Wiktionary:Tea room/2024/May

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

комунистички on Serbo-Croatian[edit]

Hello. I need a Serbo-Croatian meaning of "комунистички"! Frozen Bok (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

spaghetti[edit]

"Spaghetti" needs sense of "becoming nervous," very common in internet slang. Originally deriving from the infamous 4chan copypasta about a person buying Atelier Totori at GameStop, but becoming nervous and spaghetti falling out of their pockets. Perhaps also influenced by Eminem's "Lose Yourself" which has the line "mom's spaghetti." 73.151.120.25 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Ukrainian) гольф[edit]

I have a question about the declension for the Ukrainian word гольф - golf (uncountable) or an item of clothing (countable).

The declension table and reference of R:uk:SUM-11 shown on the existing Ukrainian entry shows the genItive for golf (uncountable) as гольфа.

However, Kyiv Dictionary - R:uk:Kyiv shows the genitive for golf (uncountable) as гольфу, and the genitive singular for that item of clothing (knee sock and possibly also a type of upperwear) as гольфа. GT and Ukrainian wikipedia pages also seem to consistently use гольфу as the genitive for golf (uncountable), i.e. м'яч для гольфу, etc.

Any suggestions? Would it be safe to start changing the page and various links to follow the KyivDic declensions? Thanks. DaveyLiverpool (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaveyLiverpool: Hi. Your findings are correct. (genitive, not genetive)
@Voltaigne: Hi Are you able to split the term into senses, change the declension for one and add the reference? I will do it myself when I have time, if you don't get around. Quite busy now. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Voltaigne (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, @Voltaigne and @Anatoli T.. I will sort out the main entry and links with the split senses today. I think I'll leave the clothing sense as "knee length sock" for now, and maybe somebody else will add any different meaning as appropriate. (And thanks for the genetive genitive correction - it's not the first time I've done that!) — This unsigned comment was added by DaveyLiverpool (talk • contribs).
I got there first but feel free to edit further if necessary. Voltaigne (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voltaigne, @DaveyLiverpool, @Benwing2: Hi and thanks, all. I think it's fair to add both genitive form го́льфу (hólʹfu) and го́льфа (hólʹfa) for the sport sense, since this is what most other dictionaries say.
A quick quote (even if it may sound illiterate):
Він без го́льфа не мо́же ні дня, ні годи́ни.
Vin bez hólʹfa ne móže ni dnja, ni hodýny.
He cannot (go) a day or an hour without golf.
I changed the following way:
{{uk-noun|гольф<sg.genu:a.loci>|adj=го́льфовий}}
{{uk-ndecl|гольф<sg.genu:a.loci>}}
Pls add a note if "го́льфа" is considered proscribed. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

be on someone's ass[edit]

I don't remember how we lemmatize this kind of expression. Do we usually include the verb? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Moved to on someone's ass. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Ioaxxere said in the edit summary, it depends on whether it can only be used with forms of be, or can also be used with other verbs. (This can apparently be used with other verbs.) BTW, you can also be up someone's ass in a similar sense: google books:"he's up my ass". - -sche (discuss) 20:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

crack up[edit]

Does anyone perceive this as "dated"? It does not seem at all dated to me here in the UK. Is it perhaps dated in the US? Or is it in fact that I am "dated" myself? Mihia (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems dated to me (US), though I am myself rather dated. DCDuring (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t seem dated to me, though I can’t speak for the US. As far as synonyms for madness are concerned, it does seem to me that doolally is a word that’s going out of fashion these days, though perhaps not enough to call it ‘dated’, and we already have a ‘dated’ tag for the longer form doolally tap. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a fair bet, then, that "dated" was added by an AmE speaker, and I have changed it to read "dated in US".
While we are looking at regional variations in "crack up", I was also a bit puzzled that I have never heard of the sense "To crash an aircraft or automobile". I would expect to know that if it exists in BrE. I see that Collins lists it as "US", so I have added that label to our entry. Mihia (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch gat[edit]

We have two entries for Dutch gat, both under the PoS Noun. The first has the basic meaning of “hole”, the second of “arsehole”. Is there a good reason to treat these as a pair of homonymous words, rather than one word with several senses? The second noun is assigned the gender “n or m”, but the entry on the Dutch Wiktionary gives only the neuter gender, irrespective of sense.  --Lambiam 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, Dutch Wiktionary does provide a reason, which is also that given by the WNT. Namely that plural and diminutive for "arsehole" are gatten, gatje, rather than gaten, gaatje. We should ping @Mnemosientje, @Lingo Bingo Dingo (who else?) and ask them how absolute this distinction is. I've definitely heard "gatje" in the relevant sense. 82.82.152.162 22:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then we have this plural and diminutive wrong.  --Lambiam 07:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reasonable time[edit]

Does having a Wikipedia legal article save this from being SoP? What else could it mean? Equinox ◑ 22:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: It might interest you that there is a translingual concept behind it that must be denoted by something. I can link it as a translation of unverzüglich, defined in § 121 of the German Civil Code and pervasive in our whole legal system, without needing further explanation at the foreign language entry. We can conclude that it is not anyhow simply a reasonable time but a time normatively required or deduced from the laws applicable to the case according to legal interpretation, hence passes WT:FRIED. Fay Freak (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Any MWE's use in a given context is determined by any special meaning of the components terms in that context. In the case of a legal context, a judge or similar gets to play w:Humpty Dumpty, at least within the courtroom, providing any special meaning required (in the judge's opinion) in the context. I don't know what discretion a judge has with respect to time, but reasonable would seem to provide plenty of room for judicial discretion. DCDuring (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is SoP. At least at English common law it just means a period of time which is reasonable in the circumstances. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgconlaw: Readers might benefit from a general (law) gloss at the adjective entry reasonable, by which we would also (albeit redundantly) shed light on the set term reasonable person, for instance. I would not have created negligence per se if I had formed the law definition of per se before. But then again Equinox complains if we pompously define terms by a generally applicable abstraction, and it does not abscond the consideration that the long entries are useful when searched or linked for explanation and hardly harmful. If we don’t agree in dogmatic constructions then we can agree on proliferation risks, practical use and SEO. Fay Freak (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak: I don't think a "legal" sense is warranted here. It simply means "a time that is reasonable", which is entirely SoP. It's not a term of art that has some special meaning which one cannot discern from the words reasonable and time. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgconlaw: This is because you put your reasoning into it a lot. It is non-obvious that it means “as soon as circumstances permit”, or “convenient” by a fair balance; I might have thought it rather means a “non-insufferable time”; as a foreigner, I would not have expected it to correspond, in corpora, to unverzüglich. It is one thing whether one can discern the meaning from the parts, another whether it is more effective to have an entry in spite of your ability, for clarification, that’s where my consideration of proliferation risks of further sum-of-parts entries, that should be greater than the clarification usefulness of the entry in order to delete it, comes in: I voted to keep Talk:antique shop by the same. Fay Freak (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring: You don’t disagree, you are right and I see it the same way, it is exactly what happens, though I don’t know whether and how you make the conclusion of the term not passing WT:FRIED, withsaying mine. Fay Freak (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, unverzüglich = un- + Verzug +‎ -lich, that is, “without delay”. The legal uses mentioned on Wikipedia in Reasonable time allow for some delay (but not a delay by an unreasonably long time). BTW, verzüglich is listed in the Deutsches Wörterbuch by the Grimm brothers, who write it appears to have fallen into disuse after the 17th century.[1]  --Lambiam 08:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what constitutes a delay is decided, and provided, by weighing the conflicting values and interests, by the token of applicable legislation that has already outlined some thoughts in general. The Civil Code technicalized terms that had been mere everyday terms before; and the Anglo-Saxon jurists achieved the same result in their fashion. Fay Freak (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

proper adjective[edit]

Our def says "an adjective derived from a proper noun, such as British derived from Britain". But derived how? Not all adjectives derived from proper nouns are proper adjectives: there are many types of derivation. Meanwhile the Wikipedia article suggests it's just any adjective with a capital letter (more or less). Equinox ◑ 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It probably should at least say "derived from a proper noun and retaining its capitalisation". On the other side of the coin, what kinds of capitalised adjectives would not, in some way, derive from proper nouns? The potential exceptions in the Wikipedia article, that I can see, are "For example, in Canadian government documents, Native and Aboriginal are capitalized", but who's to say that they do not, or would not, capitalise "Native" and "Aborigine" as nouns too? Also, there could be an overlap with the fusty practice of Capitalising Words that are thought to be Important. Mihia (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Native and Aboriginal are intended to be proper nouns in Canadian public discourse so that they can serve as convenient hypernyms for the various native and aboriginal peoples of Canada, having meaning distinct from the meanings of the adjective. BTW, I would expect that there is virtually no truly adjectival use of such words, but rather attributive use of the proper noun. Comparative, superlative, and gradable use seems to me to risk being felt as insulting or demeaning. But perhaps there really is predicate use. DCDuring (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was imagining such uses as "Native languages" or "Aboriginal culture". Personally I would naturally read these as adjectival, even if the words are also used capitalised as nouns. Actually, I thought that "Aboriginal/aboriginal" as a noun was an error, even almost offensively so. Our article Aboriginal, says, of the noun, "was for a time considered incorrect", implying no longer so, whereas Collins dictionary says "could cause offence" and AH says "Often Offensive". I think we should probably add a caution to our entry. Mihia (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think such terms do not commonly, unambiguously meet any of the tests for adjectivity, though usage as predicate looks like the best possibility and there is a clear pattern of exceptional usage that applies to almost any proper noun. Examples that do are terms like American, Japanese, Swedish formed by adding an adjectival suffix to a proper noun. I believe we stipulated that all English proper nouns can be used in plural form (as well as singular). I don't recall whether we also stipulated that they can be used comparatively and gradably: "a very/more/typically New York style/manner/expression/dialect"). Why would we want to duplicate semantic content under an Adjective PoS for virtually every proper noun. We would probably have to do so also under an Adverb PoS for some proper nouns. Please don't PoS our users so many duplicative PoSes. DCDuring (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

except[edit]

Conjunction example:

  • I never made fun of her except teasingly.

Anyone agree/disagree that this is a conjunction? The definitions distinguish conjunction "with the exception (that)" from preposition "with the exception of", yet "... with the exception that teasingly" makes no sense, while "... with the exception of teasingly" makes some sense. So, is "except" actually a preposition in that example? Any views? Mihia (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me also to notice that we list "other than" only as a preposition, and, of course, "I never made fun of her other than teasingly" is fine ...
The object of a preposition in English grammar, traditionally at least, must be a noun (including a noun clause). And I would expect normal users who have had any English grammar would object to except being called a preposition.
I normally like to stick close to a surface analysis, but I would read the conjunction example as I never made fun of her except ((the times) when I made fun of her) teasingly. DCDuring (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that we have excepting (and its opposite including) as a preposition too, so that would seem to be the best classification to me, or at least the most consistent. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another fly in the ointment is that the other modern conjunction example, "You look a bit like my sister, except she has longer hair" can be seen as short for "You look a bit like my sister, except that she has longer hair", so does that mean that an implied that-clause, i.e. noun clause, is the object of "except", i.e. "except" is again a preposition?? I see that M-W give a conjunction example "was inaccessible except by boat", which is another awkward use with adverbial. Collins says that modern conjunction sense is "informal" for "except that", which I think basically I agree with. Mihia (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

transparence[edit]

Does anyone else think that transparence should be marked as an alternate form/spelling of transparency? Here is the Ngram, if you need to see it: [2] Multiple Mooses (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct would be to make it a {{synonym of}} (rather than alternative form of) since -ence vs -ency seems like a separate word. (Compare dependence, dependency.) - -sche (discuss) 09:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @-sche. It's not pronounced in a similar way to transparency. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May be worth mentioning also that "transparence" is a much less common word. Mihia (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

play out[edit]

Somehow I have looked at this word for so long now that I can't see the wood for the trees. A few Google hits exist for "play out the rope", "play out the cord", "play out the line" etc. Notwithstanding that "play" has senses connected to manipulating something in a certain direction (e.g. "play the hoses onto the fire"), are these "play out the rope/cord/line" always errors for "pay out"? Or is "play out" a valid expression in this sense? (Search results for "play out the string" are dominated by a set expression whose origins seem to be unrelated to what I am asking about.) Mihia (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't see these as errors, might be related to the 'slack' sense of "play" Justin the Just (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do see omissions in the entry. Def. 4 would be a bit clearer is it were "to develop, to unfold". But just as defs. 2 and 3 emphasize the result/conclusion/completion of something (often an aspect introduced by the "particle" out) I wonder whether we need a variation of def. 4 like "conclude". There is a related usually intransitive sense of "exhaust". "The internet stock boom had played out within 5 years."
The 'play out the rope, hose etc.' sense makes sense as a literal base for the metaphorical "develop/unfold" definition, but I suspect that 'pay out the rope, hose, etc.' preceded 'play out', so perhaps for a time 'play out' was an error. But the "play the hoses/water on/over/onto" expression makes sense where "pay" would not and does not seem to occur. I don't think that play out the string is a distinct idiom, rather an expression using a metaphorical sense of string. DCDuring (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, "play out the string" derives from a different sense of "play", a sporting sense, so nothing to do with "playing out rope". Mihia (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on "rope played out" in Google Books, and found 487 raw hits, 363 of them from the 21st century. Quite a few were in the context of mountain climbing, some of it quite technical, but mostly in stories. It doesn't seem to be that rare. By contrast, "rope paid out" get's 1,450 raw hits. Those tend to be older, with only 288 from the 21st century, and more about machinery. All of which sounds like there was a point at which younger people weren't being exposed as rigorously to the correct "pay out" form, so they just went with what they heard in other contexts that sort of sounded the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I have added a new entry for this sense. Mihia (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

demising[edit]

Not sure where to list this (it has elements of an RFM, RFV and TR discussion) : We have a sense at demising labelled "of a wall or partition". I can, in fact, only find that sense as part of the phrases demising wall and its synonym demising partition. Is it used with other phrases, or should the definition be moved (mutatis mutandis) to demising wall, with demising left with a pointer like {{only used in}} or ===See also===? - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chícharos in Spanish Cookery[edit]

It seems, that from at least a video by the YouTube channel Spain on a Fork, the term chícharo means "white bean" in European Spanish.

What does anyone here think?

Thanks for reading. -- Apisite (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Spanish descendant of cicer, which was displaced by garbanzo. Judging by the DRAE entry, it can be applied to "el guisante, el garbanzo, la judía o la almorta." That's a pretty broad range of legumes, from peas, to garbanzo beans, to kidney beans or green beans, to grass peas or chickling vetches. White beans definitely fall within that range, so it's not surprising to see them referred to as chícharos. I'm not sure if it's a vague term that can refer to all of those things without being specific to any of them, in the same way that vegetable can refer to spinach or sweet corn or tomatoes or cucumbers, or if it's a term that means different specific things to different people (in the Americas, at least, it does seem to refer specifically to peas). Chuck Entz (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz: So is it okay to add the following definition?
# (Spain) legume #: Synonym: legumbre
In any case, thanks. --Apisite (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/May&oldid=79102135"