) did the use meaning "Sun" originate?
3. Does there exist a good reference for word's use in hacker culture, if the second definition is in fact limited to that doman?

Thanks! grendel|khan 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, daystar has often been used to mean the sun. This is from Milton's Lycidas (1637):

Sunk though he be beneath the watry floar,

So sinks the day-star in the Ocean bed,

And yet anon repairs his drooping head,

And tricks his beams, and with new-spangled Ore,

Flames in the forehead of the morning sky

I'm fairly sure Spenser uses it this way too, although I can't find a reference at present. Widsith 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A dual search for "Spencer" and "daystar" truned up nothing on Wikisource, but I did find:

• 1913 Thomas Bulfinch, The Age of Fable, ch 9

  "Ceyx was king of Thessaly, where he reigned in peace, without violence or wrong. He was son of Hesperus, the Day-star, and the glow of his beauty reminded one of his father."

• 1860 George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss, Bk2 ch 2

  But old Christmas smiled as he laid this cruel-seeming spell on the outdoor world, for he meant to light up home with new brightness, to deepen all the richness of indoor color, and give a keener edge of delight to the warm fragrance of food; he meant to prepare a sweet imprisonment that would strengthen the primitive fellowship of kindred, and make the sunshine of familiar human faces as welcome as the hidden day-star.

I also find the following figurative usage:

• 1860 George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss, Bk5 ch 4

  "But suppose, Maggie,–suppose it was a man who was not conceited, who felt he had nothing to be conceited about; who had been marked from childhood for a peculiar kind of suffering, and to whom you were the day-star of his life..."

--EncycloPetey 02:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The first of those is not referring to the Sun; Hesperus is another name for Venus. (It means either "morning star" or "evening star", I don't remember which.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology information for marble

Could someone please add the etymology information for the word marble (definition 1). It is interesting how most translations sound almost the same. Gbeebani 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One source I have found says the following.

• c.1200, by dissimilation from O.Fr. marbre, from L. marmor, from or cognate with Gk. marmaros "marble, gleaming stone," of unknown origin, perhaps originally an adj. meaning "sparkling," which would connect it with marmairein "to shine."

But this needs to be checked. Algrif 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Algrif, that is good too. Gbeebani 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would a change from "br" to "bl" be 'dissimilation'? What do b and r (whatever sound they were using for r) have in common that b and l don't? —Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would assume they mean dissimilation from the other "r" in the word "marbre". I would see the likely sequence (pure speculation) as "marmore" (ablative/dative of marmor) > "marmre" (elision of short vowel) > "marmbre" (epenthetic "b") > "marbre" (elision of nasal) > "marble" (dissimilation of liquids). Mike Dillon 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good call. So — if "curler" became "curlle", would that be assimilation to the "l" or dissimilation from the "r"? :-P —Ruakh_TALK 21:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add an entry for "epenthetic" please. I doubt I'm the only one reading this discussion not familiar with the word. Thryduulf 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. See “epenthesis” for the main entry. Rod (A. Smith) 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

superultramodern

This is a neologism claimed to be coined by someone named Kedar Joshi. So far, its sole appearance in physical works that I've found is Joshi's own Superultramodern Science and Philosophy, published through Red Lead Press, a self-described "print on demand" (i.e., "vanity") publisher. This entry was created by 61.17.193.12 (talk), who went through some effort in Summer 2006 trying to establish articles and references to Joshi and his works on Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and Wiktionary. Google Book Search turns up not a single hit for "non-spatial thinking process", Joshi's pet project, and only the book title above for "superultramodern". On Amazon.com, this unranked work has only a single review thoughtfully provided by — you guessed it — Kedar Joshi. I respectfully suggest that this is Joshi attempting to use Wikimedia to promote his work. Both Wikipedia and Wikiquote long ago deleted the relevant articles (see q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Kedar Joshi for some history), and I just found myself having to re-delete the WQ article again today.

If I understand Wiktionary policy, I should first file a request for verification on this term, which takes at least a month to review. Does Wiktionary have any procedures for fast-tracking obvious self-promotional neologisms? ~ Jeff Q 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a request for deletion ({{rfd}}), but something that should be basically shot-on-sight, {{delete}} (aka "speedy") works too; if an admin thinks it should be reviewed instead, he/she will probably move it to rfd. In this particular case: it is an admitted neologism ("coined by Kedar Joshi in 2005"), has no independent citations. If not for the spamming of various WM projects (which I have reviewed), almost certainly by him, it might be rfd'd. As it is, treated as spam and deleted. Thanks for pointing this out. Robert Ullmann 11:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Further note, this entry was added to the rfv for "NSTP theory" by the same author in June 2006, which failed rfv; it should probably have been deleted then. Robert Ullmann 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

conundrum

I was looking for etymology for this word. but it is not here. I had assumed it would be given here, because of the word's Latin "looks", it made me think it would be an easy one to find out. Does anyone here know what the etymology is? Thanks a lot in advance, and sorry if this is not a reference desk, I can ask at the language reference desk on Wikipedia instead. --Lgriot 11:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference sources all seem to say unknown, or obscure. It is a conundrum ;-) Robert Ullmann 12:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I picked the following out of a fairly reputable web site. I don't know if it is correct though. Algrif 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• 1596, Oxford University slang for "pedant," also "whim," etc., later (1790) "riddle, puzzle," also spelled quonundrum; the sort of ponderous pseudo-Latin word that was once the height of humor in learned circles.

Thanks everyone Lgriot 20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Canoe

I'm curious, does anyone knwo the etynmology of the word canoe? There's nothing in our entry. RJFJR 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I found this. But it needs to be confirmed.

• 1555, from Sp. canoa, term used by Columbus, from Arawakan (Haiti) canaoua. Extended to rough-made or dugout boats generally.

Algrif 16:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The canoa part is legit; see his journal of the 1492 expedition: "Estas son las canoas." Although interestingly Columbus usually refers to these vessels by an Arabic derivative, almidias. -- Visviva 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the ultimate root, this Taino dictionary appears to suggest that the original form was in fact canoa; of course, no authoritative dictionary of Arawakan will ever exist. canaoua may be an error which has been passed from one etymological dictionary to another (or maybe I'm just looking the wrong place). -- Visviva 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This online Carib-English dictionary provides more info. Looks like kanoa is the proper Arawakan form, canaoua being the 1655 (Fr. Breton?) spelling of Carib kanawa. -- Visviva 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the various online sources which mention the 1555 date can be bothered to tell us the title of the work in which the term first appears. Of these, Answers.com is the least uninformative.[69] It is certainly attested by 1608, when we find the form "Canowe" in John Smith's journals. [70] HTH, -- Visviva 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Gilberti, Fr. Maturino, 1901: Diccionario de la lengua Tarasca ó de Michoacán. Impreso en Mexico el Ano de 1559, reimpreso bajo la dirección y cuidado del Antonio Pel'iafiel. Mexico. Dictionary of Tarascan, apparently dated 1555, printed in Mexico in 1559, reprinted 1901. Robert Ullmann 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I should note that it doesn't say canoa is Tarascan, it uses the Sp. canoa in defining a Tarascan word (specifically the morpheme "Xu", using canoa as an example of what it applies to) Robert Ullmann 14:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was assuming that the 1555 was the (asserted) date of the word's first use in an English work. Perhaps not, though. -- Visviva 11:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

black and tan uncountable?

Even the talk page uses a plural. Algrif 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Yes, "black and tan" refers to an individual serving, not to the liquid itself. Fixed. Rod (A. Smith) 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised that this discussion was going on here, and had already changed black and tan to countable. It is a drink that can only be mixed at point of consumption, unlike say wine which can be either countable or uncountable. But that said, there is alsoan entry under Black and Tan (caps) which I think is correct.--Dmol 14:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else heard of 'Black and tan' referring to a type of dog? Thecurran 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

comprise

Per this edit, the usage note appears to be incorrect:

AP Style does not permit the statement: Fifty states compose the Union.

The correct usage would be: The Union is composed of 50 states.

What gives? DAVilla 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from possible incorrectness, that has the problem of not actually bearing on the word comprise, that the entry's supposed to be about. I'm guessing it was an anticipatory typo: he meant to say that "Fifty states comprise the Union" is incorrect, but substituted "compose" by mistake? —Ruakh_TALK 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get, for not checking the older version. We really shouldn't use the AHD example at all. Perhaps restarting the usage note with a better example (like fleet/boats or army/soldier?) would be better, particularly since there are still exact sentence matches from AHD's usage note. --Connel MacKenzie 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I did check the older version, and that's why it was removed in my edits. I can understand removing the AHD quotation, and in fact I had stripped it down some myslef. Perhaps you would like to explain why you rolled back my changes? Or how completely removing any reference to AHD doesn't constitute point-of-view pushing? DAVilla 04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• The exact text from AHD: "USAGE NOTE: The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected. See Usage Note at include."
• The exact text from DAVilla: "===Usage notes=== The third usage above, whereby the passive form effectively means “the fifty states comprise the Union”, is traditionally considered as incorrect but is an increasingly accepted usage. Strictly speaking, the Union comprises fifty states, whereas fifty states compose the Union. The American Heritage Dictionary states that "The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole.... Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating." However, with regard to journalistic writing, the Associated Press Stylebook does not allow for such a substitution. Indeed, Associated Press Style does not permit the last statement. The correct usage would be, “The Union is composed of 50 states.”"

As I said, the 50 states example should be entirely removed. The text as you reworked it, seems pretty clearly a derivative work from the earlier AHD edits. That makes it a potential copyvio which there is simply no justifiable reason to retain. When I edited it, I tried to remove sentences that matched (exactly, or nearly exactly) AHD's version. From the edit history, I tried to replace the text that was removed in lieu of the AHD's wording. Since that came out as a total mess, yes, the entire usage note as it is should be scrapped. It isn't that the current entry should be brought as close to possible to a copyvio without breaking the law; there is no need to copy their text. The text that was copied should be thoroughly expunged. We should devise a better example of our own. We should link the AHD in the ===References=== section without copying any of their verbiage. And yes, we should avoid their particular example, as that (a) was reworded wrong, (b) is indicative that we don't recognize the difference between comprise/compose ourselves; that we're only able to parrot AHD.

Do you want me to make a more genuine effort and reworking it, or would you like to? I suggested fleet/boats, army/soldier above. Perhaps machine/parts, database/rows, menu/items would also work as better examples. At this point, Union/States is just too unwieldy.

--Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that it is my text, but understand that I did not introduce the AHD quote, so reverting my changes did not correct the problem above. If you had simply removed the AHD quote, that would have accomplished your goal. Otherwise you would have had to revert to a much earlier version. Instead, you reverted my changes, thereby reintroducing the error, and then removed any reference to AHD entirely.

I am substituting the example, as you propose, and if you wish you can rework it from there. DAVilla 08:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Futhermore, you are slightly misrepresenting me. The text as I finally revised it eleven minutes later was slightly different. To be sure, this doesn't counter your point about copyvio, but it neither supports an attention to detail. DAVilla 09:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I "slightly misrepresented" your text somehow. FWIW, I did go back to a much earlier version, and mangled it when comparing the [Show changes] current version. I think the current version is OK, but should probably link AHD and APstyle in a ===References=== section. --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we say "the parts are comprised by the whole" or "the parts are comprised of the whole"? DAVilla 09:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely one is much better off not saying either, and removing this treacherous word from one's lexicon completely. I personally have gone for years without ever using "comprise" in a sentence. However, if I found myself in a life-or-death situation which required me to use "comprise" in the passive voice, I would say "comprised by." "Of" reflects that the whole is made of, or from, the parts; I don't think that would apply in reverse. -- Visviva 04:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: of course, if you are following the modern "convention" of using 'comprise' as a synonym of 'compose', as alluded to in the AHD, you would say "the whole is comprised of its parts." However, doing so will guarantee you a place in the inner circle of Grammar Hell. -- Visviva 08:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Under water current word that sounds like sishe.

Does anyone know a word for an underwater current that sounds like sishe? (si- rhyming with pie / -sh rhyming with blush) I heard it on Discovery, they were talking about Loch Ness but I don't think it is a Scottish word exclusively.--Dmol 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly seiche, aka the "bathtub wave," although I wouldn't have thought the topography of a Scottish loch would be ideal for such phenomena. -- Visviva 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it is. Google "loch ness seiche" and you'll find what you are looking for! Robert Ullmann 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was looking for.--Dmol 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Decapod/decapod

Is Decapod proper? Or should it be merged to decapod and the capitalized version delted or something? RJFJR 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would merge with lowercase and delete uppercase. SemperBlotto 21:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I merged the def from {{Decapod]] to decapod. Now what do we do about the Decapod entry? Do we make it a redirect to the lowercase or what? RJFJR 13:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A proper merge would involve deletion of target, move to target, delete (again), restore (merging edit histories), then edit to select desires pieces to be merged -- in order to preserve the edit history per the GFDL. --EncycloPetey 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the upper-case an alternative spelling for that sense. DAVilla 08:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

language

A long time ago someone added this obscure definition:

The expression of an understanding — see "Language is Understanding"

I just cannot grasp the meaning of this definition, however profound it may be. I would've simply deleted it myself, but the problem is that over time our editors have contributed a plethora of translations for this sense. So, what shall we do with it? Perhaps, someone can clarify or expand the definition in question? Dart evader 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest merging it with number 4, as "a medium of expression of ideas, such as a nonverbal system of communication" e.g. sign language, body language. DAVilla 08:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Animals gnat

I see the adjective from gnat in the table is trumpet. Any reason for this? Or can I delete it? Algrif 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It was added by user:Paul G (almost 3½ years ago!) in this edit. Given that the same edit introduced the adjacent column for the sounds animals make, I would hazard a guess that "trumpet" was intended for this column. While indeed it does sound odd, a b.g.c search does verify that a gnat does indeed trumpet [71], [72], [73]! I'll correct it now. Thryduulf 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proving once again that you learn something new every day on Wikt. :-) -- Algrif 12:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

taw

Could someone tell me why the entry for 'taw' has been removed? 'Taw' is an old word in playing marbles meaning your 'favorite marble', and is used in square dancing with a derived sense of 'favorite', 'beloved', 'partner', or 'spouse'. — This unsigned comment was added by Rsvk (talk • contribs) at 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

It was deleted because it was a redirect to tav. It never gave any of the senses you mention. Please, create the entry. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 02:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Song of the South

where does the song zipidee do-da zipidee-eay come from

See Song of the South on Wikipedia. DAVilla 08:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

latin to polynesian writing and symbols...odd question, I know.

I am getting a tattoo in the next week...
I love the English quote: "To Thine Own Self Be True" which is Latin is "tibi ipi estos fedilis"...However, I love the polynesian style of tattoos...so, wondering what the polynesian translation of this phrase would be? I have spent countless hours on tattoos sites and can't find the exact translation and/or symbol that I am wanting....truth is not the same as being true to self....I would appreciate anyone's expertise in this area...thanks.
— This unsigned comment was added by 2-23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs) at 69.149.41.74.

Can't help you on the language, but I would advise you to make very certain that it's correct, as in third and fourth opinions. DAVilla 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with DAVilla above, but note that the Samoan version may be "Tu'usa'olotoina e le faamaoni." Recommend locating a Samoan native speaker for verification. -- Visviva 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, your Latin version is wrong. I think what you're going for is "Tibi ipsi esto fidelis". Mike Dillon 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Malay has a huge number of native speakers, especially if you count Indonesians so you have a good chance of contacting one. I know several Maoris but their mother tongue is English. I've lost touch with several Hawai'ians, Samoans, & Tongans but I still keep up with a few Malays and could ask one easily. Would you accept Malay though? Most people want South Seas Islander when they refer to Polynesian. Bali is part of Indonesia, in case that helps. Thecurran 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

antropizzazione

This Italian word means "the transformation or adaptation of the environment to meet the needs of humans". Can anyone think of an English translation? (See w:it:antropizzazione) SemperBlotto 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an ecological term anthropization, which appears to have the same meaning.[74] This has also been discussed by our good friends at proz.com. -- Visviva 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: and a more robust discussion here. -- Visviva 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: interestingly, "anthropize" is scarcely used at all. -- Visviva 13:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. SemperBlotto 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the context is of another planet, then terraforming is the word used in science fiction (and iirc scientific discussion, although I've not looked for cites to back this up yet). Thryduulf 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

avarice

Is sense 2 really distinct from sense 1? If I have an avarice for X (where X may be power, books, kingdoms, edit count, etc.), does this not simply mean that I desire to gain X? Or am I missing something? And in any case, do we have any semi-standard test for what constitutes a distinct sense? -- Visviva 13:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The OED has two definitions, one literal and one figurative. --EncycloPetey 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Another question: is this countable or not? I mean, obviously it's not the sort of thing that one normally has occasion to count, but "avarices" does get a respectable number of b.g.c. hits. -- Visviva 11:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

augury

More accurately!? Are these the same definition? DAVilla 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be something like:

1. Template:ib Divination based on the appearance and behaviour of animals.
2. Template:ib An omen, prediction; a foreboding.

That is, the "divination" sense is primary, at least originally. The sense used for the result of divination is an extension, but it is now effectively the primary meaning since few if any people actually do divination based on seeing birds or their innards anymore. Mike Dillon 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, {{archaic}} may not fit, since the word itself is not archaic, just the activity it describes. I think that {{by extension}} is probably right though. Mike Dillon 16:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. DAVilla 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

breakfast

I don't see the distinction. DAVilla 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The second sense should have {{by extension}}. The distinction is between a meal that is the first meal of the day ("breaking" the "fast" of sleeping) and the food that is commonly served at that meal (which can be served at a different time). An example would be ordering pancakes and scrambled eggs in the middle of the night at a 24-hour diner. It probably isn't the eater's first meal of the day, but pancakes and scrambled eggs are normally considered "breakfast food" and the food is still called "breakfast" in this context, even if the meal isn't. Mike Dillon 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. How did I miss that example sentence? DAVilla 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this definition (which I totally agree with) a UK / Ireland thing. Should it be marked as such.--Dmol 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so -- I (American) have said things like "I don't want to have breakfast at midnight (let's not have pancakes)" Cynewulf 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

livid

Hey there! No, I'm not furiously angry. :) I do find our 'livid' to be confusing, though. I've heard of 'livid' being used for a colour of injured flesh, but the idea of it meaning dark blue contrasts starks with the idea listed of it meaning pallid or pale. My concise Aussie w:OED lists 'furiously angry' as a colloquiallism and the colour meaning as being that of lead, bluish-grey. I find this to be commensurate with pallid but dark just doesn't seem to fit. Is there a confusion with 'black and blue' or are there really one light colour and one dark colour meaning? Thecurran 03:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever encountered this used to mean "pallid." That might just be the fault of my North American education, though; can you provide some citations? FTR, I do not associate leaden with paleness either. But then I am partially colorblind. ;-) -- Visviva 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No livid means kind of bluish. The only time it means pale is when you're talking about people being pale with anger, where livid is used, and I always imagine it as being because if you have a reddish complexion then losing colour can look like you're relatively blue. Maybe that doesn't make much sense, but that's English for you.. Widsith 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This has really surprised me! I have always used livid in the sense given in these random quotes:-

• In spring the first livid red nubs of rhubarb stalks appear.
• He has livid red burn marks on his arm after his father poured boiling water....
• ...a livid red lake of blood.

  bright, and usually associated with the colour red! -- Algrif 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is also used in this way, as a sort of intensifier for other colour-names. But on its own, it means bluish-grey. Weird. Widsith 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Colourize

I found links to 'colourize' in 'colorize', which links to and from 'colourise'. Now, I believe there are 2 common spelling variants of this word; the chiefly GB 'colourise' and the chiefly US 'colorize'. I don't recognize colourize as being the common term in any large, specific dialect, but when writing to an audience that is likely to have proponents of both variants, I do use 'colourize'. The '-ize' spelling reflects both pronunciations, + the GB pronunciation where it isn't used differs markedly from the '-ise' of 'practise' & 'promise'. The '-our' spelling reflects both pronunciations, + the US pronunciation where it isn't used differs markedly from the "or" of 'or', 'torpid', etc. as well as the "our" of 'flour' & 'sour' or 'court', 'pour' & 'source'. Even though it does match the '-or' in 'terror', it has a slightly different root in w:Anglo-Norman Language/w:French Language.

Here's the dilemma, I prefer '-our' to '-or' and '-ize' to '-ise', because I like to compromize between dialects to achieve a sort of neutrality, + 'colourize' has a count of 25.0k in w:Google, similar to the 29.3k for 'colourise', but it is much less than the 1.07M for 'colorize' and I don't even know if any dictionary would list 'colourize'. My personal view on this biases me enough to feel precluded from creating 'colourize'. I want to know what others think. Thecurran 04:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From the data you give, it sounds like colourize and colourise are at the same order of magnitude; thus, I can't see any reason not to include colourize as an alternative spelling, though it should probably be labeled as {{proscribed}}. Cheers, -- Visviva 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Proscribed by whom? colourize is lemmatized by the Canadian Oxford, which goes "colourize, also colorize, especially British colourise." Not to mention that -ize endings are perfectly acceptable in Britain (see w:American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize). Truth be told, the Oxford English Dictionary lemmatizes colorize (no u, no s). JackLumber 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury

When people use the phrase "the Archbishop of Canterbury", do they mean "the head of the Church of England", or do they mean "the Archbishop of Canterbury, who as we know is the Church of England"? I suspect it's the latter, and that this term is sum-of-parts aside from its encyclopedic entailment, but as it's a phrase I hardly ever use, I thought I'd gather opinions first before RFD-ing it. —Ruakh_TALK 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, and as a Brit by birth, I always understood that this was SOP. Not the Archbishop of York for example. And that it just so happens that he is considered the leading Archbishop (given that HRH Liz is, legally, the head of the CoE. -- Algrif 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it is SOP, referring to the person or the office, in the same way that "Bishop of Bath and Wells" and "Mayor of London", etc are used. The posts and holders are encyclopaedic but not dictionaric. Thryduulf 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I started this mess but I had good intentions. If you want the nitty-gritty, check this. I'll support RFD or speedy on this one. :) Thecurran 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I create a Page

Template:How do I create a Page

Can you please tell me how Thank you cameron king

Go to the page you want to create by typing the URL in your 'Address Bar' near the top your browser window or following a link to it. Then, click on the "Edit" tab, which is the third from the left, just above the workspace, inside your the client space of your browser or you can follow the "Create this entry" link within that same workspace. Please, do check the "deletion log" and strongly consider proposing your addition in this "Tea Room" before proceeding; have fun. :) Thecurran 05:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Help:Starting a new page? --Connel MacKenzie 17:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

break water

Should this include a definition of the condition in late pregnancy? Or is it "break waters"? Or should it just be included in break? SemperBlotto 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think one would normally say "her water just broke" rather than "she just broke (her) water." So the lemma form might be something like one's water breaking? -- Visviva 12:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can use either form her water(s) just broke or she just broke water But the second is idiomatic. There is no elipsis of her. -- Algrif 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it ever "her waters just broke"? The set-phrase/idiom is "her water just broke" or "her water broke fifteen minutes ago." Or is that different over the pond? --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's also the white-water rapids sense, missing. And a boat's wake. E.g. Turning the bend of the river, they entered the break water and started paddling furiously. --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's different over the pond. I'll look for some quotes to support waters broke. -- Algrif 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My usual favourite source [click_here] -- Algrif 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow...for "her water broke": one from France, one from Japan, all the rest from the US. --Connel MacKenzie 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And for "her waters broke": UK or Commonwealth: 100% --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (edit) 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, over in AU-WA, I just came from a naming ceremony/ 1st birthday/ mother's birthday/ Father's Day this weekend. We had preggoes and bubses everywhere and the only way I heard it was '...water break...'; never 'waters'. It seems like Connel MacKenzie was using a noun distantly like 'breakwater'. Maybe the new entry should merely be 'one's water'/ 'one's waters as in 'Is your water still intact?'. Thecurran 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Could you please provide a full example sentence of how it is said in Australia-Western Australia? I was talking about the English Wiktionary's entry for break water...which should have other senses listed. Which are you talking about? --Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I heard phrases like, "We were worried about her water breaking.", "Did her water break?", "Her water was intact right through until the C-section.", &c. My first point was that, in the Commonwealth of Australia, we use 'water'. My second was that unless anyone can support phrases like "she just broke water", it would seem all phrases involved revolved around 'one's water(s)'. This would mean that if we made 'one's water'/ 'one's waters include the meaning 'one's amniotic sac', all would be solved without adding an idiom. Similarly, we could just add the meaning to 'water' or 'waters. Either way, this would also allow phrases like "Is her water still OK?". I hope this helps clarify things. Thecurran 03:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

orientate

Is this word normal outside the US? To me (American) it comes off as additionalificationifying a redundant morpheme -- we just say "orient". What kind of tag should it get? (See also disorientate) Cynewulf 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly recent back-formation, used chiefly in the UK and sometimes attacked even there. In the British National Corpus, oriented prevails by 1.56 : 1. In technical use, oriented is the norm in the UK as in the US. Object-orientated programming? Come on! JackLumber 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, one Brit in a C++ community I belong to once commented that it took him a very long time to get used to saying "object-oriented programming" and not feel that he was skipping a syllable. —Ruakh_TALK 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I always get confused over whether to say disoriented or disorientated... Widsith 09:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

'orientation' and 'disorientation' are fine. Please, try not to use 'disorientate(ed)' at all. It's just another unnecessary word that conveys no more information than 'disorient(ed)'. BTW, en-us uses 'orienteer' in the 'BSA' 'orienteering' badge, so there's no reason to point fingers at GB for frivolous terms here. :) Thecurran 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[Category:Script templates]

Can someone please do a little cleanup of the template or talk pages in this category? The following ones are unclear because they neither show a specific link to explain their meaning nor show up in w:List of ISO 15924 codes: Template:enPRchar**, Template:IPA Rhymes, Template:IPA2, Template:IPAchar**, Template:KSchar*, Template:KUchar*, Template:polytonic, Template:SAMPAchar**, Template:SDchar*, Template:lang, & Template:unicode. *=RFD'd & **=perhaps should be RFD'd. Thecurran 08:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, next time I'll use RFC. Thecurran 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

watertightness

Does this word exist? Is there a better noun that means the same? I need a link for Spanish estanquidad. Help please. -- Algrif 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. It's not very elegant though - if I were translating estanquidad I would probably rephrase to avoid using it as a noun. Widsith 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

impermeability might be better. SemperBlotto 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The problem with impermeability is that it would not be translated as estanquidad. This word is used mainly (but not exclusively) to talk about boats being watertight. Which leaves us with watertightness by the looks of it. -- Algrif 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the full sentence you are translating? Could it be rephrased using the adjective “watertight” instead? Rod (A. Smith) 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. It is from a scientific R&D project progress report:-

El primer prototipo fue desechado debido a problemas de estanqueidad en su sistema de cierre (roscado) y en el tabique interno que separa el condensador en dos compartimentos. -- Algrif 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In that example I'd be tempted just to say "leakage problems" in English - or maybe, "problems over how watertight the latch was". Widsith 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that I used leakage in the translation, in fact. But it made me think about adding the term to Wikt, and I couldn't think of anything other than watertightness. -- Algrif 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish is hilariously euphemistic. "The boat had some issues with watertightness" = "The f***er sank like a stone". Widsith 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

¡Bueno! ¡Muy bien! Jejejejejeje. -- Algrif 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there exist hermeticity and hermiticity, but they're much vaguer — usually they'd imply impermeability to gas. And even given their greater range of senses, neither outnumbers watertightness on b.g.c. (though together they do). —Ruakh_TALK 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

will

We have the following at will:

Verb

to will (third-person singular simple present will, present participle -, simple past would, past participle -)

1. Indicating intent to perform the action in the future, or expectation of an event in the future.

I will go to the store.

It will rain this afternoon.

Usage notes

• As will is an auxiliary verb, it takes the same form in all persons and both numbers.
• Historically, the present tense is will and the past tense is would.

Huh?? If it's an auxiliary verb (which it is) then it doesn't have an infinitive or a conjugation (not that I'm a grammarian or anything, but that's how I understand it at least). And if its past tense is merely historically would then why is that listed in the conjugation line? (Note that this sense I'm asking about it not the perfectly valid verb to will, meaning to wish or to try to effect something using one's will, listed under a separate etymology.)—msh210℠ 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As with other auxilliary verbs, the auxilliary sense of will is defective in that it lacks an infinitive, but it has other conjugated forms that can vary depending on tense, mood, and, according to traditional English grammar, depending on person. In the first person singular and plural, shall has traditionally been the normal future auxiliary verb, while will indicates intent. In the second and third person, the opposite is true. Similar distinction is traditionally made between would and should for for conditionals. The relatively minimal conjugation system in English makes it strange to think of shall, will, should, and would as separate entries in a conjugation table, but since English grammar is traditionally analyzed in terms of Latin grammar, traditional English grammarians consider them different conjugations of a single defective verb:

• Indicative mood present tense (i.e. plain future auxilliary):
  • 1st person (singular and plural): shall (e.g. I shall go tomorrow.)
  • 2nd and 3rd person: will (e.g. He will go tomorrow.)
• Intentional mood:
  • 1st person (singular and plural): will (e.g. I will succeed, no matter what.)
  • 2nd and 3rd person: shall (e.g. He shall make me an offering.)
• Conditional mood:
  • 1st person (singular and plural): should (e.g., if I were a millionaire, I should go...)
  • 2nd and 3rd person: would (e.g., if I were a millionaire, you would go...)

We should remove the infinitive, i.e. with {{en-verb|inf=-|...}}, but leave the inflections. Rod (A. Smith) 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again I see I really must get my finger out and write a definitive version of Appendix:English Modal verbs that I still have only in draft form. -- Algrif 10:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This entry bothered me because it, 1., buried the most common sense of simple futurity and, 2., ignored the sense of futurity cum certainty. Instead it seems locked in the animism of the time of formation of the word. I found the entry instructive precisely because it served to remind me of the force of animism in the structure of our thinking. (I've been readng Lakoff.) I'm more of a fatalist myself so I was almost offended by the treatment of the senses I refer to above. DCDuring 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To take something public

Last month, in WT:ID User:Ruakh told Maria that 'to take a company public' was not idiomatic. I can see sense in that but I just don't think that term would be grammatically correct unless we included an adverb form for public. Consider how odd "take the building green/ large" sounds. On the other hand, "make the building green/ large" is fine and "green up the building"/ "enlarge the building" would also find great support. This is 'cuz 'make' can have an adjective as a direct object when the indirect object is a noun/ noun phrase. 'take' however can't have an indirect object at all but can have an adverb/ prepositional phrase after its nounal direct object; adverbial forms are used for 'away#Adverb', 'back#Adverb', 'down#Adverb', 'forward#Adverb', 'here#Adverb', 'home#Adverb', 'in#Adverb', 'left#Adverb', 'out#Adverb', 'over#Adverb', 'right#Adverb', 'there#Adverb', 'toward#Adverb', 'under#Adverb', 'up#Adverb', & 'yonder#Adverb' when these follow the direct object of 'take'. I know some people may disagree with including 'here', 'home', 'there', & 'yonder' but I didn't put those sections in and there are so many phrasal verbs using them this way that they've fully transcended the adverb barrier. Alternatively, we could construct the idiom that Maria implied but I'd consider it rather silly just as Ruakh did. We wouldn't have this problem if the phrase used was 'make something public' but the phrase 'take something public' has established itself so we should treat it accordingly. Thecurran 08:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Take does take some adjective complements: you can take an idea public, or statewide, or national/​nationwide, or international/​global/​worldwide, or the like. In all cases the sense seems to be of making the idea known or available to a wider portion of the universe. (And similarly with other nouns besides "idea".) I guess we should document this at take. —Ruakh_TALK 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the premise that take a company public or take something public isn't idiomatic. That set-phrase/idiom means something like 'to convert ownership from a private entity, to publicly traded stocks.' --Connel MacKenzie 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find Thecurran's initial comment here to be easily readable, but when you have to define such complicate exceptions to usual rules for just one word, it seems like a good indicator of idiomaticy (idiomaticness?). In any case I agree with Connel that the meaning of this set phrase (which would merit it an entry imho) is idiomatic (which definitely merits an entry). Thryduulf 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clear up my initial comment without changing the meaning. I hope it helps. I'm sorry I didn't consider 'take something country/ nation/ province/ state/ world-wide'. I obviously 'dropped the ball'. I do consider these adverbs though because they can follow 'go', 'is known', and their ilk. I just wanted to note that if we just added an adverb form to 'public', the problem would be solved without any extra work. The problem with not allowing 'public' to be an adverb as I saw it was that it forces us to let 'take' have an indirect object, which would be altering an incredibly common word. Thecurran 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

nene and nena

These are marked as Spanish slang. As far as I know they are normal terms meaning a very young child or baby. Not slang at all, except for the term of endearment nena. Opinions please? -- Algrif 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not slang, just colloquial. Also used ironically to mean scoundrel. —Stephen 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AP in glossary?

I know we have 'AP' meaning 'Associated Press' in Wiktionary but we use it so much that I think it deserves a spot in Wiktionary:Glossary. Thecurran 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking on a typo

Excuse me if I'm being presumptuous but 'Wiktionary:Votes/header' seems to have a grammatical error that I would normally consider an obvious typo. But as it is locked, there seems to be nothing I can do.

I think the bulleted sentence "A failed votes does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future." was meant to read as "The failure of a vote does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future." or "A vote's failure does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future." or even the passive "A failed vote is NOT restricted from being created again in the future.". Any bites? Thecurran 05:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that according to 'predate', we should really use the term 'antedate' instead. Plus, it'll ensure nobody becomes afraid of their vote being preyed upon by a little account or thylacine. :) Thecurran 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Thecurran. I was not aware that “predate” was so proscribed, but I did implement your grammar correction above. By the way, are you aware of a reference we can add to our “predate” entry to validate the usage notes? Rod (A. Smith) 05:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW. --Connel MacKenzie 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"poo poo", UK slang for being dismissive.

I saw a headline in one of the UK tabloids last week that used the term "poo poo" to mean that someone is rejecting a comment or being dismissive of it. Can't remember the exact wording but it was something like "(name) poo poos talk of engagement to actor". I'm sure I have seen it before, but wanted to check before adding it, as it would be a prime candidate for RFV or RFD. Is it used enough to pass CFI, and has it been used long enough (3 years isn't it?) to qualify. Is it UK only. It is difficult to look up without getting pages on toddler toilet training.--Dmol 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an exchange from an old episode of The Simpsons, something like:

Editor: We're looking for a new food critic... someone who doesn't immediately poo-poo everything he eats

Homer: No, it usually takes me a couple of hours.

So yes, I think it's fair to say it's been around long enough to include. There are some spelling/hyphenation issues (poo poo, poo-poo, pooh pooh, etc.), which may further hinder the citation search.-- Visviva 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: Lots of cites here: [75] Looks like poo-poo is the canonical form. -- Visviva 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's usually used in a different sense than pooh-pooh, which is the standard form I've always seen in dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, "pooh pooh" does indeed seem to be a good deal more common [76]. But while "poo poo" is used primarily in reference to fecal matter, search results "poo pooed" and "poo pooing" (with or without hyphen) seem largely to reflect the same sense as pooh-pooh, viz. "to dismiss out of hand." -- Visviva 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I expect this is a recent phenomenon, resulting from the existence of the two homophones having their spellings confused in combination with the general decline in spelling skills. --EncycloPetey 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent or not, "poo poo" is the form I'm most familiar with seeing in the UK, and especially given the prevalence of the spellings without an "h" in the present and past tenses, I'd say it merits an alternative spelling entry. Thryduulf 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help and comments. Just want to note that poo poo (no letter H) was definitely the spelling used where I saw it.--Dmol 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created poo poo as an alternative spelling of pooh-pooh which exists already--Dmol 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Plural for antenna

• Moved here from my talk page (where it was getting annoying) SemperBlotto 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

antennae and antennas are plural for antenna ... is there any problem about adding a "See also" section to link the two plural forms together? Mwtoews 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. SemperBlotto 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Better yet would be to list them as synonyms (as per latices / latexes). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not sure they are synonyms: some senses of antenna require one plural, and some require the other. —Ruakh_TALK 15:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not purely synonyms, since one is for living organisms, and the other is for electronic devices. Mwtoews 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms needn’t be identical in meaning — merely close in meaning. If we only allowed words of identical meaning as synonyms, we’d have far fewer “Synonyms” sections. I believe that these two plurals — in being different only due to their glosses — are by far similar enough to be considered synonyms. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But they're completely different in sense. It would make more sense for them to list each other as related terms. —Ruakh_TALK 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, the COED says that for the aerial sense, antennas is an “also” plural form; that is, it says that antennae can also be used to mean aerials. On top of that, I’m sure that antennas is used by some as the plural of the biology sense or instinct sense. This is the case despite what our (probably valid) prescription states. I dunno; I’d say that these plurals’ meanings are close enough for them to be considered synonyms, though I probably wouldn’t say the same for cherubim / cherubs. If you three feel strongly about it, feel free to revert the section titles to “See also”. (“Related terms” sections are for terms related by etymological form, not meaning — right? –Since these two are related in both ways, I guess it doesn’t matter very much though…) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Based almost solely on this discussion, I'd say that "Synonyms" is the correct heading. Thryduulf 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

looks pluralia tantum ?

The noun sense no.2, as in good looks. Is this a pluralia tantum ? -- Algrif 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably. The only related term I can think of at the moment is "good looking". Thryduulf 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so, yes. (And another related term is looker.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so as well. Consider: "Her looks earned her a cover photo." versus "Her look earned her a cover photo." In the first sentence, it is her physical beauty, especially the face, that is being discussed. In the second sentence, it is her style, including clothing, makeup, and hair. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could one of you change the entry please? I'm not sure of the correct way to tidy it up as a pluralia tantum. Thanks. -- Algrif 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ruakh. That looks good. :-) -- Algrif 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tarantulas in articles

Hello, I was reading the article spider and I noticed there was a very graphic picture of a tarantula. Do we really need this? I happen to have arachnophobia and this picture really bugged me. Does anyone agree with me that we should replace that picture with a more tame one? Cheers, JetLover 02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have arachnophobia, perhaps it would be better if you let others patrol that (and similar) entries. --Connel MacKenzie 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is, is it neccesary to have a tarantula? Why not something like this? Cheers, JetLover 02:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, seriously? I find that picture much scarier. —Ruakh_TALK 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me about Wikipedia's simmering war about putting a spider picture at w:Arachnophobia. I can agree that having a spider picture at arachnophobia would be inappropriate and unhelpful, but it seems reasonable to have a spider picture at spider. I'm actually curious why someone with arachnophobia would want to look at the entry for spider; don't you know that there's a good chance of you finding something you're not going to like? As to whether it is a tarantula or another spider, it seems like the image you're suggesting would be scarier since the spider is facing the camera; it's not like the tarantula picture has a hand in it or something.Mike Dillon 02:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess you're right on that. But how about like a common house spider pic? Cheers, JetLover 02:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I poked around Commons and didn't see any good ones. I'd say that any high quality picture that clearly depicts a crawly thing with eight legs would be fine. I can't imagine anyone's wedded to the idea of having a tarantula in particular. Mike Dillon 15:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Other pictures are at hobo spider and brown recluse. And no snarky comments about how blurry my picture was...that sucker was huge! --Connel MacKenzie 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

one

one#Numeral has its first two senses:

1. (cardinal) The first number in the set of natural numbers (especially in number theory).
2. The cardinality of the smallest nonempty set. The number of heads a typical human has.

Am I missing something, or are these identical?—msh210℠ 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, you are the mathematician. Anyway, I guess they should probably be merged. Except for the number of heads part, of course, which doesn't make much sense. Yes, a typical human has one head, one nose, one mouth, one neck, one belly button... JackLumber 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is however by far the easiest of the definitions for a non-mathematician like myself to understand. Thryduulf 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

O.K., but hopefully even a non-mathematician knows what "one" means without having to look it up. :-)   Someone looking at that entry probably either is looking for something besides the definition (etymology, translations, derived terms, etc.), or wants a formal math-y definition. (I don't object to having the non-math-y definition as well; but it doesn't seem completely necessary.) —Ruakh_TALK 04:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the second definition specifically defines it as "the cardinality", the two definitions are synonymous. The difference is only in the underlying mathemtical approach to definition, not in any lexical sense. That is, the underlying theory of what constitutes "one-ness" is different, but the practical application should be identical. It is also possible that someone mistakenly believed that the first definition was for the symbol and the second was for the concept, but that is incorrect. All the symbols are simply different written forms of that concept, not separate definitions. --EncycloPetey 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To me (as a Swedish speaker), it's not an issue of maths/non-maths but of the abstract number, versus the count of something. The abstract number, used if you're counting "abstractly", referring to the time "one o'clock" or similar, is in Swedish always translated as ett, while if you're counting some specific objects the word is en if the objects are of common gender, but ett if of neuter (yes, these are the same words as used for the indefinite articles). Should information like that go into the translation section, the pages ett / en with merely links from the translation section, or should it be taken into account in the English definitions, that there are languages which makes such an distinction and thence that the definition needs to reflect that? \Mike 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The convention seems to be that if only a couple of languages have more senses than English then very brief (one or two word) glosses are added in the translation table entry for the languages that do. In this case that'd likely be something like "(abstract counting) ett (counting objects) en , ett Template:n". Full usage notes would be at en and ett

Where there are quite a few languages that make more distinction than English, then separate translation tables are used, each with an appropriate header gloss. Again usage notes would be in full at en and ett. Thryduulf 22:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I kind of supposed that would be better, but someone removed the reference to en [77]... so I wanted some confirmation before I started fighting for it :) \Mike 06:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That would have been me. I think en does not deserve its place there, since it is a matter of grammar whether one chooses ett or en. Basically, they are two forms of one word. Or am I mistaken here? Anyway, for e.g. adjectives, we do not want translators to enter all forms of the adjective, but only the base form, which is generally the masculine. That’s why I deleted the mention of en. Of course, a usage note and crosslink to ett would be appropriate at that page (and vice versa). H. (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a matter of grammar, just as the choice of den/det/de for the definite article (not to mention the suffixes). Or whether "her" should be translated as "hennes" or a form of "sin". But then: what would be the definition of a "form variant"? Would "denna" and "den här" be variants? Both can (best) be translated as "this" - but they differ grammatically in a way which is not visible in English. (No, I'm not out for you: I'm asking other Swedish speakers, if there are any around... :)). Well, I think we have some interesting line to draw, here somewhere... \Mike 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

etymology of cold

In a discussion I had elsewhere (i.e. not on a wiki), someone mention that cold (disease) could stand for "chronic obstructive lung disease". While I expect that this is a back-formation by some acronym-obessed doctor, we don't seem to ahve an entry for it. Since this isn't a term I've heard used before, I'm not sure what possible alternative spellings and forms to go hunting for. So... I thought I'd get input here, and maybe even citations. --EncycloPetey 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be a confusing backronym, as one would expect "chronic obstructive lung disease" to be synonymous with "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease", which is not the same thing at all. Also, as colds aren't usually chronic, hopefully. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, they are the same thing; according to Barbara Janson Cohen’s Medical Terminology: An Illustrated Guide anyhow (“Emphysema is the main disorder included under the heading of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (also called COLD, chronic obstructive lung disease)” — the underline, but not the emboldenment, is mine). I reckon this folk etymology is tosh. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was saying that a cold and COPD are not the same thing at all, and that one would expect COLD to be the same thing as COPD — which apparently it is indeed. Thanks for the ref. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Help me find words for these things

It has been said that those things for which we lack words, will slip past our conscious awareness. Thus I'm always struggling to force myself to consciously acknowledge the things of the world for which I know no name. Help me name these things. Dictionary words are best, but protologisms are fine too, especially if they're made highly memorable. Also please discuss how often you're aware of these things yourself. Feel free to add your own unnamed phenomena too.

• When you're reading/watching/listening/etc. to something, and start to imagine yourself seeing/hearing/etc. it through someone else's eyes/ears/etc. (esp. when you thereby rediscover the "magic" of something with which you're familiar, as if experiencing it for the first time)

ecstasy? vicarious-ness? —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Or just sympathy/empathy...? Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When waking up (often from a short, much needed nap), a "pulsing" sensation throughout the body but especially the head/behind the eyes

caffeine deprivation? grogginess? sleepy wakefulness or even lethargy. --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In music, when two things seem "out of synch" and yet at the same time "sound good". For example, a voice completely defies the overall tempo, but thereby greatly enhances the song. Common in rap.

syncopation? Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

harmony? counter-melody? --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps counterpoint, though it seems a bit of a stretch. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In music, when a voice is very fast, to the point of being unintelligible (but natural, not artificially speeded up a la "chipmunk voice")

Do you mean like rap or like an auction caller, or more like a legal disclaimer at the end of a commercial? --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

any of the above.. though auctioneers and legalese aren't very common in music.. but it brings up an interesting point, what IS auctioneer-speak called and what IS fast-legalese-speak called? — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

I’d go with patter. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In cartoons, when a character cries, and the tears are shown "showering" sideways out of their eyes, almost like a mist.

sobbing, boo-hooing. --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In cartoons, when a character cries, and the tears are shown as contiguous "streams" flowing down their face.

bawling, sobbing. (Bit of overlap there - distinction is only relevant to artists drawing it.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In a movie, when the protagonist is doing something important, and we are shown someone else (parents, girlfriend...) watching the protagonist (often without the protagonist's knowledge). For example, the protagonist has a revelation and shouts for joy in a parking lot, and then the director shows us that their love interest is secretly watching him do this through an apartment window.

dramatic irony? —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In television this is sometimes just called a reveal. Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

scene cut or just a cut? --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When an expected reaction is momentarily delayed, then suddenly done all at once. For example, in a video game, the hero is struck a mortal blow: for a second, she doesn't even react; then in a single frame she is lying dead.

pause for effect? pregnant pause? —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

lag / netlag (even jocularly, when game is not on the net, but local.) dropped frame (more technical sense, usually in plural.) Also, just about any creative phrasing, as it pertains to an individual game, or a special magical item of that game. --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When an expected reaction is long delayed, then gradually done. Often seen in cartoons, when a sword slashes someone, seems to have missed completely, then some time later the victim suddenly falls in half.

The example doesn't seem to match the description . . . :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't have said "the victim suddenly falls in half". It would be better to say, "the victim slowly falls in half". Often, when this specific example occurs, the victim will actually boast, "hah, looks like you missed me", before they fall in half. The phenomenon can have exceedingly long delays: a detective arrives at a crime scene, sees a person standing with their back to the detective, the detective walks up and taps them on the shoulder, the person drops dead (or falls in half or whatever). — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

delayed reaction seems to do the job. Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When you're reading a book, and start daydreaming or thinking about something else, then suddenly realize you don't anything about an entire chunk of text you just read.

— This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

• The sheen seen on a single gossamer strand; the silvery part of a cobweb you can see only momentarily, when the light hits it just right. --Connel MacKenzie 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  A scintilla? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Pronunciations wildly different across the pond. (Confer this...it really does need a lexical sounding name.)
• --Connel MacKenzie 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

virtue

What is “# a good model quality”? Is it a nuance sense of “# an exemplary quality” or does it mean something else entirely? Rod (A. Smith) 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Plural of block and tackle

Is the plural block and tackles? RJFJR 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should actually be blocks and tackle (block being count, tackle being non-count, so "two blocks and tackle" = "{two blocks} and {tackle [for each]}"). That said, Google seems to have a slight preference for block and tackles. The intermediate blocks and tackles does not seem to be popular at all (it fairs O.K., hit-count-wise, but few of the hits are in this sense). Other phrasings, like block and tackle systems and block and tackle balances, also seem to be in currency (as do their normal singulars). None of these seems anywhere near as popular as the singular block and tackle, suggesting either that this is usually used in the singular, or that the usual plural is something I haven't thought of. —Ruakh_TALK 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure Ruakh is right. I don't even think "tackle" is properly countable in this sense -- tackle already consists of multiple ropes or chains. -- WikiPedant 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the compound block and tackle itself uncountable? Are you sure the uses of "blocks and tackle" that come up on Google aren't simply erroneous? --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it can be uncountable — "a {block and tackle}" seems quite well-formed — but it might only exist in the singular. (Another such, for some speakers, is "mouse", in the computer sense: clearly "mouse" is countable and singular, but many speakers simply do not pluralize it, instead going with something like "mouse devices".) —Ruakh_TALK 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So you disagree with the references I provided below? Interesting, but not particularly useful. It is important to indicate that it is uncountable first; many (obviously not just me) consider the "pluralizing" of it, to be incorrect. Indicating an incorrect plural form as an alternate (with its own warning) seems warranted, given how many errors turn on up your Google search. --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "So you disagree with the references I provided below?": Not at all. I think you must have misunderstood my comment? —Ruakh_TALK 20:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. Perhaps you could rephrase "I really don't think it can be uncountable"? --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think maybe we're defining "uncountable" differently? You seem to be using it to mean "lacking a plural"; for me, while an uncountable noun certainly lacks a plural, that's not enough to make a noun uncountable. For me, a noun like salt is uncountable, because you can't say *"a salt". You can, however, say "a block and tackle", even if it doesn't have a plural like "block and tackles" or "blocks and tackle" or something. (I'm not sure if the word "uncountable" is ambiguous between these two senses, or if one of us is using it mistakenly.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh, you are using uncountable correctly. Connel, you mean singulare tantum. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the plural is most commonly formed indirectly... "sets of block and tackle," "block and tackle mechanisms," etc. Google Patents turns up as many of these forms as you could desire... Which doesn't help us terribly, though it does suggest that (as Connel points out above) this phrase may actually be uncountable. What concerns me about "blocks and tackle" is that it (and for that matter "blocks and tackles") arguably could refer to a single set (since by definition a block and tackle consists of at least two pulleys) -- so it may, at least in some cases, just be an alternate form of the singular.

I mean, at least according to the current definition, you couldn't say "two blocks and tackle" to refer to two separate b&t setups, because each setup already contains at least two blocks. (I'm not sure if that definition is strictly correct; my real-life winching experience has been rather limited and less than successful.) On the other hand, you could theoretically say (as some people clearly do) "two block-and-tackles." -- Visviva 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Digging just a little deeper, [78], [79], [80] and [81] all list it as singular, describing plurals. On the other hand, this lists it with the doubly-erroneous plural (so I think they just had a bad day or something, when writing it.) I know I would only write "block and tackle" to describe multiple block and tackle assemblies. --Connel MacKenzie 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Workers of the world, unite!

There's an article on this slogan at Wikipedia, which happens to contain close to 50 translations for the phrase - something very unusual for a Wikipedia entry. I was thinking of making an entry for it here and moving all those translations over. Would that be appropriate? It's almost like an idiom or a proverb, but I don't want to open the door to slogans in general. Thoughts? bd2412 T 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would work as a phrasebook entry. Providing and maintaining translations is more our job than Wikipedia's. 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs).

For sure - we have nothing to lose but our chains! —Saltmarsh 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it is done: workers of the world, unite! bd2412 T 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

chikungunya and Makonde

Is this the only word ever borrowed into English from the Makonde language? (Is the name "Makonde" even borrowed from Makonde?) If so, is it sensible to create Category:Makonde derivations? -- Visviva 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Is this the only word ever borrowed into English from the Makonde language?": No idea, except next. Re: "Is the name 'Makonde' even borrowed from Makonde?": It looks like it, yes. (It looks like the native name for the language is actually "ChiMakonde", where "chi-" is a prefix that's attached to all language names — that sort of thing is common in the Bantu languages — but in English we don't usually include that prefix, which is why English has "Swahili" rather than "Kiswahili".) Re: "If so, is it sensible to create Category:Makonde derivations?": Yes, because even if English doesn't borrow much from Makonde, other languages might, resulting in categories like Category:pt:Makonde derivations, Category:yao:Makonde derivations, etc., which would all be subcategories of Category:Makonde derivations. (So, even if English has no loanwords from a given language, it might make sense to have a "derivations" category for that language.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

premises pluralia tantum ?

pluralia tantum ? In the sense of land and deeds. -- Algrif 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I’d say. Premise means something completely different, and I don’t think that a singular form of premises can, logically speaking, be back-formed, as it’s not as if a pub’s separate elements can be considered as individual parts which compose the “premises”. Oh, and BTW, pluralia tantum is the plural form — its singular is plurale tantum. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yiddish

Does anyone know if it's tref or treyf? (Possibly something else, maybe more than one). Checking an online dictionary and Wikipedia has just confused me. (I just put it as an antonym at wikisaurus:pure.) RJFJR 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's neither in Yiddish, which is not written using the Latin alphabet. What the transliteration is into English depends on your preferred system of transliteration. As to whether either of these spellings has made it into English, I'm not sure. A cursory glance at Google Books shows both, but I haven't actually looked beyond the results page to see context and italicization.—msh210℠ 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to spell it in Yiddish though it should be טרײף. I think. My spelling in Yiddish is not perfect. --Neskaya ^talk 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

frugality/frugalness

Is there a distinction between frugality and frugalness? RJFJR 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really in meaning, although frugalness is so rare that it would hardly seem a good choice. Widsith 11:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Teochew

What's Teochew? I found it checking words used in wiktionay that aren't in wiktionary. Is it the name of a lnaguage? RJFJR 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I found it at wikipedia. Sorry. I'll add it. RJFJR 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

imbetween

I have recently deleted imbetween. It is not in any paper or online dictionary that I have access to, but there are lots of Google hits for the word. Is this just ignorance or is it an actual change in the language - the im being easier to pronounce than the in? SemperBlotto 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the pronunciation with [m] is quite common, at least in some dialects; but most people spell it "in between" no matter how they pronounce it. If the eye-dialect spelling "imbetween" has at least three genuine uses on b.g.c. — and it seems to — then I think we should include it, and simply define it as an eye-dialect spelling of "in between". (It might warrant a "rare" tag as well.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The odd thing is that it doesn't seem to primarily an eye-dialect spelling; the legitimate hits I'm finding on Scholar, Books, and Patents are generally from fairly technical material, and almost never in the depiction of spoken discourse. The vast majority of hits are scannos, just as the vast majority of web hits are probably simple illiteracies... but at least two print uses I've found seem clearly self-conscious, such as a patent which juxtaposes "imbetween X and Y" with "between A, B, and C" in the same sentence. Perhaps it is sometimes used to mean something like "sandwiched between"? Anyway, regardless of inclusion, this seems like something we may want to monitor over time, so I've started a collection at Citations:imbetween (although I guess that should probably be Citations:IMBETWEEN). -- Visviva 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "it doesn't seem to primarily an eye-dialect spelling": That is fascinating and shocking. I guess this is what citations are for: challenging our uninformed assumptions. Thanks for adding them! :-)   (What's that about Citations:IMBETWEEN instead of Citations:imbetween? Yours isn't the first mention I've seen of that, but I think I missed the actual discussion about it. I don't suppose anyone has a link handy?) —Ruakh_TALK 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

im- is not just some easy way of saying "in". it is an English prefix derived from the german "im" for "in". the prefix is applicable when in front of several consonants. "B" is one of them. ie: import, imbed. google has over 14,000 hits. i know that is not a citation but combined with legitimate elements it seems that an admittance of the fluidity of language is appropriate in this case.75.57.98.66 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish our article to assert that the use of im- to mean in comes from a recondite German etymon that somehow isn't reflected in print citations, rather than from the straightforward and common process of assimilation, you'll need to provide a source for that assertion. On the face of it, it seems to be a fairly clear example of folk etymology. —Ruakh_TALK

i'll admit an ignorance of direct etymology whether it be german or latin. the point is that in this english language there is an evolution. be the "im-" in "imbetween" derived from an inherited usage or a new usage due to the retro assigned meaning of the prefix or simply the nature of english to turn "in b,p,m" into "imb.., imp..., or imm", it is arbitrary. the fact that the prefix has historically existed by these tendencies (and i say "tendencies" not "rules") is reason enough to acknowledge its occurrence as a natural progression of english. for so long, academies refused to acknowledge the word "can't" and for what purpose? Yes "cannot" also exists but because the language had precedents of the "-n't" abbreviation in other words, it eventually happened due to undeniable presence in common speech (as well as a shift from prescription to description). "Imbetween" exists in usage whether an institution seals approval or not. This is the whole purpose of wiktionary. Web 2.0 is run by a variety of common people with a variety of dialects, unlike the Académie Française which dictates prerequisite, prescription, "correctness" and "existence" to words.75.57.98.66 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly best regarded as a variant of "inbetween" (currently a redirect)? That has a couple orders of magnitude more web hits, and its 851 b.g.c. hits seem mostly not to be scannos. -- Visviva 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone pls back up what 'scotch' means in this example.

I've got a lot of Scottish background & a lot of Pakistani mates, so pls noone take offence in this. I found this on world news so the link won't last long. It was in the article, "Musharraf set to relinquish army post By South Asia correspondent Peter Lloyd September 18, 2007 - 9:33PM Source: ABC" where ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It was in the following one-sentence paragraph->

Prime Minister Aziz has gone out of his way to scotch reports of a deal between the regime and Ms Bhutto, especially in fixing up corruption cases.

I added the emboldenment. It was followed by:

"I think the cases are still there; there's no question of renewing them. They still exist," he said.

Does 'scotch' relate to stirring stuff up somewhat like in the various types of '-scotch' like 'butterscotch' or 'yoghurtscotch/ yogurtscotch'? It all seems too odd to me, but I'm sure the addition of a verb form for scotch is in order, even if it has a derisive derivation, if the ABC can use it. BTW, my Aussie Schoolmate OED lists the transitive verb, 'scotch', as meaning "put an end to (a rumour)." Thecurran 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say your OED has it about right. Although judging from b.g.c., it is sometimes used more broadly as "to discard an idea" or "to nip in the bud," a sense which blurs into the one we have. Notably it is used as "to use a scotch to block a wheel" -- perhaps the other senses are derived metaphorically from this one? Visviva 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The OED Online has two distinct entries for the verb scotch, one pertaining to cutting or injuring or quashing, and one pertaining to blocking or impeding or hesitating. It assigns the rumor-squelching sense to the former, but says it is "perh[aps] influenced by" the latter. Make of that what you will. —Ruakh_TALK 07:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Walter Skeat says scotch is etymologically related to score, "to cut slightly". Fowler points out that its meaning in Macbeth is similar. Now it is mostly a would-be clever way of saying "kill". It has nothing to do with Scotland. It's the verb for the noun in hopscotch. I'd call it rare in the USA. --68.46.158.140 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

cum

cum, English preposition, is listed with the sense:

1. Used in constructions such as: an X-cum-Y (for one who is X, to become Y)

   • A bus-cum-greenhouse would be a (probably old) bus that has been converted to a greenhouse.

Is this correct? I always understood the word as meaning essentially "and" or "and simultaneously" (not "becoming").—msh210℠ 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I take it to mean "and", with the strong implication that the part before the cum came first, or was the original intent; hence, a "party-cum-funeral" would be quite different from a "funeral-cum-party". —Ruakh_TALK 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually substitute "with" when I'm trying to figure out what a phrase containing cum means. RJFJR 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a Latin preposition, meaning "with" or "together with" and is used in many British placenames that are typically two villages sharing a parish etc. SemperBlotto 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

what

We have:

Determiner

what

1. (Noun modifier which indicates that the precise identity of the noun is unknown, and is requested.) The speaker is asking to learn the identity of the (noun).

   What time is it?

   What kind of car is that?

Interrogative determiner

what?

1. which; which kind of.

   What shirt are you going to wear?

2. how much; how great (used in an exclamation)

   What talent he has!

   What a talent!

Are the first two of these senses identical? If so, which POS header do we use?—msh210℠ 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They seem identical to me. "Interrogative determiner" is not a standard POS header; both senses should be under "Determiner". —Ruakh_TALK 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now combined.—msh210℠ 22:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with merging the sections for Pronoun, Relative pronoun, and Interrogative pronoun. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

-mania

Cf. kleptomania, megalomania, drapetomania, mythomania, egomania, and possibly others. One of the following would seem to be true:

• There's an English suffix -mania which deserves an entry.
• These words were all borrowed as whole words.

Does anyone know which?—msh210℠ 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly -mania deserves an entry. (I don't know if those were all borrowed as whole words, but -mania is used formatively in producing nonces, like bushmania, from Bush and -mania, and bushomania, the same but with infix -o-.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

also should have -maniac. RJFJR 13:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

toxology

There are old Google Books cites and new cites for toxology, all seemingly meaning the same as toxicology, so it's attested, I think. The only question I think is whether it's an error form or an alternative form. (Or whether it was an error and is now common enough.) It was deleted thrice, but I've cited it now.—msh210℠ 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. That post wasn't clear. The reason I've tea-roomed it is to ask the question (which is hidden in the text above): Is it an error or an alternative form?—msh210℠ 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In raw googles I get 31,800 for toxology and 15,800,000 for toxicology; at least one of those googles was corrected since google build the index. I think it's an error caused by eliding the 'ic' when typing in a hurry/scannos. I didn't find it in a print dictionary; does someone want to see if OED has citations? RJFJR 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to add confusion - the OED has it as nonce word meaning "The study of the bow, i.e. archery" - they probably mean toxophily. SemperBlotto 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this sense, which I have cited, is the only legitimate meaning of this word, though it is far less common than the erroneous toxicology spelling. (At least I assume it's erroneous; I can't find any evidence that toxon ever had anything to do with poison). This seems to be a frequent issue with -ic- words; e.g. lexigraphy is a valid word in its own right, but appears far more commonly as an error for lexicography. -- Visviva 06:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

pestle and mortar

Before I add a definition - would this be more than the sum of its parts? SemperBlotto 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"mortar and pestle" is about five times as common as "pestle and mortar" (I don't know that I've ever heard the latter before) according to google counts. RJFJR 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - yes, that's what I meant. SemperBlotto 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

mortar and pestle might qualify for an entry, since mortar has more than one sense (including a firearm). When I want to be clear what kind of mortar I mean, I usually say mortar and pestle. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it qualifies as a set phrase. Nobody much says "beans and pork" or "stripes and stars", or "forth and back", so "mortar and pestle" probably ought to have an entry just to record that it almost always goes in that order. --Dvortygirl 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In my (UK) experience, one always talks of "pestle and mortar".62.30.217.57 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"not be trying to hear"

Where should we put the AAVE phrase “not be trying to hear”? I think it's always to be used in the negative sense, meaning something like “ignore”, with variations only in the conjugation of (deprecated template usage) be, e.g.:

• I’m not trying to hear that.
• She was not trying to hear him.

So, I think it belongs at “not be trying to hear”, but perhaps it belongs as sense of “try” instead. Comments? Rod (A. Smith) 18:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It should be under try. I assume you mean She was not trying not to hear him. etc. There are a number of similar phrases such as She was trying not to notice him. She was trying not to listen to him. She was trying not to see him. and so on. Algrif 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A question from es.wikipedia regarding the femeninity of boats

The Spanish Wikipedians were surprised to encounter the sentence, "She was the only German submarine to be taken into Allied service and to fight for both sides in World War II." They're puzzling over the use of "she" in regards to this ship, since English doesn't generally assign genders to things that don't naturally have them (people, animals, etc.) I've already told them that it is common enough to refer to ships (and occasionally other machines and things) as "she".

Is this just some general, agreed-upon personification, or does it have particular roots, as some of them are speculating, in anglo-saxon and/or nautical tradition? --Dvortygirl 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This custom been with us at least since the 16th century, and no one is entirely sure where it came from. A popular theory is that ships have to be "treated like a lady", but this is probably an after-the fact justification. The pronoun "she" is occasionally applied to other inanimate objects, particularly vehicles and machines. Here is some further reading; nothing terribly illuminating: w:Gender-specific_pronoun#Ships_and_countries, Wisegeek.com, Phrases.org. HTH, -- Visviva 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! very interesting reading. Chabacano.

rubbernecking

The meaning of rubbernecking. I think wiktionary has it wrong and see discussion of the word to find out why. Tom Dodson — This unsigned comment was added by Dodsontw (talk • contribs) at 19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

Conversation is at talk:rubbernecking. Please reply there. --Connel MacKenzie 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

overridden

Should override list overridden as an additional past participle with overrode? (I'm not sure how to get the linking correct in en-verb to do this). RJFJR 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so...the past participle is only overridden, not overrode. The simple past form is only overrode. (Not sure how that one slipped by.) It should be {{en-verb|overrides|overriding|overrode|overridden}}. --Connel MacKenzie 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not sure why I didn't spot that right away. RJFJR 04:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

LSP

I just made this page. The quote is a book which has the term in its title. I used the beginning of the review found at the book’s site as illustrative text. Is this allowable? What format should be used here? Probably simply a better quote can be provided. H. (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

arms'-length

There's a legal term which takes (as far as I know) two forms:

• as a noun, the proceedings were conducted at arms' length or maybe (but seemingly proscribably) at arms length; and
• as an adjective, arms'-length negotiations or maybe armslength or maybe (but seemingly proscribably) arms-length.

We have neither of these (unless that's the meaning of what we have at armslength). Can someone who knows this legal term add whichever terms are used?—msh210℠ 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The noun use is usually spelled arm's length (as in "the length of an arm"); we have at arm's length, and perhaps arm's length should redirect to it. (And it's not just a legal term, by the way; maybe it's a regional thing, but I hear it fairly often in normal contexts.) I'm not sure which alternatively-punctuated renditions warrant inclusion, nor which of these are "alternative __s" and which are "mis__s". As for the adjective sense, I really have no idea; it's not a usage I'm used to. I'd guess this is actually just an attributive use of the noun, which would imply that it should be written arm's-length, but I make no promises. —Ruakh_TALK 00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinct legal/financial sense, referring to the relationship between two independent economic actors. See w:Arm's length and w:Arm's length principle; Googling for "arm's length price" or "arm's length transaction" will also turn up a fair number of hits. I believe this is also part of a GAAP specification of some kind ... It was part of some real estate documentation I translated recently, but I can't recall the details, except that "arm's length principle" is rendered in Korean (and probably many other languages) as "independent company principle." -- Visviva 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

s**t

What part of speech would f**k, s**t, c**t, w**k etc. be? --Gapper Rapper 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say multiple, depending on how they can be used. F**k is famous for being used in most parts of speech (or infmaous?). S**t can be verb, noun, adjective. Is exclamation at POS? RJFJR 04:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally exclamation refers to the sentence, and interjection to the word. We do buck tradition about a lot of things, but this isn't one of them. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 04:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant interjection (thank you), so that POS too. RJFJR 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using the term expletive? Thecurran 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In linguistics, expletive is a technical term that applies to these words in only some of their uses — and not the uses you might expect. It's misleading to use it in the non–term-of-art sense, but it's also misleading to use it in the non-widely-known term-of-art sense, so I'd recommend that we avoid it altogether. —Ruakh_TALK 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

untechnical

what is the word for untechnical?

General, lay, popular. "A popular treatment of the subject", "a lay audience".—msh210℠ 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anglosphere

There's still a {'{'rft'}'} tag on Anglosphere. Is it still under contention whether or not it conforms to CFI? Thecurran

I'm fishing for the correct collective term for the English-using/ English-affected communities of the world; both large and small. Similar terms include: Anglosphere, Anglophonia, Anglophonie, English/ British/ English-speaking community/ diaspora/ w:sprachbund/ sprachwelt/ world, the Commonwealth of Nations, &c. Any bytes? ;) Thecurran 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The TR discussion referred to only involved two users with one paragraph each. Granted, they're both paramount editors/ admins but it feels silly to continue the {'{rft}'} when one definition comprises the other.

Personally, I think there should be two meanings listed, with the first one being linguistic only, as Anglo- can refer to 'en#English', 'Anglo-Saxon#English', 'GB-England', or 'GB' (usu. only in naming of international relationships, &c.), but the last 2, while connecting to much of the anglosphere via the Commonwealth of Nations, do not connect so with the US, a large part of the anglosphere. I would make the second definition include the people culturally, demographically, economically, geographically, or politically related to the first linguistically defined anglosphere.

BTW, I think the way anglo- refers to GB in the names of alliances, battles, events, treaties, &c should be included on the page for that entry, but as a bit of a noob, I won't make the change until the RFT on anglosphere ends. Thecurran 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Edit, and have no fear. :-) (This is an open wiki, even if *cough* certain respected participants *cough* tend to forget this fact.) In any case, {{rft}} isn't a big deal like {{rfd}} -- it just means someone is looking for information or input of some kind -- so there's no need to be especially cautious.

Re your specific points:

1. Term: "Anglosphere" does carry this meaning, but for the record "English-speaking world" is about 3x more common online.

2. Split: I'm skeptical of a separate meaning; I think "Anglosphere" basically means "English-speaking world" and the political aspect just reflects the "as we know, most of these countries are stable democracies" aspect. But if you can find citations for a second sense, please add it.

3. Anglo-: I agree.

See ya 'round! -- Visviva 15:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I view an "rft" as a simple question, not necessarily needing cleanup or verification (unless someone else echoes the question themselves.) "Be Bold" is definitely the right frame of mind, for dealing with forgotten rft's. --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

☜

What's the name for the symbol ☜, used in publications?—msh210℠ 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

☜ → %E2%98%9C → 1110 0010 1001 1000 1001 1100 → 0010 01 1000 01 1100 → 0010 0110 0001 1100 → U+261C → WHITE LEFT POINTING INDEX; ah, the joys of UTF-8. :-)   At least, that's its name in the Unicode spec — see http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf — printers might have a shorter name for it. —Ruakh_TALK 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the latter is the one I seek. I know it has a name.—msh210℠ 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

infraspanatus

An anon wrote the following at Talk:infraspanatus:

iTS A MUSCLE IN THE BACK, FURTHER FUNCTION OF THE MUSCLE NEEDS TO BE ADDED.

There are very few hits at google:infraspanatus, so I'm not sure whether it's a typo. Does anyone know? Rod (A. Smith) 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a typo for infraspinatus. —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

kop

I’ve added quite some info to the Dutch part, would be glad if a native speaker could proofread. H. (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done this, and made some adjustments. Feel free to leave me a message if you want me to look at other entries. S Sepp 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

one word

can u give me the sigle word for person having sex with the dead?

Sick. -- Visviva 04:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's looking for the noun, no? So, sicko. ;-) Also, necrophiliac. —Ruakh_TALK 05:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

necrophilia is pretty close, though sense 1:pathological attraction to dead bodies, just refers to attraction not to having sex. RJFJR 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

weight v mass

I have changed the definition of pound to define it as a unit of "weight" not "mass". Unfortunately (I would say) Wikipedia in (w:Pound (mass)) says a unit of mass (sometimes called 'weight' in everyday parlance). Put simply, all terrestrial systems measure weight (a body's attraction to the Earth) and not mass (the quantity of matter in a body). A brief look at a few dictionaries all use the word weight in their the principal definitions. Are there any comments? —Saltmarsh^Talk 07:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is reasonable on the face of it; mass and weight are equivalent in most terrestrial contexts, and "weight" is certainly the more common term in everyday use. But kilogram is defined as a unit of mass... Would you say that should be changed, or are SI units not terrestrial?  ;-) -- Visviva 07:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Off the cuff (without referral elsewhere) the kilogram is a unit of "mass" and "weight", whereas for all common purposes lbs & ozs are only used for weighing. —Saltmarsh^Talk 08:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense. So kilogram should have an additional sense (or maybe just a usage note). -- Visviva 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would add that although science/physics draws a strict distinction between weight and mass, that does not mean they aren't more interchangeable in colloquial use, older forms of English, etc. Widsith 08:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. For (and only for) the precise physics sense of the terms, the pound should be defined as a unit of weight and the kilogram as one of mass. I'm having a hard time finding references to back this up, but in an introductory physics class I took, the instructor was very insistent that a kilogram is a unit of mass but a pound is one of weight. In the SI system, weight is properly measured in newtons. I'm pretty sure there is a proper unit of mass in the Imperial system, but I don't remember its name. Rod (A. Smith) 08:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha! It's slug. Rod (A. Smith) 08:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

American engineers, when not using SI, don't actually use slug so much; rather, we acknowledge that pound (lb) is properly a unit of force, but nonetheless use it for both mass and force, or when we're feeling particularly precise, use pound-mass (lb-m or lbm) and pound-force (lb-f or lbf), with 1 lb-f = 1 lb-m × g. (Don't get me wrong; I have seen slug used, and I myself have even used it before. But it's not terribly common, and not generally convenient.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen "lb" used as 454g and "lbf" used as 4.45N.. the whole thing gives me a headache. (Incidentally, this is why we don't have a w:Mars Climate Orbiter) Cynewulf 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Our entries should definitely acknowledge the "proper" uses of these terms (assuming we can figure out what "proper" is wrt Imperial/Customary measurements). However, we can't avoid the fact that mass and weight are used almost interchangeably in practice, by lots of people who really ought to know better: "mass in pounds", "weight in kilograms". -- Visviva 08:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Google Scholar does better on pounds, but much worse on kilograms [82]; this is partly due to a boilerplate definition of the body mass index.

Do we have good context labels for these? I think I've seen a contrast drawn between, say, "zoology" and "colloquial", but "colloquial" is inaccurate or prescriptive when used this way. How about {{non-technical}} or something? —Ruakh_TALK 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, "non-technical" might also be inaccurate or prescriptive in this case: people do misuse these terms in technical contexts. Perhaps we'll need to fall back on {{proscribed}}? —Ruakh_TALK 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram has a non-SI, everyday meaning equivalent to weight, especially in weightlifting; I have never seen an Olympics telecast describe the weight lifted in the proper SI units of Newtons. Though, technically, something that "weighs" 100 kg actually has a mass of 100kg. I think a thorough Usge note is in order here. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, people mix these up because whether you ask for half a kilo of peas or a pound of peas, you get about the same amount of peas. Cynewulf 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but consider the hapless reader purchasing peas on the moon! Rod (A. Smith) 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the matter will get straightened out until we have a lunar colony, but we can certainly try to explain things for future astronauts. Cynewulf 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've made an attempt at kilogram; what do y'all think? If this is how we want to handle it, then similar definitions and tags and usage notes will be need to be crafted for various other entries affected by this issue. —Ruakh_TALK 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good from here. Maybe could be templated? -- Visviva 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the word you are looking for is kilopond. It was the unit of "weight" in the gravitational metric systems, equivalent to 1 Kgr of "mass". I think it has not been in use since 1977. --flyax 11:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

regestered dietitian

what is the meanning

Look up registered and dietician. --EncycloPetey 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

a frog in one's throat

Should a frog in one's throat be moved to frog in one's throat? --EncycloPetey 18:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No objection; we should probably have a general policy of article-stripping. However, this phrase is overwhelmingly used with the indefinite article; the exact phrase "a frog in my throat" accounts for about 96% of web hits and 75% of book hits for "frog in my throat", with most of the others being something like "a [...] frog in my throat." If it's moved, the usage notes should probably mention this. -- Visviva 05:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I expect this could turn up as, "Hope you recovered from that frog in your throat." And I agree that a general policy of article stripping looks like a good idea, with room for exceptions if they can be justified on a case-by-case basis. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Pls. translate to namibian language.

spam removed --EncycloPetey 14:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The official language of Namibia is English, so there's no need for translation. For more information please see the Wikipedia article about Namibia. -- Visviva 11:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We've had several similar requests recently, all announcing the person "respresents country X". Either this is a homework project students are failing to do on their own, or else this is an attempt to get our help translating spam. --EncycloPetey 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It hardly seems like a likely kind of spam... Can't say I'd noticed the others, but assumed it was related to a Model UN activity of some kind. -- Visviva 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the opening like from one of the most common spam messages on the internet: "Hello, I represent government X and want to send you money..." --EncycloPetey 01:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what it said; it identified its author as a fifth-grader representing Namibia. It seemed like patent nonsense to me, until Visviva offered a plausible explanation (the Model-UN one). —Ruakh_TALK 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

get off

Redundant third sense? Also, is the fourth sense transitive or not? (Note incidentally that it has the HTML comment "move to 'get off on'?".)

1. To move from being on (something) to not being on it.

   Get off your chair and help me.

2. [A second sense, not relevent.]
3. To disembark from (something).

   You get off the train at the third stop.

4. (slang) To excite; to give pleasure to

   I don't get off on champagne.

—msh210℠ 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The fourth sense is actually backward; it's the object that excites or gives pleasure to the subject. Its transitivity is not really an issue, because we don't want to have separate "transitive verb" and "intransitive verb" sections; our goal should be to merge those properly, rather than to figure out what should go in each. —Ruakh_TALK 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the third sense is redundant; to "get off the table" is not the same as "get off the train". Sense three can only be used with mass forms of public transportation -- you can get off (or get on) the bus, the train, or the subway, but you can't get off a taxi, a car, or a truck. If I were to hear someone shout, "Get off the car!" I would assume someone is standing on top of their car and is being asked to come down. But if I hear someone shout, "Get off the bus!" I would assume someone is riding within the bus and being asked to vacate or disembark.

However, I think that the first and the second sense in the entry (see the entry) are synonymous. --EncycloPetey 01:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the third is redundant because "on" is used for a bus; so "to move from being on (something) to not being on it" (the first sense) includes the third sense.—msh210℠ 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But when you get on a surfboard, you are climbing on top of it. When you get on a bus, you are climbing inside of it. You are therefore moving from the inside to the outside, and not moving from being on/atop it to off. The words get on and get off have separate senses that apply only to the use of mass transit. --EncycloPetey 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

When you get on a bus, you're climbing inside of it, correct. And after you've done so, you're said to be on the bus. So the meaning "to move from being on (something) to not being on it" (the first sense of get off) includes the bus meaning: when you get off a bus, you're moving from being on the bus to not being on the bus. This seems so obvious to me that I wonder if I'm being unclear.—msh210℠ 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Otoh, the second and first senses aren't redundant (imo): the second is transitive while the first is not.—msh210℠ 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the first sense is reflexive, not intransitive. The only reason it doesn't currently look that way in the examples is that they're both imperative constructions. Rephrase it as "He got off the chair." or "She got off her ass." and you can see they're reflexive, not intransitive. Both examples can insert the understood pronoun "himself/herself" as the object. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Semantically speaking, intransitive got is synonymous with transitive got + a reflexive pronoun; but I don't see how that makes intransitive got reflexive. —Ruakh_TALK 03:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the Oxford Companion to the English Language seems to agree with me. They define reflexive as a "verb, pronoun, or construction that works on identity of reference between two grammatical units, chiefly the subject and object.", and they note that "intransitive verbs do not have objects." A reflexive verb therefore cannot be intransitive, because its object is the subject of the sentence. The CGEL has a novel interpretation of trans./intrans. (big surprose); they call this situation an "unexpressed reflexive object" in a Type III trans-intrans pair. --EncycloPetey 05:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, as your quotes from the Oxford Companion exactly match my own understanding (that "He got himself off the chair" has a reflexive verb, and "He got off the chair" has an intransitive one). —Ruakh_TALK 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would call the second example reflexive as well, with an understood/unexpressed object. My understanding is that an intransitive verb is one where there is no object, not simply where it wasn't expressed explicitly. So "The child washed the dog" is transitive; "The child washed (himself)." is reflexive, whether or not the reflexive pronoun is expressed; but "The child slept." is intransitive and must be so because there is no object, nor is one even possible. --EncycloPetey 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But of course, sleep does take one sort of object; consider "slept the sleep of", which gets 33.5kGhits of which all seem to be in the relevant sense. (This is called a Cognate object.) By your line of argument, one might as well say that sleep is actually a transitive verb with the implied object "a sleep". And, would you consider "I shaved" to be reflexive? If not, how is it different; and if so, how did you decide that the implied object is "myself" rather than "my beard" or "my face"? —Ruakh_TALK 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And that's why the CGEL has a totally different take on trans./intrans. They have a whole densly packed section on just this issue waiting for your eager perusal! --EncycloPetey 03:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

CGEL's tendency to use terminology in a nonstandard way is fraught with peril. Their claim that "noun possessives don't exist" is one example of how they discredit themselves as a serious reference; that direct conflict with Wiktionary terminology is a source of never-ending aggravation. Reflexive verbs in Wiktionary terminology refer to transitive verbs with a reflexive pronoun only. So, if the object of that transitive verb can be either a reflexive pronoun or another object, we don't call it a "reflexive verb" as that would be a silly distinction. The only time it is a relevant distinction, is when the object cannot be some other object. "She perjured herself" is very different from "She shaved her legs" or even "She shaved." --Connel MacKenzie 16:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

trapezium

The first two definitions and synonyms given for (deprecated template usage) trapezium and those for (deprecated template usage) trapezoid, as well as w:Trapezoid, Mathworld, and Math OpenRef indicate that the terms have exactly swapped meaning on opposite sides of the pond! The most authoritative reference in it all seems to be “Bronshtein, I. N. and Semendyayev, K. A. Handbook of Mathematics, 3rd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997, p. 174”. It would be great if somebody could dictly quote that reference in our entry since it's such a remarkable difference. I added a usage note to each, but perhaps it should be more clearly explained. Rod (A. Smith) 00:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Both meanings have been used in England. The sense of a quadrilateral having only one pair of parallel sides is said by the OED to have been restriction introduced by Proclus, whoever he is, and they add "The specific sense in Eng. in 17th and 18th c., and again the prevalent one in recent use." For the other sense, where no sides are parallel, they comment, "The usual sense in England from c1800 to c1875. Now rare. This sense is the one that is standard in the U.S., but in practice quadrilateral is used rather than trapezium. This is the trapezoid of Proclus". There is also a general Euclidean sense, of any irregular quadrilateral which is not a parallelogram. Widsith 10:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

thomes hobbes

who was thomes hobbes

Is there some reason youre asking this question on a dictionary web site? You ought to try an encyclopedia. --EncycloPetey 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Völundarkviða

This entry says English language; is this correct? sewnmouthsecret 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Finnish to me. There is probably a similar Anglicised version. SemperBlotto 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Finnish includes the letter ð. It looks more like Old Norse to me. --EncycloPetey 13:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be correct; see the referenced 'pedia article. Robert Ullmann 13:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

swaths vs. swathes

As far as I knew, swaths was a misspelling of swathes. Indeed, the first page of b.g.c. search results for "swathes" lists more plurals of swath than swathe. Is swathes the only correct plural for both swath and swathe? More misleading, is that swaths now does seem to be (mis)used a lot. Looking at news.g.c. suggests that "swath/swathe/swaths/swathes" is confused consistently around the world, not immediately tied to any specific region. --Connel MacKenzie 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

knuckle

I was looking up the word hernia in a medical dictionary and found this entry

Hernia: Protusion of a loop or knuckle of an organ or some tissue through an abnormal opening.

(I added it to the talk page for knuckle as a citation). What does knuckle mean in this case? RJFJR 02:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that knuckle is the rounded end of any bone that forms a protrusion when a joint is bent. Presumably here an organ could mean a bone. SemperBlotto 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a generalization of the bone sense to non-bone organs. So that would mean any part that protrudes the way my knuckles stick out. RJFJR 13:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

notwithstanding/Citations

I've started a citations page for notwithstanding, but am having doubts about the part of speech for some of the quotations from Shakespeare. Does anyone think that one or more of the quotes in misplaced? (Out of courtesy, please delay any transfer of citations between sections for at least a few days, lest later contributors to the discussion become confused by the discussion as a result.) --EncycloPetey 04:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

dead as a doorknob or dead as a doornail

I believe the redirect should be reversed. All the research I have managed so far seems to indicate that doornail is by far and away more common than doorknob. For instance Google hits show 117,000 / 823. Similar results elsewhere. Algrif 17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit more research shows dead as a doornail dates back to at least 1350 The Vision of Piers Plowman. It also appears in Shakespeare’s Henry IV. So seems also to pre-date doorknob. Algrif 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• How odd - I've only ever heard of the doorknob version. SemperBlotto#

  I've heard both, as well as "dead as a dodo" and "dead as a Dalek" (though with considerably less frequency). --EncycloPetey 00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stranger and stranger, I've heard 'dead as a dodo' 75%

'Dead as a doornail' 20%

'dead as a doorknob' 5%

(all approx) 87.114.138.55 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I had always heard "dumb as a doorknob" and "dead as a doornail", but quick web searches don't really support that distinction. Rod (A. Smith) 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Could I, at least, remove the hard redirect and put a definition plus a "Related terms" or "See also" heading pointing to dead as a doorknob, or something? Whatsay? Algrif 11:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite the changes that have been made, I still believe that for both statistical and etymological date reasons, this entry should be dead as a doornail directing to the other possibilities. If not, then the decision flies in the face of the excellent reasoning used for other entries in Wikt, where stats and dates have had the overriding power for reaching consensus. Algrif 12:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn right. I support the “primary entry” being “housed” at dead as a doornail. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead as doornail as primary, based in quantitative evidence. It also fits my experience in US. The others have been much rarer in my experience. Is there a UK or Commonwealth vs. US difference in relative frequency ? DCDuring 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I’m aware; in order of frequency in my experience:

1. dead as a doornail
2. dead as a dodo
3. dead as a doorknob

† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

incurrent

Why was this word deleted with no useful explanation?

It was in the headline requested word list and is a not uncommon word in biology and botany. A google book search shows over 700 entries and it appears in both MW and OED.

Even if the person who deleted it had some cogent reason for doing so, surely it would have been common courtesy to actually fill in the log to show why s/he was deleting a perfectly valid word. 87.114.138.55 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, you could have inquired directly on my talk page, no? You wish a public spectacle instead? I shall try very hard to AGF anyhow. Your term appears in other dictionaries, but not with that meaning. It is easier to restart an entry, when nonsense is not in the way. If the b.g.c. hits, do any match your meaning? In general, when a term has a common, or widely understood meaning, we enter that first. A definition such as yours might merit a full WT:RFV review; in my opinion, not. --Connel MacKenzie 17:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't find any way of looking at what I actually entered (although since Visviva seems to have found some wording from the entry it is presumably possible). I checked that the word exists in OED2 and MW online. I then checked the meanings listed in OED2, one of which was new to me.

Doing some further research MW gives: "giving passage to a current that flows inward" whereas OED2 gives: "Running in; penetrating into the interior; falling within (a period)." Whilst my entry (from memory) certainly needed some wording added it was not (again, from memory) fundamentally wrong and could have easily been corrected. 87.114.138.55 09:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would indeed be common courtesy to explain the reason for deletion. While we're on the subject, I would have to say that use of the snide "explanation of deletion" auto-summary is one of the most egregiously rude behaviors on Wiktionary. The speedy deletion of this entry was clearly inappropriate; on the other hand, it seems that the sense added had nothing to do with biology or botany. Further, the phrase "incurrent to" scores no relevant hits on Google Books. -- Visviva 18:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking closer, yes, the speedy deletion was wrong. My apologies. --Connel MacKenzie 18:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The "explanation of deletion", apart from anything else, promises more than it delivers. When you select it, expecting to find out why an entry has gone, all you get is a list of every possible reason an entry might have been deleted. In most cases (e.g. "john doe is gay"), it's quite obvious but occasionally it isn't and that leaves editors unsure of what they did wrong, and, I'm sure, puts newcomers off contributing in the future. For example, "so much" had been sitting at the beginning of the requested entries for some time before I decided to risk putting in the effort to try and describe the term in a way that would be useful to a non English speaker knowing that some high-handed admin might well come along two minutes later and decide the entry was unnecessary (it's survived so far) and summarily delete it. 87.114.138.55

I see that VisVisa has now struck out his objection to "explanation of deletion". Whilst I'd agree that it isn't snide, and is not rude per se, it is unhelpful and is effectively rude when a entry that has been made in good faith (which should not be hard to differentiate from wanton stupidity) has been deleted. Surely it would not be too much to expect people to use preselectables of such things as 'nonsense/incorrect definition/sum of parts/encyclopaedic/vandalism'. 87.114.138.55 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

street smarts/streetwise/street-smart

Touching an etymology, I found we're missing an entry for the original form street smarts. But spot-checking other dictionaries, it is reported backwards, with "streetwise" (the most recent of all three forms) somehow being used in the 60s? Should these go through RFV? I am pretty sure the "intentionally incorrect" form "street smarts" caught on only because it was intentionally incorrect; the others followed later (late 80s.) Anyone know a good way to find (adequate?) supporting evidence in some tricky way I've overlooked? --Connel MacKenzie 04:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. NYT archives have "street smarts" first in 1972, "street-smart" in 1971, and "streetwise" in 1968. <shrug> Still seems backwards to me, but b.g.c. can't seem to antedate any of those (omitting errors of date reported vs. date actually published, that is.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you are saying "street smarts" is intentionally incorrect. From personal experience (I haven't made any dictionary check), "Smarts" is a plural only noun indicating wisdom or intelligence, and having "street smarts" means having elements of wisdom or intelligence relating to "the street", i.e. being streetwise. "Streetwise", OTOH, is obviously an adjective. In England, certainly, the term streetwise was common well before "street smarts", which is quite rare here, but I couldn't give you any dates. Possibly the two terms crossed the Atlantic in opposite directions? 87.114.138.55 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

lepton

I've just added a second definition, but I suspect the entry needs to be tidied / reorganised so that it looks "standard" (whatever that is in these kind of cases ;-)) Algrif 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Luckily they have slightly different etymologies; I'll amend the page. Widsith 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Excellent work! Algrif 16:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Appalachian capitalized?

Should the word Appalachian be capitalized? RJFJR 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so, yes. —Ruakh_TALK 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

what's loyalty

loyal

The definition at loyalty seems to say it very well. Is there something in particular you feel is missing or unclear? RJFJR 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Krämer

Sense 2: Seinfeld character. Does this belong there? Also, it's listed under the ==German== heading. If we keep th current sense 2 should it be moved? RJFJR 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any umlauts in the Seinfeld character's name, so I would delete the sense. sewnmouthsecret 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it based on that argument. Thank you. RJFJR 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

up against

IMHO I think this should be moved to be up against as a phrasal verb. Algrif 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

what of go up against then? Separate entry? --Connel MacKenzie 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Along with run up against, rub up against and all the other phrasal verbs that have yet to be added. (There are well over 3,000 in most phrasal verb dictionaries). Algrif 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think these can all be handled with up against as a compound preposition (there are a few in English). Particularly so, since as the uses above show that it appears in conjunction with many different verbs. I don't see this as a case of a phrasal verb. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's going to make life impossible. What about stand up against? I'll keep looking for more. Up against, while not as common as some other double particles, is a well recognised phrasal verb combination. By allowing up against and trying to include all the phrasal verb definitions there, you will 1) be making it impossible for users to find the entries, 2) losing the correct classification in the category list, and 3) opening the door to out against, up for, in for, and a huge etc. of double particle entries. A phrasal verb is a phrasal verb, and should be entered correctly as such. What, in heaven's name, is up against? It says in the entry preposition. As far as I am aware, there is no POS called preposition that consists of two other prepositions / adverbs joined in this way. Algrif 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Heavens above!! Some of them are already there!!! This is a bad joke or what??? Algrif 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are compound prepositions composed of more than one word. They are recognized by the CGEL, the Oxford Companion to the English Language, and the Chicago Manual of Style as prepositions, and each of those works discusses them. So if you weren't aware of this before, please be aware of it now. I didn't make this up, I looked it up. If you wish to disagree with three major reference works, please provide a thorough reasoning. --EncycloPetey 13:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend to dispute reference works. (Edit added later:- in between is a good example of what you are saying.). But, if a proposition IS a preposition, then it will not be limited to 4 or 5 verbs. It should be useable in any situation. So up against means "Facing; challenging, or opposing." does it? So if a tree grows up against the garden wall, it is challenging or opposing it. Please. This is NOT the "meaning" of up against. It is, on the other hand, the meaning of be up against. As any good dictionary will show (except of course this one!) Algrif 13:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I added

1. In contact with, abutting.

   If the tree grows up against the garden wall either the tree will be crowded and stunted or the wall will be pushed out.

RJFJR 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if every preposition could indeed be used with any verb in any situation, but that doesn't actually happen. You can "walk into the room", "shout into the room" and "saunter into the room", but you can't "eat into the room", "think into the room", or "categorize into the room". Prepositions only work in certain circumstances, so it's not reasonable to expect that a preposition will be useable in just any situation. On the other hand, I do agree with the added definition of up against, and I do agree with the underlying general principle you give that a preposition can be distinguished from a component of a phrasal verb if the verb can change without altering the basic meaning of the putative preposition. A second test is to ask whether the potential preposition has a complement; and a third test is to ask whether the potential prepositional phrase answers a typical adverbial question or can be replaced by an adverb. --EncycloPetey 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A real improvement, IMO. If general opinion is that this is a two word preposition then that definition works as a preposition of position that can be used with most relevant verbs and nouns.

I still don't understand how an idiomatic tag can be placed with a preposition, though, in the first entry. It is only idiomatic when placed with about ½dozen verbs, and the meaning differs somewhat with each one. Which is why I still maintain that the first definition is incorrect and should be under be up against. I will be adding some phrasal verbs shortly, and will leave it up to anyone who cares to do so, to RFV them. Algrif 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Or RFD them, more suitably.  ;-) I think if we can have entries for off and get off, we should be able to have entries for up against and go up against (etc. etc.), provided a reasonable showing of idiomaticity. -- Visviva 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, RFD is what I meant to put. I do think it is important to distinguish between The chair is up against the table from I'm up against the committee. Wouldn't you agree? Even slightly? Algrif 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is idiomaticity, and that we should make the distinction. However, I would put that information on the entry for up against rather than the combination. Note, however, that the majority of prepositional uses are in some way idiomatic, so I'd be hesitant to mark it as "idiomatic" without a lot of thought. --EncycloPetey 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

pommy bastard

I'm not sure that this is a plain, old sum of its parts pommy and bastard, so didn't RFD it, but it seems to be. Does anyone know?—msh210℠ 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not really sum of parts since there are no parallel terms I can think of such as British bastard, yanky bastard, kiwi bastard, aussie bastard, etc. It's pretty subtle though and I wouldn't want to be the one to define it. — Hippietrail 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Yankee bastard(s)" does actually get a fair number of Google hits (though not so many as "pommy bastard(s)"). —Ruakh_TALK 01:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course straightforward phrases with no special meaning often get many Google hits ("red car", "and the" etc). So while a phrase getting no hits could rule out its existence, it is not enough on its own to say that it does exist as a special meaning. As a native speaker of Australian English I can say "pommy bastard" has a life of its own and "yankee bastard" does not. Maybe it does in the southern US but I wouldn't know. — Hippietrail 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Yank equivalent of "pommy bastard" is actually "damn Yankee". (A Yank myself, however, I might not be the one to decide.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As an Englishman I've always known pommy bastard as a friendly, if not particularly respectful term used by Austrailians usually used in a jocular sense. Thus the definition given (which is pure SOP) seems wrong. Moglex 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

haber

According to http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=he&oldid=3113636, the second person singular (familiar) positive imperative of (deprecated template usage) haber is (deprecated template usage) hé. According to es:haber, (deprecated template usage) he is a common erroneous form and the correct form is (deprecated template usage) habe or (deprecated template usage) habé. Which is right? Rod (A. Smith) 06:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The RAE Diccionario de Dudas says:- "En cuanto al imperativo, las formas heredadas del latín son habe y habed, aunque carecen de uso en la actualidad, pues este verbo, al haber sido desplazado con sentido posesivo por tener, no se conjuga hoy en imperativo." That is one point of view. I must admit that having lived in Spain for many years now, I don't think I've ever heard or read an imperative of haber. So generally speaking, I would tend to agree with the RAE on this one. Algrif 11:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up, Algrif. I edited (deprecated template usage) haber and its conjugation table accordingly. Rod (A. Smith) 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

dandelion

Being today's WOTD it caught my attention. Why is this described as a weedy plant? True, in the middle of a well tended lawn, it is a weed. But then so is grass a weedy plant in the middle of a well tended dandelion bed in a herbal garden. It is an authentic herbal diuretic. (French piss en lit). Algrif 12:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it grows rapidly and spreads invasively. It grows opportunistically in cracks of sidewalks and in disturbed areas. If we had a decent entry for weedy, then it would make more sense because we would have the botanical defiinition. --EncycloPetey 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

postpartum

We define postpartum as "postnatal", but it seems to me that postpartum means "after giving birth" while postnatal means "after being born". Granted, this implies a bit of pragmatic overlap, since mother and child are still typically viewed as a unit in the period right after birth, but I think the definitions are a bit different. However, other dictionaries don't seem to really differentiate between the two, so maybe I've just invented a distinction for myself that doesn't actually exist? —Ruakh_TALK 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have. The etymological distinction is not very big anyway, and in practice the two words are identical, bar a few connotational differences. Widsith 10:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See also post-partum, which is set up slightly different. Anyone know the meaning of L. partum? I thought postpartum meant "after seperation". RJFJR 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging from b.g.c, postnatal is used as the more general term, meaning simply "after birth." Thus one can find references to "postnatal depression," etc., where the term is clearly used to refer to the mother's experience. On the other hand, "postpartum" seems to be used exclusively in reference to the mother. -- Visviva 12:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What Visviva says is also my personal experience. As to Latin (deprecated template usage) partum, it's the singular accusative of partus, for wich I will tidy up the entry. In short the root of natal means "being born", while the root of partum means "giving birth". --EncycloPetey 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter translations

Did we ever decide if we can have modern foreign words that are translations of invented words from Harry Potter and the like - I was about to add dissennatore (the translation of dementor). SemperBlotto 09:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How many indiependant sources can you find? If it is only used in translations of the Harry Potter books (the individual books not being indepedent of each other) then we don't need it since it is clear from context in the book (usually because someone is point at it and describing it). Which doesn't answer your question of if it was decided, rather it is just part of deciding. RJFJR 13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if we allow the source words, I imagine; it appears that heretofore no entry has been created for dementor or Dementor (is that possible?), so the question may be unresolved. Given the impressive body of secondary and peripheral treatments which the Potterverse has already spawned, I would say these have to be included -- and if the English words are included, it would be absurd to exclude their translations. However, this may be a question which still has to be banged out at RFD. (The policy-neutral option would be to put the entry at Appendix:Fictional characters/dissennatore).-- Visviva 13:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider the first sentence of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#General rule: “A term should be included if it’s likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means”; unless there are examples of the use of these words where they have not been thitherto defined and the meanings of which are not clear from the contexts, then noöne will come here “want[ing] to know what [they] mean”. In such situations, I don’t think these coinages warrant entries. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two ways of interpreting that statement: that the Potterverse has not become part of the contemporary discourse, or that there is no-one left on Earth who is not already familiar with these terms. I'm not sure which is more bizarre (probably the first), but I don't see how sentences such as this: 'The joy is sucked out of the game for them as if by Dementors' [83] -- can be considered clear from context. -- Visviva 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant is: noöne would need to look up “dementor” here if the thing which they’re reading is discussing Harry Potter et cetera. The link you provided shows the word’s use outside of such context, and therefore supports our inclusion of “dementor(s)”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

right interjection

This page still does not have the header Interjection. I would put it there myself, but which etymology. There is some discussion on Talk:right, but no entry. There are at least two interjection uses that I can think of. (maybe more). Can somebody who knows put this "right"? Algrif 13:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Both uses (assuming I'm thinking of the same two that you are) go under Etymology 1. The interjection comes from the same root as the adjective/noun, not from the Old English verb/adverb. --EncycloPetey 16:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put the entry in the right place now. Algrif 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

glossogenetic

I saw this word in an article about the rate of change of the form of verbs in this week's "Nature". I can't find a definition, so have made a guess. Please improve, if you know any better. SemperBlotto 16:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you include the quote you saw? --EncycloPetey 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I shall have to revisit my local library - Monday at the earliest (no hits on the website - they don't include the text of research articles). (A "news" item about the article is here [84] but it doesn't include the word. SemperBlotto 16:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? That "news" item lists two articles as references, and unless I'm missing something, neither uses the word glossogenetic anywhere in its full text, nor in any figures or tables. (I didn't look through the "supplemental information", as none of it looked likely to contain the word, and anyway supplemental information doesn't appear in the hard-copy journal.) That said, one does use the word phylogenetic a bunch of times; perhaps that's what you're thinking of? —Ruakh_TALK 18:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait till Monday. SemperBlotto 18:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, here, I found the article you're presumably thinking of; it's actually not a journal article, per se, but rather another "news" article. (Visviva's cited our article now, anyway, so I guess it doesn't much matter.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

drum

I just finished talking on the phone to an Australian client who used the phrase "Not a drum, mate" meaning "It's no problem." Is this a common usage in Australia? Algrif 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

well mannered and well-mannered

I believe well mannered and well-mannered should be merged correctly(imho) in the hyphenated form. Algrif 16:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. DAVilla 04:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

generalization

There is a redirect here; I'd like to go and just put a definition in its place with an alternate spelling of generalisation. Would that be alright? sewnmouthsecret 15:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see Ruakh's taken care of it, but, for the future, yes, that's fine.—msh210℠ 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! sewnmouthsecret 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

yid

I don't believe that this is a back-formation as claimed (rather than a borrowing of Yiddish איד (w:yi:), pronounced "yid", which means "Jew"). I also don't know why it was moved from capital to lowercase.—msh210℠ 19:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, authorities disagree with you. I think early uses of the word tend to be among those who were unlikely to know any Yiddish words - although they would know the word Yiddish itself. Widsith 12:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good, thanks. What about the capitalization part of my question?—msh210℠ 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

man boob and moob

User 81.151.103 has defined these terms as gynecomastia with a link to the Wikipedia article. Firstly, should a definiton be a definition? (Could it be See Also instead?) Secondly, should it be there in the first place, and if so, should it be a Wikipedia link? sewnmouthsecret 21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the entry man boob, the definition is now a wiktionary link instead of a wikipedia link. RJFJR 15:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it — what's the difference between definitions 1 and 2? —Ruakh_TALK 16:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. sewnmouthsecret 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I merged the senses. RJFJR 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

yawp

I've a general copyright question here.

Looking at yawp, it calls out as its reference Webster's 1913.

Oddly, the original entry looked something like that. Now, it bears a stunning resemblance to dictionary.com's entry.

To me, is seems like this should simply be deleted, then the original version(s) selectively restored. What do other people think about this one? Isn't this far too similar to the copyright protected version? (With the addition of a bizarre "example.")

And isn't it obsolete anyhow? Only used in (archaic) reference to Walt Whitman, right?

--Connel MacKenzie 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Loud or coarse talk" is the definition that matches the most closely. It looks like SB introduced that with some others, so we can trust him on it. A slight modification may be sufficient if you're worried. The history can be defended as coincidence, unless SB also feels uneasy about the similarity. DAVilla 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Kossa Regal

does anyone know what Kossa Regal means? I'm thinking it might just be a made-up name. — This comment was unsigned.

Where did you encounter it? —Ruakh_TALK 23:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

sufferance

Would anyone be against me placing the references in the talk page? All of those references are unsightly. sewnmouthsecret 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be. The references should appear in any article-content mirror, even the ones that don't copy discussion pages. —Ruakh_TALK 23:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the section to Dictionary notes. You can move them to Citations:SUFFERANCE if they're really needed. Personally I'm not sure that the links are necessary but I won't challenge it. DAVilla 04:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I have one against, I'll leave it alone. This is why I like to ask first. sewnmouthsecret 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the references aren't really references, and aren't needed, I've no objection to simply removing them; but it's not helpful to put references (real or otherwise) on the talk-page. —Ruakh_TALK 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have a different header than "References" for these sorts of external links to other dictionaries, but one does not seem to be available at WT:ELE. In any event, WT:ELE#References clearly upholds the inclusion of links to other dictionaries under the "References" header. And, like the author of the standard at WT:ELE, I believe it is very important for Wiktionary's credibility that we support the content of our entries, especially the entries for relatively uncommon terms. I have changed the header back from "Dictionary notes" (which is not a WT standard header) to "References" and have added the subheader "Dictionaries". -- WikiPedant 22:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

References sections should house lists of authorities which are used to back up specific assertions in the entry, whereas Dictionary notes should just state whether a given dictionary lists a term, or (re alternative spellings) in what order, perhaps linking thereto, and so forth. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe it would be better as a list? Or just delete them all. Or just mention MW "and many modern dictionaries", although it would be much more interesting to state when it was first attested, or where it isn't found. DAVilla 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAICS, Dictionary notes sections exist to make Wiktionary seem more reliable — someone can come along, see the entry for sufferance, and think “Oh; it’s listed in nine ‘proper’ dictionaries … it’s probably kosher, then”. What the section’s called is pretty irrelevant; whereas “notes” is not ideal, I reckon it should still have “dictionary” in it somewhere. I’ve added a rel-table this entry’s Dictionary notes section — is that an acceptable solution? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dictionary notes" is gaining pretty wide acceptance here; using such a header helps to make it clear that these are not references, and are not sufficient in themselves to support the content of the entry. -- Visviva 10:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, note that the "level 4" headers mentioned in WT:ELE are not an exhaustive list; there is no policy list of L4 headers (yet). Dictionary notes has been used for a while, as have Scientific names and a few others, without having their formal status specified. Robert Ullmann 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "References" is not an entirely satisfactory header, but "Dictionary Notes" doesn't strike me as an improvement, since these are not notes at all, just external links to relevant, supportive definitions. -- WikiPedant 13:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in such cases I don't see any reason we should include the section at all. The only reason to include dictionary notes is when there is something interesting to say about how other dictionaries have treated a term; we should state explicitly what makes those particular dictionaries' treatment interesting. (e.g. "* The Classic Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue defines this as 'a leper with a speckled tongue,' but this usage is not attested elsewhere.") Otherwise whatever relevance or support we intend these links to provide will remain obscure. -- Visviva 13:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

English translation of Tamil valaikappu

what is the english name for the tamil word valaikappu? — This unsigned comment was added by Calayeganesh (talk • contribs) at 13:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

வளைகாப்ப, "wearing bangles". We don’t really have a word for it, so you could call it the bangle ceremony. —Stephen 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

bearing fruit

bearing fruit. I would have thought that this should be a verb entry to bear fruit. Opinions? Algrif 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, moved. —Ruakh_TALK 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

wide stance

Someone apparently thinks this entry is intended to be a joke, but it's very much a real term that has entered widespread usage. Chris Matthews used it as recently as last week. It has been used as a metaphor for conservative views on sexuality. And let's not forget the AP story of course. The anchor at NPR stated he's used the phrase himself. There are some questions as to whether it will stick, but if series of tubes gets to have its own entry, the news agencies seem to agree that this does too. — This comment was unsigned.

Our objection is not that it is a joke, but that it is a protologism. After a year or two, if it survives and has appeared in print, it would be welcome here. SemperBlotto 22:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently theres been a bit of a fuss over this one. I created the series of tubes and Infobahn pages, and I was about to create this one... but it's been protected. I'm still new to wiktionary or I'd weigh in further, but FWIW, I concur with the above statement. At the same time I can see why you'd object to such a recent coinage so all I can say is watch the term closely because it seems to be sticking (so far). Monak 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Midas

Midas needs discussion of the term's figurative uses, either as their own senses, or as a usage note. It's a tricky one, because the figurative uses go both ways; in the legend, Midas' condition is seen as a bad thing — a rose that's dwarfed by its thorn, if you will — and some allusions retain this quality, but then, the phrase "the Midas touch" is generally a positive one, suggesting e.g. business success. —Ruakh_TALK 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fire contained 0-100%

What above actually means? I'd like to understand what means if fire has contained 10% ? Ten % of what? All replys are appreciated. Thanks, JayKay

Ten percent of the fire. It is a contraction of "the fire has been 10% contained"; the kind of shorthand often used on the radio. Robert Ullmann 12:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

particulate

The definition should be at particulates. This is not, as far as I am aware, ever used as a singular. The singular would be particle. See wikipedia for more info. Opinions? Algrif 11:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

??? What about "The antidote was administered in the form of a particulate." --EncycloPetey 13:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My brain is probably particulating. lol. Algrif 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

flatfeet

I was going to just redirect this to flat feet, but I saw it was an entry made by SemperBlotto. So I'm asking first. Algrif 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Although, of course flatfeet is the plural of flatfoot. But the medical condition is two separate words. Algrif 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What do the word laissezlesbontenpsrouler means

I need to know what do laissezlesbontenpsrouler means for my 5 grader

Let the good time roll. DCDuring 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Laissez les bons te*M*ps rouler. I missed the misspelling. DCDuring 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we now have (deprecated template usage) laissez les bons temps rouler. Rod (A. Smith) 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Malay!

Can anyone translate the followinwords into malay for me 'Home is where you are' any help would be grately appreciated.

Atheroslerosis

Could some one please tell me the deffinitoin of Atheroslerosis? I know it has to do with the cardiovascular system if that helps any — This comment was unsigned.

atherosclerosis is the correct spelling. --Connel MacKenzie 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF (translations)

Shouldn't the translations of an abbreviation (etc) also be abbreviations (rather than translations of the full text)? SemperBlotto 18:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether you would actually translate the abbreviation with another abbreviation or not. Usually I would have thought that's the case. Widsith 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fart

I would like to add "big stinky" to synonyms for the word "fart". Any problems?

dumbing

The "Dumbing" of America

I'm not familiar with this literature. Does it say that "mass media", "the administration", "advertisers", and "textbook publishers" are making Americans stupid or treating Americans as if they were stupid (or both). I know they don't mean the "silencing of America". DCDuring 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It says they're treating Americans as stupid, which in turn makes Americans stupid(er). --EncycloPetey 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There's yet another sense of dumbing down something's intellectual content, I realized. You can dumb somebody by dumbing the material they read and also dumb a person by telling others how dumb that person is, apparently. I am dumbfounded, but not struck dumb. I'm not sure about how common these are, but I've found examples of each, I think. DCDuring 15:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Adjectives with numerical definitions.

I was wondering what 'material' meant, if anything, in the very common use in accounting (SEC filings and the like), as in "not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company". In pharmacology, there are numerical definitions: "The United States has no regulatory definition that explicitly delineates events as common, infrequent, or rare based on their frequency of occurrence; the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) III/V working groups have recommended the following standard categories of frequency: common (frequent): > 1/100 and < 1/10 (> 1 and < 10 percent); uncommon (infrequent): > 1/1,000 and < 1/100 (> 0.1 percent and < 1 percent); rare: > 1/10,000 and < 1/,1000 (> 0.01 and < 0.1 percent) (CIOMS, 1999)." -http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10882&page=126 Similarly, I think 'couple' often means two or more; a few is generally three or more. So, I'm here wondering if any of these terms are well enough defined to have a numerical representation (or several) in their definitions. I found none. It seems most such terms just don't have a consensus definition: http://www.unc.edu/~uwolt2/cepor/v2n1.htm#focus (unfortunately, the paper mentioned is $100) -Elvey , 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Help me decide what is the definition of Guthix on runescape?

I have had people say Guthix is a mercenary, or he is the best god ever or..I personally think that he is truly the god of balance, But I need enough people to say this is so so I may help publsh his definition in Wiktionary. Thank you. By the way, My username is Cat Lover657 just was thinking u might want to msg me for further info giving. Thank you again.

This isn't material of the sort you'd find in Wiktionary. (see WT:CFI) --EncycloPetey 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, what makes you think that “enough people [saying] this” (or any other thing), would make it correct? That’s a logical fallacy — an argumentum ad numerum. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually semantics is the one area where an argumentum an numerum is perfectly valid, since words derive their "meanings" precisely from the way in which they are commonly interpreted/understood. Widsith 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether you take an entirely descriptivist stance, and on your ignoring internal word structures (as in rune- -scape). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A.K.A.

Also known as is correct. What I question is why this is not at aka which is by far the most common way of using this abbreviation or intialism. [[85]] for example. I think the redirect is misleading. Algrif 12:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen, and use, a/k/a, fwiw.—msh210℠ 16:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

to-be

I am considering how best to enter to-be. We have mother-to-be, which is fine. But on the other hand it is possible to put quite a large selection of nouns-to-be. Ideas? Opinions? Algrif 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put something up at -to-be, but I'm not sure how intelligible it would be to someone not already familiar with the term. Improvements are (as always) more than welcome. —Ruakh_TALK 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Algrif 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you call this letter: ì

What is the name for this letter, 'ì', an i with a little accent grave over it (I think that's what the French call it)? Used in Scottish Gaelic. e.g. pìobaireachd. RJFJR 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's called an i with a grave accent, if you believe w:Scottish Gaelic#Vowels. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 02:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For Gaelic, I've heard it called "I-fada", though I'm uncertain how "fada" shoud be spelled for this particular sense. "Long-I" would be the translation if the "fada" spelling is correct. --EncycloPetey 13:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oz Linux

The third definition at Oz is for a version of Linux. It has a link to WP, but WP deleted its article (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oz Linux). The third sense is a name, wasn't there a discussion on whether we kept sense like that? What was the decision? RJFJR 13:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Totally spam. —Ruakh_TALK 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

alveolar

In the pronunciation section of alveolar, there are entries for Schoolbook Phonetics and Last Resort Phonetics. We're not using these are we? At least, not according to WT:PRON --Keene 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are other pages using these --Keene 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Last Resort Phonetics should only be used when someone is trying to add a crude pronunciation to a page that has no pronunciation yet, and only by a person who does not know any of the other systems. "Schoolbook Phonetics" has been modified here to {{enPR}}, because "Schoolbook Phonetics" is not a standard system, and varies between schoolbooks and dictionaries that use it. It can be used, but should be enclosed in the {{enPR}} template. --EncycloPetey 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Piss in someone's pocket

In my travels in the 80s in Oz, I heard this expression once or twice. It was explained to me that it had to do with whispering in someone's ear, which put the male urinary apparatus in the appropriate relation to another male's pants pocket. When I looked for quotes I found some, but they seemed to be about the pisser flattering the pissee. Does anyone have any first-hand knowledge of this? Has anyone already done research on it? I will see what on-line sources say. DCDuring 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Various dictionaries say: "To flatter someone", "To ingratiate yourself with someone", "To be friendly with someone". Usage often doesn't seem to always follow this, with some meanings more like "tell someone something that will upset them" or "piss on them". Also seems to be used in UK. Anyone? DCDuring 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

---well,have a look on this sentence,"He is of the habit to piss in everyone's pocket due to his honest friendly nature".This is how it is usually used.I think such friendly nature will not allow to be a matter of trouble for someone.So it is mainly used in meaning of "To be friendly with someone" as you also mentioned.--Etymologist 18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

biphasic note

I extracted this from biphasic. Is it music or acoustics or ?. DCDuring 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

--I think biphasic always can't be treated as music.It can be taken as acoustics. This approach is also supported by physics. --Etymologist 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

mooses

Just searching for the heck of it, it looks like mooses was at one time used as plural of moose. [86] the 4th entry down shows usage in John/Abigail Adams' letter(s). Should this be listed as rare, dated, archaic? I am unsure. sewnmouthsecret 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What language are you referring to?—msh210℠ 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

English, apparently; see <http://books.google.com/books?id=wkgMY68hQ2oC&pg=PA272&dq=mooses>. —Ruakh_TALK 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought John Adams would have given it away. :) Anyway, English. sewnmouthsecret 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

impact

The question I have here is what labels should be applied to the figurative definitions of the word "impact". Currently the noun is labelled "colloquial" and the verb "nonstandard"; in my opinion neither term is accurate. At best the usage should be described as "disputed".

I guess part of the problem is that I'm not sure what these terms mean other than that they're intended to be negative. According to the Merriam Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (p 406), the figurative verb usgae first appeared in literary contexts such as Christopher Morley and the Times Literary Supplement. Although it later became associated with politics, the usage is very widespread. Google News returns 200,000+ hits for the term, and the majority of them are the figurative use. The label "colloquial" thus seems wrong to me, and I don't see how something that is used that widely in the copy-edited prose of newspapers can be considered "nonstandard". No print dictionary I looked at gave any special label to the figurative senses, although they attached usage notes discussing the controversy.

The usage notes are generally in favor of the usage; the Random House says "Although recent, the new uses are entirely standard and most likely to occur in formal speech and writing."

— This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) at 23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. —Ruakh_TALK 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't quite follow this. What has been proposed? What has been agreed?

• Is the noun sense "A significant or strong influence. An effect. (Disputed)" to remain "Disputed" or to be considered standard?
• Is the verb sense "(nonstandard) To influence; to affect; to have an impact on" to remain "nonstandard" or become "Disputed"?
• What is the appropriate placement and capitalization for these indicators?

I interpret "nonstandard" to be more strongly negative about a usage, suggested some kind of consensus among relevant experts and "disputed" as meaning lack of such consensus. I had the general impression that the figurative usage of the verb "impact" was more negatively viewed than the figurative noun usage. Is that impression correct? If it is, I would have thought that the noun sense has become standard, but could be considered "disputed", but that the verb sense might remain in "dispute", but can no longer be viewed as nonstandard. DCDuring 01:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing that this word is neither colloquial nor nonstandard. (Some contributors — none of our regulars, I don't think, but mostly anons who drop in once and make a few tweaks — appear to think that "colloquial" means "this is technically wrong, but it's so common that I guess it's O.K. in colloquial speech". They are mistaken. Also, some contributors appear to think that "nonstandard" means "I don't like this usage" or perhaps "widely used and widely reviled"; this is an iffier point, but I'd say that they're mistaken as well.) {{proscribed}} might be O.K., though. —Ruakh_TALK 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted "proscribed" for the verb use of "impact" and removed "colloquial" from the "effect" sense of the noun, based on the above. DCDuring 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

irregardless

Another hot button topic, but the labels and usage note on the "irregardless" page seem out of sync with the quotations. There are five quotations given, spanning 130 years. Three are academic publications from university presses, and one was written by a judge in a court opinion. Given those citations, labels like "nonstandard", "illiteracy", "usually inappropriate in formal contexts" and "jocular" seem odd. I think what probably needs to be done is to expand the quotations list to show more informal uses of the term, and perhaps expand the usage note as well, but I'm not completely sure how this should be done. — This comment was unsigned.

That's because the labels and usage note were written by "anti" editors, and the quotations were added by "pro" editors. Personally, I think the usage note is actually quite fine; it looks like an accurate description of the word's status. The labels should probably be replaced with {{proscribed}}, which is our catch-all "this exists, but not everyone's happy about it" label (c/o Rodasmith). —Ruakh_TALK 16:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Inserted proscribed, left in mainly US and jocular. DCDuring 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we've dealt with this one pretty well, on balance. Widsith 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

due course

I am not sure that due course is or was an idiom. It might have just been SoP until the last two or three centuries. "In due course" would seem to be an idiom, especially if "due course" alone is not. I have 4 usage examples, but am not happy with my third attempt to define it. DCDuring 23:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would put the entry as in due course with label Category:English prepositional phrases Algrif 14:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

loyal to a fault

what does it mean?
loyal to a fault
— This comment was unsigned.

It means “so loyal that it could be considered a fault”; perhaps the person being described is loyal even when the object of his loyalty is shown not to deserve it. —Ruakh_TALK 22:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Clinton uses the word "speeded"

Clinton used the word "speeded" when talking about how the campaign "will be" in the next couple of months. Isn't "speeded" a pst tense form of the word "speed?" — This comment was unsigned.

Yes, past tense and past participle. American adults only use it for (deprecated template usage) speed's transitive sense ("We speeded it up", "It was speeded up"), and even then it's only questionably standard; our entry suggests that the British might use it more freely. —Ruakh_TALK 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not in my experience. It’s sped that’s used in all cases (bar by the ridiculed ineducated). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come to think of it, “he was speeded to his destination” is standard… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Seems that sped is used when the subject is acting intransitively ("The car sped up", "He sped home"), but that speeded is often used when the subject is acting transitively on another object ("We speeded up the process"), and regularly used when the subject is passive ("He was speeded to his destination"). Not, of course, that use is universally divided for transitive/intransitive (as Dorem. points out). --EncycloPetey 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Halacha

60+ cites of "Halachas" as plural on b.g.c. Don't know how to do transliteration to compare the transliterated Hebrew plural, DCDuring 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean when you talk of transliteration. Note these other statistics:

1. 654 Google Book Search hits for halachot;
2. 642 GBS hits for halachoth; and,
3. 407 GBS hits for halachos.

The plural forms already given are far more common than halachas. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good guess!!! That's what I wanted to know. DCDuring 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh would be the one to ask really, but I’ve noticed that this class of Hebrew words have singular forms ending in -a and/or -ah and plural forms ending in -ot and/or -oth — whence your -os -terminal form came is unknown to me. BTW, are you sure that the ‘+s’ plural can be considered standard? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that (deprecated template usage) -oth, (deprecated template usage) -ot, (deprecated template usage) -os, and (deprecated template usage) -s are all acceptable. ((deprecated template usage) -os reflects the Ashkenazim's traditional pronunciation, something like /ɔs/ or /əs/, which many still use, and which is also — no coincidence — the Yiddish pronunciation. Indeed, this word — like many en:Hebrew derivations — can equally be considered an en:Yiddish derivation.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Caps?—msh210℠ 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheerios

Shouldn't the entry be capitalized as Cheerios? That is how it seems to appear in the hundreds of fiction b.g.c. hits. DCDuring 21:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved it. A bot had moved it in 2005, presumably without checking usage frequency. Can it be protected from bot capitalization changes, if the capitalization is agreed as appropriate ? DCDuring 18:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And, not to worry: that was a single-run bot. (Previously Wiktionary was like Wikipedia, in that article titles automatically started with capital letters. When this was changed to allow lowercase entry titles, that bot moved all existing entries to their lowercase forms.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it was all visible, I didn't think I'd attract too much hostility. Visible one-entry boldness shouldn't be bad for Wiktionary. DCDuring 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bardolino

1st sense is the town (proper noun); 2nd sense is the wine variety, now shown as a noun and uses "en-noun" The only visible difference in the entry is the display of the (red) plural. Of course, the putatively unique town called "Bardolino" might turn out not to be unique or a philosopher wishing to use Bardolino to illustrate the problems of the concept of uniqueness might wonder how to make its plural. But seriously, folks, isn't Bardolino in the wine sense a proper noun? Many proper names have plural forms. (Is that "Clancys" or "Clancies"?) Why mess up PoS to show plurals? DCDuring 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The names of wines are a parennial problem. SemperBlotto could tell tyou about his many researches, and others here have done investigating as well. They do not function as proper nouns, so you can say "I tasted three different Chardonnays.". Oddly some wine names are occasionally capitalized, but this does not seem to be consistent. So, I would say the wine name is not a proper noun and a plural is possible.

As for the town name, it is a proper noun. Yes, it's true that many English proper nouns can be used in a plural form in unusual circumstances, those are usually statements where the referent is not to a specific entity, so it isn't really being used as a proper noun. If you talk about "All the Parises of the world." then you are not referring to a specific location, so you are not using Paris as a proper noun. This is possible for most proper nouns in English, but is a highly unusual construction, and not a normal part of the grammar of proper nouns as proper nouns. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

When I taught, I needed to keep track of how many Johns and Sergeis I had in the class to make sure that I didn't call on one for something and get an answer from the other. In Wikipedia, DAB pages are often about multiple instances of things with the same proper names. It doesn't seem all that exceptional to me. It is an old exercise in US geography to name all the states that have Springfields. When doing Wiktionary work, I have to check both my Websters (Merriam-Websters (Collegiate and 3rd unabridged)) and both of my Fowlers. And let's not get started on my library, e.g., with a couple of Principles of Psychologys and Getting Things Dones. DCDuring 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I rely on Wiktionary's definition of "proper noun"? "The name of a particular person, place, organization or other individual entity; it is normally written with an initial capital letter". If so, the entry for "Smith" is wrong because it says "Smith" is a proper noun, but refers to not to a specific Smith, but to all members the class of all persons with the name Smith. In any event, "Smith" case has parallels to the case situation of "Bardolino", the wine. It doesn't seem like there is a clear bright line between a proper noun, defined as (possibly non-unique) identifiers of unique individuals, and "capitalized-nouns-which-are-not-proper-nouns". DCDuring 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please wait for me to finish the Appendix on English Proper nouns. You can see the very crude draft here, but it needs lots of work before it's complete. I may work on it over Thanksgiving or Christmas holiday. I don't want to have to rewrite all of this each time the question arises, which it has been doing with some regularity of late.

Smith is a proper noun because it usually is used in a way that refers to a particular person named "Smith". When someone says "Have you seen Smith?" they are not referring to all members of the class of persons with the name Smith. The part of speech is dependent on usage, not on abstractions. Yes, the line between common and proper noun is fuzzy as times. Suffice it to say the best discussions of what makes a noun "proper" are by Locke and John Stuart Mill, and they were more concerned with the underlying concept the specifics and practicalities. --EncycloPetey 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly wait for you with bated breath, but unfortunately I'm like a dog with a bone with a subject like this.

It seems as if you are saying that the words we lable in Wiktionary as "proper nouns" are not, in fact, in and of themselves "proper nouns". E.g., "Milton" does not uniquely identify any unique person, but is used principally to identify persons, whom we specifically treat as unique. By this emerging definition of proper noun, the Properness of a noun is ultimately connected to instances of use. Is "Wiktionary properness" ("WikP") something with quantitative empirical criteria? Probably not. It is more likely that we will be identifying and formalizing the social conventions that say that require that every Tom, Dick and Harry, pets, human assemblages, and places of human importance be granted eligibility for proper nouns, whereas IP addresses; street addresses; non-pet animals, trees, and rocks (except very big ones) are not. Planets, stars, comets, galaxies yes? Certain periods of time. Trademarks. There would seem to be at least two kinds of proper names in Wiktionary:

• Type 1: names that, practically speaking, uniquely identify in the speech of some group of humans unique objects deemed worthy of having a proper name: the "Foreign Minister", "Jimbo Wales", the Pentagon, Sol, Sadie Hawkins' Day, "Spot", Halley's Comet.
• Type 2: words nearly exclusively used to constitute names of the first type. Sadie, Jimbo, Hawkins, Wales; but not day, spot, comet, pentagon, foreign, minister. This would boil down to given names and surnames (and corresponding entities in other naming systems).

Type 1 might not warrant including plurals. But Type 2 would. That they are used in multiple instances to make up names would certainly require the ability to make plural forms of "Henry", "Clancy", "Jimbo", "Hawkins". DCDuring 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language makes a big to do about this distinction, in a way that most sane people never bother with and which we don't worry about here on Wiktionary. They call individual proper elements "proper nouns" and the labels (either of one word or more) that name a specific item "proper names". But we don't make that distinction here. --EncycloPetey 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have put up another version of the page that treats "Bardolino" as if it were a proper name like a trademark, many of which have plurals. This requires using "en-noun" under the "Proper noun" heading, manually inserting the "English proper nouns" category, and labelling the senses as countable and countable, as appropriate. It seems barbaric in appearance and likely to complicate bot design and operations. Another approach would have two "Proper noun" headers, one with "en-noun", the other with "en-proper". Also, we could deem all trademarks and trademark-like names to be nouns, not proper nouns. Or we could allow the proper name template to have plurals, defaulting to non-plural, of course, and not displaying "uncountable". DCDuring 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, {{en-proper noun}} will work for that as well; it accepts plural and uncountable markers. However, did you notice that the page we're discussing is marked Italian? It should have an Italian inflectional template, category, and should follow Italian plural forms. --EncycloPetey 05:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I hadn't noticed, probably because it didn't have all the usual accoutrements of a non-English entry. And thank you for the info on the options of the proper noun template. DCDuring 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have split this into English and Italian sections - the Italian plural is shown in the De Mauro dictionary. I am concerned that it uses lowercase though (may just be their typographical convention). I take the English plural to mean either different versions of the wine, or more than one glass of it. SemperBlotto 08:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read a little and realize more about the issues having to do with proper nouns. I would hazard a guess that many would-be contributors to Wiktionary are as uninformed as I was about the true def. of proper noun and with the same misplaced confidence in their ignorance. There are many Beer Parlor issues in this. DCDuring 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The various proper noun discussions we had last summer were the impetus behind my researching and drafting the (forthcoming) Appendix on English proper nouns. --EncycloPetey 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

hoi palloi

Is this an alternative spelling of the far more common hoi polloi (GBS: hoi polloi–hoi palloi = 835:11), or is it just a fairly uncommon (but just about verifiable) misspelling? As what (if anything) is it listed in other dictionaries? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is primarily a typo/misspelling and not a valid spelling. It certainly doesn't make sense as a transliteration from Greek. I've not seen it listed in any other dictionary. --EncycloPetey 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Shall we list it as a {{rare}} {{misspelling of|hoi polloi}} or just delete it? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(If we do the former, we’ll have to do something clever with the template to omit the “common” part of it. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

countercounterpoint

Here's a neat word I recently ran into. countercounterpoint. It has three hits at bgc, all from the same document it looks like. And 22 hits at usenet. So it could scrape past requirements for inclusion. I dunno though, I don't think it's very common in practice. Who here has heard/used this interesting word in their everyday lives? It's a cool word and whether or not we include it today, I'll definitely keep an eye on it since it could be useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would try "counter-counterpoint". There are a few Google Books hits. DCDuring 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don’t think it’ll satisfy the CFI, you can add all the citations you can find to Citations:countercounterpoint; if more are found in future, an entry with a definition can then be created. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, wiktionary has "counter-" (with the hyphen, as prefix) and "counterpoint". DCDuring 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rebrebate" is it a word an if so, what does it mean?

"reprebate" is a word that i've heard a few times used to describe someones character. Was wondering what the true meaning of it is. Or is it just a slang word? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.246.11.122 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

rebrobate or reprobate ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

--The actual word used much for describing character is reprobate not reprebate. Usually people use this word for the person who is of no worth,generally.--Etymologist 13:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebrobate is another old term, used in Christian religious contexts, apparently with about the same meaning as reprobate, appeared in print while reprobate was also in use. "Rebrebate" could easily have been a scanno for rebrobate. DCDuring 15:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

cinematography question

What do you call the mark placed on a film near the end of a reel that flashes on the screen to tell the projectionist to switch reels? In Italian it is segnalatore di passaggio. SemperBlotto 14:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A cue mark. —Ruakh_TALK 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. SemperBlotto 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the movie "Fight Club it is know in the film industry as a "cigarette burn", which may have some currency if you wanted to look into it. - [The]DaveRoss 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And according to en:wp's article on cue marks, the term "cigarette burn" was invented for said movie. \Mike 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

creations

It looks like a bit of bot gone astray on a template. I tried to fix it but was unsuccessful. Makearney 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

dinna

Would dinna be classed as Scots or English? --Keene 01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's marked as "Geordie", which is regarded as a dialect of English. However, it might also exist in Scots. --EncycloPetey 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly for lexicographers, the dialect boundary does not equate to the border between England and Scotland. Many (most?) Scots words are also found in Northern English dialects, especially Geordie which has held on to a lot of unqiue bits of vocab etc. Widsith 07:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

climb

There are other past and past participles of "climb" in dialectical use, but it's hard to know which ones should be included and with what comments. A google search brings up hits for clim, clom, clum, clombed, clumbed, clambed, clomb, clumb, clamb, and climb. I don't know which of these are misspellings, or get enough hits to count as "real" uses. Any comments?

boiloff

what does "boiloff" mean? (in "liquid oxygen" article)

quote from "liquid oxygen" article:

"LOX was also used in some early ICBMs, although more modern ICBMs do not use LOX because its cryogenic properties and need for regular replenishment to replace BOILOFF make it harder to maintain and launch quickly."

boiloff = boil off = evaporation DCDuring 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

found it it's in "vacuum flask" article quote:

"the leakage of heat into the extremely cold interior of the bottle results in a slow "boiling-off" of the liquid"

Thanks for asking. Missing word. DCDuring 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

you-know-who

"You-know-who" has singular the same as plural. The entry gives two senses, one for the singular, one for the plural, that formerly were almost exactly parallel and are now exactly parallel, with pari passu adjustments for number. I found that I felt compelled to read both carefully to understand why two senses were being given. Is it really necessary to have two senses, either to:

• draw the reader's attention to the identical spelling of singular and plural or
• simplify the wording of the definition? DCDuring 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Widsith 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

stiff

The two senses seem identical to me, and I was going to merge them but they appear to have different translations in Kurdish. Am I missing something? Widsith 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea about Kurdish, but there are two definitions that need to be entered more clearly. 1) unbendable applied to a thing 2) inflexible applied to a person. Translators will just have to sort it out later. Algrif 13:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at 3 senses for the adjective. I also noted that there are RfVs for two verb senses, which I began to verify, but noted no discussion heading. I'm not sure that all three senses don't come down to "cheated of money". There may also missing senses: one relating to "breaking an appointment or similar social obligation" and another like "stonewall", but of broader application than just with respect to answering a question. Another possible sense is something like punch or, more specificly, cold cock. DCDuring 15:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice. I added another adj sense. There is also "stiff drink" which seems to be an idiomatic collocation of its own. Widsith 15:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Forgot that sense. Not much of a drinker, myself. DCDuring 17:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've added "stiff muscles". - Algrif 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

les dim up

French speakers! Came across this one in a book recently . . . was completely new to me. I think I worked out the meaning OK.. But is there any other word for these, or would you just use this proprietary name, which is what it seems to be? Widsith 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a "French speaker" any more than you are — and I'm not even good with the English terms for such things — but searching Google for explicit explanations of what they are (trying things like "dim up ce" and so on), it seems that there's no other general name for these; rather, people use "les dim up" as a generic name, and when pressed to explain it use full sentences. Personally, I think (deprecated template usage) autocollant would have been cleverer ((deprecated template usage) collant being “tights”), but what can you do? :-P   Incidentally, it might be worth linking to w:fr:Dim (lingerie), which is a fr.wiki article on the company that introduced them. —Ruakh_TALK 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I'm still pleased - I always wondered how to say this in French. Not that I get the chance very often, but it's nice to think one'll be prepared. Widsith 21:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

let freedom ring

As what PoS should a phrase like this be presented. It IS a phrase, but it is a verbal phrase, following the inflection of let. "Freedom" is not inflected. What is the role of the Phrasebook in this? My own preference would be to present it as a Verb, use the idiom template, categorize it as a verb, but NOT have all of the inflections appear. That means NOT using the en-verb template. I can't find a policy on this. Has it been discussed? DCDuring 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think {{en-verb}} should have a nolinks=1 parameter or something; the inflections would then still appear, but they wouldn't be links. We can use it for idioms like this, where links wouldn't be helpful because the linked pages should just be redirects to the main entry. —Ruakh_TALK 00:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're saying they should appear without the inflected forms having links, but presumable with "inf=let freedom ring". Why couldn't those links be automatic? DCDuring 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that inflected forms of this have any currency, though. Isn't this more of a fixed, set-phrase? --Connel MacKenzie 01:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This phrase may become passe, apearing only in historical works by conservative writers harkening back to the old days when Reagan "let freedom ring" (past), if they can't talk about how some future Repubican president is "letting freedom ring" can (present participle). Whether it is worth displaying them is a separate question, but they can be readily exemplified and perhaps verified (at least if you don't make me find three for each form). DCDuring 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good point … properly speaking, I guess it's actually a full clause, in the imperative mood but not intended as a true imperative; it has the same structure as "let's talk" or "let me ask around", where you're not really instructing the listener to "let" something. (I think this sort of meaning is properly called "jussive" or something like that, though I've also heard it described as a "third-person imperative".) I don't know what part of speech that would be under our system; an idiom or interjection, I guess. That said, google books:"(lets OR letting) freedom ring" gets 21 hits, and google books:"(have OR having) let freedom ring" gets seven, so the entry might warrant a genuine verb sense that formed by extension. Regardless, my suggestion about {{en-verb}} was not intended just for this entry, but for many other such. I mean, does "given up" really need its own entry just because we have give up? —Ruakh_TALK 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would fully support that intiative. As you know, I add a lot of phrasal verbs and idiomatic verbal phrases. At the moment I am obliged to put the individual words in brackets and add category:English verbs at the end. Not very satisfactory. nolinks=1 would be a great solution. As for the original question; I would opt for Phrase: let freedom ring. Any future searcher checking for letting freedom ring would, as a normal course, search the infinitive phrase anyway. Algrif 14:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The recommendation to make the PoS = "Phrase" leaves the user to wonder whether the phrase is inflected as well as how. I've changed my mind about NOT having the inflections appear. I still don't like all the red links and having to type all of the inflected forms in. DCDuring 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides having all those (long) red-links, there is another problem with that technique: you might end up inventing unused variations. --Connel MacKenzie 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) you also would be giving undue weight to some very rare forms. --Connel MacKenzie 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. If each separate word is bracketted, it links directly to the base page showing all the inflections. A long phrase or idiom or proverb (whatever you prefer) would only bracket the important words. That's what I was taught when I started working here, anyway. And it still makes good sense to me IMHO ;-) Algrif 12:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got that impression - that is the Wikipedia convention (AFAIK,) but on Wiktionary, all the component words are supposed to be wikified. --Connel MacKenzie 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I just checked damned if you do and damned if you don't and see that all the words are wikified even though repeated. I understood that words like conjunctions and prepositions didn't need to be wikified in long phrases. There are many entries that do not follow this convention. I'll change them whenever I see them. Algrif 13:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with highlighting each component and expecting the phrasal inflection to be inferrable from that. To wit, only one word in a phrase like "let freedom ring" can be inflected while retaining the meaning given. "Freedom" can't be plural and "ring" isn't inflected either (although for a more grammatical reason). I think we are trying to get more out of the wikilinks than they can unambiguously communicate. DCDuring 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

letting freedoms ring gets 8 google hits... all to the same source. But it can be found with both let and freedom inflected.
Connel's points above are over-riding "all those (long) red-links" and "inventing unused variations." It is why I asked for guidance on this when I started. Firstly, someone looking the phrase up might well need to know what a component word means. Secondly, they might need to know how to inflect it, even if it is only to "inventing unused variation" for creative purposes. Algrif 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I got 2 blog hits for "let freedoms ring", too. We will always have creative extension of the language, but a dictionary is not primarily a guide for poets and bloggers trying to attract hits. WT documents the standard language; they play around with it. What I would think we would want is to point users to the main inflection explcitly and allow the wikilinks to be a kind of first-cut etymology and analysis tool, which supports creative writing and other uses. DCDuring 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Right - the convention on en.wikt is to send people to the component word pages for inflections. That practice doesn't jive well with other conventions that advocate duplication. It also is not followed (probably 20% of the time - presumably with good reason, for individual exceptions) all of the time. While I agree it is better to not list out inflections of set-phrases, some idioms might require proper inflection. I think that was the original question about this term - which I still do not know how to answer. Comparative web-hits show the standard form to have an overwhelming lead - perhaps it should just be left alone? --Connel MacKenzie 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I knew I had it somewhere. From your good self on my talk page, I quote: Please don't use full inflection for verb phrases. For all multi-word entries, the component terms only are supposed to have inflection. Please take a look at how I split jack it in from jack in. Thanks for your neat contributions! --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) -- ;-) -- Algrif 15:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, not too bad to keep specific inflection for this one because "freedom" is rarely inflected. If it were never inflected, it might be a more clear-cut case.

To summarize the more general case, to avoid unrewarding proliferation of phrasal entries, the idea would be to refer the user to the component words for inflection, by making sure that we were using the "inf=", "pos=", and "sg=" template options. Exceptions would be allowed where there was a good reason, such as not all possible inflections being legitimate (or to allow a link to a particularly common participle form ?). This is not a policy or a guideline, but might eventually become one. Is that a good summary? DCDuring 16:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

warna

Hi. I joined Wiktionary about a month back with the intention of beefing up the Malay vocabulary here. At the time, colour was one of the Translations of the Week, so I thought that I would start there. I have finally managed to put together an article for User:Nestum82/warna at my User Page, and I was wondering if I could get some feedback before appending it to warna. Nestum82 10:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! One minor thing, the English word varna is not a cognate - it hasn't descended from Sanskrit in the same way but was borrowed wholesale into the language. You need to say something like compare English varna. Widsith 10:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning! Gawd. I was under the impression that any two words with a common ancestor could be considered cognates. D'oh! Am I right in assuming that the compare English varna goes under the Etymology header?

Another thing that I should probably draw attention to is the Pronounciations. AFAIK, the major dictionaries do not give IPA pronounciations. Kamus Dewan only goes as far as using an é to differentiate from . So the pronounciations that I have given are both based on what comes out of my own mouth. Does this fall under original research? (Actually, I should put this question in the Talk Page. I've already got one lengthy postscript in there.) Nestum82 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, feel free to give your own pronunciations. Heck, we have a guideline or policy page somewhere that tells people they can write things like "KON-takt" if they don't know any formal transcription system. So, home-rolled IPA is really A-OK. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 22:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the pointers. I've finally gotten round to tacking the entry on to warna.

Ruakh: Now that you mention it, it does say that more or less in the ELE. Can't believe I forgot about that. Nestum82 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the hungarian christian name : Ibolya

I think this means Violet in english. Would anybody be able to confirm that ? thanks

john

Well yes and no. There is a Hungarian word ibolya that does mean violet (both the flower and the color), and there is a Hungarian masculine feminine name Ibolya that apparently derives from the name of the flower. However, it would be misleading to say that the feminine name means "violet", just as it would be misleading to say that the English girl's name Heather means "a low growing plant in the Ericaceae". They both share a spelling and an etymological origin, but not a current meaning. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibolya is definitely a feminine given name. But Viola and Violetta are also Hungarian names, so you cannot talk about translations, rather about variants of a theme.--Makaokalani 11:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have rechecked my book on Hungarian names; thanks for the correction. --EncycloPetey 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

pwn

I have a feeling the current definitions don’t accurately cover the usage found in this hilarious comic: http://xkcd.com/341/. Could a native speaker add a definition, and maybe the quote? H. (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is a usage of the "defeat" sense, "You just got defeated pretty thoroughly, maybe you should sit down" might be a rephrasing. - [The]DaveRoss 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:fr-conj-er

Looking in Template:fr-conj-er, I've noticed the "surcomposed past" been put in. Do other publications call it the surcomposed past? In French it's known as the passé fr:surcomposé, and is rarely used. As a holder of a degree in French, I've been made aware of it, but the teachers generally told me never to use it, as it's a kind of dialectic thing. Is it worth it being included in Template:fr-conj-er? Or is it too obscure? I suppose there's no harm in having it. Still, an entry for surcomposed could be needed. --Haunted wigwam 12:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (Yes, is blatantly Wonderfool, am leaving this account after this comment)

(1) I don't think there is a standard English name for it; Google Books suggests that most English texts just stick to the French name, but I don't think we can consider surcomposé to be a real loanword into English. (2) I don't think the surcomposé is a "dialectic" thing; my impression is that it's just an odd blend of literary French (where a distinction is drawn between the passé antérieur and the plus-que-parfait) and non-literary French (where the passé simple is systematically replaced with the passé composé). In true literary French you'd say « dès qu'il eut fait […] », and in normal French you'd say « dès qu'il avait fait […] », but in surcomposé-accepting French you'd say « dès qu'il a eu fait […] » (all meaning "once he'd done […]"). —Ruakh_TALK 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My Collins-Robert French Dictionary translates (deprecated template usage) surcomposé as "double-compound", though I don't know whether anyone uses that in grammatical contexts. --EncycloPetey 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard that before, but searching b.g.c., it looks like that is indeed the most popular name (at least of those I knew to look for). —Ruakh_TALK 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I've lived in France and in Morocco, and I don't think I've ever seen the surcomposé used in real life! Widsith 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Responsible to or responsible for?

I run into what I believe to be the misuse of the word responsible fairly frequently when reviewing Standard Operating Procedures. Each SOP has a section that specifies who is accountable for performing the procedure. I frequently see something like "The Manager of Customer Service is responsible to initiate customer complaint..." and it doesn't seem right. Is this correct? Should this not be "... is responsible for initiating customer..."? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MTLer (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. One is responsible for carrying out a duty. I often hear responsible to used in the same sense as accountable to and answerable to. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While "is responsible to initiate" is stilted, I'd not say it's wrong. Parse it as "is responsible" + "to initiate" (not as ... + "responsible to" + ...), and it has in the end the same meaning as "is responsible for initiating". As I say, though, it is stilted.—msh210℠ 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As usual, there is no Academy of English. But normal usage is: Responsible for a duty / department / etc.; and responsible to the head of dept. or similar person or dept above you (although you can be responsible to your clients, etc, also). Algrif 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If we talk about the standard English ,then "responsible for" is the correct use,if we look for the preposition usage.In various countries where English is taught as subject, usage of responsible with 'to' is usually considered as common error or gramatically wrong.However, I think this flexibility to use 'responsible to' instead of 'responsibility for' is making its place in nowadays English speakers.--Etymologist 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

'responsible to + gerund' seems to find frequent use in non-American newspapers, judging from Google News. — This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) at 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

comparative of polite

Is the comparative of polite politer or more polite, (or both)? RJFJR 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Google Books supports both, with some preference for the latter. I, however, am less tolerant: "politer" sounds incredibly wrong to me. :-P   —Ruakh_TALK 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sums up my opinion rather well. Currently polite lists 'more polite' but I find politer in my paper dictionary. I'm going to change it, but it sounds like it needs a usage note on how it sounds wrong to some people. Any suggestions on wording? RJFJR 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What my experience tells as i have gone through many English writings ,both forms are supported.In daily use i've seen people talking as ,"She should say this in politer way."So i think you need not to change it.Rather politer and superlative degree being politest sounds better than 'more polite' and 'most polite'.But what standard English suggests ,i am bit doubtful about it ,not really ,but to some extent.--Etymologist 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Politer and politest both both [sic] sound and look wrong to me (the comparative form more so than the superlative form); however, since they both exist, they ought to be listed, with a usage note added to the entry fo polite and links pointing thither added to the entries for politer and politest. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As a native speaker of American English (midwest), I see nothing wrong with politer or politest; I use both myself. — This unsigned comment was added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) at 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

RJFJR, FYI: the {en-adj} template handles this case, see entry. I concur in thinking "more polite" and "most polite" look and sound much more familiar than "politer" and "politest", which both look odd ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanx. I've also updated bitter - Algrif 13:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How much is it

I was thinking this should be moved to how much is it, due to caps. If anyone disagrees, please let me know; if I don't hear otherwise I will go ahead and move it. sewnmouthsecret 21:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

set versus put

Possibly stupid question (I blame my non-nativity), but: when you place something somewhere, is there any difference between "setting" it there, and "putting" it there? \Mike 11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever. You can put, put it down, place, set, set it down, there. As you wish. Algrif 13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Although. To my ear set seems of a slightly more formal register. There is also often a connotation of placing something more deliberately in a specific place, which is more obvious in phrases like "the diamond was set in precious stones" or something like that. I think put is slightly more neutral, slightly more casual. Widsith 13:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i strongly agree with 'widsith' explanation.To put,just mean to just put something orderly or un-arranged but when we talk about ,'setting it',this reflects a sense of arrangement or order.And secondly,not think your questions stupid,just ask and remove your ambiguity related to any word.--Etymologist 14:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not stupid. Answering these questions forces native speakers to be explicit about rules they may well have no conscious awareness of. Sometimes when we try to state the rules that we actually follow flawlessly, we make mistakes in trying to articulate them. I certainly use "set" only in contexts where the "putting" is supposed to be more careful in relationship to other objects. In more abstract applications, compare "putting that behind you" to "setting that aside for the moment". Perhaps the second is more specific, setting something aside for use in a short time, rather than forgetting it entirely. DCDuring 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help - most dictionaries I've seen (English that is) simply explain "set" (in this sense) with "put" (more or less) and vice versa. And then I compare to Swedish which uses three different verbs for that notion, and they are only rarely interchangeable... :P (Yes, I had hoped there were some minor difference I could benefit from when trying to define the words lägga, sätta and ställa, respectively, a bit more clearly - in how they differ). \Mike 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• The word "lay" physically means placing or setting a longish object on a flat surface or in a containing space. Is that like lägga?
• To "stand" something physically means to place or set an object in an upright or erect position. Is that like ställa?

Sometimes the physical meanings provide a good place to start. I don't know that I've gotten the English exactly right, but you can check me. DCDuring 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the physical orientation constitutes a very good first approximation :) But then there is sätta (literally, to put in a sitting position) which confuses things, sometimes synonymous with "lägga", sometimes with "ställa" and sometimes the only option. Hmm...., I think I was too concentrated on which nouns to use with which verb, there... I think it should be possible to get something decent out of it (at least I think I've managed to include most variations of lägga by now). But thanks for your help! :) \Mike 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, no, it is never(?) quite synonymous with lägga, at least.... just need to make a fine cut to separate them ;) \M

help yourself

Should this be listed under help#Verb, meaning 1? It seems to me to be slightly different- but I can't pinpoint why. Conrad.Irwin 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I also find that reflexives(?) like this give me pause, even though the definitions do seem to include them. It's even worse that it is easy to focus on the imperative form. Unfortunately the WT solution would probably be "help oneself", which would not be likely to be found by an ordinary user groping for help. DCDuring 22:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think help oneself would be a correct entry. But also help yourself as a phrase book entry. Algrif 11:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to ask was, is this a correct usage of the first meaning of help - or is it completely different? Conrad.Irwin 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The first entry is really in the sense God helps those who help themselves. I think help yourself to some food is not the sense nº1. IMHO. Algrif 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

incomparable

"Incomparable" is shown in our entry as having no comparative form.

• Oscar Wilde, Collected Works of Oscar Wilde (1997), page 1096

  I know of nothing in all drama more incomparable from the point of view of art, nothing more suggestive in its subtlety of observation, than Shakespeare's […].

Was Oscar Wilde jesting or are we wrong? DCDuring 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it I see no reason why there can't be gradations of comparability... Widsith 09:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Our editors seem to suffer from lapses of imagination with respect to countability for nouns and comparability for adjectives and adverbs. I understand how easy it is to succumb to it, but it leaves a lot of cleanup. DCDuring 10:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The editors do not suffer from lapses of imagination; we are describing the norm in the inflection lines rather than the exceptions (which are many in English). Please apologize for this personal attack. --EncycloPetey 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is perhaps not so much lack of imagination, but a long-cherished superstition within prescriptive grammar of the "absolute adjectives" that cannot be compared. It is a long-settled issue in linguistics that a form like "more incomparable" means "being closer to incomparable" or "having more of the quality of incomparable", but the prescriptionists continue to claim this is somehow imprecise, unclear, or illiterate. — This comment was unsigned.

Not simply superstition, but an understanding of what the words mean. The word (deprecated template usage) incomparable means "not comparable"; it can't be compared. The word (deprecated template usage) not is a binary operator. It isn't logically feasible to say that something is "more not comparable" or "most not comparable", just as it isn't logically feasible to say that something is "more dead", "more frozen", or "more omnipotent". Each of the base terms is binary, without gradations. That doesn't mean that such forms aren't used by people, just that they do not make logical sense. --EncycloPetey 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that that's a superstitious application of logical formalisms to an informal and illogical language. Two things can be roughly comparable — apples and oranges, say — or fairly incomparable — oranges and toothbrushes, say. But oranges and love are even more incomparable than these, because you can't even apply market prices to compare them. Technically, any two things can be compared, and when we say "incomparable", we do not in fact mean that comparison is simply impossible. Likewise, "more omnipotent" can be meaningful in discussing solutions to the Omnipotence paradox. That said, I agree with you that it's not a big deal to label an adjective absolute if its comparative and superlative forms are rare and nonce-y. —Ruakh_TALK 04:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken to checking for the actual occurences of instances of use of comparable forms before changing indications of non-comparability. That's what lead me to the Oscar Wilde quote above. Given his notorious wit, I wanted to check whether I had not gotten a joke he was playing on his readers. I doubt if anyone will use a comparable form of something when it doesn't make sense because we say that an adjective is comparable in one of its senses. The trouble with the incomparability marker is that it applies to all senses (including those added after the non-comparability marker is added) and all contexts. It also seems much more proscriptive than Wiktionary philosophically seems to be. DCDuring 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that Wilde's usage, as well as other instances of "more incomparable" and "most incomparable" are using the word simply in a sense of "great to an extent of having no equal". It is a word that grew beyond its roots, and in this sense is no longer a meaningful prefix+root word combination. Discussions of actual "comparisons" (oranges and toothbrushes) is quite erroneous to this sense. It's an adjective borne out of the notion of being matchless, peerless, unrivaled — but is an independent, self-sustaining description, like "magnificent". It connotates comparison, but does not refer directly to it. Casting off any active (verb) sense of comparison, the new, independent, etymologically created word is pronounced in-COMP-arable. For the senses you've been discussing, the better term is "not comparable".
That said, I think listing the comparative and superlative at incomparable is excessive. The truth is that the word lacks a comparative form, thus the necessary use of the word more. Listing such is wholly unnecessary and cluttered. -- Thisis0 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"What a bitter sweet irony of it"

What does it really mean?How many meanings it carries,both in negative and positive sense?Anyone??--Etymologist 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

comparative of negative terms

When forming the comparative of a negative term (a word formed from a prefix such as un- in- a- etc) it seems to me that while I could put more before the negative I'm more likely to put less before the positive form. e.g. for inappropriate it sounds better to use less appropriate than more inappropriate. Does this seem like a general rule? Should anything be noted in the entry for negative terms? RJFJR 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a good example of a Usage notes entry. - Algrif 11:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But less appropriate doesn't mean the same thing as more inappropriate. At a black-tie event, a shirt with button cuffs is less appropriate than cufflinks, but still appropriate, not inappropriate. Jeans would be more inappropriate than a business suit, both are inappropriate. Robert Ullmann 11:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good point, and good examples. Hmmmm... - Algrif 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fathometer

We have an entry for the trademark Fathometer and not for fathometer. I haven't counted, but there seem to be more uses of the uncapitalized generic form. How should this be presented? I would argue for both entries cross-referenced, but a redirect from one to the other with both trademark and generic uses could work. If the latter which one is the redirect? DCDuring 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not use redirects. Use two entries, like Apple. DAVilla 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that at Fathometer the gloss only reads "A trade mark". We do not know what else Fathometer produces or especially what it will produce, therefore it is not necessary to say anything about what is possibly being produced under the brand. A separate entry fathometer then explains what the gadget is about. I do not know whether fathometers are called fathometers because of Fathometer or vice versa. Without further research I would not write anything about the relationship in the etymology -section. In fact, I did these changes already. Hekaheka 21:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we should just delete the trade mark just as at least for the time being is the solution with Bobcat, which is being discussed somewhat further below. Hekaheka 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

atop

The adverb was listed as not having a comparative form. I found two quotes that seem to illustrate otherwise, but are otherwise interpretable. Any thoughts. DCDuring 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Try searching using further and furthest atop. You'll find stacks of quotes. Algrif 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Does "further" count as making a "real" comparative form. In my mind, only "more" could make a comparative. Are there other such words that make "real" comparatives. DCDuring 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And younger is then not a "real" comparative? Better? \Mike 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant that I thought that "more" was the only full word that could make a comparative.

I was interested in whether there was a comparative form (and a superlative one as well) for the adverb "atop". I found two quotes for "more atop". The suggestion of "further atop" raised the question in my mind as to what the meaning of "comparative" form really was. Is "more" the only adverb that makes a "real" comparative form for those adjectives and adverbs that don't form the comparative "morphologically", like by adding "-er", as "young" does? "Further atop" (surprisingly, no real hits for "farther atop") and "more atop" seem to mean about the same thing.

"Farther" and "further" seem to work like "more" for many adverbs that have to do with spatial relationships, possibly figurative ones. "Farther" "up/down"; "in/out"; "over/under"; "ahead/behind"; "on", "across", "back", "east", etc.; "left/right"; "forward/backward"; "away/anear"; "above/below"; "overhead", "beneath", "alee", "abaft", "afore". DCDuring 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Further' does seem to be preferred to farther for comparative forms. No idea why, tho. A tangential aside... I've often thought it might be good to appendix all adj / adv that can take further as comparative. You missed a few. upstairs, downstairs, uphill, downhill, ahead, around, round, and I'm certain there are more. Algrif 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other words besides more than can be used to form the comparative, especially less. Comparatives can either increase or decrease the relative degree in the comparison. However, I'm not convinced that further atop is an extension of the pattern. This looks to me like a case of the adverb (deprecated template usage) further modifying the adverb (deprecated template usage) atop, just as you could say further in, further on, or further out. I can't find this addressed in the books I have on English grammar. --EncycloPetey 03:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I remain very uncertain about this: "She rested more atop him."

"More" would seem to be modifying the prepositional phrase "atop him". Therefore "atop" is, in fact, not comparable. This leaves me needing some kind of good usage example or quote for the adverbial usage of "atop", which is actually what got me started on all this. DCDuring 04:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In that example (deprecated template usage) atop is a preposition, not an adverb. The adverb (deprecated template usage) more is modifying the adverbial phrase atop him. The original question applies to adverbial situations like "Clicking on this option will place the window further atop." I can't imagine "more atop" being used this way. --EncycloPetey 04:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see the error of my ways about the comparative form of the adverb. My question now is for a good example of the adverbial use.

• "He placed it atop." doesn't seem right, except in very unusual circumstances. Perhaps: "She placed hers next to the pillow; he placed his atop {hers or the pillow]." DCDuring 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I would call that a preposition still, with an understood implied object because of the parallelism. A better example might be "The scout went atop to look along the cliffs." The adverbial use will sound strange because it's not common in modern English. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Adverbially it's almost archaic now. In older books, you will regularly see sentences along the lines of, "The castle was black and forbidding, with a tattered flag flying atop." It used to be written as two words which is making it hard for me to find good results on b.google. Widsith 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it merit an indicator of its not-current usage? What is the canonical format for such an indicator? "dated"? "archaic"? "obsolete"? DCDuring 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe (deprecated template usage) ...? Widsith 16:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a couple of cites and the context tags. Widsith 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel much better now. -- And the entry is vastly better. DCDuring 17:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

word of faith

The phrase "word of faith" is fairly common in Christian writings and is apparently SoP, non-idiomatic. There is a "Word of Faith" movement, not an organization, for which the phrase has a particular meaning, which most users of the phrase "word of faith" may not be aware of, would not accept, and might strongly disagree with. The entry, though uncapitalized, is about "Word of Faith" as a belief, presumably of those in the "Word of Faith" movement.

• Should the entry be capitalized?
• How should the meanings separate from those of the movement be handled?
• Should the context be "religion" or "Word of Faith"?
• Does it belong in Wiktionary?

Although there might well be a BP discussion in this, the concrete case might provide a more focussed discussion, if anyone is interested. DCDuring 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

pilmanie

does anybody know the correct spelling of a soup called(pilmanie) and its possible origin? 15:21 17 November 2007 (UTC) 75.41.123.55

• This morning I walked down the street to see what I could see, and happened upon an Uzbekistani restaurant, where I had breakfast.

Couldn't read a single thing on the menu, because it was written in Russian. So I just told the guy to bring me something he thought I'd like.

It was terrific. Something called Pelmani, which included beef dumpling soup, some sort of egg and ham salad, plus bread and yogurt with an interesting tang. An excellent choice next time you stay at the Diplomat Hotel in Dubai.[87] DCDuring 22:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Best spelling for finding more would probably be pelmeni. DCDuring 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a beehive fireplace?

What is a beehive fireplace?

See picture here.

A traditional beehive is kind of dome shaped (as in beehive hairdo, etc). A beehive fireplace is a masonry or stone dome enclosure over the fire forming a sort of oven. RJFJR 04:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

unmade

The entry claims to have a citation supporting "more unmade" as the comparative, but I think this is parsed incorrectly. I believe the quote is not "(more unmade) and remade" but rather "more (unmade and remade)". That is, I think (deprecated template usage) more is being used in its adverbial sense to modify an adjective phrase rather than in its analytical sense to form the comparative. --EncycloPetey 04:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

By George, I think you're right. I added a couple of other quotes that seem to support the comparative/superlatives, but I may have misread them too. Please take a look. DCDuring 13:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All but the 1984 quote, which is comparing aunmade versus made, and not forming a comparative of unmade. I'd argue that the original quote from the page and the 1984 one should be removed. --EncycloPetey 15:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented your suggestions. Formation of plurals and comparatives is way more complicated than I had realized. -- And I still have trouble slowing down enough to parse things correctly. DCDuring 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New word or another language

I'm really struggling to find any meaning for the word "Absolom". Is this a new word created by the masters of Hollywood or A word in another minor language they've found and used. — This unsigned comment was added by Pagey (talk • contribs).

See Wikipedia: w:Absalom. Mike Dillon 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Random addendum: Robertson Davies used to use his own coinage absalonism to describe habitual rebellion against one's father. Widsith 12:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

get down with the kids

Should this instead be at get down with or possibly even get down?—msh210℠ 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"get down" doesn't cover it. There's another idiom (AAVE?) down with, I think, too, possibly related. DCDuring 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We may need additional sense(s) of down to provide the building block(s) for these phrases. DCDuring 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of examples of get down with + other noun groups being used as a phrasal verb in Google and bgc. This seems to be quite new, as it is not a dictionary entry that I can find (yet), but there appears to be durability. So I vote for get down with as the entry. Algrif 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want an entry for it, I'm down with it. DCDuring 12:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy with my entry at get down with, which seems to have at least two citeable meanings, then that makes get down with the kids SoP. - Algrif 12:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm down[=OK] with the entry, but I wish I could think of a good search to capture some quotes using "get down" not in the senses given there, but more like the sense in get down with. Can it be used with any other prepositions? My homeys don't talk like that and the people who do wouldn't talk that way in front of me. DCDuring 14:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your Q, but perhaps you want get down among ? - Algrif 16:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not happy that the two senses in "get down" really capture one or more ways the phrase is used. To get it right I would need to look at a few examples. I can't think how to do a good search that doesn't yield thousands of hits I don't want. If "with" is not the only additional preposition the phrase is used with, then there is a good case for adding an additional sense to "get down". But "get down" without another preposition also may have another sense, for which the one-preposition-at-a-time strategy that you imply would be ineffective. DCDuring 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I thought so. I misunderstood your Q.

I don't do anything sophisticated. Just search and wade through the results. I often find that newspaper searches help to support and clarify gbc searches. Using this method, I came out with the 2 definitions given. There might be more, but I haven't come across any yet.
The definitions at get down with do not coincide with any definition of get down nor get down + with. So I believe get down with is a clear phrasal verb with clear definitions. If you find any more, please feel free to add (It's Wiki policy, after all ;-)) - Algrif 17:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

-illo

I was just wondering how best to enter Spanish suffix -illo -illa meaning little. As in mercado - mercadillo, mentira - mentirilla, etc. Is there a specific format for this? Algrif 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You could use -ito as an example. It looks pretty solid. Mike Dillon 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm onto it now. Algrif 16:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

template:irregular plural of

Template:irregular plural of is a "form-of" template that puts "Irregular plural form of [foo]" on the definition line and adds the page to Category:English irregular plurals. While I think that the category is great, I think the definition line should just say "Plural form of", for the following reason. Someone who doesn't know what "irregular plural" means might well think that "Irregular plural form of" means "Uncommon plural form of" (i.e., that there is another, more common, plural). What think you all?—msh210℠ 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another option is to have "irregular" link to Appendix:Glossary, where it can be explained in detail. If that's not enough, maybe a tooltip could offer a brief explanation. Rod (A. Smith) 19:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, we'd have an Appendix:English nouns with a section on regular and irregular plurals, and the template would like to that. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I like any presentation that is kind to an ordinary user, while remaining accurate. The word "irregular" at the beginning of a definition line has the potential to confuse (especially native speakers). If it would be valuable for some users to know that a given plural is irregular without having to look at the categories, perhaps the definition line could read "plural form (irr.) of". To prevent the ordinary user from wasting too much time "irr." could be wiki-linked to a helpful section of a page that explained what "irregular" meant in this context. Putting a wiki-linked "irregular" at the beginning of the line may lead to many users hitting a link that won't tell them anything they want to know. DCDuring 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good.—msh210℠ 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with msh210; that message just seems pointless. Anyone who knows English will know, given a plural noun and its corresponding lemma, whether they'd consider it irregular; I don't see the benefit in imposing our definition of "irregular" into our definitions of all irregular plurals. (Obviously we need our own definition of "irregular" for the sake of categorization, but I don't see that it's useful for much more than that.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the current entry for (deprecated template usage) women seems unenlightening for readers who don't already know the plural of (deprecated template usage) woman. Of course, this ties into the lack of consensus we have regarding whether to show such inflection details in the headword/inflection line or in definition lines. In any event, this conversation probably belongs at WT:BP, right? Rod (A. Smith) 01:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Msh210 and Ruakh: The category is useful, the preset definition is unhelpfully misleading. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. When you see women defined as "irregular plural of woman", the immediate reaction is to think "So what the hell is the regular plural?" Widsith 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we change the definition to be identical with the one provided {{plural of}}, but retaining the auto-catting? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see a few problems:
  1. Most dictionaries don't include entries for regular "form of"s but do for irregulars. So while they typically don't use the word "irregular" in their definitions they make these terms stand out by their mere inclusion. Wiktionary now has no way to make these stand out yet they are very much more important than regular "form of" entries.
  2. Categories are useful but they apply to an entire page and thus do not stand out on a page such as men which has nine entries and sixteen categories.
  3. The argument about confusing words in definitions is a bit of a red herring considering we have more confusing words such as infinitive, tense, participle, and uncountable in very many "form of" definitions.
• Why not treat irregularity in a consistent manner as with other "attributes" of words such as countability, transitivity, archaic, obsolete, pejorative, etc:

  men

  1. (irregular) Plural of man.

— Hippietrail 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That still (to me at least) implies that there exists a valid regular version. Widsith 14:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Me, too.—msh210℠ 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And what about when dictionaries list regular plural forms? –The COED, if my memory serves me correctly, explicitly lists prospectuses as the plural form of prospectus. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To enfishen?

Do we have a word in English for the French empoissonner, meaning to populate or stock with fish? enfish, fishify, enfishen, or just "add fish to"? There should be a word for it, like when fisherman overfish and there's not much fish left in the sea so they need to wait a while until the sea become more enfished? --Rural Legend 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a word for it, or if there is most people ignore it in favour of saying "replenish fish stocks" or something. You could always coin an English word empoisson or impescate... Widsith 14:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the next time I write a novel I shall talk about how fisherman need to reimpescate the oceans after the depescation. Hell, I'll name character after you too. --Rural Legend 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'll keep an eye out for The Sockpuppet Years. Widsith 15:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No precise word, but restock is the word typically used and the context usually makes a modifier unnecessary. DCDuring 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

cup

cup's English etymology section says it comes from Old English, earlier from Latin, earlier from Hebrew, earlier from PIE. Since when does Hebrew derive from PIE, or Latin from Hebrew (unless, for the latter, it's a loan, in which case it should say so)?—msh210℠ 20:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've commented out that bit for now. It appears to be random weirdness. Widsith 10:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

interoperability

Meaning 3 appears to me to be a specific instance of meaning 2. Can I just delete meaning 3? What's the protocol? - dougher 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To be cautious: insert rfd-sense template (which I just did). But that sense def. is so bad that probably no-one would have minded it you would have deleted it. DCDuring 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

zinc

Can someone add a correct {{en-verb}} inflection for zinc#Verb, it seems that it has a couple of possible inflections - zinckig/zincing/zincked/zinced...I'd coin a new past tenses for zinc at zanc and zunc if I could. --Rural Legend 11:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the verb was galvanize - Algrif 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Less-used synonym. DCDuring 17:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is less used? The word we know how to inflect correctly: to galvanize, or the word which does not seem to have any clear inflection: to zinc (??) BTW, I do not have zinc as a verb in any of my dictionaries, but then I don't have that many, I'm afraid. - Algrif 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My MW3 gives the "ck" inflections (not zanc amd zunc) as well as the "c" ones. I have never seen of read "zinc" as a verb, though I don't doubt that it is in usage. I don't like the look of the "ck" spellings, but they do avoid the pronunciation confusion of the "c" versions. Let me look up the en-verb template to see how to do it. DCDuring 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about how we treat this problem with other metals.. The most common procedure is to add -plate to the metal noun. Some few metals have special verbs, such as zinc - galvanise, and gold - guild. Some make verbs directly, such as to lead, and to tin. Silver and chrome seem to be used as verbs at times also, but -plate is preferred. I think it will be difficult (but not impossible tho) to find anything verifyable for zinc as a verb. Zinc-plate and galvanise are by far and away the most obvious solutions. Good luck in finding verificatons for the inflections. - Algrif 13:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC) I just noticed. That should read gild! .. Doh.. Algrif 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The only one I wasn't able to find on Google Books was zincs. --Ptcamn 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder whether the -ed forms are simply adjectival, and the -ing forms nouns or adjectives, in the examples you have found. Handle with care !! - Algrif 17:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

street market

I am considering adding this item, but is it a SoP? Reasons in favour of the entry would include the fact that souq, mercadillo, and mercatino all mean street market. Opinions? - Algrif 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't we want to make this a matter of policy? If it works under existing policy, then it's in. If it doesn't, then it might be an opportunity to review the policy for the newbies like me. I remember that in a recent discussion the translation-from-a-single-word rationale was said not to be policy.

This looks SoP and is not in MW3. But maybe there is more to it. Does a street market necessarily involve closing a street to some classes of traffic, for example? In NY area, we have "farmers' markets" (fresh produce and other food products, not necessarily farmers, sometimes held in parking areas or other public spaces), "street fairs" (more than a market, closes the street), "sidewalk sales" (store-owners allowed to partially obstruct the sidewalk in front of their store), "street vendors", (licensed or unlicensed merchant without premises, selling from sidewalk). We have a few special-purpose buildings for "markets", both wholesale, retail, and mixed, as well as arcades; in these, the mechants can have stores or stalls. We also have "flea markets", typically weekend-only markets for all sorts of goods. Not too many folks from here would think of the phrase "steet market" when looking for meaning. DCDuring 17:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To me it's a set phrase. I totally think it deserves an entry. Widsith 07:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be more of a UK thing than US, judging from DCDuring's comment. But I'm leaning more towards a real entry, because both the above comments made me realise that in UK a street market can be found in a car park or other non-street location. The meaning is a temporary market not located in a fixed market building. (More or less!). If I can justify this meaning with cites, then I will enter it. Any help in finding quotes would be appreciated. - Algrif 12:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone here said "street market" we would have some expectations about what it was, but I would argue that here it is fundamentally SoP.

There are abundant quotations in travel, geography, history, and sociology. I'm not sure how to find the ones that illustrate the 'setness' of the phrase. Here's an interesting cite from a history book:

• 1956-2000, H. P. R. Finberg, Joan Thirsk, Edith H. Whetham, Stuart Piggott, H. E. Hallam, Edward Miller, G. E. Mingay, E. J. T. Collins, The agrarian history of England and Wales, page 992

  It was not the custom of London consumers to walk any distance for their food, or any other goods. As a result of this and the inability of the London County Council to establish a single authority to regulate existng markets and establish properly regulated new ones when the need arose, the irregular street market set up in densely populated districts was a feature of the capital. In 1891 there were 112, all unauthorised, and containing 5,292 stalls, of which 65 percent were set aside for the sale of perishable commodities.

There's lots more in this mammoth multi-volume source about markets elsewhere in England and Wales. DCDuring 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Great. Thanks. I've put another couple of good quotes and entered it with a 'pedia link. - Algrif 16:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

how do i create my avatar?

Tea room i am at a loss i can't seem to do anything,how can i start to have fun, i need to make a avatar to chat

eye dialect

This definition bothers me a bit because of the put-down of the speakers of the dialects transliterated this way. I am not saying that the definition is not often accurate. I am saying that not all transliterations of dialect are done to mock the speaker. AAVE is arguably a species of eye dialect that has some effective PR agents and lobbyists. I had wanted to add entries for some New York area eye-dialect (dey, dem, dose, dese, dat for starters, but all of Damon Runyon and Finley Peter Dunne [and others] awaits) and was bothered by the implication of the definition that such entries were not appropriate. Are they? Is it only the usual CFI standards that apply? DCDuring 12:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the definition rewrite. I would guess that Wiktionary would want to have as many eye-dialect entries as possible, especially cited. It is a kind of documentation of popular English that is not readily available by other means and fits with the need of users reading dialog in dialect. DCDuring 00:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever is rewriting this, you may wish also to rewrite Category:Eye dialect and Appendix:Glossary#E.—msh210℠ 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

jacquetta

Can anyone tell me the meaning of this name. The tribe that it can from was around Preg Oklahoma. I was named after a girl that went to school there.

Thank you

stockingfeet

in one's stockinged feet is listed as an adverb; I was hoping to place stockingfeet as a term of its own, but am unsure what part of speech it would be or how best to define it. It appears in L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, among many other books at b.g.c. Any ideas? sewnmouthsecret 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a noun. Though I usually see it as two words, or hyphenated. Widsith 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it was a noun, but in trying to define it, I keep thinking stockinged feet, which is an adjective. b.g.c. has many print cites with it as one word. sewnmouthsecret 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, "stockinged feet" is a compound noun too – a noun phrase if you like, but no one likes that term here. And the singular stocking-foot seems to exist also, by the way. Widsith 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We do have stockinged, the past participle of the verb "stocking", which is used as an adjective in both phrases: "in one's stockinged feet" and "stockinged feet". The entire first phrase is adverbial. Both "one's stockinged feet" and "stockinged feet" are noun phrases. At least, I think that's all correct. DCDuring 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Stocking-foot" doesn't seem to usually refer to a foot with a stocking in it. A "stocking-foot wader" is a wader that has a stocking-like foot, which is worn inside socks (for abrasion protection) and an oversized shoe. It contrasts with a "boot-foot wader" which makes direct contact with the rocks and grit of a stream. A "stocking-foot" also seems to refer to the foot part of a stocking. It makes me think that one reason that the somewhat awkward "stockinged feet" has survived is to differentiate "stocking-feet" from "stockinged feet". We could try to preserve the distinction by marking stockingfeet in the sense of "stockinged feet" in some way as a common misspelling (or something) or just note distinct senses. DCDuring 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's the other way round. stocking-foot is the part of a stocking that goes round the foot, ie the bottom bit. "In your stocking-feet" was just a way of saying that you had no shoes on over them (first attested 1802), but as the term got less common, people started hearing it as "stockinged feet" (first attested 1862). Widsith 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

humbug

I was wanting to add the well known quote from A Christmas Carol from Wikiquotes [88] to the Interjection. But I'm not sure how to do it. - Algrif 12:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is, is there a special template or approved format to link to wikiquotes? - Algrif 16:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What I need to know is nothing difficult. w: takes a link to wikipedia. s: takes a link to wikisource. What is the way to link to wikiquotes, please? Thanks. - Algrif 12:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. q:Charles_Dickens#A_Christmas_Carol. Widsith 13:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanx. My fault for not being clear in the first place! ;-) - Algrif 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobcat

I've been trying to find the meaning of Bobcat that i found in a leadership book, but it seems like it's nowhere to find. The book speaks about a landscaping company and how they run their business. As I quote here, it says, "Their equipment - including trucks, trailers, and 'Bobcat'". Can someone help me here, please? — This unsigned comment was added by 61.94.126.30 (talk).

Seems like they're a digging-machinery company. See w:Bobcat Company. Widsith 12:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good example of the trademaker's craft. Common word, play on bob- as in "bobbed" and "Cat", short for "Caterpillar", now being defended against genericization of the term bobcat, sense 2. DCDuring 14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yea. They make small-scale earth-moving equipment, often used by contractors who need to work in small spaces around existing structures. DCDuring 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

help me ...

There's this sentence that says: "The new President imposed much-needed organization and order on the fledgling company." Can somebody help me to re-phrase it, please?

Pice, is it a coin or a currency?

I notice the word pice has a definition of "A small copper coin of the East Indies, worth less than a cent". But is this correct, as I thought pice or more correctly paisa is a currency rather than an actual coin. Obviously it can be both like cent, but I'm also sure that pice is plural, which makes it unlikely that it means a particular coin. Help appreciated.--Dmol 23:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

knows

How should the slang/dialect/illiterate(?) inflection of the verb "know" and the results of the inflection be presented? It certainly seems like a complete separate inflection of the same infinitive lemma: I/you/he/we/they knows, knowing (knowin'???), knowed, knowed. This kind of thing must have been discussed before. DCDuring 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Knowed seems to handled adequately. I willhave done something similar for knows. How is it to be handled on the page for know? DCDuring 15:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did something ,if fine,it's good,otherwise it will be removed.--Etymologist 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

against time

Is this an idiom? It can be used adjectivally and adverbially. It is part of set phrases like a "race against time". DCDuring 16:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a prepositional phrase. It just needs to have Category:English prepositional phrases added. - Algrif 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. Not sure about it being an adjective though?? Algrif 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is used with nouns describing actions, usually vigorous actions. I often find the semantics renders the grammatical structure invisible to me. Somehow against didn't look like a preposition for a while. DCDuring 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

the world is your oyster

This doesn't conform with our other entry names. Standard would be world be one's oyster or the world be one's oyster, but those are terrible. Not sure what to do about this. Maybe just leave it where it is. In any event, there should be redirects from the world is his oyster, world is my oyster, the world was her oyster, etc., I suppose.—msh210℠ 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly enough, world be one's oyster is correct. DAVilla 08:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately we can salt the entry with examples that have all the most common phrases in actual use so that the search button will find it for the user. DCDuring 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

you hear it. you thuoght it, you have done it / see

does this make you reconize the simplcity of actions

Category:Filmology

If it was up to me, I would move this to Category:cinematography and update all the entries to use a proper context tag. Does anyone agree or disagree? SemperBlotto 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Widsith 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalized.—msh210℠ 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No. SemperBlotto 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all the topic categories' names capitalized? (I'm referring to the first letter only, of course.)—msh210℠ 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Yes, all categories on Wiktionary have their first letter capitalized, though I'm unsure whether the software requires it and some templates we use require this. However, "cinematography" is too narrow a term to cover the category. Filmology exists as a word because cinematography refers to the art of making motion pictures, specifically to aspects of lighting and camera choices. It does not cover other aspects of filmmaking. If another name must be used, I would choose Category:Filmmaking. --EncycloPetey 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

secret

I think we're missing a sense:

1. • 1981, P. L. Travers, Mary Poppins, revised edition, chapter 10,

     Jane and Michael watched the dance, the Hamarynd secret and still between them.

I'm not sure what secret means here. (Note that the Hamarynd was not hiding or, as far as I can tell, obscured from sight.)—msh210℠ 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What's a Hamarynd? Is it physical? MW3 has some 9 adj. senses for secret, all them involving hiding, stealth, mystery in one way or another. DCDuring 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In the book the Hamarynd seemed to be some kind of snake-god. Physical, yes: having the form of a snake.—msh210℠ 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So, a smart snake, then. There's a sense of secret: secretive. By being/holding itself still, the snake seems to be playing an active role. A divine or magical snake may not be all that physical. I doubt if we can do much better than guess at a more precise meaning other than the emotional content of something esoteric and powerful shared by Jane and Michael. DCDuring 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, okay. Thanks.—msh210℠ 05:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

power processor

I want to ask what is the difference between power processors and micro processors.

One possibility is that "power processor" refers to w:IBM POWER, a particular architecture of microprocessors developed by IBM. Another possibility is that is slang of jargon for a microprocessor that is considered particularly powerful (as opposed to a small and simple processor that is intended more to be cheap than powerful). Can you put the question in conhtext? RJFJR 14:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

just as well

I'm struggling to make a good entry for this phrase. I think just as well or perhaps be just as well, as in It's just as well you came when you did! and similar expressions. In Spanish it would translate as menos mal (if that helps at all). But how to define it well? Any input, ideas, etc would be most appreciated. - Algrif 13:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I would drop the "be" because the SoP adverbial phrase "just as well" ("He did it just as well as she did.") serves as the virtual etymology of the more idiomatic-seeming other ways of using the phrase. "Just as well" can be used as an expression of agreement. "They took her driver's license away." "Just as well." for: "Just as well they did." for: "It is just as well that they did." DCDuring 15:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The second sense in the entry for as well nearly captures the meaning for the "as well" part, I think. "might as well", "may as well" are other collocations that come to mind. We should consider adding a sense to "as well" in the course of the "just as well" effort. DCDuring 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of nuances which I find hard to define and categorise in all these phrases. I agree that they probably should be melded in some way to avoid having a whole heap of minor entries which are hard to find. As usual, I tend to put myself in the position of a hypothetical English L2 speaker trying to understand a paragraph which includes one of the above phrases. How would he find it? What should be in the entry so that he can understand it. I'm finding this phrase surprisingly difficult to pin down. Sense 2 in as well is just about OK for the phrase might as well, but gets nowhere near the positive/negative idea of fortunate + or else contained in the exchange I did my homework - It's just as well! or I have a spanner in the car. - It's just as well! and so on. - Algrif 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Acca Dacca

Can anyone help verify and date this nickname? I can only find one example in Google Books, but there's a number of news hits, all of which are from the 21st century. Would anyone be able to find some attestations from the 70s or 80s? --Ptcamn 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It just looks like the name of an Australian-based AC/DC tribute band, as you must have suspected. DCDuring 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So does this rock band deserve a dictionary entry? --EncycloPetey 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have the band sense for AC/DC. Until we do, I can't see the point of having an entry for a mere w:tribute band. Nor would I care if w:AC/DC never made Wiktionary. I am aware of them, but not really familiar with them or their work. There are other proper name efforts I would much rather engage in. Sorry I couldn't be more help. DCDuring 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

RfD'd. bd2412 T 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was (and is) a nickname for the original band before the tribute band took it as its name. --Ptcamn 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, not dictionary material. bd2412 T 16:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? --Ptcamn 22:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be if it is used to describe AC/DC electrical devices. I'd be surprised if it weren't in at least limited actual usage in Oz, though I couldn't find any cites. DCDuring 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mobile Directory Number

What is it?

Contraction 'ns

Can anyone tell me what the contraction 'ns means (or could mean) in Southern American English? I came across this in utterance "That'ns cut!" but for the love of God I cannot figure out what it could mean, exactly. --130.209.6.42 14:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Being from London I'm just guessing, but I would interpret it as "that one is cut", whatever that may mean. Widsith 14:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. I would have expected it to be written "that un's cut" with un's being a slurred pronounciation of one's, the contraction for one is. RJFJR 14:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You'ns got that right or 'most right. I wonder how to write double contractions: "that'n's"? Or is that spelling the possessive singular? Wiktionary ought to have uns and either 'ns or -'ns or something to capture this. What should it be? DCDuring 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

epilogue 3rd sense

The current third sense of epilogue is 3 A brief oration or script at the end of a literary piece; an afterword. Is oration the correct term to describe something in a literary piece? I think of oration as something spoken while a piece of literature as soemthing read. RJFJR 14:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if all the senses given in epilogue were intended to include both orally delivered pieces and those in writing. Maybe the phrase "literary piece" should be replaced with "oral or written work" or "work". "Literary" seems to exclude oral performances, even of written works. In any event, it can mislead people as it does in the def. under discussion, I think. DCDuring 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Double contractions

Just to keep this separate from that'un's above, although closely related.
It seems to be unconfirmed policy, or something like that, to avoid double contractions. I wonder if this can be clarified? What exactly is wrong with can't've, that'll've, and other doubles that an Eng L2 might come across in a text? - Algrif 10:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If in print, I don't see any problem with double contractions. See 'tisn't, 'twasn't, 'tweren't, I'd've, it'sn't, shouldn't've, and wouldn't've. Why would they be avoided if in use, no matter how much people may dislike them? I'm sure there are many more. sewnmouthsecret 04:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any more of these that could be added to Category:English double contractions? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are. You don't even have fo'c'sle yet! Robert Ullmann 14:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Now added. Feel free to add any others you can think of to the category. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

'Tisn't hard to find them. Make a game of it. The young'uns'll find plenty that we old'uns've already forgotten. The real question is whether they deserve the be entered here if they are eye-dialect. You for'em or 'gin'em? Gotta go now. Be back in an hour if my car'll get me there'n'back. If mine won't, maybe my neighbor's'll do the trick. DCDuring 17:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If they’re attested, they should be listed. BTW, most of the examples you gave are not double contractions, being instead for ‛em (minus the space), ‛gin ‛em (ditto), there ‛n’ back (same again), and neighbo(u)r’s’ll (where the ’s is not a contraction, but rather the English possessive enclitic). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just an impatient amateur. Thanks for the feedback. DCDuring 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... why are you using the opening quotation mark instead of an apostrophe? DAVilla 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m not — « ‛ » is the leading apostrophe, whereas « ‘ » is the opening quotation mark — both are distinct from « ’ », the apostrophe-cum-closing quotation mark. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What about triple contractions? fo'c's'le Cynewulf 00:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm… Thinking about it, I’m not sure that (deprecated template usage) fo’c’sle and (deprecated template usage) fo’c’s’le count as double contractions, being as they’re both single words, simply split in two/three places. All the others listed in Category:English double contractions contain contractions of two words as clitics ((deprecated template usage) it → (deprecated template usage) ‛t; (deprecated template usage) not → (deprecated template usage) n’t; (deprecated template usage) would or (deprecated template usage) should → (deprecated template usage) ’d; (deprecated template usage) have → (deprecated template usage) ’ve; (deprecated template usage) is → (deprecated template usage) ’s; and, (deprecated template usage) will or (deprecated template usage) shall → (deprecated template usage) ’ll). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends how you define "contraction". If "contraction" means that the "'" indicates missing letter(s), then (deprecated template usage) fo’c’sle is a double contraction of forecastle. Algrif 11:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I defined a double contraction in Category:English double contractions; whereatop is written “Double contractions are those words which contain two contractional clitics, such as (deprecated template usage) n’t and (deprecated template usage) ’ve. Both contractions are marked with apostrophes.” — under that definition, (deprecated template usage) fo’c’sle is a contraction, but not a double contraction. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Where d'you get that definition from? fo'c'sle is contracted twice - it's a double contraction. The OED defines the relevant sense of contraction as shortening "by omitting or combining some elements". fo'c'le is shortened in this way twice. The amount of actual words involved is not relevant (or how do you view o'clock which cuts an entire word out of "of the clock"?). PS, I'm pretty sure whereatop isn't a word, but if it is I suspect you're the first person in 200 years to try and get away with it! Widsith 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did some checking: both (deprecated template usage) hereatop and (deprecated template usage) whereatop are vanishingly rare (though I did find one person who’s used (deprecated template usage) whereatop — not two centuries ago, but only last year), whereas, bizarrely enough, (deprecated template usage) thereatop is rather common (in patents no less). BTW, I should be genuinely interested to hear on what grounds you state whether something is or is not a word… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that if fo'c'sle is neither a single nor a double contraction, then what is it? A multiple contraction? But that would be pointless hair-splitting IMHO. I've put bo's'n in catagory double contraction, and I think fo'c'sle and fo'c's'le should be there also. - Algrif 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The OED’s pertinent definition of (deprecated template usage) contraction doesn’t actually conflict with the one I gave — it says nowhere that the “omitt[ed] or combin[ed] … elements” must be adjacent. However, perhaps that really would be hair-splitting. I’m unsure what to call (deprecated template usage) o’clock — perhaps it is indeed a double contraction. To twist the “rules” a bit — (deprecated template usage) bo’s’n could be viewed as “(deprecated template usage) boat → (deprecated template usage) bo’* ” + “(deprecated template usage) swain → (deprecated template usage) s’n* ”, whilst (deprecated template usage) fo’c’sle and (deprecated template usage) fo’c’s’le could be viewed as “(deprecated template usage) fore → (deprecated template usage) fo’* ” + “(deprecated template usage) castle → (deprecated template usage) c’sle* or (deprecated template usage) c’s’le* ”. Otherwise, we’d need Category:English triple contractions just for (deprecated template usage) fo’c’s’le… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of any more examples of o' = of the apart from o'clock and jack o'lantern. Also, are there any other examples where the apostrophe indicates the loss of an entire word? - Algrif 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

chaos

I am looking for information on the word tohubohu. I was told that it means chaos. If there is any info out there in the great wide web, please send it out. tohubohu sounds like something sad or crying;I know that it is more than what it sounds like, I find myself thinking about what it could mean.

boohoo sounds more like some one is crying or sad... and thus one is easily mislead into thinking that tohubohu could mean that aswell... but it is not, it comes from Hebrew tohu wa-bhohu, from tohu (formlessness) and bhohu (emptiness), so a formless emptiness. Reference: New York Times Letter to the Editor March 26, 1995 --BigBadBen 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Hebrew is תהו ובהו (tohu vavohu), from the second verse in Genesis. It means "תהו (tohu) and בהו (bohu)", but what those are beats me. If I recall correctly, major classical Bible commentators differ about them.—msh210℠ 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Shinola

I have often wondered about how one should pronounce the word "Shinola", which was as though carved in stone when the famous slang/colloquial phrase appeared and spread.))) Not for use in my speech, personally, but just for knowing, because eventually I have to read it aloud from books. Is the shoe-polish named [ʃɪ`nəʊlə]? [`ʃɪnələ]? [ʃaɪ`nəʊlə]? Eate 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the notation, but first syllable rhymes with "shine", accent is on second syllable, as I've heard it. The commercial logic of the rhyme with "shine" would make me willing to bet a lot of money at long odds that that part of the pronunciation was encouraged by the manufacturer as well. I'm not as sure about the accent. DCDuring 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha...So it is probably "Shy-NO-la". The analogy with the slang word "payola", which I know to bear stress on the second syllable, encourages me to think that the stress falls indeed on the second one. The slang suffix "-ola" is generally stressed in words that include it. Thanks. Eate 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

яблочко от яблоньки недалеко падает

Is currently categorised as English idioms and English proverbs. Can s/o who knows change to the correct cats, please? - Algrif 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now in Category:Russian idioms and Category:Russian proverbs. To change the {{idiom}} template, you had to add |lang=ru : {{idiom|lang=ru}}. — Beobach972 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

cumberbund

Anyone know where the conversation for this went? This should be listed as an alternative spelling, not a misspelling, right? --Connel MacKenzie 00:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think of it as a Freudian misspelling. It reflects the deep-seated hostility of many of those forced to encumber themselves with such "monkey suits". MW3 doesn't include this spelling. DCDuring 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do recall it being discussed previously, but I can't seem to find which spelling variant it was WT:TR listed under. --Connel MacKenzie 06:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2006#cumberbund Robert Ullmann 07:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rats. I didn't realize that conversation died out before it began. (I wasn't asking what the OED says...I was asking for confirmation of the American pronunciation that I've always used. Do other Americans share that experience, or have I simply mispronounced (and misheard it) all my life?) --Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally common mispronunciation and misspelling. I just answered someone last month in "real life" who was wondering which was which. But indeed, completely an outright mispronunciation and misspelling. An older actual spelling variant in use was kummerbund. The commonness of cumberbund, i believe, is influenced phonetically by Cumberland and cumbersome (by phonetics, not Freudian hostility, DC) :) -- Thisis0 19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not having seen the word in writing often (ever?), I didn't have strong expectatons about its spelling. "Cumberbund" didn't strike me as obviously wrong when I saw it. Because (1) I associate formal dress with England, (2) the English have the habit of not pronouncing certain consonants and syllables, and (3) I was not aware of the Asian etymology, I might have writen "cumberbund" if asked. DCDuring 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Serbian translation change

An anon recently changed the Serbian translation of thither from (deprecated template usage) to (deprecated template usage) . Though Serbian can be written in both the Cyrillic script and the Latin script, these two translations are not transliterations of each other. Is this correction, vandalism, POV-pushing, or what? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The same user has made many similar edits to other pages, including blanking some pages. Ivan and Dijan ought to have a look at the contributions form this user. --EncycloPetey 01:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Basic word list ALMOST done

The basic word list of 18,000 words is all but done. There are less than 100 words left, all beginning with 'N' (in fact, they all begin 'non'.) If we all grab a couple of words we can have this DONE. The remaining few words are at Wiktionary:Requested_articles:English/DictList/N. RJFJR 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely sixty-five remain. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

They have all now been added. The last word on the list to be added was (deprecated template usage) nonstriking. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I probably missed the point of nonredeemable and some other law-related words, and there's an atomic physics sense of nonsecular I can't figure out (which may just belong on secular), so I'd appreciate additional viewpoints here. Cynewulf 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done everyone. As for nonsecular, it seems to be used as non-secular more often, and I can't get a handle on the mathematical meaning (nothing in Mathworld). SemperBlotto 17:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Secular in econometrics always refers to longer-term, usually non-cyclical phenomena, contrary to the RfVd sense of secular as meaning short-term. I'd be amazed if any of the sciences used the word too differently, although what constitutes longer term is always relative to the context, which, in physics, could be femtoseconds. DCDuring 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The OED has (in a long entry) the following - 7. In scientific use, of processes of change: Having a period of enormous length; continuing through long ages. a. Astr. Chiefly of changes in the orbits or the periods of revolution of the planets, as in secular acceleration, equation, inequality, variation. The terms secular acceleration, secular variation were formerly also used (with reference to the sense ‘century’ of L. sæculum) for the amount of change per 100 years; similarly secular precession (see quot. 1812). secular equation is also used more widely to designate any equation of the form |aij-bij| = 0 (i,j = 1,2, . . ., n), in which the left-hand side is a determinant and which arises in quantum mechanics. SemperBlotto 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the basic list is complete - maybe it would be a good idea to rebuild Index:English. Kipmaster automated this well over a year ago, but is too busy in the real world to repeat the process. SemperBlotto 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he resurfaced on IRC this week... --Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

X of Xes

What's the proper place, if any, to note this pattern in English? as in "Lord of lords", "code of codes", "lie of lies", etc. DAVilla 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - but there is a similar (just as troublesome) pattern - as in "cricketer's cricketer", "editor's editor", "pianist's pianist" - i.e. a professional admired by his peers. SemperBlotto 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Are these a form of reduplication? (And should we have entries for food food, car car, and house house?) DAVilla 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of those have sufficient use (e.g. b.g.c.) to merit entries? --Connel MacKenzie 16:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also man's man, and gentleman's gentleman, which don't quite fit that pattern. (of professional admired by peers) Robert Ullmann 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What about reduplication across part of speech? I think of the forms "X y an X" or "X y no Xes". "[F]ind me a find, catch me a catch" from Fiddler on the Roof. "Joke us no jokes". "Riddle me a riddle, riddler." It doesn't seem to work at the WT entry level. WP? DCDuring 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a theme entry on this at Wikiquote:X me no X's quite a while ago. If a list of quotes containing such themes can be generated with proper citation, it can go there. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Well, name me a name. Construct me a construct. Are there names for these constructions? The "X me no Xes" construction is referred to in Pinker (2007), The Stuff of Thought. DCDuring 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is snowclone. bd2412 T 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think having pattern entries is unwarranted. If you are trying to describe reduplication then link reduplication. If you'd like to make an entry for Lord of Lords then make that entry - the list is not infinite. --Connel MacKenzie 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There could be a nice appendix, though. Perhaps only if there were good specific terms (Sorry, BD, not snowclone) for the constructs so that someone might actually find them. Maybe it is more for Wikipedia? DCDuring 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not forgetting tautological phrases such as folks are folks, life is life, sure as eggs is eggs, and any other that might warrant an entry. - Algrif 10:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

working

S.v. working, adjective, we have the following definitions, inter alia:

1. That suffices but requires additional work.

   a working copy of the script

2. Enough to allow one to use something.

   a working knowledge of computers

The first of these is not how I understand the phrase "working copy of the script" (or "working script"). I have always understood that phrase to mean "a copy of the script that we will accept for the sake of [something: [[for the sake of argument|argument], peacemaking, whatever] (even though it's not ideal)". That is, the stress on "requires additional work", which seems to relate this definition to the headword, seems misplaced: working means, the way I understand it, "that works (suffices) well enough to be used". (Whether I'm right or the current entry is, the same sense of working is found in "working hypothesis" and "working definition".) What think you all?—msh210℠ 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if I'm right, then is the second sense I quoted to be merged with the first? They both seem to mean "sufficient to be used".—msh210℠ 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't combine senses.

• One sense (2) seems to mean that further efforts are not required, that the knowledge or the voting margin is enough for practical purposes, for some other project, or perhaps that the means are sufficient to accomplish ends.
• The other sense (1) seems to suggest that the prototype or draft is sufficient in some aspect(s) to allow further work on other aspect(s) of the same project.

This vocabulary of work has never struck me as having been very well done in dictionaries. So I'm not so sure that you will find very precise help from other dictionaries. I looked at MW3. They have 2 senses.

• Is there a third sense, that just means functional, or is that the same as sense 1 or is that the present participle of the verb (which needs no definition)? DCDuring 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That (your reason not to combine) seems eminently reasonable to me. Since you asked, there are other senses, yes, including the one you mention; I didn't quote them all. My main question, incidentally, which you did not really address, was whether the first sense I quoted needs rewriting, though.—msh210℠ 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it does. I think it refers to a thing which maintains its identity but itself needs successive and/or parallel work. The thing being worked in is an "end". That does not come across. The other sense implies that the thing does not itself need work, it functions well enough to be used as a tool, a "means". DCDuring 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I see any definition like working temperature, working speed etc. - Algrif 10:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

ablings

I was researcing a requested new entry "ablings" and came upon the following:

The New English - Page 15 by T[homas] L[aurence] Kington Oliphant - English language - 1886 There is the curious Scotch adverb ablings, aiblins (fortasse) ; compounded of able to be, and the adverbial ending ling.

I do not know my way around these parts and would offer this for others to complete. DCDuring 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that as a Scot - Google finds "aiblins" in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.--195.137.93.171 12:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

man up

Can you guys help me comprehend all the senses of man up. It has a verb sense, as in... "A lot of people are expecting me to provide for them, I'd better man up". And I have a vague notion it has an interjection sense in sports ("Man up!") or something. Looking at b.g.c. it's difficult to research. A little easier to research "manning up" but that confuses me more because it seems to have LOTS of distinct unrelated meanings. Language Lover 09:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more like an oblique figurative use, not a set phrase, to me. --Connel MacKenzie 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a set phrase, attributive verb use of the word "man", as in "doing the things a good man is traditionally expected to do". In use since at least the 50's, often in military circles. Search BGC "have to man up" for some examples. Used with influence from "own up" and "buck up" (for the want of a stronger emphatic) in situations such as this: one who impregnates a girl out of wedlock will be told to "man up" and marry the girl or otherwise provide for her; one can "man up" and finally confront his abusive coach or employer; one can "man up" and quit crying about a particular tragedy. To "be a man about it". I'll try to find some good cites for the entry. -- Thisis0 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also I should note the team-sports, macro-economics/staffing, and procedural-military uses:

  (Am. football, basketball, etc.; rare) Man up! -- "Get on your man!" (Each of you, guard the opponent to whom you were assigned and stay on him vigorously.)

  (of personnel - industrial, etc.) to man up -- to staff adequately; to staff up; to successfully fill all needed labor positions.

  -...it will become even more difficult to man up industrial occupations to which outmoded conceptions of status...[89]

  -To man up the last batch of capital goods produced, entrepreneurs are scraping up the remnants of the reserve of unemployed labour...[90]

  -...it will be impossible to find the labour to man up all the available capital equipment for productive use. [91]

  (of military personnel in a unit) to man up -- to assemble, each person manning (attending to) his station, prepared for departure of an aircraft, ship, etc. [92] [93]

• It is now my opinion that other uses arose from the military-assembling use. The sports use is rare, and most players would more readily recognize "Get on your man!". If a player is told to Man up! on the field, in context it may be, for example, a hunched-over out-of-breath player being told to "buck up", "stay in the game", "be a man" -- precisely the first sense we discussed. Further, the staffing use has become outdated, while politically correct society no longer favors referring to "manpower", "manning" a position, etc. -- Thisis0 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

throw-down

“A big row or argument.” –That is how I interpreted this word when it was used in the episode of Heroes I recently watched. I’m unfamiliar with this term, so I’d like some confirmation or correction. The quotation can be read in the entry, and the original programme can be watched here. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While we’re discussing this, the verb (deprecated template usage) throw down could also use a little attention. The definition seems incompatible with the use in the phrase (deprecated template usage) throw down the gauntlet… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the verb throw down look a bit better now? - Algrif 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've only said it/heard it as an invitation/threat to fight, e.g. "Yo, I'll throw down, right now!" but I assume that form is not hyphenated. The literal definition really doesn't help much. The idiomatic sense is of dropping whatever you are doing/holding, to engage violently (no holds barred.) I've never heard it said so mildly/sweetly, as in that TV show. So anyhow, yes, I can confirm that I've heard/used that meaning, but don't have any idea what other confirmation you're looking for. --Connel MacKenzie 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Defining it as "A big row or argument" has certain problems. First, Americans don't usually say "row", plus that's a awfully nice sideline commentary for what a "throw-down", "throw down", or "throwdown" implies. I believe the modern term did evolve from the idiom throw down the gauntlet, and implies that an unrestricted violent clash is possible, with one's honor at stake. Because of the fear in such a "you don't know how far I'm willing to take this" animalistic clash, the usage of the term doesn't always necessarily result in such actual violence, but is often an effective form of puffing the mane or fanning the tail feathers. The Heroes use was in hyperbole to this violent possibility -- not saying "Well, we'll discuss this when I get back," but rather, "Even though I'm forced to leave right now, when I can address this, you should know I view your transgression with ultimate seriousness, and you should sit here and be anxious for my return when I will visit my wrath upon you." -- Thisis0 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• throw down now abundantly cited und ekschpanded! throw-down is next. -- Thisis0 00:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone identify this word?

The word is in some song lyrics which go like this: "Hold up, hold up, check my linguistics, let me break it down to you ______________" It sounds like "abalistic" but that doesn't seem to be a word.

You can hear the lyrics in question starting at 0:48 at this video: [94] Language Lover 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have guessed cannabalistic or catabolistic, but lyrics.com says it's "Afrolistic". [tumbleweed moment] --EncycloPetey 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From the artist's own lyric page, it's "afrolistic". (You might have to click on "Give Me All Your Love"; their HTML is buggy). There is at least one other rap artist who goes by "Afrolistic", and Run-D.M.C. once used the word in their 1990 song Party Time. The Run-D.M.C. sense (adjective) seems to be something like "psychedelically funky and hip-hop infused", but the unrelated Afrolistic Barber Shop may be combining "Afro" with "holistic" -- (only a guess). I can't really get A.K.-S.W.I.F.T.'s adverb use (Let me break it down to you afrolistically?), though lyrics.com seems to think it's more of an interjection. If I were forced to analyze, I would say the most encompassing definition would be "in a black way" or "reflecting the self-celebrated aspects of black art, worldview, and lifestyle". -- Thisis0 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, it's an interesting word and I appreciate your analysis. I've found that some rappers are incredibly brilliant linguists, their command of practical English is sublime. Language Lover 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

it's on the tip of my toungue

what's the word for a period of time where you work. I really need to know. — This unsigned comment was added by 220.240.161.105 (talk) at 22:37, 7 December 2007.

In some types of occupations, (deprecated template usage) shift (or the dialectical variant (deprecated template usage) trick, as in I'm tired lately because I'm working third trick.) describes the period of time when someone works in a particular position. Is that the word you seek? Rod (A. Smith) 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly (deprecated template usage) tenure? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

catachresis + -phobia = ?

I need a word meaning “fear of the misuse of words”; I assume that the word and suffix linked in the title would do the trick. If so, how would they combine? The COED states that the adjectival form is (deprecated template usage) catachrestic, and that the noun derives from Latin, from (Ancient?) Greek (deprecated template usage) katakhrēsis, from (deprecated template usage) — if any of that helps. I can’t figure it out — maybe (deprecated template usage) catachresophobia, or (deprecated template usage) catachrestophobia, or (deprecated template usage) catachretophobia perhaps? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

further as comparative

Following from part of the discussion above in atop: the question was never resolved of whether further and furthest can be classified equally as more / most and less / least to form comparative and superlatives of certain adjectives and adverbs with a particularly spacial frame of reference. For instance there is quite a long list in the section above at atop.
My personal point of view is that an adverb such as upstairs is a better entry stating a comparative form as further upstairs than stating (not comparable), particularly as this is plainly not true. Comments invited. - Algrif 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

U-usage notes. Def'nally u-u-usage notes. -- Thisis0 17:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the en-adv template be forced to display "See Usage notes." without messing up anything else? DCDuring 18:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is needed in only a scant few (read: one) entries, why mess with templates? Just write it in. -- Thisis0 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

One reason would be in order to allow it to show up inside the parentheses that are generated by the template. Mike Dillon 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a single entry. This applies to dozens of adverbs derived from (or related to) prepositions of place, incuding afield, along, apart, away, down, in, left, out, right, up... So it would be very useful to be able to set the template to show further/furthest instead of more/most. --EncycloPetey 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sold. I get it now. How do we do it? -- Thisis0 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the template entry at upstairs. If everyone agrees, perhaps we could draw up a list and I'll go through them modifying them as appropriate similarly. - Algrif 13:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have a parameter option akin to the "|er" that would do this. Is that an easy adjustment to the template, or a difficult adjustment to the template? In any case, that format doesn't match the norm, which would put (deprecated template usage) further and (deprecated template usage) furthest in bold as part of the form. --EncycloPetey 15:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

katus

Please see Citations:katus. Anyone know what this word means? Or are the quotations simply of someone’s name and a scanno, respectively? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the second, but the first appears to be a surname, since the same source has: "Mr. Katus was duly qualified, and entered on the discharge of his duties as a judge or inspector of election, and continued so to act until the poll closed." --EncycloPetey 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Noun or adjective

I stumbled upon a Wikipedia category, the name of which doesn't sound quite right in my ears. Category:Municipal owned companies of Norway. Shouldn't it be municipality here? __meco 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Either that, "municipal-owned", or municipally. --EncycloPetey 22:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

plural proper nouns

Names can be pluralised, right? It is clear they can because saying "there are three Davids in my class, two Samanthas, a couple of Simpsons and five Joneses." If that's the case all entries in Category:Given names should take the template {{en-proper noun|s|-}} or {{en-proper noun|s|-}}. Firstly; this is grammatically correct, right? Secondly; could a bot, like our Cheatbot, be adapted to auto-add entries such as {{plural of|Simpson}}, {{plural of|David}}? I'm beginning to appreciate 'bot work a lot more. --Keene 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, proper nouns cannot be made plural. A proper noun in its "plural" form is no longer a proper noun (in most cases, that is; Alps is an exception). So, a proper noun changes its part of speech to a common noun when it's pluralized. We're not at all equipped to handle or explain this phenomenon on Wiktionary, and we certainly should not go around adding plural forms to all the proper nouns. Please wait for me to finish Appendix:English proper nouns so that I don't have to give all this explanation over and over. (This is, I think, the fifth or sixth time this issue has come up this year.) I would rather we simply link all English proper nouns to the Appendix when it's completed. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of previous discussions on this subject. Could you point them out? As for plurals, I'm aware they become common nouns in the pluralised form, but it would make sense to link e.g. Simpsons from Simpson. As for this proper nouns appendix, what do you have in mind for it. Maybe I'll help out with the appendix. --Keene 16:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Having a proper noun linked to a common noun, and vice versa doesn't make sense in the usual ways that we handle it. Every user will think it's a mistake and try to "fix" it unless we come up with an alternative way to handle it. I'd point you to the discussions, but they've occurred over several months under several names in multiple locations. I haven't tried to keep track of all of them, though I do know that one concerned the word multiverse, so you might follow the "what links here" to find a very metaphysical (and lengthy) conversation on what constitutes a proper noun. As I say, I don't recall where the others are located. They involved the days of the week, names of games, wines, awards, and I forget what else.

While I would like help with the Appendix, it's not feasible yet to coordinate that. I have several pages of notes in tiny cramped handwriting which have not yet been entered. What I do have typed is in an incomplete draft of just the introductory material, not the evidence and patern description. My aim is to make a go at finishing the first draft over my Christmas holiday, so if you check back around the end of December, I might be ready to have the second mind and pair of eyes help with the missing information and necessary polishing. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know; I've added Potteries as another real plural proper noun. - Algrif 14:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

hmph

I have entered hmph as an interjection, which seems OK. G.b.c. has revealed usage of "hmphs" as noun and as verb. I would expect "hmphing" and "hmphed". "ah" and "ahem", as well as other onomatopoietic [sp?] entries would have the same usage. Should these be accepted as entries if attestable? If these are all accepted, what should be done with variants with repetitions of the constituent letters: "hmmph", "aaaahhhh", etc. Keep the basic ones and put everything else in usage notes for the related entry? DCDuring 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See ah and aah, which actually aren't synonymous. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged

can anyone help me with the meaning of "Guilty as charged", please? — This unsigned comment was added by 61.94.124.138 (talk) at 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

See guilty and charge verb sense 3 (To formally accuse of a crime.) . as often means exactly equal. So the whole phrase means guilty of the exact crime one was accused of. Ciao - Algrif 13:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

דבר / לדבר / מדבר

At first glace דבר means "thing", לדבר means "to speak", and מדבר means "desert".

At a closer look מדבר can also be the masculine singular present of "to speak".

How about מדבר as "of/from the thing" and לדבר as "to/for the thing"? — Hippietrail 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

דבר is davar, "thing", and is one way of spelling diber, "he spoke", the third-person, masc., sing., past tense of "speak", which Ruakh will tell you is the lemma form.

לדבר is l'daber, "to speak", infinitive form of that same verb. Yes, it's also ladavar, "to the thing", which is davar plus prefixes. I suppose it can also be l'davar, "to a thing", again davar plus a prefix.

מדבר is m'daber, "he speaks/is speaking", the masc., sing., present tense of that same verb again. It's also (seemingly unrelatedly) midbar, "desert", noun, barren area. And I suppose it can also be midavar, "from a thing", again davar plus a prefix.

But "from the thing" would have to be mehadavar, מהדבר.

There's an old paal-construction verb davar, "speak", too, though, which would open uo possibilities for other meanings of all three words.

And in Talmudic Aramaic, at least, דבר is a way of writing di bar, "who/that the son of" (as in John, di bar William ihu,, "John, who is the son of William,"), or "that the son of" (as in kevan di bar William ihu, "because he is the son of William"). (The Hebrew counterpart incidentally is sheben, שבן.) But Aramaic, of course, is a whole other story.

I hope that this helps.—msh210℠ 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I might just add that it's not at all unusual (though I have no stats) to find homographs in Hebrew when one ignores vowels.—msh210℠ 06:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs about (deprecated template usage) מהדבר (meihaddavar), since (deprecated template usage) מדבר (middavár) and (deprecated template usage) מדבר (midd'vár) both exist. —Ruakh_TALK 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. All I said was that מהדבר was a word, and that it's the way to say "from the thing".—msh210℠ 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

He was making a point about identically spelled words/phrases; you're right that he slightly mistranslated one of said phrases, but that didn't really diminish his point at all. —Ruakh_TALK 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I might also add some forms I left out. Ruakh mentioned d'var, "thing of", which is also spelled דבר, but with yet different vowelization; it, too can take the prefixes that make it לדבר or מדבר. And in Aramaic, the same word di bar can also mean "that outside" or "that besides"; the Hebrew counterpart is שחוץ.—msh210℠ 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another: dever, "plague" and "plague of", each of which also can become לדבר or מדבר.—msh210℠ 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a thorny issue. From a syntactic standpoint, (deprecated template usage) לדבר (laddavár) is really two words in traditional Hebrew, and perhaps two-and-a-half in ordinary modern Hebrew. The French Wiktionary does attempt to include such compounds (and does a bad job of it, but don't tell it I said so), but I don't know if we should. One of the most annoying things about looking up Hebrew words in a paper dictionary is trying to figure out what letter the lemma starts with; we aim to avoid this issue by including pages for non-lemmata (and as y'all know by now, I advocate having non-lemma pages link to lemmata so that our readers can actually learn something instead of being completely dependent on the crumbs we give them), but if we don't include these clitic compounds, we haven't completely solved the problem (though granted, it's a lot easier for a Wiktionary reader to try both the with- and without-clitic versions to see which is right than it would be for a paper-dictionary reader). On the other hand, are we really going to include a separate entry for each series of words where all but the last is a one-letter word? Would the phrase (deprecated template usage) ושמהפה (v'shemmeihappéh) get an entry? I think that for now we should bar such entries (except in the case of idioms and fixed expressions, obviously, just as we'd do if the phrases were written with spaces as in English), but perhaps we should revisit this question once we have decent coverage of actual words. (That said, things like (deprecated template usage) הפה (happéh) are probably worth allowing even now, since while in one sense they're sum-of-parts, in another sense they're words in their own right, at least in traditional Hebrew.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by being two (or 2.5) words syntactically?—msh210℠ 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean just that: syntactically, it's the preposition (deprecated template usage) ל- (l'-) plus the nominal (deprecated template usage) הדבר (haddavár). (The .5 thing is because it's kind of debatable whether (deprecated template usage) ה- (ha-) is syntactically a word or an affix in Modern Hebrew. In colloquial Hebrew it's very word-y, e.g. in always going at the beginning of the noun phrase or adjective phrase it's attached to, but formal Hebrew still obeys the traditional rule that mandates e.g. (deprecated template usage) בית הספר (beit hasséfer), so it seems to be a bit blurry, depending on register and whatnot.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with barring entries such as ושמהפה for now. (As most people can't read that, let me explain that it consists of the two-letter word meaning mouth, preceded by four one-letter prefixes.) I think such entries, while clearly far from being a priority, are words, and, as we seek to include all words in all languages, should be included if someone has the (admittedly odd) urge to add them. Certainly we should not delete them. (But I know I differ with Ruakh on this. He, for example, has taken Tbot-created Hebrew infinitive verb entries, moved them to the lemma form, rewritten them, and deleted the redirect. I would never do that. I might or might not add the lemma form, but would not delete the infinitive. It is a word, after all.) What do you all think?—msh210℠ 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your explanation: in Modern Hebrew it's a two-letter word "mouth", preceded by four clitics — one-letter words, really — two conjunctions, a preposition, and the definite article. (In older forms of Hebrew, I guess it's a three-letter word "the mouth" and three clitics.) Hence, until we expand our mandate to "all strings of characters in all languages", I don't think it warrants inclusion. ;-)   (To see that it's not a word, consider Template:Hebr "and that out from his mouth came a lie", which is Template:Hebr): the five words, though written together without spaces, don't even form a constituent in the larger structure of the sentence.) I certainly agree with you that to-infinitives should have some sort of entry, but the redirects are bad, because they're essentially redlinks, but aren't instantly recognizable as such. —Ruakh_TALK 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Subjunctive after estimate (verb)?

Does estimate take a subjunctive in the subordinate clause? Would it be "I estimate that the target arrive ..." or "I estimate that the target arrives ..."? I know that the latter is allowed since subjunctives are optional in English, but would the former be valid usage? --MathiasRav 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion verbs, such as think, reckon, guess, suppose, etc, including estimate, normally take a modal such as will, might, could, etc. No hard and fast rules (as usual in English) but the suggested subjunctive form above sounds odd to me. I don't remember using it or seeing it. (Which doesn't mean it can't be found, of course.) - Algrif 18:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Stroke count for

Hello,

Reference page: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BE%A1

By my understanding, the stroke count for this word (at least in Japanese) is 12, not 11 as listed on Wiktionary.

Does anyone else agree?

Character: 御

Kind regards, Kevin — This unsigned comment was added by Kevinarpe (talk • contribs).

Indeed, fixed. The different stroke count was not in the Unihan database 4 years ago, and still is not! Robert Ullmann 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

that is to say

I was about to add this phrase, but I'm not sure of the POS. Is it an adverb? - Algrif 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

By analogy: "namely" is deemed an adverb. The phrase functions almost identically, like for example, that is, to wit. We're better off to have it entered and get it corrected. Isn't this adverb month? DCDuring 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my reasoning exactly for asking if adverb was a correct assessment. Perhaps you might be able to improve the basic entry I've made. - Algrif 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. A usage example is always nice, even when it seems trivial. Maybe I'll put in a basic usage note. DCDuring 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A name used to sign documents?

What is the word to describe the special name that certain dignitaries use to sign documents instead of their actual name? e.g. The Bishop of Durham signs as Dunelm (or Dunelmensis). nom de plume or pen name don't seem right. SemperBlotto 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Latin signature" would seem to do fine, that's what these usually are. Robert Ullmann 10:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

phonoaudiologist or phonotherapist

As a matter of fact, I just want to know whether people have seen or heard one of the above written words or, if not, they have the proper word to define the matter.

Similes and idioms

Could similes be categorised as idioms? I've just made the category Category:Similes and wondered if it should be asubcategory of Category:Idioms. I assume so, because e.g. blind as a bat doesn't mean blind as a bat. Also, lpease take a look at Template:simile, which should probably be tweaked. --Keene 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've often thought about adding this cat. My personal thought is that it should be a sub of Category:Idioms. I'm all for using this database in as many constructive ways as possible. I think this is a useful addition. - Algrif 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

erica

I would like to see how you spell erica in Greek

Έρικα —Saltmarsh^Talk 09:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian translations of hair

I was doing the Translations of the Week when I noticed that the Indonesian translations for hair looked a bit off. In Malay, rambut refers to hair from the human head; whereas bulu is from anywhere else on the human body, as well as animals, plants and anything else. The Indonesian translations seem to be in reverse.

I've learnt from experience that I'm not qualified to meddle in Indonesian affairs, so could somebody take a look at this? Nestum82 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Security Clearance

The initials SAR stand for what in reference to a secret security clearance?

Special Access Required; e.g. the information is compartmented, and only available if someone is "read into" a SAP (Special Access Program), it is more specific than levels 5-6-7 etc. (this is all in reference to the U.S. DoD). Robert Ullmann 10:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Himself

I defined it as "The reflexive pronoun for God." but this could be tweaked. Any suggestions? --Keene 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

just in case

See talk:just in case. --Connel MacKenzie 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments posted. --EncycloPetey 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

what is a free verse

help what is a free verse!?

See free verse and w:Free verse. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oaxacaner

How is this a plural (plus Oaxacan says that it is not countable...)? Nadando 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My template-substitution emulator had a bug. I've added code to skip {{en-adj|-}} (which replaced {{en-adj|-|-}} some time ago.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the heading ===Noun===, (not the result of the template substitution,) seems to have caused the bot confusion. --Connel MacKenzie 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

equivalate

I'd never heard of this, and would have put it down to slang or ignorance if I'd seen it somewhere. But there are plenty of reputable-looking b.google hits, so is this acceptable in the States or should we mark it as {{slang}} or what? It's not in any of my dictionaries either... Widsith 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the nature of the g.b.c. hits it can't be slang. It has too wide a range of usage to be jargon. It's not informal, looking at the kind of hits. I don't think it's very common in spoken English in the US. It's also not in MW3, a good source for US usage. If it means someting different from equate (and it might), it might just be a not-too-common word with increasing usage. Equate may imply a more exact correspondence of multiple attributes, where equivalate implies some kind of single all-encompassing dimension of value on which things are equal despite lack of equality on various attributes. Are there other single words that have this meaning. The first cite I found was art historian/critic Bernard Berenson in 1954, but I wasn't looking that hard. DCDuring 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in MW Online. We might want to think through the five senses we have and see whether they all would pass RfV. DCDuring 15:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

kurundu

Kurundu is a sinhalese ( main language of the sri lankans)term for cinnamon

Synonym for bathroom attendant?

The guys who hang out in the restrooms at fancy restaurants and country clubs with hand towels and the like, is there another word or name for that profession? Even tho we don't yet have an entry for it, Wikipedia has it .- [The]DaveRoss 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Standard name in the US is restroom attendant. "bathroom" (usually) isn't standard, unless it is an athletics club. Is amusing to watch tourists from the US ask in a restaurant "where is the bathroom"? (you want to take a bath?) They are afraid apparently of the word "toilet". (and "napkin" is even funnier! You want WHAT?!) Oh, and I really like "bog troll". Robert Ullmann 14:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that "bathroom" isn't standard in the US? That's news to me. In my experience, the room is called a "bathroom" (and "restroom" is slightly more polite). The "toilet" is the thing you do your business on; I've never heard an American call the room a "toilet", unless it's a portable toilet (more commonly called a portapotty). Mike Dillon 21:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

From England: standard term would be cloakroom attendant, both bathroom~ and restroom~ would be rarities here. —Saltmarsh^Talk 10:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

quay

I would like to merge the two definitions. Although Collins (2005) seeks to differentiate quay as parallel to water's edge (cf pier), others (SOED, Webster, Chambers) do not. —Saltmarsh^Talk 10:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, this is (yet another) case of user CORNELIUSSEON adding in a definition from a US military text, entirely ignoring the fact that the definition is already there. Look at the last version < CORNELIUSSEON's edits. Robert Ullmann 10:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

done —Saltmarsh^Talk 11:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

will

This entry seems to need at the very least a sense that does not require intent on an entity's part. As it is, it is guilty of POV: animism. The application of the a word derived from the idea of intent to futurity is possibly an indication of our animist past. In any event, I couldn't find simple futurity without actor and intent. Perhaps I'm missing something. The entry looks like it could stand a look in general. It is too basic a word for me to trust myself to do it properly. DCDuring 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's on my "to do" list. The modal verb form is in fact much more complex than the entry currently given. Also I'm dubious about the willing entry nº2. Is that really from the verb root? We are lacking such items as "moment of decision", "promise", "future event that is beyond one's control", and much more besides. I'll (promise) get a round tuit soon. - Algrif 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

posh git

I read the term Posh Git in a book. What does it mean? — This comment was unsigned.

Did you consider looking at the definitions for posh and git? SemperBlotto 15:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Tibeaten word

Dzogchen should be added.

meaning: the natural great perfection

Entitled. Most dictionaries, including this one, define "entitled" as the past tense of "entitle," which means "to own, demand or receive something," or, alternatively, "to give a title to."

Titled is defined as the past tense of the word "title," which has a definition of "the name of a book, movie, etc."

I do not think the word "entitled" is synonymous with the word "titled." Yet most speakers and writers seem to use them as if they are synonymous.

For example, I think the sentence, "Mark Twain is the author of a book entitled 'Tom Sawyer,'" is more correctly, "Mark Twain is the author of a book titled 'Tom Sawyer.'"

Which is correct?

entitle also means to give a title to a book, film, play, etc.. I shall add that definition now. Thanks for pointing out the omission. - Algrif 11:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

bullcrap

Marked {{US|UK}}. Is that correct? Not elsewhere?—msh210℠ 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have never even heard it in the UK - bullshit (or just bull) is quite common. SemperBlotto 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• I've heard it in the UK, but mainly from Americans. Maybe change to {{mostly|US}} --Keene 19:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

common misuse of the word "at"

Can someone describe the technical reason why use of the preposition at is incorrect and redundant in a sentence such as "where is he at?" I find that more and more Americans are using this syntax, which sounds so very wrong. Thank you. Diane

I thought that using a preposition at the end of a sentence was incorrect, but when I tried to find that rule in a book on English grammar, I just couldn't. My English teacher, however, did say that it's incorrect to say "Where is he at", but I don't remember if she gave the reason. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no technical reasons why any particular usage is "wrong". Language is continually evolving and any syntactical structure is valid if it communicates what the user means to say. Specifically, Wiktionary is supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, so this may not be the place to ask. SemperBlotto 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of error up with which I will not put. - To quote Churchill. There is no rule as such. In fact nearly all preposition containing quetions in English place the preposition at the end. E.g. Where are you going to? rather than To where are you going? The Churchill quote was really about breaking up phrasal verbs incorrectly. Personally, I see no problem at all with "where is he at?" - Algrif 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it depends on whom you are talking with or writing for. "Where is he at?" is not a part of high-class, "educated" English. It would often be disadvantageous to say in class at school, in many job interviews, in court, and in writing. One very useful thing to learn is how to communicate in the way appropriate to the situation you are in. Because there are many habitual elements of speech, it can be risky to establish a habit of using "Where is he at?" if you hope to operate in the world where people look down on such a trun of phrase. Some people are very good at switching in and out of such different styles of speech. DCDuring 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Diane's point is not that the preposition is stranded, but that it's redundant. Since He is where? is more proper than *He is at where?, the preposition in *Where is he at? is unnecessary, leaving Where is he? as the proper form of the question. We should probably add a usage note to at or where to explain that the commonly used collocation *where ... at is inappropriate in contexts requiring proper English. Rod (A. Smith) 18:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I assumed this was a standard US usage. In UK it would be an informal question, not about physical position, rather something like What is he thinking about?. As DCDuring points out, certainly not to be used in a formal situation. - Algrif 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The "what are you thinking" sense was common in the 60s and 70s in the US, has certianly declined, and may be "dated" here now. Knowing that makes me feel old: that's where I'm at. DCDuring 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. also, "where is he at?" can be metaphorical, like in "where is he at in the process?" or "where is he at in the book?". The "what is he thinking about?" sense is news to me, but I'm only 23, so given DCDuring's comment, I guess it just predates me. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's redundant, per se, since "where" doesn't always imply "at". In modern-day English, "where" can mean "[at] where" ("where is he?"), "[to] where" ("where is he going?"), or neither ("where is he from?"), and for speakers without the "where … at" and "where … to" constructions, it's entirely up to context to distinguish. I'll grant that context is usually sufficient, but there are plenty of constructions where it's so-called "proper English" that objects to context-based determination (e.g. mandating "Are you new here?" instead of "You new here?"); we can hardly pretend that the rules of "proper English" are determined by logic. I do think we should have a usage note, but I think it should be more neutral than what you describe, essentially saying that many speakers have one or both of these constructions, but that many others find them objectionable, considering the prepositions redundant or unnecessary. —Ruakh_TALK 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In slang, "Where's he?" allows for a vague answer: "He gone.". "Where he at?" is more insistent on a specific location. DCDuring 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

them

1. Are the two senses really different?
2. The last example contains "they" not "them". Does this example belong here?

Panda10 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say (1) yes (2) no. --EncycloPetey 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Galápagos

Do we prefer Galápagos or Galapagos? Wikipedia likes Galápagos, others dicitonaire prefer the latter to the former.

I would prefer the accent for Spanish, but without for English. Wikipedia tends to preserve original language spelling of proper nouns, whenever possible. --EncycloPetey 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

mought

Can anyone add any history of the word mought. A past tense of may perhaps, or just archaic might? --Keene 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be an archaic or dialectical form of might:

• 1883 - Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island, part I chapter 1

  What you mought call me? You mought call me captain. Oh, I see what you're at--there"; and he threw down three or four gold pieces on the threshold.

• 1917 - Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Oakdale Affair, chapter VI

  Then he scratched his head and looked admiringly at the youth. "What mought yer name be?" he asked.

--EncycloPetey 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this is eye-dialect rather than archaic. Then again, it could be both. You can still hear this in the north-west UK. - Algrif 13:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

manoeuvre and maneuver

There is an instruction in manoeuvre that if you edit this page, add the same modifications to maneuver to keep the two in sync. Can we just point one to the other without duplicating the work? Panda10 03:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. There is an ongoing debate about how best to handle this, but must editors here agree that we can't simply redirect one to the other, and there are many reasons for this, including the fact that usage of one spelling may be regional, the quotes will be different, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

brusque

Citations in this entry point to a different page. Is this a current standard? Panda10 13:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, as I understand it, a possible placement of citations. It seems to be almost essential in some of the really long pages where citing multiple senses could really make the page hard to use. I suppose that in some cases the only available citations for RfV don't provide very good usage examples, too. In this particular case, I would argue for bringing the citations back to the main page because the above considerations don't apply. DCDuring 14:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To add to what DCDuring has said: see Wiktionary:Quotations#Subpages. —Ruakh_TALK 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We have recently voted for a new namespace Citations:, and the plan is to shift to a new system of citations placement. This changeover has stalled, but the general idea is that all citations should appear on the related citations subpage, with selected examples remaining on the main entry. However, there should always be a Quotations section header on the main entry, and not just a link as on the (deprecated template usage) brusque page. See (deprecated template usage) parrot for an example that is well-formatted under the old way of doing things. The only change that will need to happen is shifting the Citations page into the new namespace (which needs to happen to all such pages). --EncycloPetey 16:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed you added the Quotations section. Another thing: it seems that the brusque/Citations page cannot be edited. If I compare it to parrot/Citations, there should be another edit button for the subsection. Panda10 17:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have that problem. Could it be something in your preferences, or caching? DCDuring 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I have not really changed the default preferences. When I click the edit link that is on the same level as the head word "Citations of brusque", I get this: "No such section. You tried to edit a section that doesn't exist. Since there is no section 1, there's no place to save your edit. Return to Template:Citation". Panda10 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to fix that. (It's a consequence of putting the header in a template: the edit-link tries to edit the template, and finds the template doesn't actually have sections.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

apparent

I don't really see a difference between the first two senses at apparent; at least, I can't imagine a use of apparent in the first sense that's not also in the second sense.

Also, I just added a usage note; input/corrections/tweaks/whatnot would be nice, if anyone has any. :-)

—Ruakh_TALK 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The first sense is "physically or tangibly visible", the second sense is "figuratively apparent, perceivable by the mind". A motive can be "apparent" in the second sense without being physically seen by the eye. --EncycloPetey 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K., I think I see what you're saying, thanks. But then, the Milton quote seems to be mis-sorted, as it's the mind that perceives the moon to be queen. (I don't think Milton is trying to say, "Oh yeah, and the moon? A queen. And not invisible. Imagine that!") I'm not sure it's actually worth separating the two senses. —Ruakh_TALK 19:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Milton quote is iffy. He could mean that the moon is currently visible (sense 1) or is obvious ruler (sense 2). It's always worthwhile to sort a literal sense from a figurative one, sense those will often have different synonyms or translations, and will mean different things to English learners. --EncycloPetey 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should RFV sense 1? If we can find any quotes that clearly belong to sense 1 and not sense 2, perhaps those quotes will make the situation more clear. —Ruakh_TALK 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading Roman numerals

How does one read Roman numerals? As for example Henry VIII - is he Henry the Eighth or Henry Eight? Is the rule always the same or does it depend? It would be nice, if someone found the time to write a usage note about this e.g. in the article Roman numeral. Hekaheka 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't a standard way to read them, because sometimes they stand for a cardinal number like 2007 (A.D. MMVII) or 17 (page xvii), and other times they represent an ordinal number like eighth (Henry VIII) or second (John Paul II). --EncycloPetey 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lombard rate

There are 165 g.b.c. hits for Lombard rates in the plural. I have been instructed that this is a proper noun and that there are no plurals. How should I interpret that mass of evidence? "The Lombard rate" is the single rate that is quoted at any one point in time, but authors compare them. DCDuring 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give examples of its use in the plural? The definition will need to be changed if this is not a proper noun, because the current definition is suitable only for a proper noun. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the def. to reflect its being a generic term for the rate charged on loans to banks backed by approved collateral. The German rate might deserve special mention because of its influence. I find it hard to swallow that any such rates deserve to be deemed proper nouns. They may be capitalized by convention, but they are discussed in the plural regularly, esp. by economists and financial writers. The capital L in Lombard is only attributable to the historical importance of an Italian banking family in the Renaissance, just as the capital F in Fed funds rate is atributable the US Federal Reserve Bank. One thing I thought I had learned here is the weak connection between something being capitalized and being used as a proper noun. I will pursue what other references say about the term in current financial practice. DCDuring 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did some research and edited the article accordingly adding specific reference to Bundesbank and noting that the rate has been discontinued after introduction of euro and Bundesbank becoming a branch of the European Central Bank. I did not (at least yet) have the energy to find out the names of corresponding central bank rates in UK and US. The existence of plural seems evident to me. Other languages do not capitalize Lombard as it seems to be derived from the Italian province of Lombardia and not from a single banking family. Hekaheka 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but surely one can compare the Lombard rates between different months or years, etc. - Algrif 14:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but there you're comparing temporally, and all bets are off that a plural implies anything. You can talk about all the Vaticans through the ages, but that doesn't mean Vatican isn't a proper noun. The existence of a possible plural form doesn't tell you whether or not a noun is proper; though the lack or rarity can be a tantalizing hint. --EncycloPetey 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. "Lombard rates" yields almost 4000 Google hits, relevant-looking stuff. Hekaheka 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what some of the books on g.b.c. do. They also mention broad trends that involved multiple central banks all raising their Lombard rates. To me it seems obvious that such a thing would be countable, even if there were only one rate at a particular point in time.

I'm also not sure that the singular Bundesbank Lombard rate ever could have been characterized as a proper noun, even if it might have been entirely capitalized in a Bundesbank press release. But the question of plurals of proper names is only a matter of degree. I also think it would be useful if Wiktionary could inform people how to pluralize names {Cathys or Cathies?, Marys or Maries?). As with ordinary noun plurals, it is really only important where the plural can be irregular. DCDuring 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is best handled through an Appendix (already in progress), since the "plural" of a proper noun (1) is relatively rare, and (2) isn't itself a proper noun. --EncycloPetey 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

bad

Etymology 2 reads: "Intentionally incorrect". I was not aware of intention being part of etymology. Beneath are:

1. Noun: "fault", as in "sorry, my bad." This seems to me to be a simple use of an adj as a noun within the same general sense as the basic adjective "bad".
2. Adj: "slang; fantastic", i.e., very good. The conversion of the meaning of a word to its opposite in slang isn't all that unusual, is it? Is there a name for this phenomenon?

The noun seems to belong in Etymology 1. I would have thought that the slang adj does too. Is there anything marker used for that kind of reversal of sense? DCDuring 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fun when you see an etymology and instantly know which editor wrote it. :-)   I think "Intentionally incorrect" could be part of an etymology — e.g. at O.K. — but I don't know if it applies here. (The editor did not supply any evidence or references for his claim.) Even if these are in fact "[originally] intentionally incorrect" usages, though, I think they warrant separate etymology sections, as they're clearly separate incorrections. —Ruakh_TALK 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So the idea would be reflect the "branching" from the original ety of "bad" as a separate ety, presumably referring to the original unknown ety of "bad". Is there a name for the reversal of meaning from "bad" (std., bad) to "bad" (slang, very good)? It certainly isn't irony. It seems to reflect a deliberate attempt to create a way of communicating that doesn't allow members of the white and/or adult culture to understand. This can't be the only instance of it. Is there a name for the use of an adjective as a noun? That would seem also seem a fairly likely occurence. DCDuring 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arab

This entry contains a Hungarian section which is not correct. The word is written with small case in Hungarian (arab). I would like to start a new entry for that. I discovered this when I tried to add the new hu-adj and hu-noun templates to Arab, but that immediately displayed the words with a capital. --Panda10 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Try it again under arab (was an old redirect). SemperBlotto 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just created arab for the Hungarian entry. It did not exist before even after your change. How can I delete the Hungarian section from Arab? Also, maybe a redirect should be added to arab pointing to Arab. I've seen that in other entries. I don't think I can add redirects. --Panda10 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We just add the {{see}} template to the top of the page, and list it in the translations. The Hungarian section of Arab should simply de deleted with an edit summary of "content moved to arab". --EncycloPetey 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done it already. SemperBlotto 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

perspicacious

Are these two senses really distinct?

1. Having the power of seeing or understanding clearly; quick-sighted; sharp-sighted.
2. (figuratively) Of acute discernment; keen; mentally perceptive.

I can't perceive any real difference betwen them. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "or understanding" was a late addition to the 1st sense. If so, it might have once been sense 1 relating to vision, sense to relating to figurative vision or understanding. That would be a nice way of expressing a possible drift in meaning from literal to figurative meaning, though that might have already happened in Old French or in Latin. DCDuring 22:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, 2.3 years old edit made just that change. I will correct it. DCDuring 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --EncycloPetey 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

how do u use the word naive in a sentence?

do any of ya'll noe how to use the word naive in a sentence? -- unsigned

Here's where a combination of Google and Wikisource can help out. Click on this link for lots of non-copyrighted example sentences. -- A-cai 10:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

right as rain

This phrase functions as an adjective and an adverb. It did not show any comparative or superlative. The phrase "righter than rain" would appear to be functionally equivalent to the missing comparative and has 19 raw g.b.c. hits. Should it be presented as such in the inflection line? I do not think that there is a superlative. This phenomenon would, I think, characterize almost all adjectival phrases that are similes. A scan of the cat list for similes and quick g.b.c. check suggests that such forms occur in the wild. DCDuring 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No superlative that I can find, and the comparative is so utterly rare, it might be better to refer it to a Usage notes section. Certainly a comment about the rarity of the comparative is worthwhile, at a minimum. I'd be curious to see this used as an adverb, since I can't think of an example sentence. Do you have a quotation? --EncycloPetey 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I remember something like: "Next morning, he came right as rain."

I have found that many comparatives and superlatives and plurals are not common, but attestable. 19 g.b.c hits is a lot more than many of our entries get. If rarity were a criterion, then we should alter the en-adj template to facilitate the suppression of superlatives, which seem to be quite rate for many adjectives.

User:Keene suggested presentation under "Related terms" on the grounds that it is not a true comparative form. The rule for transforming the phrase into the phrase that functions as comparative is certainly more elaborate than adding merely -er or more, but broadly applicable. What makes a functional comparative form a "true" comparative form? DCDuring 17:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear it in things like:

You've been under the weather lately, but now you look right as rain.

I'm righter than rain! I just won the contest! I'm rich!

Or somesuch... Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)