Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/September

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← August 2021 · September 2021 · October 2021 → · (current)

---

digislate

Sense 2 (film) might not pass CFI, at least in lower case. It seems to be a trademark that uses capital D and perhaps S. Equinox ◑ 17:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Use of en-dash versus hyphen in entry titles

We have a long-standing habit of reducing the en dash – to a hyphen - in entry titles, so (for example) we have Bose-Einstein statistics whereas Wikipedia has Bose–Einstein statistics. In such simple cases, some authorities favour a hyphen anyhow. But there are other cases where the en dash actually resolves ambiguity, e.g. the principal–agent problem involves a principal and an agent, not a principal agent; and a theory of Mr Jones and Ms Hughes-Richards might be called the "Jones–Hughes-Richards theory", clearly two people and not three. Should we (or do we) have policy on this en dash? Equinox ◑ 18:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should ignore all of that and use hyphens everywhere. DTLHS (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? Equinox ◑ 19:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Because entry titles should be used for convenience rather than for slavish adherence to printed material. This could be represented in the headword line. DTLHS (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My 2p / 2c (I am surprised those are both redlinks) is that I'd prefer to have entries at the readily-typeable titles with redirects from (and, if necessary, head= to display) the dashes, somewhat like with how we use straight quotes in entry titles, not curly quotes. To some extent this heads off the interminable debates that happen on Wikipedia over whether something is a compound name that should use a hyphen or a double-barrelled name that should use a dash (or a compound name where one element uses a dash but is joined to the other element by a hyphen)... - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Try 2¢  --Lambiam 13:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Or tuppence or tuppence worth, but strangely not at twopence, and I think I have heard people recently say "my two pee's worth" rather than pronouncing it "twopence/tuppence"; I don't recall ever hearing "my two dee's worth" in my youth -- I think the added need to differentiate p from d in the late '60s has brought a slight permanent change of language. Normally, I'd go and add a few redirects, but no time now unfortunately. --Enginear 20:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

An additional comment: most mainstream and print dictionaries do make the distinction at headword level. I should have said "headword" when I said "entry title". The suggestion of using the head template parameter is reasonable. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we treat 2c/2¢ in the same way? If even an editor can't find it (and I wouldn't have either) some redirection seems appropriate. $ & £ are well-known, but I had forgotten ¢ used a modified character too. --Enginear 20:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

quadroon

I just corrected the second definition, which had been "A person of three-quarters Aboriginal descent and one quarter Caucasian descent; a person of one quarter Aboriginal descent." The part before the semicolon, if real, is a different sense mutually exclusive with the part after the semicolon; AFAICT, only the "one-quarter Aboriginal" sense is real. However, this raises a question: both sense 1 (about partial African descent) and sense 2 (about Aborigines) seem to be examples of one underlying sense, "A person of three-quarters white and one quarter Black descent", since Aborigines are or were considered Black. So should the senses we merged? (If not, the adjective section needs a second definition mirroring the noun.) - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

OED has: "A person who is by descent three-quarters white and one-quarter black; a person with one black grandparent. Formerly also: a person with one black great-grandparent (obsolete rare)." Equinox ◑ 21:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

bosom: merge two senses?

These seem to overlap somewhat:

• The protected interior or inner part of something; the area enclosed as by an embrace.
• Any thing or place resembling the breast; a supporting surface; an inner recess; the interior.

Equinox ◑ 22:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• The first part of the second line is sort of like an umbrella description of the rest, with the differences between the senses arising from different concepts of what the breast is: the metaphorical innermost part closest to the heart into which things are drawn by an embrace vs. the physical object consisting of the front of the upper torso. The first concept is represented by the first line and the third and fourth parts of the second line, which are redundant to it. The other concept is represent by the second part of the second line.

If we rearrange the parts, it becomes clearer:

• Any thing or place resembling the breast:

• The protected interior or inner part of something; an inner recess; the interior.
• A supporting surface

Chuck Entz (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why a "supporting surface" particularly resembles the breast. But this might work. Equinox ◑ 22:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That part of the definition immediately reminds me of Cornershop’s line: “Everybody needs a bosom for a pillow”. (though I think this refers to an actual breast, not something resembling one of them. It’s hard to be sure as the lyrics are a bit strange and disconnected to each other). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

lippen verb sense 2

"To trust; to expect; to depend or rely (on)". This seems to be at least three different things! Split sense? Equinox ◑ 23:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

texas

On the subject of parts of speech not matching definitions (discussed last month with the matter), texas is defined as a Norwegian noun meaning "crazy, wild". It seems like either the POS should be changed to "adjective" or the definition should be changed to match it being a noun ("craziness, madness"). - -sche (discuss) 09:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The Norwegian Wiktionary has this as a singular noun, glossed as meaning “lawless states/conditions”. I see it occurring as the first compound of Texas-tilstander, usually capitalized, so comparable with the attributive use of the proper noun Texas in English, but with the metaphorical semantics of Wild West.  --Lambiam 13:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Mozarabic

In the list of descendants of Latin sturnus, Arabic and Hebrew are united under the caption “Mozarabic”. Does this make sense? Are these perhaps meant to represent the same Mozarabic term in different scripts? Is there evidence for this/these descendant(s)?  --Lambiam 20:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it makes perfect sense: Mozarabic in two different scripts. Now, whether it's attested is an entirely different question; I don't know the relevant sources. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I see. These labels are misleading; elsewhere the labels “Arabic script” and “Hebrew script” are used (e.g. at canis § Descendants).  --Lambiam 11:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Added by IP instead of the usual suspect Romandalusí (talk • contribs). Looks like a meme. Who would start a word, in any language at that time, with a hamza on space (ء (ʔ)) followed by an alif? And who would have written the o in the syllable tor as ה? Fay Freak (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there a mechanism for asking for verification? My searches only lead to our entry.  --Lambiam 11:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: This particular word, as a bird-name, may be in the published poetry. Maybe in S.M. Stern’s Chansons mozarabes which uses to be quoted and is said to contain on its 63 pages all known texts of the genre known in his time. Many a thing found under the headword aljamía may be Mozarabic, however the Spanish article on its Mozarabic part is devoid of sources. It does not look like many have actually cared to read this literature in the internet age, it is only talked about much to show off to university students and for completion, actually avoiding the Arabic and Hebrew script. These Les chansons mozarabes are not held by libraries in NRW except in Bonn and I could only let it be sent to me from the UK for 40 € upwards but this is wet. You seem to be in a good position to get this though, to teach all them Romanists. Fay Freak (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I would suggest making the script labels display as "Arabic script" and "Hebrew script" to avoid confusion with the language names. We also have this issue with "Latin" (script) Serbo-Croatian. - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have removed it, because I can't find any evidence for the spellings used. As FF said, they raise a great deal of suspicion, and after doing a bit of reading, I see no support for orthography this bizarre ever having been used. It also strains credulity that such an obscure word is attested in two scripts. It is much more parsimonious to conclude that the anon made this up, at least in the spellings given on the page. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• My guess is that they found it as a transliterated mention somewhere and "backliterated" it. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Language flags

(Following up a discussion on Discord) This page is a bit silly to say the least. The "Represents" column is particularly terrible. Translingual "represents Earth" sounds like a joke. And apparently English is a slashed diagonal UK/US flag, which "represents" "the United States and the United Kingdom" (because we hate Australia, Jamaica, and expats). The whole thing is appalling. Equinox ◑ 23:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The constructive comment (since some people find this visually useful): Microsoft iconifies languages by putting the ISO code in white on blue, so you might see "en" or "en-US". But the purpose of icons is to visually distinguish things so this would not be very helpful. I do think we could perhaps use colours in some way, instead of the political irrelevance of flags. (But it does raise issues around colour-blindness.) Equinox ◑ 23:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

On your comment about colours: There is a custom among some languages' communities to distinguish a language group or family by a colour (in inflection tables) which I personally like very much and would support being made more official. To give an example: All Finnic languages use purple inflection tables. Or maybe I've just been seeing patterns that aren't there; It's still a good idea IMHO. Thadh (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Trying to attach flags to languages is stupidly political and naive. Thank goodness this isn't on by default.

Cantonese, post-1997 Hong Kong SAR (what about literal Canton, China, not to mention those who don't like the PRC); Mandarin: PRC (not ROC?); Min Nan: ROC (not PRC?);

Vietnamese: (former North) Vietnam (disregarding the incredible size of the diaspora that still identifies with the South Vietnamese flag); Korea: South Korea; Okinawan: Japan (instead of Okinawa, former Kingdom of Ryukyu), Spanish: Spain and Mexico (*gesturing wildly at w:Hispanophone#Countries*) … —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

On one hand, meh, I don't mind it as an opt-in gadget, it seems like a tolerable visual shorthand. OTOH, who is going to be unaware of what an obscure language is but recognize its obscure flag? It seems like the flags would mostly be useful/recognizable in . . . cases where the person probably also recognizes the language name! I would suggest : leave the gadget available as an opt-in gadget for people who want it, but move it to someone's userspace (even just some "sandbox account" like Wikipedia uses to create "Do Not Archive Until" signatures) so it's not a Wiktionary-official thing. Btw, this edit was undone over on Wikipedia (as being mistaken about the flag being fake) if we also want to undo it here. - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ventanuco: not especifically pejorative

"Ventanuco" is not especially pejorative. Most of the times it just means "small window", often with a deep sill.--37.11.122.76 19:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, the creator initially defined it as a mere diminutive before changing it. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Were I a Spanish window, I wouldn't feel offended by this term. I've reworded it MooreDoor (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What an appropriate username for a comment about a small window, perhaps a feature of Moorish architecture too! --Enginear 21:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

文明觀球

Defined as "to "appreciate ball (games) in a civilised manner" as uttered by commentators (with "balls" being intentionally misconstrued as "breasts")". So, is the actual semantic value "to appreciate breasts", or what? I feel like the definition could be clearer or benefit from usage notes explaining how/when it's used. - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, is this phrase uttered as such by commentators, or does it refer to the “civilized” terminology used by commentators to refer to ball games? There seems to be a joke hiding in the “uncivilized” use of 觀球／观球 (guānqiú) instead of 觀／观球類／球类 (qiúlèi), and I suspect this entry is then a SOP of 文明 (wénmíng) +‎ 觀球／观球 (guānqiú). If 球 (qiú) by itself has a slang meaning “(woman’s) breast”, it should be listed. Otherwise, the reference to “breasts” is a mystery .  --Lambiam 09:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be sending it to RFD for 1) SoP and 2) lack of durable citation. --Frigoris (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a mistake to send it to RFD in my opinion. It's not SoP, how would someone understand that the second meaning has been developed without this entry? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not just SoP, but also likely a poor-quality entry bordering on gibberish. The RFD is a request based on its poor quality. If the problems can be addressed in the RFD process, the request will fail and we'll end up with a better entry. --Frigoris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

of all places

Definition:

1. (idiomatic, often used as a sentence adverb) Surprisingly.

I had to undo an IP's attempt to add a translation table with the gloss "in a way that causes surprise because it is unexpected, or unusual". The problem is that the definition misses the nuance that a place is always mentioned. I can't imagine someone saying "Yesterday I ran into Betty, of all places". I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it, but we need to change this, somehow. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

What about

1. (idiomatic, often used as a sentence adverb, referring to a particular location) Surprisingly.

?  --Lambiam 09:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Compare of all people, of all things. PUC – 09:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

[…] or "of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world she walks into mine." IMO, main entries should be at of all the and/or of all, with redirects from all of the longer collocations. DCDuring (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but requires the addition of an entirely new sense for of all, for which I can’t think of an acceptable PoS assignment.  --Lambiam 10:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Me neither. "Phrase", even though it isn't a constituent and therefore not a phrase, s.s.. DCDuring (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The existing sense of of all that is exemplified by "the comeback of all comebacks" is not a constituent either, IMO. I fail to see how this is an "adverb" as claimed. I see "all comebacks" as a phrase, this being the object of preposition "of". Mihia (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Cybele

I am new around here so I will try to walk on egg shells. I am assuming a reference to a historical written text or document is required to definitely say something is an etymological root.

For instance it would be easy to logically assume that the Galli were related to or influential in the following cultures or geographic regions.

Gallus Gaels Gauls Gaelic Gaeil Galacia (Iberian Peninsula) Galilee (Holy Land) Galatia (Roman) Galatia in Spain Galatia in Turkey

But even more logical to assume that Cybele is the root of or at a minimum in the trail of the etymological roots of Celibate and Celibacy.

So multipart question, first are logical connections a good or bad place to begin an investigation into etymology, and number 2 are there logical connections that cannot be made because no supporting historical documentation exists, and number 3 in what way do you assemble supporting documentation if necessary.

Thank you, I've been through so many forums over the years and reactions can run the whole spectrum. I humbly request your forgiveness if I have done anything in error, or needed to read something that I did not, or offended any person, entity, or awareness through my ignorance.— This unsigned comment was added by Gnochragalli (talk • contribs) at 21:48 5 September 2021 (UTC).

While it's sometimes okay to add obvious etymologies if one knows what one is doing, it's obvious that you don't. While it's true that many of the names in your list are derived from the names of Celtic peoples who lived in or invaded various territories during the time of the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, Galilee is strictly of Hebrew origin and has nothing to do with the name of anything. As for Cybele, "y"s and "i"s are of generally of very different origin in Latin, and there's really no plausible connection between Latin words for unmarried people and a foreign goddess. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Rather, ⟨y⟩s and ⟨ae⟩s – the adjective comes from Latin caelibātus^[1] – are of generally very different origin. Note also the metathesis ⟨b⟩↔⟨l⟩. Connections that seem plausible (rather than “logical”) generally deserve investigation. To deserve more than a mention in the style of “perhaps related to ...”, more evidence than plausibility is desirable. This one does not appear plausible. Note that the historical sound changes follow certain patterns, which etymologists know; see the Wikipedia category Sound laws. Changes that fall outside these patterns are highly suspect.  --Lambiam 13:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

mission

I don't think this entry does a very good job of covering the military-related sense(s), like "the commandos were killed while on a mission to assassinate the rebel leader" or "the airman was shot down during a resupply mission". Perhaps the issue is that sense 1 is very broad. Other dictionaries seem to consistently have specific senses or subsenses for the military-related sense. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget space missions. Where does an unmanned mission to Mars fit in "an assignment set by an employer, or by oneself"? We need to go back to the etymology: Latin missiō refers to sending; you don't send someone on "a series of tasks", but people and various types of vessels/crafts are sent on missions all the time. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Koxtag

(Following up on this 2020 discussion about Wu-ch'ia) In the case of this Central Asian geographical term, I have found its use in six situations shown at Citations:Koxtag. However, only one of those situations is a traditional sentence from a traditional durably archived source. I don't want to overextend my understanding of how far Wiktionary can go, so I'd like to get any feedback on whether this word has been attested to Wiktionary standards or not. I believe that it has, and I will proceed on that assumption unless you have any comments or qualifiers for me. This is not a question for the RFV board because that board "is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense," and I'm not requesting attestations (although they are welcome): I am requesting an assessment of the existing attestation situation. If only there were a board on this website to request verification of the validity of given citations (not verification of the word, but of the citations). Please ping me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The first two (entries in atlases) looks like mentions to me. The WT:CFI can be read as excluding them as attestations for WT:WDL because they may not satisfy the "conveying meaning" criterion. --Frigoris (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

cajillo

Hey guys, hopefully there's an architect around... What's the term for this thing, called a cajillo in Spanish? It might be a ceiling island or a dropped ceiling box, both of which look kinda similar to me. Any ideas? MooreDoor (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Plain old "recessed ceiling"? Ultimateria (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Turkish kalın

An old dictionary translates the phonetic sense of Turkish kalın as velar. Wiktionary translates as back. Is one of these more correct? I have seen kalın contrasted with ince (translated here as front). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

In Turkish phonology the letter ℓ has two realizations: a “light” ℓ [l] and a velarized or “dark” ℓ [ɫ], sometimes referred to as a “thick” ℓ, kalın ℓ in Turkish. It is heard in adjacency to back vowels, the word kalın itself offering an example: [kɑˈɫɯn]. I suppose that the translation “velar” refers specifically to this thick ℓ. The phonological term of art for “velar” in Turkish is artdamaksıl.  --Lambiam 14:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I read it in the context of consonants ({{R:tr:OTK}} p. 19). Should we have a second sense applicable to consonants? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Tea room

I'm putting this here in case Wiktionary_talk:Tea_room has little traffic. At the top of Wiktionary:Tea room, it says "For questions about the technical operation of Wiktionary use the Beer parlour". I thought the place for questions about "technical operation" was the Grease Pit? Mihia (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I've revised the wording. Please revise further if necessary. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks (I can't actually edit that page myself). Mihia (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

luft

On fi-wiktionary, a user made the following claims about the English word luft (fi:luft):

1. As a noun, it means 'air', also 'impression', 'essence',
2. There is an idiom "full of hot luft" meaning 'nonsense, trash', as well as an idiom "put on luft" meaning 'to pretend to be something; to act like a snob'.
3. As a verb, it means something like 'to broadcast' as well as 'bleed (to remove air from hydraulic system)' as well as 'to air, ventilate, fan'.

After that, I edited the page so that it says the same things as the enwikt page (on its English section) but the user reverted my edit saying "the word 'luft' is commonly used in English instead of 'air'; in some places luft is even more common than air"

Are any of these claims true (except for that it sometimes can mean 'air')? How complete is the enwikt definition of luft? Based on googling, clearly no such idioms as full of hot luft or put on luft exist. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I might as well add that the user earlier today also claimed that the English word "air pressure" is spelled together as airpressure, which also does not seem to be true according to what I found on Google. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe the definition. Send it to RFV. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Which definition, on fiwikt or on enwikt? The chess-related definition seems correct ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've RfVed the "air" def. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As a US native English speaker who has never seen or heard luft used in English in 60+ years, I'm confident that person is wrong. There may be some limited use as a loanword or code-switching in dialects influenced by German or Yiddish, but that's probably it. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I would add that Google currently returns no results for "full of hot luft" or "put on luft" Chuck Entz (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Unlike for “full of hot luſt”.  --Lambiam 14:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Based partly on this, I've edited the Finnish entry so that it says 'sky, atmosphere, upper air' in the Scots section and '(chess) flight squares given for a king to avoid a backrank mate' in the English section. I will be following the request for verification discussion and edit the English section of the Finnish entry accordingly if needed. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

conmigo

Why is the phonemic transcription /komˈmiɡo/ instead of /konˈmiɡo/ ? Dngweh2s (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Because that is how the word is pronounced. The /n/ is changed to /m/ by anticipatory assimilation to the labial consonant that follows it. Compare the pronunciations of, for example, conminado, conmoción, conmover and conmutar. The same process can be seen at work in Spanish inbox, pronounced /ˈimboks/.  --Lambiam 14:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The point that they may be alluding to is: why would that not count as /n/ phonemically, with assimilation represented at the allophonic level instead?

One answer would be that the sound in question never surfaces, in that word, as anything other than a bilabial, so it might as well be represented by /m/ on the phonemic transcription.

On the other hand, Spanish neutralizes the /n/ ~ /m/ opposition before consonants. Since it is the following consonant that determines the realization of the proceding nasal, one could argue for a phonemic /N/ in that position (read as just 'nasal consonant') and a phonetic [m], [n], or [ŋ] depending on what follows.

A morphophonemic transcription of the prefix con-, however, would have to be ⫽kon⫽, in light of how the last element is realized as alveolar nasal when followed by a vowel (as in conocer) and hence not subject to point-of-articulation assimilation. I do not think that it would be terribly unreasonable to carry that into the phonemic transcription and mark conmigo as beginning with /kon/.

All of this though is rather abstract and unnecessary for practical purposes. The Nicodene (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

silver

Derived terms in English are split between noun and adjective. Some NPs with silver as the head are list under the adjective heading, which is clearly wrong. But, more importantly, how is one supposed to distinguish between the use of a noun and of an adjective in attributive use in what are supposed to be inclusion-worthy terms?

A simple solution would be to combine derived terms appearing under different PoS headers and place the result near the bottom of the language/etymology section where the original derived terms sections appeared. The same would probably make sense for related terms.

If I am correct about this, it seems likely to be a problem for derived and related terms in many similar English entries. DCDuring (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@DCDuring: It shouldn't matter what part of speech a term in those sections is, but the part of speech of the sense they're derived from or related to. A silver dollar is made from silver (the noun), regardless of its actual color. A silver fir is silver (the adjective), regardless of what material it's made of. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence. The question of whether "silver" used attributively to mean "made of/from silver" is a noun or adjective in any particular case is potentially tricky IMO, and this goes for many similar "substance" modifiers, some of which have come up before (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:brick#RFD_discussion:_August%E2%80%93November_2018 is one that I remember; that survived as adj. [sorry, in fact it didn't survive but was deleted here]). All dictionaries that I checked list a "made of/from silver" adjectival sense. Some of the "derived terms" are IMO clearly in the wrong place: for example "silver fluoride" and "antimonial silver" are clearly IMO noun uses not adjective uses as presently implied. On a separate point, according to Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Derived_terms, "derived terms" are "morphological derivatives". This is widely not adhered to within Wiktionary; indeed, in general, there is no consistent approach whatsoever to the contents of sections such as "derived terms" and "related terms". Mihia (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the derived terms in this entry, we do not seem to have the ability to maintain the distinction well.

Taking every tenth item from the noun section: silver alert (A), silver ash(A), silver bass (A), silver book(?), silver city (N), silverfish (A), silver grass (A), silver leaf (N), silver medalist (N), silver point (?), silver screen (A), silver thatch (A), silver wormwood (A), we find that 8/13 are adjectives misplaced (by my lights) as nouns, 2/13 with PoS I can't determine, and 3/13 correctly placed.

Taking every tenth item from the adjective section: every cloud has a silver lining (N?), red silver (N), silver bar (N?), silverbill (A), silver certificate (N), Silver Creek (N), silvereye (A), silver-fork (?), silver-grey (A?), silver-hilted (N), silverite (N), silver-leaved (A+N?), silver medalist (N), silver paper (A?), silver-pointed (?), silver salmon (A), silversmith (N), Silver Star (N), silver table (N?), silver-tongued (N), silver wedding (N), silver wreck (N?), we find 5/22 that seem correctly derived from adjective, 2/22 with PoS I can't determine, 14/22 apparently incorrectly assigned to adjective derivaton, and one that might belong under both adjective and noun.

Considering both, I find 23/35 misclassified, 4/35 I can't determine, 1 that perhaps should be both, and 8/35 correctly assigned. That's only about 23% correct. Note also how many red-linked items there are, some of which are not readily assigned to a PoS if they indeed are not SoP.

In addition Long John Silver should probably appear in the missing proper noun section.

Can we find someone to sort it out according to what you suggest? Frankly I doubt that we will and I also doubt that there are not ambiguities and duplicates, eg silver perch. Further, I expect that items will continue to be added without regard to the appropriate PoS section. DCDuring (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of any easy to apply criteria, I would simply move everything to the noun. DTLHS (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, since some (e.g. the colour ones, such as "sliver fir") are surely adjectival? If we are to lump them all together then I think it should be under an "all PoS" heading as we have done in certain other articles, e.g. behind. By the way, at least one that I noticed, silverer, should go under the verb, if we want to keep them separate. Mihia (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Having a derived or related terms section for each possible PoS seems silly. What's worse is that a 'correct' allocation of terms to each possible PoS will be difficult and won't be maintainable, at least not at this stage of Wiktionary's development, IMHO. DCDuring (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

typoglycemia

Please add it. I'm disappointed that this is on Wikipedia, but not on Wiktionary. 154.5.234.189 23:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done It seems there was previously an entry but it was deleted as a protologism; however, a glance at Google Books suggests to me that this could pass. Equinox ◑ 23:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

cred

The term cred (“credibility”) is labeled "urban", any idea what this is this meant to mean and if it is accurate? The label was present in the first revision from 2005 so I am somewhat suspicious of it. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It must mean street slang, as in street cred. Equinox ◑ 01:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it anything other than informal now? DCDuring (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably? I am not so skilled in differentiating between slang and informal terms. All I'm thinking is that I definitely hear people it from people who I wouldn't consider inner-city, poor, or speakers of AAVE (what I understand "urban" to mean here). —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The Grey Lady uses street cred unapologetically, so this term escaped its urban confines. But in her pages I also find uses like Brooklyn cred, cool-girl cred, coral reef cred, design cred, Green cred, hip-hop cred, indie-film cred, New York City cred, publishing cred, rock cred, style cred, theater cred, underground horror-movie cred, mostly but not only in headlines, and unqualified uses (“Schlesinger brings some serious cred to this chow-down.”^[8]; “Contrarian remains true to his cred.”^[9]; “Nothing is more lethal to cred than a sellout.”^[10]). If this be slang, it has society cred.  --Lambiam 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this started out as part of street cred, and followed a familiar progression from inner-city slang to youth culture to mainstream, "edgy" cleverness to cliché. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

化 in Chinese inorganic nomenclature

@Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, Frigoris, 沈澄心 In my opinion, 二氧化碳 (èryǎnghuàtàn) should not be segmented as 二+氧化+碳 because the name does not suggest oxidation. According to 中国化学会无机化学命名原则 (1980), 化 in inorganic nomenclature "表示简单和化合。如氯原子(Cl)与钠原子(Na)化合而成的NaCl就叫氯化钠，又如氢氧基(HO—)与钾原子(K)化合而成的KOH就叫氢氧化钾。", and is listed alongside 合, 代 and 聚 under the section 1.2 化学介词. If 硫代硫酸 isn't 硫代+硫酸 and 五水合硫酸銅 isn't 五+水合+硫酸銅, then 二氧化碳 isn't 二+氧化+碳.

In fact, 二氧化碳 is more like 二氧+化+碳. Analysing 五氧化二磷 as 五+氧化+二磷 would break the symmetry of the name as it should be 五氧+化+二磷. Any thoughts? RcAlex36 (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: I agree. The 化 (huà) is simply an infix in word formation. --Frigoris (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: Agree. We would need to change the |type= in {{zh-forms}} in all the entries with 化 and remove derived terms from 氧化 (yǎnghuà), 氯化 (lǜhuà), etc. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

sprake van zijn

@Thadh, Rua, Mnemosientje, Morgengave, Alexis Jazz, Appolodorus1, DrJos A messy entry, but more fundamentally I'd say the page name is wrong. Van always introduces an argument, with one exception. So I think a good solution would be to move it to sprake zijn van. Then a separate entry can be created for geen sprake van; this is unusual in having neither an inflected verb nor an argument. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t the interjection Geen sprake van elliptic for the sentence Daar kan geen sprake van zijn, which has both a finite verb and an object of van?  --Lambiam 21:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think moving the page is a good idea. Thadh (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

See my edit and its summary; The entry doesn't look like quite the mess it was before... Thadh (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Lingo Bingo Dingo, and what about "sprake zijn over", like "Minstens is er geen sprake over in de processen-verbaal", is that an alternative form? And "Dit is alles, wat van de overzeesche bezittingen gezegd wordt; geen woord over het muntwezen"? Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the semantics is different. In the latter two cases, some issue is not addressed, possibly because it was unimportant or unknown. In sprake van / geen sprake van, some fact is / is not stated because it is known or assumed to be true / false.  --Lambiam 21:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

queerdo

This was created in 2010 by an IP with poorly-formatted, TMI personal content. It was fixed up shortly afterward by @Nbarth with a quite different definition, one that entirely missed the sexual-orientation overtones provided by the word "queer" and strongly implied in the original version of the entry. Now someone is asking about it on the talk page. Can someone who knows more about LGBTQ usage than I do fix it for real this time? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I've overhauled the entry. I do find a lot of positive or affectionate ribbing usage as discussed on the talk page. I'm not sure if such use is exclusive though. The Rice University Neologisms Database seems to claim another sense is out there (see [11]), but I'm doubtful. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

crisitunity

A Simpsons coinage that appears attestable from Google Books. It says the entry failed RFV but I cannot find the discussion; where is it? Equinox ◑ 13:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: I searched “crisitunity” in the Wiktionary namespace and found a link to the discussion at Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/C. J3133 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Recreated with citations. Equinox ◑ 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Simpson says Did you know that the Chinese use the same word for "crisis" as they do for "opportunity". I assume she's correct, so what Chinese word would that be??? Roger the Rodger (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Roger the Rodger: See Wikipedia:Chinese word for "crisis". J3133 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

As Master Qiūjí'ěr teaches, Never let a good opportunity go to waste.  --Lambiam 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Mozarabic entries

(Pinging @Ser be etre shi and @Koszmonaut as users potentially interested in the topic.)

In light of the above discussion on Mozarabic, perhaps it is time to bring up the matter of the numerous uncited Mozarabic words (all provided, without exception, in both Hebrew and Arabic scripts) added by the user Romandalusí under the 'descendants' section of various Latin words (examples: 1 2 3). It is suspicious that a Google search for the forms in question turns up not a single scholarly source discussing Mozarabic; for the last word, there are in fact zero results on the Internet except for the Wiktionary entry itself- and that is far from an exceptional case.

Does anyone have the time and means to dig through the Mozarabic words and verify or reject them individually, or should there perhaps be a blanket removal of uncited ones added by the person in question? The Nicodene (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Google is not the omniscient, this particular field is surely insufficiently scanned, so it does not arouse my suspicion at all; in fact my experience—and the editor’s impression is most relevant for any digital dictionary project of such scale of course—is that it is not quite difficult to afford Arabic or Persian terms or variants not findable via web searches though still existing without reasonable doubt; surely even easier it must be for Romanian by reason that there is awe-inspiring coverage of variants on DEXonline without that they can be tracked down though generally they be from somewhere and not fictitious. No, nobody has the time or means or disposition towards this language.

Because it is neither without suspicion when somebody without time or means or clue removes things, it is best to ignore them. The likelihood that errors in this field damage Wiktionary’s reputation is zero since nobody has a clue and in the unlikely case that somebody is a scholar in it and devotes his time to expose Wiktionary’s Mozarabic ghost words it is understood that nobody has a clue here even, though in other languages editors very much have, so by all likelihoods in the world it could not be avoided. Fay Freak (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

As it turns out, an excellent work titled Romance kharjas in Andalusian Arabic Muwaššaḥ poetry: A palaeographical analysis is available on LibGen. It includes, in full, all of the Kharjas written in Arabic script that Dr. Allen Jones judges to contain Romance vocabulary, along with a useful index of such words on pages 302–304.

Since user Romandalusí provided a version in Arabic script of every single word that he added, the above source provides the means to detect any words that were made up.

If nobody has objections, the long clean-up process can begin. The Nicodene (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Great. That title, seemingly considered in an 2021 synopsis of jarchas romances (now there by Anne Cenname’s 25 € work we can know what the literature on Mozarabic is ❗ – apparently not only obscure but also limited) still standard, is even better than Les chansons mozarabes and the other books of Emilio García Gómez, which, as I read in Alan Jones, contained many blunders and ballparks and are still employed by Romanists because them man are too indolent for foreign scripts, however Jones has apparently made some separate editions still so his Romance kharjas in Andalusian Arabic Muwaššaḥ poetry is a satisfying but not sufficient corpus?!

Should we have “romanization” entries for Mozarabic like we have for Gothic or Sumerian? Meseems no because there is to great a possible variation. Fay Freak (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

stop the presses

This is occasionally used as a regular verb would be (but rarely); you can see the verb forms listed ("stopped the press", "stopping the press", etc.). However how would we define that verb form? I always thought "stopping the press" was something like "to delay, in favor of another option"; this has only been my presupposition as far as I've heard the term, however, and I actually have no idea how to define it. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we find examples where it doesn’t actually mean printing presses? This is also a problem with the translations, that some only exist literally (apart from translations from English which have not caught on outside those translations). Fay Freak (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have heard it used sarcastically in situations where someone has announced something as if it were either news and either important or non-obvious when the speaker did not think so. I have thought it to be allusion to US movies (c. 1930-50) which involved, say, fictional crime reported in newspapers. DCDuring (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

As a figurative interjection, it is (I think) the first part of an originally longer phrase, each of whose parts is often used stand-alone: Stop the presses – this just in.^[12] The sense as an exclamation is just as described in the ngd: “Hey guys, here is some news that will interest you.” To see how we should define it as a regular verb, we need to see how it is used.

It should be changed to an interjection only. The verb sense is a sum of parts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of Persian عشق (ešğ)

According to Wiktionary, it's an Arabic loanword. According to Mina Parsaei on Quora, it's «of Indo-European Iranic origin, derived from either Ishkâ (ایشکا, with ish meaning wanting or wishing in Avestan) or Ashâk (اشاک, with ashâ meaning truth, correctness, love or affection in Pahlavi)». Who is right? Could it be that those Iranian words were morphed into ešğ under influence of Arabic? MGorrone (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's a tip: most answers on Quora are wrong. Anyone who knows the slightest bit of Persian and isn't blinded by nationalism can tell that our etymology is correct. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

go-ed ?

I keep hearing young British people online saying "(something) is /ˈɡəʊ.ɛd/" - I've heard it among Northerners and Southern speakers alike. Apparently it is used to mean "good, excellent, passable, adequate" - but it's not necessarily how they pronounce the word 'good' which they pronounce normally, so it is certainly distinct from 'good'. Does anyone have a clue what it is they're saying ? Leasnam (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Never encountered this. And I have heard and read way too much British people only chatting. Not used in MLE? What kind/strata of “young”? Fay Freak (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Under 25, white. If you ever watch reactions, I've heard it by both Beesley and LavLuka. I can recall one specific instance where Beesley says McDonald's fries are /ˈɡəʊ.ɛd/ - I even commented for the meaning, but I never saw a reply. Based on his accent, he sounds like someone from S. Yorkshire/Sheffield, but I'm not sure. I simply forgot about it, but then I heard it again from LavLuka just the other day, and it rekindled my curiosity, as LavLuka is in/around Norwich. Leasnam (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

How about gold? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to link to any examples that we can listen to? Mihia (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Equinox ◑ 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, gold might be it. But it's still unusual because it clearly has 2 very distinct syllables: /ˈɡəʊ.ɛd/ and even as /ˈɡəʊ.wɛd/, and I would imagine 'gold' would merely be /ɡəʊld/. If I can find a link to the example I'll add it. Leasnam (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's the link: [[13]]. If you start it at 0:27, you'll hear Lav say "Internet Historian is /ˈɡəʊ.wɛd/..." - it's clearly not 'gold' that he's saying imo Leasnam (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you know if he speaks any other languages? DTLHS (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Could it be a pronunciation influenced from Scots guid? DTLHS (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, highly doubtful. As mentioned above, Beesley, who now lives in Jersey, but is obviously got a Yorkshire dialect, also uses the same word, same pronunciation, same meaning (whatever that precisely may be). I think I've heard it from one other YouTuber who I think might be from around Birmingham - same pronunciation, same strata, etc. It's a pickle, innit ? Leasnam (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well anyway, this seems like the kind of thing the OED likes, and would have more resources to investigate. DTLHS (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This man to me too appears influenced by Yorkshire accent, although I note some MLE features. For it one formulates: “If a close vowel precedes /l/, a schwa may be inserted”. So it is probably gold. Other schwa anaptyxes are shown for the Sheffield dialect. Fay Freak (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on the accent (which I can comprehend perfectly) I don't think he is saying "gold". I suspect some Internet meme, e.g. a funny pronunciation by a gamer that got adopted by others. As WF says, you'll have to ask. (Could it be a funny form of "good", like "doge" for "dog"?) Equinox ◑ 20:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd suggest actually asking these guys. YouTube comments get lost pretty quickly. Roger the Rodger (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Macmillan dictionary has an entry, BTW for go'ed and g'wed, which is what you want. Roger the Rodger (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  You go wet here, this does not fit the context, if you bothered to listen. Fay Freak (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, I feel like we're running down a wrong rabbit hole with trying to make this a dialectal pronunciation of some common phrase - I listen to these blokes every day, and this is the only term that has thrown me after several years of listening. It's not a pronunciation peculiarity. Rather, my gut instinct is telling me this is a new slang term that is yet unknown to us, but is common among young Brits. Leasnam (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, a dialectal pronunciation of some common phrase that has an additional connotation or become a meme. Ask around though. If it is moderately common among young Brits one will afford an answer. Fay Freak (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, which is not a lot, I would have no idea what he said or meant there at 0:27 by "go-ed". I don't detect any Yorkshire influence in his accent as someone suggested. To my ear he has a southern or south-eastern England accent with a faint trace of some kind of black/Caribbean influence, e.g. when he says "yeah man", possibly deliberate/affected, I don't know. Mihia (talk)

I agree, it’s not Yorkshire, most likely London (oops, just realised we’re both talking about the Norwich YouTuber, the other youth is indeed probably from South Yorkshire). I don’t have a scooby about ‘go-ed’ though. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The closed captioning – which is too ɡʊːɪd to be auto-generated – renders it as "good", which gives a semantically good fit (“if the historian is good I'm not going to skip his ad if he has one”).  --Lambiam 08:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I also checked the CC, which reads 'good', as I believe it did also with Beesley, as a type of nearest approximation (I don't know who actually enters the text, if it's the YouTuber or someone else working for YouTube) but I don't find CC to be necessarily accurate all of the time. I've encountered a lot of discrepancies with it. Leasnam (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The only YouTube captions I can get on this video are labelled "auto-generated". I haven't checked much of it, but just before the 0:27 moment there is "i enjoyed the owl on ones" for "I enjoyed the hour-long ones" which does not seem like an error that a human would make (a bit of an 'owler in fact, ha-ha). Even so, I also noticed that the 0:27 word is captioned as "good", which is slightly surprising as it is nothing like any pronunciation of "good" that I have ever heard. Perhaps even so it is the nearest match. Mihia (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay - I've found the Beesley (the Yorkshire guy) clip here: [[14]]. If you start at 2:42 you'll hear him say "McDonald's fries are 'go-ed', absolutely 'go-wed'"...(?--or is it 'go-ward' he's saying perhaps ?). He then says it again at 3:03 ("McDonald's fries are absolutely 'go-wed'"), and again at 4:13 ("Maybe your fries aren't as 'go-wed' as ours."), and again at 4:54 ("Wow, somehow I'm going to have to get some American chips. And I need to test this, 'cuz UK chips are 'go-wed', man. I need to test the American ones."), and again at 6:10 ("Again, McDonald's Coke, 'go-wed'."). Leasnam (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Checking the CC on Beesley above, I was actually mistaken when I said they transcribe it as "good"...they don't, they simply leave out the word entirely as though they couldn't comprehend it either. However, I did check on one other, the one at 4:54, and they transcribe it as "goated" :| Leasnam (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I also want to point out this is not the way he pronounces the word 'good'. I've heard him say 'good' many times and it's clearly the word 'good'. You can hear him say 'good' at 2:58, where he says "good idea" Leasnam (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I think this mystery word is goated (GOAT (“Greatest of All Time”) + -ed). I am from southern Wales and have never personally encountered this, but some googling confirms that goated exists as a (informal) way of saying something is of exceptional quality, and this fits the contexts you have cited quite well. At GOAT the usage as "Greatest of All Time" is labelled as US, but I have seen that GOAT is becoming more common among younger speakers in England, which certainly fits the speakers in these videos. ShellfaceTheStrange (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) The idea that it started with someone mispronouncing a word like good (whether inadvertently or intentionally for comic effect or emphasis) and other people in their milieu copying it (for comic effect or emphasis) seems like the simplest explanation to me, ETA although if TheStrange is right GOATed might also work if these speakers generally reduce other ts.
I've heard a couple YouTubers (e.g. Modest Pelican, who is Australian) say "/wæmɪn/ gamers", despite pronouncing women regularly in other phrases, which again seems like just a jocular mispronunciation spreading memetically. (Modest Pelican also uses some other uncommon slang, like /mə.læk.ə(ɹ)/ / Citations:malaka/Talk:malaka, and /lɛɹ.ɪ.kən/.) A few years ago, I both heard in speech and saw in writing a few British people using nip as an insult like idiot or knob, but no-one here had heard it; I don't know if that was a misrendering of nit or knob or something else (on the subject of obscure slang people are always coming up with). - -sche (discuss) 16:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Shellface is correct: the word is "goated". Mihia (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The only issue I have with it being 'GOATed' is that it just doesn't sound like the way a Brit would say 'GOATed' or 'goated'. It's clearly /ˈɡəʊ.(w)ɛd/ not /ˈɡəʊʔɪd/ - there's a clear 'w' glide in there and the 'ɛd' is very clearly enunciated. But all other things seem to point to 'GOATed' as being the best fit. It's possible that it began as /ˈɡəʊʔɪd/ and over time hearing the word second and third hand distanced the end-hearers from the true origin, as they likely picked it up in speech rather than in writing, and it morphed into /ˈɡəʊ.(w)ɛd/. I dunno (?) Leasnam (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

To my ear, once one is aware that the word could be "goated", it is fairly clear and within "normal" parameters. Unfortunately, this kind of excruciatingly slovenly pronunciation is now almost becoming the norm amongst British (especially English) people. Mihia (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I am convinced it's "GOATed" now; this is a (recent?) slang word I didn't know. Also agree that the /w/ instead of /ʔ/ is plausible. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for helping me figure this out ! Sense has been added to goated. Leasnam (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to add this particular pronunciation to the entry, since it's not intuitive. I suspect that the typical pronunciation, or at least the American one, would be /ɡoʊtəd/, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The kind of ear-hurting pronunciation heard in these videos is in no way limited to the word "goated" but is an increasingly sorry feature of British English speech generally, and could apply equally to "voted", "coated", "boated", etc. Mihia (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Nonetheless, it should be added to entries, at least in phonetic form. If it's a pronunciation that people use, it's helpful to know that, and helpful to know what dialects/accents it is a feature of. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Even if this is derived from G.O.A.T., this in turn is very likely a wordplay on good and goat (as symbol of evil incarnate) for a dramaturgical oxymoron. Everyone picked it up and self labeled as GOAT so that's where we are. I doubt it was organically grown.

It would have been my first guess here too, but I missed that the T would glottalize and thought it's from a spelling pronounciation although t shouldn't become voiced. So, kudos to theStranger, but between this and that I think GOATed maybe was hypercorrected from GOAT, maybe in jest. Either way it doesn't make too much sense as participle, so I could care less. ApisAzuli (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

geas

We list three senses: the "mystical obligation" sense from Irish mythology, "a mystical compulsion"—the cites for which do kinda seem to support something distinct from "an obligation"—and "a curse". Is "curse" really a distinct sense, or is it just saying that having a magical obligation placed on you is a curse? I doubt RFV would be productive, because someone will just supply citations like I've already supplied, which speak of "a curse or geas" or call putting a geas on someone "cursing" them, but my point is that these could still be sense 1, no? Is geas ever used for a curse that's not a mystical obligation? For example, there's a cite calling Cassandra's compulsion that she must prophesy a geas, but would anyone call the curse that other people don't believe her a geas (curse) on her? (I don't think so.) - -sche (discuss) 16:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Geas is a taboo, with further meanings relating to placing a magic spell or bond on someone enjoining or prohibiting something.That meaning is often plural: geasa a chur ar dhuine rud a dhéanamh. It can also just mean "a solemn injunction", moving away from the original spell-related sense. 81.152.118.2 21:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

суживаться/сузиться

Hi, the Wiktionary entry for these words says:

   IPA: [ˈsuʐɨvət͡sə]
   IPA: [ˈsʔuʐɨvət͡sə]
   IPA: [ˈsuzʲɪt͡sə]
   IPA: [ˈsʔuzʲɪt͡sə]

The pronunciations on Forvo do not show glottal stops after the /s/. Can anyone confirm the viability of the pronunciation with a glottal stop?86.141.199.175 20:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Both pronunciations exist, I personally have used and heard both. Thadh (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

+. Fay Freak (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

High hamza

For Malay terms in Jawi spelling, we are used to use superscript tag over normal hamza ^ء to represent high hamza. Now, Unicode 14.0 is added more information in their chart: "0674 ARABIC LETTER HIGH HAMZA • Kazakh, Jawi • forms digraphs", that we have to use U+0674 as real high hamza instead of we currently used. (Malay terms do not use normal hamza.) I hope your guys ignore what your system font presents and help to replace it everywhere to the end. (BabelMap will help you select the right character.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a bot job to me. It is not immediately clear to me how this high hamza is to be used; current با^ءيق should become what? باٴيق?  --Lambiam 16:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I had to dump the Unicode sequence to understand what you meant. On the Mac I am using now, using Firefox, your example باٴيق renders the same as بأيق (where I typed U+0623 Alef with hamza above in place of your U+0627 Alef, U+0674 High hamza). If I cut and paste into a Terminal window, your example gives a separated high hamza. If I cut and paste into an emacs window the high hamza becomes invisible. In the TextEdit application and in Safari, alef followed by high hamza renders almost the same as alef with hamza above, except the hamza is shifted left by about the width of the vertical stroke of the alef. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I simply meant to ask what باءيق should become. This is obviously not obvious. I suggest that we do not cavalierly “ignore what your system font presents” but wait till we know (a) how the change should look in Unicode, (b) how it should like in a browser, and (c) it actually does look like that in commonly used browsers.  --Lambiam 16:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

With Segoe UI & Noto (any) Arabic fonts, the high hamza is just put next to the letter, so how the appearance we see is the particular font issue. You will see this باٴيق (I put the fonts on it). In the logic of data storing/mining, it should use the right character (for right binary value) rather than how it looks. In other words, the HTML tag is not a part of the data. The U+0674 ARABIC LETTER HIGH HAMZA is the normal letter per Unicode's general category; it is not a [diacritical] mark like U+0654 ARABIC HAMZA ABOVE. The أ U+0623 ARABIC LETTER ALEF WITH HAMZA ABOVE is equal to the sequence U+0627 U+0654 but not equal to the sequence U+0627 U+0674. In Malay, we use the ک U+06A9 ARABIC LETTER KEHEH contrary to the normal ك U+0643 ARABIC LETTER KAF. Why don't we apply the high hamza either? --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

How it should look: “It is also important to remember the high hamza takes up horizontal space.” “the user should also add a high hamza () in front of the whole character string, at the same time, all the forms are the same as U+0649 (ى). This is the reason why we need to encode a spacing high hamza ().”

Some Far East discussion. They didn’t know that in Arabic and Ottoman manuscript one also put a hamza on yāʾ, which then had the two dots below it; currently not encodable, only undotted yāʾ with hamza above is encodable]. Now there is a problematic canonical decomposition of undotted yāʾ with hamza above to dotted yāʾ with combining hamza above instead of alif maqṣūra with combining hamza above. So you really see the sign encoded here should be “just put next to the letter” and does not look wrong like that, the Unicode overlords willed it so, and it was always for this and not something different. Fay Freak (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

-ара

Hello. I noticed there are no etymology page for Russian suffix ending -ара. Because it's pretty productive suffix: волчара, бычара, зайчара, слоняра, рыбяра, лосяра etc. almost all of them are from roots of animals. Though there are few exceptions: лошара(from лох), очередняра, сучара. I didn't find it in old dictionaries so i guess it's recent thing. Any ideas about etymology? — This unsigned comment was added by Kutkar (talk • contribs) at 14:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC).

fetch-and-carry

The term fetch-and-carry is a noun derived from the verb fetch and carry. Is the noun a gerund, or is a word only considered a gerund if it is formed from a verb by the addition of the suffix -ing? — SGconlaw (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Only an -ing-form can be a gerund in English. DCDuring (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

cop - slang or informal

We show cop (“police officer”) as being slang, but is it really slang or is it just informal ? At least here in the US, everyone knows and uses the word cop, so it's not associated with any particular group or subset of people. Here it's just a synonym for the more formal term 'police officer' right ? I would say it began as slang (shortened from copper), but it has elevated itself over time and is now almost a standard term. Thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You'd never see a job advertisement recruiting "cops". Equinox ◑ 14:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. See here [[15]], [[16]], [[17]]. Sure, one may look like an acronym (COPS or C.O.P.S.), but nowhere could I find out what it stood for. Also, this one is hard to spot on the page, but it's under 'Street Cop Training' (best to do a Search/Find) [[18]]. Lastly [[19]] uses 'cop' in a way incongruent with what we think of as slang. It's a synonym of 'police officer' and used in an intelligent manner. Leasnam (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I did a little digging and found that our word cop may be in part derived from Constable On Patrol, or at least the acronym COP may be derived from that. In any event, we would need to reconcile FIRE for a firefighter as being an acronym too, but I'd say disregard that particular link. It really doesn't matter all that much, just because it's not used in formal job postings and requisitions doesn't make it slang. Leasnam (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cop is less respectful, but I wouldn't call it slang. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

According to our Appendix definition slang is particular to a group, and this word isn’t, so it is not slang. Though it perhaps once was. Fay Freak (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not [[slang]], because it's not "outside of conventional usage", "unique to a particular profession or subject" or "specialized [to] a social group", it's found across the board. Even police use it—yes, even in recruitment, the Phoenix PD's recruitment phone number is 534-COPS. Here's a Philadelphia police captain talking about a "cops vs kids" sports game, the NYPD talking about one, and a Rhode Island PD; here's North Yorkshire (UK) police talking about "cops vs kids" esports. It's less formal, but news media use it, from Fox to PBS to the NYT (Miami Herald, etc), and academic journals of sociology ("consequences if officers reported another cop's misconduct"), law, mathematics, etc. (These books even suggest the situation is a little more complex than police officer being more respectful, although that's the gist for most people.) Perhaps usage notes would allow for more explanation than a label? - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It must have been slang at least originally. (Hotten's 1873 slang dictionary led me to create copt the other day!) Perhaps it has become "normalised". How do we use our lb gloss template to show change in gloss over time? Equinox ◑ 20:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree it was definitely slang at one time. For the time being, until we resolve a Usage note, I'll correct the labelling. Leasnam (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Originally a slang term, but now in general use, including by journalists and police. Terms like police officer are generally considered more respectful." ? Ngrams has "cop" / "cops" overtaking "police officer(s)" in commonness about twenty years ago. - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That seems like an appropriate usage note. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If a clipping of copper, it definitely began its monosyllabic life as a slang term. Derivation from Constable On Patrol quacks and waddles like a backronym.  --Lambiam 10:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

pussy “slang”

But @Equinox, one reads a lot of advertisements offering and seeking pussies. Following your reasoning, pussy is not slang. And you have to have a reasoning, as if we use a label this widely then it has a definable meaning. If you can’t tell why it is slang then you disappoint us much. As I have checked, none of the definitions in slang apply, in agreement with our appendix definitions. Either the label or our definitions of it are pork pies.

My reasonable guess is that you are old. Why are twat and quim labelled slang while fanny and cunt are not? It must be just a deference for the ages of the latter words. As they are about equally well understood. Slang can’t be just your gut-feel like the apperception of a twang but has to be put into terms, and for this basic a body part there needs has developed a ladder, with a middle ground between sought obscure terms and technical terms: what is the go-to term, if overly medical and overly vulgar terminology is avoided? If you ask me it is first choice in relaxed speech on the internet. It must have become so because a dichotomy between slangs’ rarities and complicated circumscriptions is unstable. The breakthrough of the term into non-slang has been occasioned by the new medial configuration.

What are you even telling the reader with the label? I also reckoned the labels noisy more than helpful. This is only confirmed by the definition being disputed. Notably equivalents in other languages have not been labelled so. You would probably mark German Möse, Russian манда́ (mandá) and Arabic كُس (kus) with the same label but the foreign-language editors found no use for it. This is also an indication that the slang label was only an unfounded feeling, as people look more distanced at things when they deal with multiple languages. Fay Freak (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, German Muschi is labelled 'slang'. –Austronesier (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I was aware. Surely it took over the label from the English entry by analogy. That’s what editors do. ☺️ However the label for Russian ки́ска (kíska) is appropriate, it having been invented in the internet age as an oblique mode of reference and still being rare. So you see that as we label Russian ки́ска (kíska) as slang and English pussy as slang their great usage difference is blurred. Fay Freak (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Remove it then in the German lemma? The term seems to be old (but really as old as is claimed here[20]?): here is a 1965 source for my own local dialect[21]. –Austronesier

I already told you why it was slang. If you can't read, then multiple paragraphs of puffery make no difference. Equinox ◑ 18:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

transpire 'proscribed by whom' in the sense of 'happen'?

New here. I was reverted; talk page referred me here. Usage in question notoriously proscribed by some. This will suffice for now:

• 'The notorious misuse of this word consists in making it mean happen or turn out or go on […] [It is a] wrong meaning […]' – Fowler. Usage. 2nd ed., s.v.

• '[L]anguage critics have condemned it for more than one hundred years as both pretentious and unconnected to the word's original meaning […]' – The Free Dictionary, s.v.

  The actual source is American Heritage Dictionary whose panel of old men is often behind the curve. DCDuring (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• 'It is often maintained that transpire should not be used to mean happen or occur, as in the event transpired late in the evening, and that the word is properly used to mean become known, as in it transpired later that the thief had been caught. The word is, however, widely used in the former sense, esp in spoken English' – Collins English Dictionary, s.v.

• 'This loose sense […] is often criticized as jargon, an unnecessarily long word used where occur or happen would do just as well' – Lexico, s.v.

Contribber (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The sources are interesting, although (as much as I love Fowler) I wouldn't place too much stock in century-old guidebooks that were based more on someone's opinion than on actually studying the usage even of the time. I do think it might merit a usage note (we have a standard way to add a "usage notes" section on entries here). However, you'd probably be hard pushed to find any authority today that would see this as a serious error (even your Collins link says "still regarded by some as a loose usage", suggesting that the criticism is on the way out). Equinox ◑ 01:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

nah, I gathered some quick examples and meant F. only as illustration. Every other dictionary makes some mention of this. The stress is on 'sometimes'. Contribber (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary does not have to mirror what other dictionaries out there are saying – actual usage is always more important. I second Equinox, maybe we should add a usage notes section, but labelling it as "sometimes proscribed" is counterintuitive IMO. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

So 'counterintuitive in your opinion'. But more is needed in the way of counterargument if it shouldn't be reinserted on the basis roughly outlined. It's not true that it is not sometimes proscribed; so the argument must address why such a conditional proscription itself wouldn't be as significant as is apparent from citations I much could multiply.

It clearly wasn't argued or implied dictionaries should be 'mirrored', I'm sorry; the significance of sources was indicated. Nor could any of this entail not documenting actual usage. I then have to remind that you reverted the edit asking 'By whom?', indicating ignorance to begin with. And while the question is getting answered, the goalposts are for some reason moved.

Both here haven't been on-point or concrete enough.

The essence: A sufficient number regard the usage as ultimately 'affected' or 'dubious', as reflected in contemporary style guides, dictionaries and other sources. Thus not merely 'loose'. This is just a fact to be recognised. The reader has now the advantage of being educated. The advantage consists, among several things, in the possibility of the informed choice: Shall I venture this use to the specific audience now before me, knowing whom it could distract? A basic dictionary matter.

So I added a usage note. Absent any sourced or adequate non-speculative reasons against, I think I'll add back 'sometimes proscribed'. It's true and unambiguous. Contribber (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That usage note is so editorialized (and your absolute loathing of that sense shines through just from it) that I wouldn't be surprised if other people would change it the first moment they see it. Indeed, there's been an edit war on that very entry now. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 08:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Now (10:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)) it leans the other way; I can’t help reading “some critics” as meaning “some schoolmarmy prescriptionist pedants”.  --Lambiam 10:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You're entirely mistaken about my personal attitude to it, because I don't care about it directly. I'm primarily interested in the stylistic usage questions for other reasons. Besides, it's not 'editoralised' at all. What specifically makes you claim that? Maybe your own feelings are shining through. Objectively, though, I think it should indicate there is also more weight to the opinion of the critics than is implied presently. The question seems still a matter of dispute, and many contemporary style guides even unconditionally proscribe it. Contribber (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

To quote from Garner's Modern American Usage (2009):

"transpire. The traditionally correct meaning of this word is "to pass through a surface; come to light; become known by degrees." But that sense is now beyond redemption, though writers should be aware of it. Today, of course, the popular use of transpire is as a FORMAL WORD equivalent to happen, occur, or take place. But when used in that way, transpire is a mere pomposity displacing an everyday word […]

"Another loose usage occurs […] when transpire is used for pass or elapse […]

"All in all, transpire fits the definition of a SKUNKED TERM: careful writers should avoid it altogether simply to avoid distracting any readers, whether traditionalists (who dislike the modern usage) or others (who may not understand the traditional usage.

"LANGUAGE CHANGE INDEX

transpire for happen or occur: Stage 4 ["Ubiquitous but […] ")"

And this purports only to reflect US usage, not UK, Canada, India, ANZ, etc.

I don't think we have sufficient interest in developing and maintaining fact-based usage notes that do not violate copyright. In any event our primary mission is to help normal users to understand how terms are being and have been used, not to help "careful writers" in nuanced word selection. We don't even have the ability to reliably determine the relative frequency of use of words in the various definitions we provide. DCDuring (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Though not necessarily only, I primarily meant such ad-hoc style guides (and admonitions in general) as people are required to follow in real life, like in work, officially, in newspapers, by copy editors, in journals, etc., where this is often practically encountered. The Economist and the US Department of Defense are prominent examples surfacing at once in search engines. You'll find a lot of such examples.

Usage reference works of the general kind like Garner, if they don't circumspectly avoid the subject, mostly uncommittedly advise 'care', exceptions being Modern Fowler, which in effect really recommends against it, and conversely Webster, saying it has become idiomatic (not without justification, in my opinion), with Cambridge and a couple of others then just adopting or quoting Webster.

Maybe the usage note is sufficient; I've become more willing to consider it for reasons of simplicity, but am still not really convinced. (I'm not going to headbutt a consensus but appreciate the discussion.) It seems conspicuous that there isn't at least some slight caveat. Unquestionably, many avoid the phrase as an informed choice. Responses then often ascribe this to a mere 'dislike', which is unfair and silly, and base their understanding of validity on mere prevalence; in this way it will probably remain a point of contention indefinitely.

So you have the case where a certain usage is frequently both observed and avoided, making it difficult to argue, 'Used five million times, therefore OK', as at the same time it might have been avoided just as frequently, which there would be no way to prove.

Maybe there's a more adequate term than 'sometimes proscribed'. Any ideas? Contribber (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

“Sometimes fulminated against”?  --Lambiam 23:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Regretfully, Fowler often fails to stem the tide, but hopefully the Usage Note essays for other (in some cases ex-)skunked-word formulations he has fulminated against [I love these phrases] may help in writing one here.--Enginear 22:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If a verb takes the genitive case, is it transitive?

I came across the page ieškoti which claims that the verb is transitive. The verb has to be used with the genitive of the noun phrase rather than the accusative, e.g. "he is looking for his dog" would be "ieško savo šuns" and not *"ieško savo šunį", where šuns is the genitive form of šuo. (It can also take the infinitive of a verb, e.g. "ieškau pirkti..." - "I'm looking to buy".) For the purpose of Wiktionary, does "transitive" just mean that it takes any object, or does it have to be a direct accusative object? Is there a good way to indicate this information in the entry? 70.175.192.217 08:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

For languages like English and French with helper prepositions we have {{indtr}}. In the absence of advice from Lithuanian editors I suggest {{lb|lt|transitive|with|genitive}}. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done 70.175.192.217 23:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Fun. This week a grammar guru blogged that not all transitive verbs are equally transitive. In my view transitive verbs are also those that can only be construed with prepositions, because transitive is property of semantic relatability. But yes, grammars aren’t explicit about this question. Fay Freak (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

nabe#English is also short for nabemono#English

"Nabe" should also appear in English as a short form for "nabemono#English" --37.11.122.76 15:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

¿? --37.11.122.76 14:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Talaing: Obsolete?

@RichardW57 I was recently a witness to the discussion of Talaing, which appears to be an English language equivalent of an offensive term. Per my understanding of 'obsolete', as used in the Wiktionary context, that's just not the right word here since I've got like four or five quotations from the 20th and 21st century where the term is used, and I don't think those are oddities because we have about four English dictionaries listed in 'Further reading' that bring up the term. To me, a word like Xensi is an 'obsolete' term because it is literally just not used at all, and hasn't been for a century or more. I bring this here rather than making the change to the page myself because the term seems contentious and also I have little grasp of Mon or Burma culture. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC) (modified)

@Geographyinitiative: It's the English descendant of an allegedly offensive term. It came into English as an ordinary ethnonym, and I don't believe there's anything offensive about the Thai cognate either, at least not beyond the automatic implication of not being British / not being Thai, and therefore being of a lesser breed. There does seem to be much more recent usage of the English word than I had expected, and I will not oppose the removal of the tag 'obsolete'. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Per this discussion I preliminarily removed "lb|en|obsolete"; it may need to be replaced with a more appropriate qualifier. Appendix:Glossary#obsolete currently says: "No longer in use, and (of a term) no longer likely to be understood. Obsolete is a stronger term than archaic, and a much stronger term than dated." I want to emphasize that Wiktionary includes offensive terms and they need appropriate documentation and qualification. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

scapegoat (verb)

1. To punish someone for the error or errors of someone else; to make a scapegoat of.
2. To blame something for the problems of a given society without evidence to back up the claim.

These senses are similar enough to merge, right? Ultimateria (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

And leave out the allusion to a putative absence of evidence.  --Lambiam 10:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've merged them, but I think we should also remove "errors" in the definition. You can be the scapegoat for e.g. a natural disaster or failing crops. I can't figure out how to word it though. Collins has "blame ... for something bad that has happened". Ultimateria (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I've expanded the definition and usex to cover natural disasters. This could still be improved (shortened). - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply tool for everyone

Hello, all. I have good news about the mw:Talk pages project.

The Reply tool puts the [reply] button on talk pages. Next week, everyone will have the Reply tool turned on. You will be able to turn it off in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. You can read more about it at mw:Help:DiscussionTools.

You can try it out now by turning on "Discussion tools" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. (That will add some other features, too. Only the Reply tool will be turned on for everyone. The other Discussion tools are still being tested.)

Please let me know if you have any questions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This is  Done! Please let me know if you run into any problems. There is some technical information at mw:Help:DiscussionTools/Why can't I reply to this comment? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): For future reference, you're posting this on the wrong forum. General news goes in WT:BP. If you added this comment based on a list somewhere, please update it; if you added this comment manually, please read forum descriptions before posting. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I usually look for the place that I posted in most recently, which isn't always the right one.

BTW, this was  Done this morning. I hope that it works out. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

reactor scram

Is this not sum of parts? See scram, noun sense regarding reactors. And are the three senses truly distinct? Equinox ◑ 23:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Was mono ever the word for monk in Spanish?

I wonder if this is just a false memory, because even rae.es doesnt have it, but .... I remember our teacher in high school Spanish pointing out that mono was the Spanish word for monk, after we had already learned that it was the word for monkey, and saying something like, "that makes sense, right?" And I'd always assumed that words like monastery were just transparently derived from the mono word in Spanish and in other Romance languages. But it seems it's not so. I know my old paper Spanish dictionary (which I no longer have) was old-fashioned even when it was first published, and included some localisms like ñaño~ñaña, which I swore by because I'd actually heard them growing up even in America. That's why I'm not entirely convinced I was wrong .... but still, the word for monk is less likely to have a colloquialism than a word for brother or sister. Does anyone else here think there's a chance I am pulling on some extremely old alternate usage that may have somehow made it into the dictionary but which even rae.es no longer includes? Thanks, —Soap— 18:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I've never heard it. The Real Academia usually errs on the side of including obsolete/archaic terms... The association could come from English monk-monkey or even different senses of capuchin. Ultimateria (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Soap: Or perhaps an imagined similar-sounding cognate of French moine [mwan].--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 04:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Was your teacher a native Spanish speaker? Roger the Rodger (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I dont know .... because to be honest, if Im remembering the lesson this badly, Im not sure I trust myself to remember which teacher it was either. I had quite a few of them over the years. Im pretty sure this is just a false memory, since for this to be real it'd have to either be an irregular shortening of the longer word or a direct reborrowing from Greek μόνος .... which, from what I can tell, never means monk even in religious contexts. —Soap— 22:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

tsesarevich

For this word Wiktionary says "Alternative spelling of tsarevich"; but Wikipedia says "not to be confused with Tsarevich"; "Usage: It is often confused with "tsarevich", which is a distinct word with a different meaning ..."
Milkunderwood (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link title term; also, at tsarevich, "tsesarevich" is similarly given as an alternative form, which per Wikipedia is wrong. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about Russian or Russian history, so I can't say much about the issue at hand, but I will point out that these terms are from Russian царевич (carevič) and цесаревич (cesarevič), which are derived from царь (carʹ) and цесарь (cesarʹ), respectively. Etymologically, the components of these words all go back to the same ancestral forms, so, in a sense, these could be described as alternative spellings of the same word. In fact, it looks to me like Peter the Great took a minor variant and made a separate word out of it so he could define it the way he wanted to. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know any Russian at all, and am not familiar with Wiktionary's policies on questions like this -- just pointing out the disagreement here with the distinction made at Wikipedia between the two words (or forms of the word). I guess if the distinction stands up to scrutiny, personally I would not describe them as being simply "alternative spellings", since they have different meanings -- regardless of whether Peter may have coined a new word. An "alternative spelling" assumes the meanings remain identical. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• They are romanizations of two different Russian words, which have different articles (Царевич and Цесаревич) on the Russian Wikipedia. The latter article states that it is unfortunate that both terms are often rendered as tsarevich in Western European languages; the historical uses and senses are different.  --Lambiam 08:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad you verified this. Can you make corrections to both entries then? I'm just a bystander here. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done.  --Lambiam 12:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent explanation - thanks very much for your help. Looking back at tsarevich, I now notice what seems to be a related problem, where it gives three different sets of translations, for 1) a son of a tsar, a prince; 2) the firstborn son of a tsar; and 3) the crown prince. These distinctions are more or less the same as what you just explained, but the three sets of translations are identical, other than excluding one or another language. My impression is that the latter two translation sets should be removed - or at least one of them; normally the firstborn [living] son would be the crown prince, so this seems like a distinction without a difference. In any event, with perhaps two exceptions, these are all simply respellings from the Russian rather than real translations. Is it useful to have any of these at all for such an obscure and obsolete term? Milkunderwood (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I try to avoid dealing with translations, unless the target language is one I'm familiar with. The way the translation tables are handled now is not robust; they are too sensitive to changes in the definitions, which will often throw them out of sync. But tsarevich used in the sense of цесаревич is hardly an obscure and obsolete term; it is commonly found in contemporary sources (novels, films, works of history) that deal with the Russian Empire. I cannot guess, though, whether a Japanese translator would mimic the English abuse of term by using ツァレーヴィチ, or rather choose to use the historically more accurate ツェサレーヴィチ.  --Lambiam 23:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That's my point -- the three separate sets are identical. I'll remove the 2nd and 3rd sets, and see if anyone wants to put them back. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"you yoho"

===Etymology 2===
Corruption of {{m|en|yahoo}}.

====Noun====
{{en-noun}}

# {{lb|en|rare|slang|derogatory}} {{synonym of|en|yahoo}}; [[yokel]], [[lout]]

(above is the entry I drafted)

In this clip from a now infamous Michigan court case, from May 2021, which has now gained a bit of media attention and has become somewhat of an Internet meme, the judge calls the man with the vulgar username a "yoho". I could have absolutely sworn this was common slang in English (pretty sure I've heard it before!) and expected to find it here on Wiktionary. Unfortunately it wasn't, and when I look in Google Books etc., there appears to be very little if any usage of the term outside of news sources referencing to this court case. I find this extremely strange, and maybe I'm suffering from the Mandela effect, and what I was remembering maybe was just yahoo. I believe the judge's chosen word here was at least a corruption of the word yahoo. Can anyone else find valid attestation for this, after I've tried and failed?

Yoho is also the name of a British Columbia national park, a lake in New Brunswick, and a town in Hong Kong, and from digging through Books I believe it may even be a name given to an Indian tribe or something (you'll find what I'm talking about when you search "yohos"). So while those probably also need definitions here at Yoho, be mindful of those if searching for this slang word. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

नौ, "boat"

In the Ṛgveda verse 2.39.4 there is nāvéva (first word of the verse) = nāvā́ + इव (iva), "like two boats". This is about the only attestation of the form nāvā́ as the nominative/accusative dual, I think. The -ā ending for nom./acc./voc. dual also matches the regular declension pattern in the older Sanskrit of the most archaic part of the Vedas.

So is there a way to add this form nāvā́ to the declension table currently at the page नौ (nau)? I tried using the {{sa-decl-noun-f}} but the underlying module currently can't recognize the stem. The page now uses a workaround with {{sa-decl}} with manually populated cells, but that template can't seem to take multiple forms for a single cell (and lacks support for accents, I think). --Frigoris (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I did find a partial workaround. --Frigoris (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Swedish word ris

Currently the gender information is not given. I think it should be neuter but I'm only a learner so I'll leave the editing to more versed people. --Betty (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Judging from uses, the word appears to be neuter in all three senses: [22], [23], [24].  --Lambiam 14:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed neuter in all senses (see also "ris" at svenska.se). I've edited the entry accordingly. Voltaigne (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

the definition of ‘yclept’

I have an old Merriam Webster Dictionary that gives the definition of ‘clept’ or ‘cleped’ as to speak, call, ring or knock. The past participle still in use, an adj. that means called, as in named. Would it be possible to

show the early usage as the participle form as having shades of to ring or to knock? I don’t use the OED anymore, the scholars’ version for extensive etymology. It would seem ‘yclept’ could be aptly archaic and retain 

The meanings of named, called, rung and knocked. What do you think? — This unsigned comment was added by 108.193.234.177 (talk) at 20:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC).

I think we should stick with the current etymology. It is basically an alternative spelling of Middle English ycleped, a past participle of the verb clepen (to speak, to cry). I’d need to see evidence for a sense “to knock”, which might suggest cognacy with Old Dutch *cloppōn, Old High German clophōn.  --Lambiam 12:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Doogler

A Googler with a pet; most likely a blend of dog (a type of pet) + Googler (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDd5w3kmhHM&t=80s). Can it be added as another entry in the dictionary? Because Idk how to make Wiktionary entries myself. 207.81.187.41 21:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless it is used outside of Google marketing videos, no it cannot be added. DTLHS (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

We do have Noogler, Xoogler, Gaygler, but I'm not sure this one has really "made it" yet. Equinox ◑ 03:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

ask for someone's hand in marriage

I've just created this, but I have several questions:

• Should it be moved to someone's hand in marriage or even hand in marriage? I think it would be much clearer not to split the phrase, but ask for isn't the only verb in use (I've seen a few hits with beg).
• Who is the person who is actually asked?
  • Is it the family/father of the person that one would like to marry? That's what other dictionaries seem to be saying, by speaking of a "permission" (Macmillan, Longman, Farlex), and I can indeed find hits for "ask her father for her hand in marriage". If that's the case, our current gloss for sense 2 of propose seems inaccurate to me: as far as I'm aware, when you propose to someone, it's the person you want to marry you're proposing to, not their father/family (you're "asking them if they want to become your spouse", in other words).
  • Is it the person that one would like to marry? I can find hits for "He asked me for my hand in marriage". The expression would then be a synonym of propose marriage to someone (“to ask someone if they want to become one's spouse”), and the entry should be moved to ask someone for their hand in marriage.
  • In light of the quotes above, it seems it can mean both, so we should probably have two different entries: one for ask for someone's hand in marriage, another for ask someone for their hand in marriage.

In any case, regardless of what this expression means, I don't think we should use it to gloss propose to someone, as we currently do: aside from its ambiguity, I find the expression grammatically baffling. We should go for something simpler and unambiguous, such as "to ask someone if they want to become one's spouse", "to ask someone to get married to you" (Macmillan), or something like that.

(By the way, the same ambiguity applies to demander en mariage, imo, and I will have to look into it.)

PUC – 12:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Too long. You can simply ask for her hand. I think a definition at hand is sufficient, or the existing usage note there. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  What is too long? The entry title, or my post? If you read it you might learn something. PUC – 12:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  The entry title. One can also seek her hand. The symbolic hand is all that matters. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry for my caustic reply. Mh... It wouldn't be desirable to create entries for all the possible collocations, but the entry for hand seems lacking to me, especially as we currently don't even have a sense for this - only the usage note you've pointed me to. Also, I think having a separate entry would be more convenient for gathering translations into other languages. And as I said, I find the turn "ask for someone's hand in marriage" a bit baffling from a grammatical standpoint (we don't say this in French, we only say demander la main de quelqu’un or demander quelqu’un en mariage). PUC – 13:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Usage examples under the appropriate sense of hand#Noun would seem a good way to include these. The same approach would apply to many other SoP expressions. DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  @DCDuring: Though I currently don't see an appropriate sense at hand, if someone adds it I could live with all the relevant information being moved/added there and with seeing the entry I've created being RFD'ed. But aside from that, what's your take on the rest of my initial post? Do you agree that the quotations I've linked to point to two different senses ("ask someone for the permission to marry someone else" vs. "ask someone if they want to marry one"), and that in light of this ambiguity it would be a good idea to change the gloss at propose? PUC – 06:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure. It is clear whose hand it has been traditionally: a prospective female spouse. The identity of the person being asked is the same as the person who owns the hand. In days of yore, especially for a young woman, it would be a male head of the family. More recently, the owner is the person whose nervous system (typically) controls the (literal) hand, still typically, but not necessarily, female. If one takes a sufficiently general approach one can include everything under hand#Noun, but the definition is likely to be quite stilted, as in sentences 2-4 above.

  To avoid such stilted wording, I suppose that we could have meaningful entries at hand#Noun, ask for someone's hand, and ask someone for their hand. I think including in marriage in the headwords makes the expression too close to transparent (ie, SoP), though perhaps we could have them as redirects to the corresponding entries. I would also use the word "typical(ly)" if words like "father", "female", and "young" are used in the definition to allow for all the other possibilities without making the definition too abstract or cumbersome.

  I don't think OneLook dictionaries have entries for the longer expressions. MWOnline has a definition (one of nearly 30 at hand):

  "a pledge especially of betrothal or bestowal in marriage"

  He asked for her hand in marriage.

  That seems to me to handle it adequately, but others may not think so. We could redirect all of these proposed multi-word headwords to the appropriate sense of hand using {{senseid}}. HTH. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

decryptify, decryptification

We just define these as decryption, but they seem to be used only in reference to genetics, based on a Google Books search. Equinox ◑ 06:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

work or -work

e.g. metalwork has the etymology given as a compound, but has been manually added to the "suffixed with -work" category. And what about copperwork, bonework, goldwork and so on? Equinox ◑ 07:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not simply replace {{compound|en|metal|work}}  by  {{suffix|en|metal|work}}?  --Lambiam 17:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

By my faith!

Sense 4 of faith is defined as, “An obligation of loyalty or fidelity and the observance of such an obligation.” We see this sense in the first component of faithful and in the expressions good faith and bad faith. Does this sense survive to this day by itself, other than in these set phrases? If not, I think it should be marked obsolete or archaic.  --Lambiam 09:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

paternal aunt

We keep having edit wars with IPs because the wording is confusing:

1. the sister or sister-in-law of one's father

The most obvious "sister-in-law of one's father" is one's mother's sister- a maternal aunt. The legitimate one for this entry is one's father's brother's wife. We need to make the distinction clearer. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Turkish uses different terms for these two senses, so I recommend giving each their own definition:

1. A sister of someone’s father.
2. The wife of a sibling of someone’s father.

(Note the substitution of “someone’s” for “one’s”, as this is not reflexive, and the LGBTQI+-friendly use of “sibling” instead of “brother”.)  --Lambiam 17:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

twin (verb)

I just added two senses: (A) "(transitive) To be, or be like, a twin to (someone else); to match in some way." and (B) "(intransitive) To be, or be like, a pair of twins (for example, to dress identically)." B was an expansion of a sense which had been present, "(intransitive) To be paired or suited". B also seems to be just A with "each other" omitted; this means it technically is intransitive, but if someone wants to think of a way of combining them, that could work. But I have questions about the last sense in the section:

• (C) (intransitive, obsolete) To be born at the same birth.
  • c. 1605–1608, William Shakespeare, “The Life of Tymon of Athens”, [...], [Act I, scene iii]:

    Twinn'd brothers of one womb

Does C exist separate from B? I'm having a hard time telling, because the cite doesn't look like a intransitive verb in the first place, it looks transitive (or possibly adjectival). The definition (not the cite) seems like it's the same thing as B, the most literal way of being a pair of twins (unlike the now-common loose use for if you're just wearing the same outfit as someone). - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It appears to me that (C) is a use of the adjective twinned, seen here in a modern text, so perhaps not quite obsolete.  --Lambiam 13:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've folded C into B and moved the Shakespeare citation to twinned. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnny on the spot: not dated?

It has a dated label, I'm not sure I'd confer with this. I did notice Oxford dict also had the same label but I hear the phrase quite often — This unsigned comment was added by 72.160.59.93 (talk) at 02:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC).

I think we can only consult a broad base of opinion about whether something is "dated". The opinions of both the old and the young would have to be discounted: of the young because they often do not yet have sufficient breadth of exposure and humility; of the old because they often fail to notice that some of their expressions have fallen into disuse by younger speakers. DCDuring (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In this case it would be interesting to see whether the term is much used in media more frequented by the young. I suspect it is not. DCDuring (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

conservative estimate

Right now def 3 of conservative is "based on pessimistic assumptions" and gives "conservative estimate" as a usex, but this ought to be wrong - we can have a "conservative estimate" on the number of deaths caused by some event and that is not the worst case (on the high end), but rather on the low end. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 12:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. “A conservative estimate of the cost that would have been incurred”^[25] is an optimistic estimate. I think this sense is only used for expectations, such as estimates and predictions.^[26][27][28] The sense is basically the same as sense 1, “cautious”, applied to expectations, which is similar to “moderate”, “restrained”.  --Lambiam 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The usex of def 3 actually illustrates def 1 "cautious", i.e. only based on assumptions with a high level of certainty, and not including bold and less certain assumptions. "Based on pessimistic assumptions" is wrong, or rather only applies to positive predictions. Conservative estimates about the extent of global warming, inflation rates, mortality, etc. are less "pessimistic" than bolder claims that include controversial worst case scenarios. –Austronesier (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In argumentation, a "conservative" estimate is one that is claimed to be relatively favorable to the opposing point of view. I don't think that is in any of the definitions we have. Could that be the intent of definition 3? DCDuring (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

But this is again one of the nuances which is meant by "cautious". "Conservative" only means "cautious" (and similar things mentioned above) in connection with "estimate" and similar terms. We don't say 'Be conservative when you cross the street!' or 'Be conservative when talking to a mob that is willing to kill because of heated rhetoric!'. –Austronesier (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how "this is again one of the nuances which is meant by "cautious"", unless one is stretching the meaning of cautious a great deal.

Most words have somewhat different (sometimes very different, even opposing) meanings according to the words they used with or the situations/contexts in which they are used. I don't see the point of your comment for the matter under discussion. DCDuring (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The point: merge def 1 & 3, specify context (as done by Lexico, def 3 or MW, def 2b). –Austronesier (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, but I still don't see how def. 2 or any normal definition of cautious or moderate includes the use in argumentation. DCDuring (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, that discussion belongs in RfD or RfM. DCDuring (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Werkzeug

There is a fairly rare use of this word in the industry not for a tool in the common sense but for molds, models and other intermediary products that are worked to produce or vice-versa produced to work with? See for the Job definition of "Werkzeugmechaniker" at [example https://berufenet.arbeitsagentur.de/berufenet/faces/index?path=null/kurzbeschreibung&dkz=29051&such=Werkzeugmechaniker%2Fin BerufeNET], where it contrasts with Werkstück.

I fail to find a suitable translation, but I have not found a synonym in google to specify the search, though BerufeNET helpfully defines Vorrichtung.

This is well mirrored by tool in software, where you might use a tool to bring text into a legible form, but maybe use an application to view it, while there is no hard and fast distinction.

Is this covered by tool? ApisAzuli (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The definition given by BerufeNET is strangely specific and limited. The Duden defines the term as jemand, der Werkzeuge, Vorrichtungen, Lehren o. Ä. fertigt, montiert, überprüft, wartet und repariert (someone who manufactures, assembles, checks, maintains and repairs tools, devices, gauges, etc.). I doubt that the range is essentially different from that of jobs as a tool mechanic.^[29][30][31]  --Lambiam 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: That's just my point, it is oddly specific jargon on account of the contrast with Werkstück which is not available from the generic definition.

Two of the three links talk about repairing machinery, electrics, etc. The other one [bmwgroup.jobs] fits the bill but the background suggest a denglisch translation (not to say mistranslation) and rather supports my lacking a good translation.

The Duden definition may be economical in glossing over minor details, but if you want to go down that road you might as well call Werkzeug a Sum of Parts on account of the most general definitions under Werk and Zeug (“stuff”). However, the Werkzeugbauer I know reportedly needs to explain it usually.

The given contrast basicly implies that it's diametrical opposed (like negative in modeling) or orthogonal to the generic definition of tool where it concerns the end-user. Another point is that the tools of a handy man may also go as Rüstzeug according to de.WP and in my own experience.

That said, if the finished product could be another Werkzeug, for lack of a better word, it would be a paradox to me. Not sure how that's resolved in practice. ApisAzuli (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

If that is just your point, I have failed and still fail to understand it, something I must confess pertains to many of your contributions. I do not see a paradox. Tools are made using tools, and a machine shop can produce machines. One day self-replicating machines will be commonplace if humanity does not succeed in extinguishing itself before then. In English, the term tool can refer in a narrow sense to a piece of hardware equipment, such as a screwdriver or a wrench, but also more broadly, and not only in connection with software, to anything that is used as a means to achieve an aim. I think this holds equally for German Werkzeug: “Rumkowski war nur ein Werkzeug in den Händen der Henker”;^[32] “meine Werkzeuge sind meine Finger”.^[33] If an intermediary product itself is referred to as a Werkzeug (I’d need to see citations, something like “wir verwenden diese Gussform als Werkzeug, um die Stecker herzustellen”), then surely it is a use of the broad sense.  --Lambiam 09:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Coming rather late to this discussion. FWIW, it occurs to me that the sense of Werkzeug may well be conveyed by noun sense 5. of the English jig - a tool or form created expressly for use with another tool to create a replicable (reliable, reproducible) result in the final work material; somewhat akin to noun sense 1. of template. yoyo (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

snakey? serpenty?

Is there an English equivalent to the Spanish heraldry term gringolado? It means "containing snake heads" Roger the Rodger (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

snakeheaded ? ending in a snake's head ? Leasnam (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Normally, X-ed can mean “carrying Xes”, but I’d interpret snakeheaded as “having a head like that of a snake” (“the woman will give birth to a snakeheaded monster”^[34]). The escutcheon of Erec, one of the Knights of the Round Table, was said to have been charged with three snake heads.  --Lambiam 23:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Turanism

The wording in the definition seems needlessly loaded: “A pseudoscientific nationalist movement that proclaims ethnic and cultural unity for disparate people supposed to have a common ancestral origin in Central Asia, using the Iranian term Turan as the designation for this place.”

I know Turanism and the Turanian language family are BS but we can do better than rubbing it in our readers’ face like this. Also the information in the second half could be moved to the etymology. Thoughts? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That reflects a popularity bias in public discourse and Wikipedia. Pages like Pan-Slavism do not look like that.

The trueness of views of nations subsumed under common denominations to facts may of course highly vary, and they vary highly whether in whether they are ethical (just demands more than being blind to disparateness), ontological (actually positing certain relations in controversial manners) or methodological (thought experiments), or just memes, like ethical solipsism, metaphysical solipsism, methodological solipsism, and Stirnerposting on the internet.

So that confused wording was of course as bluepilled as can be, and everyone who took the Turanpill was not as bad a thinker as the one one needed to produce that definition.

I have rewritten it, well-known for being skilled in unloaded and uninflammatory phrasing. Fay Freak (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Pan-Slavism was a purely political movement, not relying on bogus tenets. In contrast, Turanists may hold that such disparate groups as the Finnish, Japanese and Turkish peoples are ethnically and linguistically related.  --Lambiam 10:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, because the people Turanists claim are ethnically and linguistically related are not generally accepted to be related, the use of supposed in the definition was appropriate (I restored it). (As for the other bolded words: the movement is known for pseudoscientific claims, but whether we actually need to spell that out in a dictionary definition, meh.) - -sche (discuss) 20:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No, because commonality does not imply relation. So you can lay emphasis on it even if it is of diverse causation. Like in universal grammar, I don’t if that is claimed to be caused by “relation” – relatedness is not even relevant at some point. Necessarily one finds some commonality and there is no point to deny it, so it is not completely “supposed” either. Fay Freak (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Image for "girdle"

Currently, this image is located at our entry for girdle, presumably for the sense "A belt or elasticated corset; especially, a belt, sash, or article of dress encircling the body usually at the waist, often used to support stockings or hosiery." Does anyone recgonize the object in the photo as a girdle? If so, I think we're missing a sense that refers to the lower garment featured in this photo, which is what I'm more familiar with. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Editor's Apprentice, the definition probably needs to be split, I think. This word can mean a belt (that may or may not be underwear), or a kind of underwear that doesn't necessarily look like a belt (as in the 2nd photo). --Frigoris (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has separate articles for Girdle (“a belt ... worn as part of Christian liturgical vestments, or in certain historical, literary or sports contexts”) and Girdle (undergarment) (“a form-fitting foundation garment ... worn often to shape or for support”). The object in the picture is neither, but it does fit the meaning of cognate German Gürtel, a not entirely true friend.  --Lambiam 13:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Based on y'all's responses and my own understanding I have modified the entry. Let me know if you have any feedback. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

interaction

If you click on the quotes you will find an audio box without any audio. You can find the audio by clicking on (archived from) "the original", but this is by no means clear. Is there any good way of indicating this, like a note? DonnanZ (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue with the interaction between the quotation collapser and {{audio}}. If you load the page with quotations displayed, the button appears normal. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I got it to work in the end, thanks. DonnanZ (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

hey all, is this a clipping of y'all

"All" in vocatives like "hey all, just a quick note..." is listed as a clipping of y'all. I think this is in error; I think it occurs even in dialects that don't use y'all, and I would not have thought it derived from y'all. It seems like an extension of the sense "everyone", and it can indeed be replaced by "everyone" ("hey everyone, just a quick note..."). Should it be merged into the sense "# Everyone." (because vocative use does not seem particularly "special" and many other words can be used vocatively, like "hey folks, just a quick note", "hey guys,...", "hey Wiktionary community,...", etc)? Or should it be kept as a separate "# Used as a vocative." sense (but dropping the claim that it's from y'all)? Or would anyone like to defend it really being a clipping of y'all? - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not from "y'all". (Is "hello all" from "wall"?) Equinox ◑ 20:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed it (moving the citation under the "everyone" sense). - -sche (discuss) 14:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Obsolete meanings of 氕

What exacted does 氕 read & mean in s:zh:重修吳季子廟記 and s:zh:命皇太子即位制, or are these errors? I also found s:ko:페이지:医學語彙(假題).djvu/7, where 氕 means 氣. Crowley666 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crowley666, If you see something suspicious in classical texts over at zh-wikisource, it's most likely an error (bad OCR, electronic text of questionable provenance, mass Hans->Hant transformation out of context, etc.). The case with the last link is much more convincing because at least we have a manuscript. --Frigoris (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Frigoris, yes, they were copied from ctext.org by Liangent-bot. I've fixed the first one. Anyway, 氕 is used as 氣 multiple times in 医學語彙(假題), but I can't find it elsewhere. I have to find a Chinese source to put it in the Chinese section. Crowley666 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crowley666, is that book a Sino-Korean glossary book? If so, you can definitely base any Chinese entry content on its Chinese part, if that meets the CFI. The reason you can't find it elsewhere is that the form is almost certainly a scribe's own hand. The CHISE somehow links the form to the Shuowen 氣 though, without explanation. --Frigoris (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

ayy s:ko:의학어휘 is my transcription project. 医學語彙 occasionally has Japanese glosses. Google web searches for some of the hanja terms (運傷寒, 二日瘧) return mostly Korean pages. The author is unknown. 氕 also appears in s:ja:日鮮日常會話. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

eupathy

Definition is pretty lame as right feeling. Meh Roger the Rodger (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

happy

This word also means "willing" right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - added. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)