A quick Google Books search suggests the uppercase is also attested somewhat commonly, so I've added it as an alt case form entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fascinating to have some reference to how on Earth the periot was weighed, in practice. Depending a bit on which country's grain you start with, 1/9600 of it is around an eighth of the Planck mass; a 1 periot drop of water has diameter less than a quarter mm. Reasonable readers might doubt the practicality of measuring such a small mass (of gemstone) with any semblance of accuracy, using equipment available to 18th century jewellers (IIUC, that's roughly where this unit dates from). The blanc, a 24th part of a periot, even more so. Eddy, 84.215.7.21013:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Arithmetic on WikipediaWikipedia , Lever on WikipediaWikipedia , Weighing_scale on WikipediaWikipedia , and image. I assume that some of the techniques involved trial-and-error, lever arms, weighing multiple "periots", and using groups of weights, between which the difference was equal to the expected weight (eg. a 50 periot weight and 20 and 25 periot weights would allow measurement of 5 periots on an unlevered balance and 1 periot on a 5:1 levered balance. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with beam balances and the tricks one can do with them. However, we're dealing with under 7 microgrammes here; I cannot help but wonder how precisely anyone ever measured a periot using such balances (much less the blanc, at about two sevenths of a microgramme). Doing so in a cold room, for example (as just one potential confounding effect), would involve a hazard of error due to condensation on the metal of the scales; it would be easy to fail to notice a thin layer, along a beam's length, whose mass could be significant relative to that of a quarter-mm droplet of water. During swapping of the masses between pans, to check a weighing, such condensation might well flow along the beam, confounding precision. I guess my curiosity is more about the practicalities of how 18th century jewellers dealt with such absurdly tiny masses. One might also wonder whether anyone could actually see a gem so small. Eddy, 84.215.7.21021:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably not, because a dictionary lists lexical items, not phrases. "Broad-winged" means "having broad wings", just "short-legged", "high-nosed", "lumpy-elbowed" and so on mean the obvious things. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Imaginatorium: You're probably right. We do have entries for short-legged and high-nosed, though. The latter has the justification of being idiomatic, but the former apparently isn't.
On the other hand, I think we should have it, and I consider it a single word. It's useful to know when it was first used, and whether it typically describes specific animals. It's in the OED. It also probably qualifies under COALMINE rules. Ƿidsiþ17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can stop being dubious, because the word is genuine Ancient Greek (which I found out by looking it up in Liddell and Scott's dictionary online, just as you could have). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know of Liddell & Scott anyway, not being a Greek scholar. I think I'll just use the latter part of the etymology. DonnanZ (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could a Japanese-language editor take a look at the Japanese translation here? It seems wrong. In Chinese at least 十字軍 refers to the forces themselves, not the military campaign. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the meaning is exactly the same in Japanese as in Chinese. The problem is that there is no "word" for "Crusade", other than saying "an expedition by the crusaders" (十字軍の遠征); the word for "crusader [army]" is more basic. I don't know what is supposed to happen here; removing the translation is not helpful, but adding a Japanese entry for a phrase is also dubious. (Fundamentally, there is a problem with this "translations" notion: it assumes that all languages have the same division into semantic units, and this is not true.) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. We add sum-of-parts translations all the time, we just make sure the units are linked individually, as opposed to pointing to one (red-link) entry. If the Japanese is the same as the Chinese, then 十字軍 would apppear to be a mistranslation. A "crusade" is not an army. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a trans is SOP, link like this: "Japanese: {{t|ja|[[十字軍]][[の]][[遠征]]|tr=じゅうじぐんのえんせい, jūjigun no ensei}}", resulting in this: "Japanese: 十字軍の遠征(じゅうじぐんのえんせい, jūjigun no ensei)". -84.161.37.10318:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know that would make it meet our test for adjectivity, but so many nouns can, in context, be used that way and demonstratively are, at least on the Web. Do we want to memorialize all such durably attested usage? I am not sure that there is a way to objectively distinguish the usages I find lexically adjectival from those I do not. If there isn't than our existing tests of adjectivity must prevail. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such a common term, but some of us don't think it inclusion-worthy (except possibly as a usage example for the right definition at [[bitch]], ie "Something unforgiving and unpleasant", possibly reworded). Isn't that a bitch? DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found a little evidence for the "without achieving much" part in the first few pages of Goole Book Search results:
"The work culture in many organizations emphasize being busy as in busy-ness rather than effectiveness."
"BUSY-NESS. If you're not careful, you can spend all day spinning your wheels and have little time left over to actually get anything worthwhile achieved."
"Before we know it, we are stressed, aged, "busy-ness" junkies who fill even our vacations with meaningless tasks."
The verb to go has two different present participles (like many other English verbs), e.g., going and goand. The form goand is now obsolete outside a few (rural) dialects where it is considered archaic.
I don't believe that the first sentence is particularly helpfully worded, but I'm not sure how best to fix it. Is it saying that many English verbs have an archaic or dialect participle form -and, e.g. seeand for seeing, or doand for doing, etc.? When it says "e.g.", which seems rather vague and confusing, does it mean that there are alterative spellings/forms of goand? Mihia (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is goand attestable in either Middle or Modern English? If it is attestable in Modern English, it could be on the inflection line with some qualifier. If in ME, then that is where it belongs. If neither, we can delete the usage note. DCDuring (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reference in the entry for goand is to Scots goande. We are usually pretty specific as to spelling (except in Middle English) and treat Scots as a separate language. DCDuring (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe e.g. and i.e. were confused and it was meant to mean "There are two participles, namely going and goand"?
I wasn't able to find the cite in goand with google books. The Scots reference however has "Ane thristie manne … goande by ane tauerne; Q. Kennedy Oratioune 18.". google doesn't have it either but "goande by ane taverne" (by Quintine Kennedy but in a book with works of John Knox (?)) can be found. I'd assume that someone changed the Scots quote to make it more English or "normalized" it in some way... -84.161.37.7601:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say was that whilst the suffix -and was productive, that is from God knows how long ago until the early 17th century, every English verb, in the Northern dialects at least, had the present participle which ended in -and and/or -ing. However, -and was completely replaced by -ing at the end of the Middle English period in the Southern dialects, and there aren't enough written works in the Midlands dialects to be able to tell when the suffix -and fell out of usage over there. I heard people use this suffix only when they were reading literary works or when they were trying to sound "archaic". Mountebank1 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I meant to sayː
The verb to go has two different present participles (like many other English verbs). One of them is goand and the other one is going. Goand is now obsolete, except for a few rural dialects where it is considered archaic, nota bene, these days, it is almost never used in common speech. Mountebank1 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be critical again about the new wording above, the information that "the form goand is now obsolete ..." is not sufficient in my opinion to make clear that all the alternative present participles are obsolete or dialect, and that for 99.99% of all practical applications there is actually only one present participle for each verb. Also, "e.g." is still wrong. It doesn't logically work within the structure of that sentence as it is written. Mihia (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I do not think that there is anyone out there who might find it reasonable to use the word goand instead of going, especially since "goand" was never used to form the continuous present or the continuous past... But like I said, I do not think that I can reword it any better than this, so if any of you feel like you can do a better job, then go ahead. Take a whack at it. Mountebank1 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is my suggestion:
Like other English verbs, the verb go once had an alternative present participle formed with the suffix -and, i.e. goand. Goand is now obsolete, having been replaced by going, except in a few rural dialects in Scotland and Northern England, where it is considered archaic. Even in such dialects it is never used to form the continuous tenses. These examples are from ### which dialect? ###:
Goand snell athwart the houf, hoo hent 'im be the swyr. (Going swiftly across the churchyard, she grabbed him by the neck.)
Goand oot of the holt, she saw a woundor baist. (Going out of the woods, she saw a magical creature.)
The current text says "Northern dialects", which I think may be confusing to readers around the world. I have assumed it means northern Britain. It would be good to mention the particular dialect that the example sentences come from. Mihia (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Highland dialects. The suffix -and is almost never used outside the Highlands. I don't know about Orkney, though. And if I had to guess, I would say that it survived there, to this day, via the oral tradition (which is now all but dead). So, I am not even sure that anyone uses it in the Highlands any more, most certianly not the young people. And I haven't been to Scotland myself for a very long time... although I still sometimes hear the suffix -and used in my dreams (if that helps anything). Mountebank1 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, goand is not really an alternative form of going, because goand and going had kind of different roles, so I don't think it is all that correct to call it an alternative form. Goand was used to form dangling participles (at least on some occasions) and going was used to form the continuous tenses. The suffix -and was used to impart a sense of archaism. It basically served as a stylistic device. Mountebank1 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying that goand is not something that is currently being used to communicate what is communicated by going, but someone might run across it. That is, there is no particularly good reason for the entry for go to prominently support encoding into goand, though there is a reason to have an entry for goand for decoding. That is, goand does not belong on the inflection line at go#Verb though there might be reason to include it as a related (derived?) term. DCDuring (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder too whether there is anything special or different about the use of goand, in terms of either historical development or present usage, compared to the use of the -and suffix generally. If the suffix is used (or not used) in the same way with numerous verbs, then, if we include this information at go, should we not also logically include it for numerous other verbs, and would that be making too much of it? Perhaps, as suggested above, the detail should be explained only at -and. Mihia (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can still run across words like goand at events like this, or maybe at school or at churches that use the Scottish bible.
When I was attending Catholic school in the Highlands we often read old Scottish poems from the 15th and 16th centuries in which the suffix -and figured prominently. I also occasionally heard very old people (80 to 85 years old) use the suffix -and for the sense of archaism that it provided. And that was in the late 70s. And when I was in my late teens (in the early 80s) I spent some time with a traveling preacher who sometimes used the suffix -and when he was reading the bible (this suffix appears in the Scots bible). Mountebank1 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mihia, Mihia: Historically, -and was occasionally used to form the continuous tenses, but that sort of usage was very rare. It was mostly used to form dangling participles and adjectives. For exampleː
And when Jesus came into the house of the prince, and saw mistrals and the people makand noise, He said: Go ye away; for the damsel is not dead, but sleeps. And they scorned him. And when the folk was put out, He went in, and held her hand, and said: Rise, damsel; (and) the damsel rose.
Fyftie thousand fightand men; a burnand brand; a falland star, a criand child, a falland case (an incident) etc.
Cupid, with his fairy dart,
did pierce him so out through the heart,
So all that night he did but morned;
Sometime sat up, and sometime turned.
Sighand and with many (a) gant and groan,
To fair Venus makand his moan:
Sayand, Lady, what may this mean?
I was a free man late yestreen:
And now a captive bound and thrall
For one that I think flower of all
By the way, here's an example for seeand from Murdock Nisbet's translation of the New Testamentː "And the Pharoe, seeand that, had called him, said within himself, sayand: If this were a prophet, he should wit who and what manner (of) woman it were that touches him; for she is a sinful woman." Mountebank1 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand whether there is something special about go that means we should explain the usage detail at go and not explain it at many other verbs, or whether we should (in theory) explain it at numerous verbs, or whether it should just be explained at -and. Mihia (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A question in my mind is: "Where should goand appear on the go page?". Goand and go are obviously to be linked. The link from goand to go is obvious. The definition line contains a link to go
Inflection line gives it too much prominence.
Usage notes isn't appropriate because there is nothing to distinguish go from many other Germanic English verbs in his regard.
Derived terms is not where we put inflections.
Related terms is not really for inflections either.
See also seems like an evasion.
The Conjugation box seems like a good place, but only in this case, not for the general case of -and participles.
Thus I return to the inflection line for the general case. Perhaps a show-hide bar to make it clear that the hidden contert is of less-than-primary importance. It is a shame that the bar takes up so much space. DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Goand should go in the same place on the page [[go]] where other archaic forms like goest and goeth go: not there at all. Links don't always have to be reciprocal, and this is good example of a time when they shouldn't be. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk16:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. I suggest that it could be listed as an alternative form, labelled "obsolete or dialect", at going. Any usage detail not already explained at -and could be moved there, and the examples moved to goand. I will do this in due course provided there are no objections (and I remember!). Mihia (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be there. Where would it end? The OED lists the following attested forms for the present participle: “OE gande, OE gende (in prefixed forms), OE (in prefixed forms)–ME gonde, eME goinde (south.), eME goude (transmission error), ME gaand (north.), ME gaande (north.), ME goand, ME goande, ME goende, ME gond, ME goond, ME goonde, ME guoinde (south-east.), ME 16 gooying, ME–15 gooinge, ME–15 gooyng, ME–15 gooynge, ME–15 goyinge, ME–15 goynge, ME–16 goinge, ME–16 gooing, ME–16 goying, ME–16 goyng, ME– going, 15 gohyng, 15–16 goeing, 15–16 goeinge, 18– goan (regional), 18– goin (regional and nonstandard), 18– goin' (regional and nonstandard); Eng. regional 17– gaain (north. and Lincs.), 18 gaain' (north.), 18 gaen (Cumberland), 18 ga'n (Lancs.), 18 gawin (north.), 18 gawin' (north.), 18 gawn (north.), 18 geayn (Northumberland), 18 goain' (Yorks.), 18 gooan (Lancs.), 18– gaan (north.), 18– gaeing (north.), 18– gahin' (north.), 18– gain, 18– gan (north.), 18– gaun (north.), 18– geann (Cumberland), 18– gewing (Essex), 18– gi'en (north.), 18– gine (Yorks.), 18– gooin, 18– gooin', 18– goon (Essex), 18– guaying (Worcs.), 18– gying (Yorks.), 18– gyne (Cumberland), 19– gahn (Westmorland), 19– gaing (north.), 19– gooen, 19– gyen (Northumberland); U.S. regional 18 go'n', 19– ghy, 19– gine, 19– go (in African-American usage), 19– go' (in African-American usage), 19– goan, 19– go'n, 19– gon, 19– gone, 19– gorn, 19– goun', 19– guh (in African-American usage); Sc. pre-17 goande, pre-17 17– going, 17– gaun, 17– gawn, 18 gain, 18 gyaan (north-east.), 18 gyain (north-east.), 18 jyaain (north-east.), 18– gaain, 18– gaein, 18– gaen, 18– gain', 18– gyaun (north-east.), 19– dyan (north-east.), 19– dyaun (north-east.), 19– gaan, 19– gaean, 19– gae'an, 19– gaein', 19– gaing, 19– gan, 19– gan', 19– gauin, 19– gawin, 19– gien (south.), 19– gjaain (Shetland), 19– gone, 19– gyaain (Shetland), 19– gyaan (Orkney), 19– gyaen (north-east.), 19– gyan (north-east.); also Irish English (chiefly north.) 18 goan, 18– gan', 19– gaein, 19– gan, 19– gaun, 19– gawn, 19– goin; see also gwine v.” Ƿidsiþ17:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This Scots entry shows English Ulster Scots as a synonym, not a translation. Translingual entries often have a similar problem with English related and derived terms and synonyms. Don't we have to follow the logic of our separation of every languages from English and Translingual? DCDuring (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Among OneLook references only Wiktionary and WP have entries for Ullans. Nor does Century 1911. Ie, none of the English-language dictionaries have the term, at least until you added the English L2. OED? DCDuring (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've gleaned, Ullans isn't really a Scots word at all, having been made up recently by an Ulster language society to differentiate what is spoken in Ulster from Lallans. Though Lallans seems to be both English and Scots, Ullans seems to be just English, at least by our standard of attestation. DCDuring (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it has a Wikipedia article. I should have said, I don't know what it is on Wiktionary. And yes it's easily attestable as English. DTLHS (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I used highfather in a school English paper about religion or patriarchs, I doubt it would be marked "wrong", so it doesn't seem to be the same kind of non-standard that quicklier or boughten are Leasnam (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that 2 of 4 citations are for "high father" with a space, which seems rather different. (A "grand father" is a father who is grand; a "black bird" is any bird that is black.) Okay, there are cases like "high priest"/"highpriest" but I am suspicious of this Wiktionary narrative that unusual Anglo-Saxonesque forms are of equal ranking with the equivalent Adj+Noun phrases; the latter are quite possibly of independent modern formation. Equinox◑03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we determine whether this is a legitimate "Anglish" term à la those coined by Michael of Northgate, Barnes and Hollander, or just a latter-day affectation? Because I am sick of seeing the latter around. As much as I love using Germanic terms over post-Old English Latinisms when I have the choice, we ought not to be peddling around false terms. Tharthan (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Michel of Northgate is irrelevant to this discussion since he wrote in Middle English, not modern. As for Barnes and Hollander, their terms are no more or less "legitimate" than anyone else's; "Anglish" is always just an affectation. CFI still applies: if a term is used at least 3 times in durably archived sources, by multiple authors over the span of more than 1 year, we include it. Otherwise we don't. Back to the original point, however, I agree that {{lb|en|rare}} rather than {{lb|en|nonstandard}} is probably the correct label here. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk13:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Were inkhorn terms not affectations in their own time? I fail to see how (at least a mild form of) "Anglish" is any worse. If one more or less sticks to already coined terms and terms coined by authors fairly published, what is wrong with that? But anyway, if no one objects, I'll change the label. Tharthan (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that highfather really qualifies as an "Anglish" term anyway, not any more than the words I, you, me, the, meaning, follow, house are "Anglish"...highfather is a word that's always been in our language, just like those others just mentioned. It's just "English". To me, a purely "Anglish" term is like waterstuff or uncleftish...Leasnam (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I recently noticed that the entry for 「会する」 has broken conjugation, the kana and rōmaji sections are fine, but the kanji versions erroneously repeat the 「する」 part for every form. I tried fixing it, but I cannot correct it. --AstroVulpes (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I'm seeing something different to you. I see nothing obviously amiss. Could you quote exactly what you see for one specific entry that you think is wrong? Mihia (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AstroVulpes, Mihia: Fixed. This is a topic for WT:GP, not the Tea room :). This is how -suru verbs are now handled. I missed when it was agreed that the verbs is in this group stopped displaying "suru" in the transliteration, though. It doesn't make sense to display "会する" in the headword but show only "かい" and "kai" without the "する/suru" part. IMO, it should be "かいする, kai suru", as it always has been! I noticed it some time ago but never raised it. @Erikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang: was there a discussion about it? --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)23:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the conjugation of する is not included, then surely there is no conjugation at all, and no point in having a conjugation table? Wouldn't every entry simply read 会/かい/kai? Perhaps I am missing the point somehow. Mihia (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mihia: I meant that "する" is not included in the headword but it is in the conjugation table, which is working as expected. Yes, I think you're missing the point. The suru part is the only one that gets conjugated: shi, sure, shiyō. You can have a look at the conjugation table at する(suru). --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)00:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that the suru part is the only one that gets conjugated. That is why I don't understand how it ever could have been suggested that it should be omitted. But, if it's all working correctly then I won't worry about it any more! Mihia (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Erutuon: A certain set of single-kanji terms + する are analyzed as inseparable. For instance, 愛する(aisuru) conjugates differently from what one would expect for 愛(ai) + する(suru): the negative form is 愛さない(aisanai), not *愛しない(*ai shinai). There is also a potential form, 愛せる(aiseru), which for a separable verb would instead be *愛できる(*ai dekiru). I am not familiar with the 会する(kaisuru) verb itself, but my references list this as following the same inseparable-verb pattern. HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig07:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mihia: It appears you're correct, and also that this verb is a bit irregular. I had learned somewhere along the way that the negative should always be 愛さない, but it appears that 愛しない is also valid. Digging deeper now, the term 愛する is classed as a サ行変格活用(sa-gyou henkaku katsuyō, “"S"-row irregular conjugation”), with considerable overlap between the expected patterns for -する and -す. See more at the Japanese WP article on サ行変格活用, with a specific section for the verb 愛する.
愛する, as well as 会する, has a new conjugation pattern. Traditionally it is explained by the two verbs 愛する and 愛す, but it is difficult to imagine a speaker switching two verbs according to tense and mood. It is rather reasonable to think the two conjugations have been merged:
I'm not sure where to post this. Scrit uses the English header, but is probably Middle English; the last quotation in the OED is from 1450. — Eru·tuon00:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've visualized Caxton setting up his press in England and upon the first stamp a wave passing through England where the power of the printed word changed the language mid-discussion from Middle English to Modern English. But "the later works"? That's hopelessly fussy for a line drawn in a continuum. 1500 is a nice round number as good as any.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we rename this (not sure to what)? The current title is not only inappropriately slangy for a thesaurus headword, it is also rare, not found in Google Books at all. Equinox◑14:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone I know refers to it as such. I hear it all the time. It may not be encountered much in print, but that's the term people use for it in speech. Show anyone a pic of a man's bulgy crotch area and ask them what this is, and they'll say "manbulge" lol Leasnam (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna go and ask random people what they think about a picture of a man's bulging crotch because I will be arrested and put on a list. But yeah unfortunately I don't know any better name for this. I am slightly biased because the creator was (I am pretty sure) "Pass a Method", who had a brief flurry of trying to edit all penis/trousers articles to get his word into it. I don't like us supporting this by apathetic default. Equinox◑02:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All those thesaurus titles which are SoP are not words in that sense, so yes, the title can be a gloss. Else it would mean that compounds are allowed while words with a prepositional phrase or a relative sentence aren’t. Palaestrator verborumsis loquier 🗣03:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would prefer a silly "Thesaurus:man's bulging crotch" over the current one, because, while I have nothing at all against slang, slang is colourful and carries implications. Thesaurus headwords should be neutral, even if that means we get a little biological about the dick in the pants. We have Thesaurus:drunk, not Thesaurus:pissed. Equinox◑03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is manbulge slangy ? I don't see it as slang. It's a crude concept, but the word is spot on. "Man's bulging crotch" is okay too, but unnecessary (too verbose and very British-sounding). Maybe manbulge sounds too North American ? Otherwise, it sounds just fine IMO. I mean, we do have cameltoe as well don't we ? [[6]] Leasnam (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thesaurus:cameltoe was also created by a "Pass a Method" sock as one of his mad campaigns (you only see about 10% of what he did, because the huge amount of egregious shit was deleted by hard-working admins, not just me); and I would equally prefer a non-childish term to group those thesaurus items. Equinox◑04:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, I would guess that at least half of all English entries deleted through rfv in the past few years can be traced to Pass a Method, the Sky UK Japanese/Magic vandal (though Japanese got the brunt of it) and the Greek Pseudo-Intellectual IP. WF, Fête and Luciferwildcat/Gtroy did a lot of damage in years past, but they've been almost quiet in recent years (WF, please take that as a compliment, not a challenge...). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Is X slang?" is probably arguable, but my personal benchmark (for slang, colloquial or informal) tends to be "if I were writing an academic paper that had to be submitted to a journal, could I use this word without quote marks or italics?". Manbulge is a no-no. Equinox◑04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I agree with Equinox; "manbulge" seems slangy; something like "male crotch bulge" would seem more appropriate. Like Tamfang I would normally use "package", but that word is polysemous and also seems slangy, although it seems more appropriate than "manbulge" by seeming less explicit. - -sche(discuss)17:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the rfdef sense is supposed to represent... There are two senses for this IMO: "(1) masculine charms; man's beauty; (2) lust for man; sexual intercourse with a man (or men)". Compare 女色. Wyang (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's the wording used by the Wikipedia article linked from that page.... I added a context label (which I see you just fixed for me, thanks) and a link to volume, which clarifies it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "PC" wording is a bit strange. Certainly Windows mobile has drive letters too, while Linux on a PC does not. It's OS dependent, not hardware-dependent. —Rua (mew) 20:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to MS-DOS or Windows. There's other operating systems, according to Wikipedia; OS/2 is obvious, I think we can avoid mentioning all the MS-DOS/Windows clones, and there's a few archaic systems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say "despite that." You can say "despite the fact that," but it's not proscribed as far as I'm aware. I can't think of anything that perfectly fits what you want. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered although? Although it's not quite as strong in expressing the opposition between the main and subordinate clauses, it might fit your need. DCDuring (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking for an English expression that is proscribed in a way that parallels the way a French expression is proscribed? This seems like a fool's errand to me. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite that is probably US English. There are many instances of this ("I hate that you said that" for "I hate the fact that you said that"). In British English, you have to have "the fact that" in there. Younger people are aping US usage, however.
I disagree: the meaning, as I see it, is: "Although I'm an Ancient Greek enthusiast [and I'd prefer using the first person singular], if a form has to be chosen, I'd support the third person.". I'd say that your analysis is true for most of the occurrences of "despite that" we can find in Wiktionary, though: [7] --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the first one, but the second one seems vaguely familiar to me as li1 li1 lo1 lo1 (I could be wrong). —suzukaze (t・c) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
li1 li1 lo4 lo4 doesn't sound colloquial to me; I'd go with li1 li1 lo1 lo1, but I'm not sure if it's actually used in Cantonese. For 哩哩啦啦, apart from li1 li1 laa1 laa1 and li4 li4 laa4 laa4, I've also heard of li4 li1 laa4 laa4 for the second sense. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }05:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the entry all's the two words are linked separately: it's a contraction of [[all]] [[as]], with as being sense 9: "(now England, US, regional) Functioning as a relative conjunction; that". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk12:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The SoP expression for + sale is the most natural way for me to say it. As is often the case I can't find the appropriate definition of for which MWOnline has as its first "1 a —used as a function word to indicate purpose. a grant for studying medicine. DCDuring (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our closest definition is: "In order to obtain or acquire." That wording doesn't work too well for for sale or They put the baby up for adoption or The tree stump was suitable for sitting.. DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to the French or Russian terms, but German kostenpflichtig isn't quite "for sale" either. It basically means "that must be paid for". A sign warning car owners that their vehicles may be towed away at owner's expense might say that the cars will be kostenpflichtig abgeschleppt. When you buy something online in Germany, the last button you click to finalize the purchase is required by German law to say "kostenpflichtig bestellen", i.e. "order while recognizing that you are committing yourself to pay". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Russian either, but I agree with Angr: I wouldn't translate payant by for sale either (that would be à vendre). When you ask "Is it for sale?", the answer you expect is either "Yes, it's for sale" or "No, it's not for sale", not really "No, it's free". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect a possible response to be No, take one. or No, it's a floor model/demo.. This comes up with things like free (advertiser-paid) newspapers or better-quality sales brochures near a cash register. For free, a near-antonym of for sale, is close to synonymous with free of charge, at no charge. DCDuring (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think of paid as having to do with past payments, not future ones, though context could make it work as you want it to. But we don't want our definitions, usage notes, etc to depend much on context for correct understanding. DCDuring (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are contexts where paid could work, but not all of them. I think we simply have to accept that English has no obvious adjective that means "subject to payment". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk22:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The normal way to say it in English is not with an adjective but a clause; "It costs something", "You have to pay for it", or similar. Ƿidsiþ17:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like us to have entries for ALL n-year-olds, both as adjectives and as nouns. Even if only as translation targets (for e.g. Italian). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Montenegrin now has an ISO 639 code of its own, cnr. However, since we treat it as a regional variety of Serbo-Croatian, I don't think there's anything we need to do about it besides this, is there? Terms are added to CAT:Montenegrin Serbo-Croatian by means of {{lb|sh|Montenegro}}, which doesn't use a code. Is there anything I'm forgetting, where our ad-hoc code zls-mon is being used? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk19:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the first cite corruptible means ‘perishable, subject to decay’, and the sense of the whole cite is roughly ‘You weren’t redeemed by means of things like silver and gold, which are not eternal.’ I’d split the senses. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We really don't see it reemerge until the early 20th century, which suggests (at least to me) that renewed interest in Old English reading was responsible, or at best renewed vigour in creating Old English-sounding words was in minor fashion. The only other mention before then is in a 19th Century dictionary where it is listed as obsolete. Personally, I would say it was created anew, and mention the OE hēapmǣlum for comparison, unless you find more evidence that writers were consciously trying to evoke the OE word, in which case stating borrowed may be used Leasnam (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OED1 is mostly public domain and can be found on the Internet Archive. It offers OE cites using hēapmǣlum or hēap-mǣlum, and then offers "1610 HOLLAND Camden's Brit. 1. 17 And thereon powre the same forth by heap-meale." (OED1, Volume 5, page 155.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves a gap from 1000 to 1610. It's iffy. It may be a stretch, but considering how little Middle English is attested (being that the official written language in England at the time was Old French and Latin), it's quite possible that it survived through to re-emerge in EME. I've altered the Etymology some unless anyone has any objections Leasnam (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an OE/ME etymon is attested and the phonological development from it to heapmeal is regular, I would view inheritance as the simpler explanation, and so agree with how you've rewritten the etymology. But I've added a context label "rare, largely obsolete". Century had only the 1610 citation mentioned above, and marked the word obsolete, but our 1939 citation is from within living memory (for some people), so I added that qualifier "largely". - -sche(discuss)22:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Searching through the archives on such a common word is hopeless. At least I couldn't find any recent relevant discussion)
The article on guy reads as if dated. I've seen plenty of young women calling their (all-female) gang "guys". Please update to contemporary usage. In other words, tone down the certainty. In particular, I dislike the (unsourced) discussion about pussycat dolls - I can't shake the feeling of bias / prejudice there.
I don't see a huge change in contemporary usage. Douglas Hofstadter had a discussion on it in one of his books, pretty similar to what we say, and I don't see much of a change. --Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that our usage notes are of much help. This edit in particular seems inadequate, perhaps misleading.
Clearly the term is used in a more gender-neutral way now than it formerly was. The first two senses were apparently the only ones in the 19th century. It would be somewhat interesting to get some indication of when the word was beginning to be used in reference to mixed-gender and to all-female groups and to female individuals (very late 20th century). Though search is difficult, it is not hopeless, depending on some cleverness and persistence. Also, the gender reference question applies, I think, to both definition 3 and to definition 6. DCDuring (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problematic certainty there. Would you ever hear the line "The Pussycat Dolls are a bunch of guys" and not think that the speaker is claiming they're male? There's a context rule there; it's hard to see that as conveying information unless you assume that "guys"=males.
From my perspective there is generally a connotation of "men", even when cultural trends lead to "male" things being allowed/default for either gender. It seems comparable to how some people assert that "dude" is gender-neutral, but "go ask a straight guy if he fucks dudes and then get back to me"; some speakers may use the word to refer to people of other genders, but some hearers will always perceive the word as gendered/gendering. Slate has an article on that. Adding references to the usage notes and rewriting them to be clearer would be good. - -sche(discuss)17:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if it can be genderless in some contexts devoid of anything that even hints at gender/sex, but if it has a gender, that gender is always masculine. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have gender in nouns in English, so the question is badly phrased. I presume the OP is talking about sex.
Unfortunately, a good part of our coverage on such terms comes from a banned user who used his/her imagination a bit too much. Cleaning this up requires knowledge of usage in places most of us never visit. It's definitely a problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it is wise to differentiate. If you have learned from the “PUA” community to address random 100 women to get laid, you are probably an incel. One must be careful not to accept self-descriptions of such communities, some are no doubt internet marketing scams, the question is just which.
From what I've seen (mostly Reddit), incels, despite claiming to want a female partner, mostly hate and demonise women; they come across as those angry kids who end up doing school shootings. Whereas PUAs are more about hanging around bars etc. trying to pick up as many women as possible via slimeball tactics, since eventually statistically they have to manage to bag one! I don't think the incel approach would impress the PUA at all, so their "communities" aren't really the same. Equinox◑19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entry at Ohr lists "English öra" as a cognate, together with English ear. Now I don't recall English having umlaut, and öra gives only Icelandic or Swedish. Which was meant? Maybe there is another language with öra and that's the one meant there? Or did "öra" actually exist in English at some point? MGorrone (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't know that loanword existed, let alone that it had the umlaut. I guess I should have said "outside recent loans", which "öra" is AFAIK not. MGorrone (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sense 2 could cover a device that doesn't tell the time at all, and is only watch-like in being worn on the wrist (e.g. keep-fit devices) - are there such devices that don't tell time? I know nothing about gadgets. Equinox◑19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just familiar with the FitBit (which does cover the time), but with the amount of circuitry in one of these, not covering the time would be silly. I can't imagine once you've got the LCD there and enough hardware to be "smart", that you wouldn't offer the time.
The Pokemon Go Plus is worn on the wrist and doesn't tell time, but I wouldn't call it "smart" or a smartwatch. The advertising copy goes with "wearable device".--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With a word like jeera, for example, which (I believe) is transliterated from an Indian dialect, do we have a way of requesting that someone add the word in its original language (and alphabet) to the listing? And do we have a Category for transliterated words? (If not, might it be worth having one?) Thanks in advance.
--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{rfe|lang=en}} to request an etymology of an English word. Use {{bor|en|hi|}} if the source language of an English word is known (e.g. Hindi) but not the original script or the correct spelling. Note the missing parameter after the second language code. The templates will categorise accordingly. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)08:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev: Thanks very much, Atitarev. So is jeera a word from the Hindi dialect? (And if so, do we know whether or not it's shared by other Indian dialects?)
Probably a bigger issue is that (unless Wiktionary's definition of 'English' includes words not normally used in countries where English is the first language), 'jeera' isn't actually an English word. The English word is 'cumin' (same goes for methi vs 'fenugreek', saunf vs fennel, aloo vs potato). They are all transliterations. However I'm unsure of how to change them and to which dialects.--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Latin includes words not normally used in the Roman Empire, sometimes for concepts not known when there were still first-language speakers of Latin. India is a country where English is a frequent interlanguage between people with no other shared language, and however weird it may get sometimes to people in the US and UK, Indian English is still English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was more concerned about the real source language of these words getting short-changed by them being (what seemed to me) inaccurately labelled as being from another language. --Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary uses English that way, because so does everyone. What else are we supposed to call the Romance-influenced Germanic language that is spoken in India? Why are American borrowings English and Indian borrowings not-English?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When used as English words, they're not transliterations. A transliteration is when you write (for example) a Hindi word in the Latin alphabet. But if someone says "I added some methi to the aloos", they aren't speaking Hindi, they're speaking English and using Hindi loanwords. A transliteration can only be found in writing, for one thing, while a loanword can be found in speech. It doesn't make sense to say "transliteration of Hindi जीरा(jīrā)" in the etymology section of an English word. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk14:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a random sample of its uses and didn't see any that I thought were necessary, so I'd support deletion. But of course we should keep things like {{got-romanization of}} for entries that really are transliterations. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk14:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, most words refer to the Proto-Indo-European reconstructed word. But PIE lies in time BEFORE Latin. And Vulgar Latin lies in time AFTER Latin and BEFORE French/Spanish/Catalan/Occitan/Italian. So you would expect a variant of Latin here. Even the Latin word would be better than the Proto-Indo-European word. 94.209.199.13016:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the PIE Swadesh list was copied into the new entry to serve as a template, but they should have removed all the PIE content before they started entering Vulgar Latin content. I've removed everything that was labeled as Proto-Indo-European. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few mislabeled Vulgar Latin terms in that batch, but I don't have time to look through everything to find them. Anyone who wants to do so can look in the revision history. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the wikipedia article deep-throating, it's said that "the term was popularized by the 1972 pornographic film Deep Throat."
I guess that title must be construed as a noun: "<a> deep throat". But which came first then? The verb "to deepthroat", or the noun "deep-throating" from which the verb was back-formed? Is/was there a noun "a deepthroat" = "an instance of deepthroating"?
In the movie deep throat is a noun, so I'd guess that the verb came next, and deep-throating from the verb; you don't add ing to a noun to make a synonym of the base noun. —Tamfang (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Justinrleung I see the etym has been requested in that page. Can I write something like "One possibility is that it is from *波羅 (“knee”) + 蓋"? As I see this in Hanyu Fangyan Da Cidian: "[波罗]…(2) <名> 膝。江淮官话。江苏东台。清嘉庆二二年《东台县志》：“膝谓之～”". Dokurrat (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Publications by Chinese authors: I checked some Chinese references that mention this as being of Manchu origin (e.g. 近古汉语里由于语言接触而产生的东西, 满语词语在东北方言中的遗留), but they did not mention the exact Manchu word. One other reference that looks promising is: 赵杰：《融合过程中的满语和汉语》，载《满语研究》1993年第1期。 but it doesn't seem to be available online.
About the Cantonese usage: very strange and unexpected. Discussion one:
About Manchu: Overall, searching the Manchu dictionary yielded no perfectly suitable word for "knee" or "kneecap", or other phonetically possible sources. In detail:
There is also [Term?] (“cartilage and bone (Knorpel und Knochen)”);
Internet says it could be from ᠪᡠᡥᡳ ᡤᡳᡵᠠᠩᡤᡳ(buhi giranggi, literally “knee + bone”) ― the combination makes sense, but this phrase is yet to be verified.
An interesting discussion is in Historical, Religious and Genetic Context of Tangwang (2017), on "knee" [puə22 luə24 ke42] in the Tangwang language:
Iwata et al. (2009) have already observed that many Chinese dialects do not use the word 膝盖 xīgài ‘knee’, a term used in Standard Mandarin. They employ 波棱盖 bōlenggài to express “knee”. The pattern p-l-k is concentrated in the North (Iwata et al. 2009: 220). Their research results correspond closely to those of Chinese scholars (Li et al. 1995; Chen and Li et al. 1996) who show that the p-l-k pattern is mainly found in Northern dialects. Among 93 sites they have investigated, 39 take the form p-l-k, within which 20 also use other forms to indicate “knee”. Among the 19 dialects which have a single form to express “knee” in the p-l-k pattern, 16 are located in the North or Northwest while 3 are found in the South.6 For example in Beijing speech, two terms are used: 磕膝盖儿 kēxīgàir and 波棱盖儿 bōlenggàir. It is interesting to note that in Wutun, a language which is more mixed than Tangwang, this word is pronounced “polo-gaize” (Janhunen et al. 2008: 121). All these facts suggest that [puə22 luə24 ke42] in Tangwang is not an isolated case and probably has the same source as other dialects and Chinese varieties. But the problem has not been solved: where does this term come from? The earliest example I found in a non-Han language is in the 清文指要 Qīngwén zhǐyào [Outline of the Manchu language] annotated by Zhang and Liu in 2013. The earliest version in which 膊洛盖儿 bóluògàir ‘knee’ is attested dates to 1809. But we cannot confidently assume that this word was loaned from the Manchu language in Northern China and expanded to many dialects. In several Manchu dictionaries (Norman 1978; Hu et al. 1994), it is noted that the word “knee” is tobgiya or buhi. Phonetically these words have nothing to do with the widespread p-l-k pattern in Chinese varieties. Did Manchu borrow this word from Chinese? Further investigations are needed to find the origin of this word. For now we only know that this word in Tangwang is a common word widespread in Northern Chinese dialects.
An even more interesting read is: Iwata (2007), “Dialect Contact and the Production of Contaminated Forms — A Reconstruction of the History of Chinese Words for ‘Knee’” (方言接觸及混淆形式的產生－論漢語方言「膝蓋」一詞的歷史演變). Absolutely recommend this article (福利), and other publications by Iwata. (Anyone got his 汉语方言解释地图? :))
Trivia: I'm reminded of Middle Korean mulwuph ("knee") > modern 무릎(mureup).
Other dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, Cambridge, MacMillan) seem to generally accept "organized" as an adjective with two senses, one for ~"affiliated through an organization; unionized" ("organized workers") and one for ~"having formal structure to carry out activities" like "organized football" and "organized religion". A few even have the one adjective sense we have, for being an efficient individual. It meets at least some tests of adjectivity, e.g. one finds "very organized religion" and "the most organized religion", and it forms the basis for an adverb "organizedly". - -sche(discuss)18:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was wondering whether the comparability/gradability adjectivity tests are not very often almost always met by "-ed" forms of verbs. For example, do we need an adjective section for accented? It would seem to need at least two senses, one for music, another for speech, but perhaps also for artwork and descriptions of organisms. At least partial attestation for these can be found at Google Books ("very accented"). DCDuring (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our definitions seem weird, maybe overspecific. The phrase seems very similar to "vent", for example you can call someone on the phone to talk (not shout or yell) to "blow off steam" (this is confirmed by the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms), although A Dictionary of Confusable Phrases does suggest that the talking or acting has to be done in an "unrestrained" manner. - -sche(discuss)19:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sense seems to still be used, I think the defdate is a confusing attempt to say that the date of first attestation falls somewhere in that range, and needs to be rephrased like "First attested sometime between ... and ...". - -sche(discuss)19:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. We are possibly missing a non-sexual sense: google books:"bukkake noodles" gets a few hits, although only of compound words and not bukkake by itself, ditto bukkake udon, but maybe other phrases get more food-related hits. 2. Are the two sexual senses, for "the act of..." and "the genre of pornography centered around this act", really distinct? I don't see how. I'll merge them if there are on objections. - -sche(discuss)19:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. I asked a Japanese friend about this some years ago when I found bukkake on a menu and recoiled in shock. It is clearly attestable in English, and I have added the sense to the entry with wording modified from the Japanese entry. 2. I see that you have already merged the sexual senses; I support this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Μετάknowledge -- FWIW, the EN term derives ultimately from the JA compound verb 打っ掛ける(bukkakeru), from 打つ(butsu, “to hit something, possibly implying with a thump or thud”) + 掛ける(kakeru, “to cover one thing with something else”). I believe the food context preceded the sexual one, but I can't find anything definitive (and to be honest, I'm not researching this very deeply). For food, the basic idea is plopping one thing on top of the dish, like a big dollop of heavy sauce or other fixings. Butsu also has a sense of “to shoot something off, to fire”, which may be a factor in the sexual sense of bukkake.
The definition line included two definitions that do not have the same synonyms. Transitive rest#Verb is a synonym for the first, though I doubt that a user who needs the entry would quickly find the specific definition. I've split them, but {{trans-see}} should direct the user to the right definition of rest. DCDuring (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again a heavy handed revert, so? do we promote proper grammar or not?
Article is A not An if initial vowel is silent (Opossum)
but once again, despite properly identifying the rule of grammar, someone virtually auto reverted contrary to proper English grammar. PLEASE GIVE RIGHTS TO SOMEONE WHO AT LEAST KNOWS ENGLISH. --Qazwiz (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)--Qazwiz (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
(article Possum)--Qazwiz (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
UGH! I cannot believe how horribly the Language has been treated! 50 years ago teachers would have flunked all wikis!
now all Opossum soundings are saying "a possum" I guarantee 50 years ago that was marked as incorrect. --Qazwiz (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qazwiz, I have no idea where you get your information. I grew up in Virginia with family in the north and midwest, and have heard both pronunciations, spelled more or less as spoken, and (in the vernacular, at least) referring to the same scrappy North American marsupial. If pronounced with an initial open vowel, it's spelled opossum; if the first sound is a consonant, it's spelled possum.
As a separate issue, I've never heard of English having silent vowels on the front. Silent h, sure, but I sure can't think of any silent vowels at the moment.
@-sche, agreed re: references. In my life experience so far, I've never encountered "silent o". Be that as it may, we seem to have adequately refuted Qazwiz's odd insistence that "the O is silent, anyone who says OH-possum is wrong". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig22:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Raw hits at Google books for "an opossum" are twenty times more common than for "a opossuum". "A possum" is a bit more common than "an opossum". Evidently authors and editors try to make the spelling correspond to the pronunciation.
I don't think it actually means "lion." In the context of someone's name, it is the description of a lion. عباس means austere, frowning, sullen, sulky, and it describes a lion, so if you ask someone named Abbas what their name means, they may say "lion," which has the qualities of عباس. —Stephen(Talk)13:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I entered a word that I totally made up, confusing the (sometimes) satirical purpose of the Urban Dictionary for Wiktionary. — This unsigned comment was added by Skyflier0652 (talk • contribs).
The English word sex is a loanword from French. In Old English (or Modern English, if such word survives dialectally until today), which germanic inherited word denoting "sexual intercourse" (in a socially-accepted slightly-formal non-vulgar sense, just like "sex" has, but "f*ck" and alike don't) was displaced by this French borrowing? -- 179.214.21.7918:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can only think of swive, but that's a verb. Not sure if it is ever used as a noun...but then there's swiving. These two words meant "to copulate" and "intercourse" in Middle English, but the forerunner word OE swīfan, if ever used that way, was never recorded with that meaning... Leasnam (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Middle English there was dede(“deed”), as in "do the deed" but I don't see that sense in Old English. Then there's knowledge which has a parallel in OE cunnan(literally “to know”), but the general word for intercourse in OE seemed to be hǣmed, which kind of survived into ME as haunt, but I don't think anyone uses it today to mean anything like that... Leasnam (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the use of sex to mean "sexual intercourse" is relatively recent: our etymology section says it dates back only to about 1900, in the works of H. G. Wells. It may have only become common with Freud, though: Mapp and Lucia (1931) has a quote, "Tranquillity comes with years, and that horrid thing which Freud calls sex is expunged." —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk20:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, then the use of sex to mean "sexual intercourse" is English in origin (?) Does this indicate that languages that use this sense borrowed it then from English ? Leasnam (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the Etymology of Englishsex, it says the Middle French term sexe also meant "intercourse"...the Middle English term certainly did not record this meaning: it only means sex as in "gender" (male or female). Can we confirm if the Middle French sense is correct ? I only find uses referring to "gender" and in Old French to "genitalia" Leasnam (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that pointing to Middle French may be an error as well, as most dictionaries I see either point the ME to Old French or directly to Latin Leasnam (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes that is like pole "long rodlike instrument" vs. Pole "person from Poland" where capitalisation changes the meaning...that's close but not quite the same thing, though all the examples I provided above are also capitonyms :) Leasnam (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone check the accuracy of this edit? Pinging recently-active Serbo-Croatian speakers @Crom daba, Vorziblix. The word is attracting attention as a Serbo-Croatian translation of the phrase "shithole (country)" which Trump made headlines for using. - -sche(discuss)21:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using a strictly literal reading, either interpretation could be possible, although the one we currently have is probably more likely to cross speakers’ minds; the literal etymological meaning is along the lines of wolf-fuck-place, and so leaves the exact connection vague. Regardless, I think it’s more likely that the jebina part of this is just a generic term of abuse rather than a reference to actual wolf-fucking. Unfortunately I don’t have any etymological resources that can confirm this or any other interpretation. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the correct IPA symbol to use for indicating tenseness (loose throat vs. tight throat) in Yi vowels? Most authors use some sort of underline for showing tense (tight throat) vowels, like here and here, but in standard IPA, that symbol represents a retracted sound. This is also problematic for /z̩/, as underlining it would make it confusing. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }07:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the underscore could work; Nuosu language#Vowels says the tense vowels are “laryngealized and/or show a retracted tongue root”. The combination /z̩/ seems to be rendered correctly on my computer (though it could be confusing). Wyang (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they're laryngealized you can use U+0330 (◌̰) for them. You can probably dispense with the syllabification marker for the tight-throat /v̩/ and /z̩/ since only the syllabic fricatives are phonemically laryngealized; the normal nonsyllabic fricatives don't have this tense/loose distinction, do they? Alternatively, you can use the nonspacing laryngealization marker U+02F7 (˷) if you want to keep the syllabification marker. So my recommendation is to take your pick between /z̰/ and /z̩˷/ for the tight-throat syllabic /z/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk10:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
let me show you my etchings, would you like to see my etchings?, etc.[edit]
(No, that's not an offer.) Are the clichéd innuendos above includible? Attestation is not a problem,[9][10] despite the high number of variants, but I'm not completely sure about their idiomaticity. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like this is lexical at all. I wouldn't even call it a euphemism for "have sex". It's just a (formerly) common trope in comedy. When I first saw this James Thurber drawing I didn't understand the joke until one of my parents explained it to me, but I don't think there's any dictionary entry that could have made me understand it. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk20:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The post above made me check the history of the word Netflix and chill. As often for this kind of words, Wikipedia is much more informative than us. I'm tempted to copy-paste here the entire "Origins" paragraph.
It's not necessarily a bad thing to accept that some etymologies are very encyclopaedic in nature, and we can give a brief summary and then link to Wikipedia's treatment of it. As for the category, that'll be good fodder for when I get around to creating a {{coinage}} template. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should we have an entry for this? The noun sense we have ("That, and everything similar; all of that kind of thing; and so on, et cetera") doesn't really explain why "as all that" means what it means, IMO.
Unless I miss my guess, the quotation used to illustrate the adjective sense of harlot ("While she with harlots feasted in my house") is actually a noun. Do I miss my guess, or should this be removed/replaced? Cnilep (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche Perhaps the tag was meant to convey that people use the term when they try to sound archaic, like imitating the KJV. The term does seem in current use on Usenet. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "trying to sound archaic" or "trying to sound old" is what "archaic" means, but many citations like "media harlot" don't seem (at least to me) to be trying to sound old. - -sche(discuss)16:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any need for two translation sections, they are virtually identical, and they were one and the same people after all. DonnanZ (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we confirm the existence of the citation from 1938 added in diff? When I search for it, the very few results look like Holocaust-denier websites (which I haven't clicked on, because: illegal), and it gets no Google Books hits. It seems to fit a political agenda (oh look, the Jews/Zionists used the word to refer to a holocaust of Germans!) so perfectly that, in the absence of proof of its existence, it seems like an invention... - -sche(discuss)16:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is another sense of this term in software development jargon which signifies something to the effect of
a software bug or design decision that results in frequent annoyance, though not by itself typically enough to discourage use of the software
Wikipedia has paper cut bug, which establishes the etymology, though the treatment there doesn't quite capture the expanded use given above. For example, the Rust Programming Language Blog uses:
Previously, you’d have needed to write x += *y in order to de-reference, so this solves a small papercut.
From an ergonomics perspective, one often ends up with many mod.rs files open, and thus must depend on editor smarts to easily navigate between them. Again, a minor but nontrivial papercut.
From this later example, I gather that, in current usage, paper cuts need neither be trivial nor really caused by a "bug": this one arises from a design decision, however poor, that is nonetheless working as intended in practice. The unifying concept seems rather to be that the bug or design decision is a nuisance, but not an impasse, likely in reference to phrase, "death by a thousand paper cuts."
The use of paper cut to refer metaphorically to some minor harm occurs in many realms. I don't see anything special about the use you describe in software. We should have the metaphorical definition. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion with @Robbie SWE, he has recommended that the above article be mentioned to solicit additional opinions. The above article has had a back and forth, it would seem for the last decade, on what the term means. I have made two edits to the article today (one I can agree, being rightly reverted) and a second providing expanded definitions and background, as well as references. It would be appreciated for anyone to look the recent edit over for comments, and to make adjustments to fit to the MOS of the wikitionary.206.74.217.6220:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should figure out which spelling is most common and centralize content there. It is not good that different spellings list somewhat different senses in a way that does not seem supported by use. - -sche(discuss)23:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based off my own research, it seems that "wooly back", "wooly-back", "woolly back", and "woolly-back" are used interchangeably and mean the same. Both articles could be merged, or both edited to reflect what the sources state?206.74.217.6223:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something's weird here (etymology 2). Firstly it looks like a taxonomic name (so should be Translingual, not English?), and secondly we have an already-plural definition ("a group of...") but the headword says that the plural of Hamites is "Hamitae". What giveth? Equinox◑07:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Google Books search for "Hamitae"+"Turrilitaceae" turns up squat, so I've removed mention of "Hamitae". "Hamites" is mentioned in at least a few books, seemingly as a genus, possibly obsolete. I've moved it to be translingual. @DCDuring, Metaknowledge may want to take a look and clean it up further. - -sche(discuss)17:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically defined as "months that don't exist". I feel we need some context: are these used in fantasy fiction? Are they important in computing? (I gather that some software calendars use them as placeholders in certain situations.) What do they mean? That's our job. Equinox◑10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of you ever run into the sense "lawyer who represents defendants"? It sounds like interference from other languages and isn't in any dictionaries i checked. --Espoo (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if "only used as trivial abbreviated reference" or being an "interference from other languages", wouldn't diff require a WT:RFVE or WT:RFDE?
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/defender has "Scots Law another term for defendant", so "defender" might mean "defendant" in some google book results.
Yes, the sense clearly exists, including (I thought my citations showed) in native English. I've restored the sense. I suspect that both "lawyer" and "defendant" are attested. - -sche(discuss)18:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to my research and according to a lawyer i asked, "defender" is never used in English in the sense "lawyer who represents defendants", only as an abbreviation of the term "public defender", and only after the full term has been used first, not as a "real" abbreviation. As a result of the incorrect definition #2, we now have a huge list of incorrect translations that spread into other languages and Wiktionary versions in other languages, when we should instead be providing these nonnative speakers of English with the correct translations "defense attorney" (US) and "defence counsel" (Uk) of the terms now listed in the translations. Instead of wasting time on trying to find evidence for possible extremely rare use of "defender" for "lawyer who represents defendants", we should first produce entries for the two missing very common and important terms. --Espoo (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Espoo's understanding of the usage fits with my understanding.
Yes, but if you do a search for "comrads" it becomes clear that many are spelling it that way...in fact, it's actually pronounced as though it were spelt com-rad, so I can see how easily one could spell it this way, at least in North America Leasnam (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I speak VERY little German. But was reading Heidegger's "Letter on Humanism" in English. He appears to claim that the root is "mag" or to favor ... or "like" according to my meager vocabulary.
"Possiblity" of course has an almost entirely neutral connotation. Is this also true for "moglichkeit?"
The basic meaning of this root in German is "may/might/able to" and it is neutral. Specific to German among germanic languages, it also means to "like" someone or something (Ich mag das.). I am not certain, but I believe that sense developed during the Modern German period (?) Leasnam (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should we have an entry for it? The only reason I'm asking is that "Wine" is a recursive backronym for "Wine is not an emulator", and we generally keep acronyms...right? PseudoSkull (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... "The name Wine initially was an abbreviation for Windows Emulator.[15] The phrase "Wine Is Not an Emulator" is a reference to the fact that no code emulation or virtualization occurs when running a Windows application under Wine.[16] "Emulation" usually refers to the execution of compiled code intended for one processor (such as x86) by interpreting/recompiling software running on a different processor (such as PowerPC). Its meaning later shifted to the recursive backronym Wine Is Not an Emulator in order to differentiate the software from CPU emulators.[17] While the name sometimes appears in the forms WINE and wine, the project developers have agreed to standardize on the form Wine.[18]" PseudoSkull (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already remarked here that the usage example at spetacciare doesn't use spetacciare at all. I proposed an alternate usage example, but didn't add it in because the source was a random website, so maybe a better example could be found. Nothing happened since, so I'm reposting the issue. MGorrone (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have one definition, but many non-English entries have glosses for both "in the dimension that isn't time" (I tried) and "in outer space". Does it merit splitting? Ultimateria (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've split them, although the "outer space" sense seems uncommon? Other dictionaries discern two senses but they both seem to relate to the dimension of space... - -sche(discuss)19:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A modern web page design pattern that has gained popularity in recent years is to put a large amount of content on a single, very long page. This is distinct from just not breaking up an otherwise linear article over multiple pages, but rather often comprises multiple different articles/topics into a single page, one stacked on top of the other. It is often composed with w:parallax scrolling (whereby not all page elements scroll at the same rate) or other scrolling-driven animations to create a more engaging experience, though not necessarily so.
What properly is this design pattern called? I've found some use of the terms long-page, long-scrolling, long-scroll, single-page, and various other combinations both with and without hyphens, though none stick out as a clear winner. Further, I can't find any "official" uses, e.g. by Mozilla or Google—the examples I've found are mostly SEO content for "let us design your website for you" businesses—nor any obvious definitions in dictionaries or Wikipedia, etc. Does anyone here have any experience with this subject? –Rriegs (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
infinite scroll is a related web technology, but not quite the same. Infinite scroll adds content to the bottom of a page as you reach it, typically from nigh-inexhaustible news feeds like Facebook, while the pattern I'm describing does have a concrete end. Some example such pages are:
https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/ – This page is essentially a set of slides for the device's various feature. These could have been their own pages, but content is lumped together to provide a fluid (and linear) viewing experience.
https://github.com/features – This page has a navigation bar that updates to reflect your current position as you scroll through the page. Clicking links on the nav bar just scrolls to the content.
In my experience, many other product features pages (essentially, product pages acting like giant ads) have a similar pattern. Another common theme of this pattern is that the pages contain real content, not just headlines or links to elsewhere (e.g. the main pages for various news sites). –Rriegs (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For Manchu words that have Jurchen origin (such as [[ᠠᠪᡴᠠ|Template:MongolUnicode]]), should we consider them as inherited (Template:inherited) from Jurchen? When I apply this template, the error info says "Jurchen is not an ancester of Manchu". But I think Jurchen is an ancester of Manchu. This is a quote from Wikipedia: "In 1635 Hong Taiji renamed the Jurchen people and Jurchen language as 'Manchu'." Before 1635 it was called "Jurchen" and after 1635 "Manchu", so it is basically the same language development line with different stage of development at each time.--Pawmot (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wyang is probably our most knowledgable editor on this subject, and a quick survey of reference material (Gertraude Roth Li's Manchu: A Textbook for Reading Documents and Barbara A. West's Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania) also agrees with treating Jurchen as an ancestor of Manchu, so I have set it as such. - -sche(discuss)18:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is weird, though, since it's often a positive, whereas something that "requires urgent attention" sounds dire. Other dictionaries speaking of "demanding" attention, which is not much better, or having an "irresistible effect", which is vague. What if we added something to the definition along the lines of "strongly or irresistibly evoking interest"? - -sche(discuss)22:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's so weird that I thought it was another sense I wasn't familiar with... I find your wording much better. Google's def is "evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way." --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dokurrat: According to the Multi-function Chinese Character Database, lin4 is a variant pronunciation of lin5, citing 粵音韻彙 (黃錫凌) and 廣州話標準音字彙 (周無忌、饒秉才). However, 粵音韻彙 only lists 瑚璉 under lin5 and doesn't give any example for lin4. 《粵音韻彙》與《李氏中文字典》粵語注音考異 (蕭敬偉) suggests that lin4 is derived from 陵延切 in Jiyun, which would be etymology 2. I don't have any way to access the second dictionary, but I think it's safe to say that lin4 should be for etymology 2. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }03:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it correct that these terms are not synonymous? Our current definitions:
tax free: of an item being sold with the proprietor paying the taxes on behalf of the consumer, or of an item that exploits a particular loophole (or an intentional temporary waiver of a particular tax by the government)
They are the same. (To me it looks wrong with a space, but people are sloppy with hyphens these days.) The first, long definition you quote just seems to be a narrower case: tax-free to the consumer etc. Equinox◑14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose these entries should probably be merged with one becoming an alt of the other? Or are there differences in meaning? Most dictionaries at OneLook have two senses (first experience of combat; ordeal or initiation), by the way, and Merriam-Webster and the British version of Collins also have a sense for "baptism of the spirit, baptist of the Holy Spirit". ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was added in this edit and I think it should just be deleted, because it's just a copy of the phrase section with the part of speech changed. I suppose how so? is an adverbial phrase (an adverb, so, modified by another adverb, how), but in that case it should just be called a phrase. — Eru·tuon00:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
UK = 'Window winder handle', but it feels like something I can't imagine saying in everyday life, but maybe that's only because they don't exist enymore? 'Window winder handle' is probably UK-only. [17] Also, possibly 'window handle' or 'car window handle'. [18]Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or is winder pronounced /ˈwaində(ɹ)/, like the verb? I've used these before, but it was when I was a kid and I don't remember what we called them. (Brings back memories.) Maybe we didn't call them anything; I do recall "roll up the window". — Eru·tuon09:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added 'lapping' in the sense of 'the lapping of a bow', but there seem to be other missing senses, at least one is evident from Wikipedia but it's something I'm not familiar with about machining. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you parse this compound? Is it a specific kind of table, a "table that turns/makes turn/..." (endocentric compound, "table" is the head), or is it "something that turns tables" (exocentric compound, similar to scarecrow, sawbones, etc.)? I've always assumed it was the former, but the Spanish translation tornamesas is making me reconsider. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A table that turns. In the case of a locomotive turntable it's not even a table, but a track mounted on a couple of girders, the whole thing turns inside a turntable pit. DonnanZ (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After this change https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=samsara&diff=48482988&oldid=48482869 (actually, it was not a joke at all), let me ask a question. In French, the spelling samsarâ is much less usual and much less logical than samsâra, but it's found in a number of books, and it seems that it is used in about 10% of cases on the Internet (much less in books). In English too, this spelling is found in some books. My question is not what's the best spelling? but rather Is there any reason why some writers or translators might prefer this spelling?Lmaltier (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was meaning, this spelling in French or in English, not in Sanskrit. Even mistakes may have reasons, especially in such a case. Lmaltier (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understood the question; I meant that the reason some people might spell it samsarâ is that they're ignorant of the Sanskrit original word. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk20:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But why this precise spelling? Note that saṃsarā is almost never used (this is not surprising), but this spelling is used nonetheless in a few books, and even in book titles... Anybody else? Lmaltier (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason other books use "sâmsara", a few use "samsârâ", and a few even use "sâmsarâ", etc. Viz: as Mahagaja says, the authors didn't know which letter the accent belonged on, and so sometimes put it on one wrong letter or another (or several). - -sche(discuss)22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A possible reason: according to https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Samsarah the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language mentions the Sanskrit word saṃsāraḥ (transcription of संसारः the nominative singular form of the word). samsarâ might be a transcription of संसारः or of its transcription, ā becoming a and aḥ becoming â. Do you think it's possible? Lmaltier (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
if anything is the word of the day (28 January 2018) and it has a few issues.
Definition 1 suggests it is only used after a negative. It can also be used after a positive:
“Do you think she’s tall?” / “Oh, no. If anything, she’s short.”
“Do you think she’s tall?” / “Oh, yes. If anything, she’s very tall.”
This makes it the same as definition 2.
The quote from 1710 in definition 2 does not demonstrate the correct meaning:
For if Fancy be left Judg of any thing; ſhe muſt be Judg of all. Every thing is right, if any thing be ſo, becauſe I fancy it.
"anything" is being compared to "everything". It could be replaced by "any one thing" without changing the meaning. This quote should be removed and there are many other quotes with the correct meaning.
Danielklein (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What we have is a system that fires for every translation at every load of the page, but the data on which it operates might only be entered once in the lifetime of the entry. Isn't there something like 'subst' that could effectively fire only when there is a change in a given translation (or at least some translation on a table or on a page)? DCDuring (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we should be subst:ing in rather than auto-generating the transliterations, and could possibly subst: the langname= parameter, too. I may start a WT:GP discussion about that later. - -sche(discuss)20:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dernier as "coin" doesn't really seem to fit the use in the 1988 quotation, though. However, for the other quotations you located, I agree it looks like a variant or misspelling of denier. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what is meant by "dernier 18", "dernier 5", and so on. Why not "18 dernier[s?]" if a form of currency is referred to, like "30 million livres"? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dafydd doesn't have a pronunciation listed. I was trying to figure out of the 'dd' at the end is pronounced as a /ð/, and from further googling I think it is. Wikipedia's Dafydd ap Gruffydd page suggests that it's been pronounced IPA(key): [ˈdavɨ̞ð], at least at some point in the past (1283!), but I don't know if that's still accurate so didn't want to go ahead and try adding it to the relevant page. Could someone confirm this and add it? Thanks. Throne3d (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How common are things like m', t', s', etc. (except for l') in Italian? According to their entries on here, some are more common than others, but I looked online, and they don't appear to be that common at all. Esszet (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Esszet: if you ask me, I would say elided forms are generally most common before /i/ (for evident reasons), and also frequent elsewhere in colloquial Central-Southern Italian, while their usage is less common in Northern variants. When it comes to the written and/or elevated language, it seems they’re less and less used, though they can still be found. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo](parla con me)17:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of translations I found that very unhelpful, so I added the extraterrestrial sense and figured the sense for foreigners was already covered. Unless there's some reason we should keep that vague definition. Ultimateria (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by the 'generation' meaning being linked to the 'knee' meaning, although I guess the metaphor works, sort of (are there any other body-part/family tree metaphors in OE)?
I was struck reading this entry in Bosworth's OE Dictionary:
On pg 79 he has 'cneo' listed seperately to 'cneow', and with the meanings 'generation' and 'knee' respectively. 'Cneo' he links with a 'vide' to 'cneoris', and 'cneow' has the 'knee' meaning but then has it alongside 'relationship' and the quote 'binnan cneowe' as meaning 'within relationship'.
Furthermore, this digitization of Mary Johnson's A MnE - OE Dictionary has it's entry for 'cneow' as both 'knee' & 'generation', with 'cneo' pointing back to it. (inverse of what is on here)
So which is it? Strange word... Eigooms (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh...Good question. B&T also show it as a sense of cnēo(“knee”). Reminds me of GermanEnkel which originally meant "ankle, joint" but now means "grandson". I now wonder if cnēoris might not be a compound word with cnēo as its first element (i.e. cnēo + *ris, *res (?)) (cf. cnēorīm)... not sure...will have to dig ... Leasnam (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arithmetic on WikipediaWikipedia , 
Done —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
