Talk:ебати

RFV discussion: July 2022–November 2023
(Bulgarian) Hello, you just recently suggested this sense be verified, and I noticed there is no debate for this yet, so I thought to start this post. The word seems relatively legitimate to me, but is not overly common; nevertheless you can find uses of it online (not in literature) and I have heard it used as a native. What do you think? Kiril kovachev (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I didn't find the Bulgarian form anywhere in the dictionaries (Is this some kind of borrowing from Russian or what?). Everywhere mentioned only 🇨🇬. Also very interested in where did the 🇨🇬 come from? It is also nowhere in the dictionaries. Could this vulgar word be used in the language of church services at all?... strange. --ZomBear (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly couldn't find the word in any dictionaries either. The exact etymology of is also very unclear, as the main source I usually consult for BG etymology, the Bulgarian Etymological Dictionary, is extremely terse with their description and gives the meaning in Latin... (some sort of censorship?) ...and the term they give is еба, ебавам, etc., which are not ебати as in this entry. I can't say whether it is borrowed from Russian either, as it's got parallels in every other Slavic language you can name (just look at the descendents on Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/jebati), so pinpointing where it comes from looks very difficult. Nevertheless it is obviously cognate with all the other languages' words, and with еба in Bulgarian itself.
 * I couldn't find ебати in OCS either, and once again BER was of no help.
 * It's also pretty much impossible for it to be used in a liturgical setting, but OCS is also used to subsume Old Bulgarian on Wiktionary as well (as far as I know), where it would be much more apropos in a vernacular sense. We should ask the original OCS entry creator . So, by my account, there is no good documentation on the Bulgarian to be found, and for OCS, which I have no expertise in, I couldn't personally find any sources or uses. That said, ебати#Bulgarian still clearly seems to exist in the Bulgarian conscience, as I've found uses on social media, as well as this definition on an online Bulgarian slang dictionary (akin to Urban Dictionary). I don't know whether Wiktionary's standards permit this as a valid justification for keeping the page, but to me it seems constructive to keep the word on here in the hopes it will help people who look up the word in the cases where it shows up. Kiril kovachev (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @ZomBear Hello, may I hear your thoughts on the above, please? It's been almost a year, but I am even more resolute in saying that ебати, although vulgar and somewhat parochial in its usage, does get used and should constitute noteworthy Bulgarian. If you would like, I can compile a list of usages online, but even just looking up the word will turn up a healthy picking of instances, so I think we should remove the request for verification for this if you would assent. Kiril kovachev (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kiril kovachev @ZomBear is a contraction of, from "ебах" (1ps sg aorist) + ти. It's a colloquial vulgar term, so you won't find it in dictionaries, although the entry now has a reference link to the BG Jargon website. It's not a borrowing, and it's not an infinitive form. Chernorizets (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chernorizets — thanks, I had never clocked that that was the origin. Do you agree we should keep this in? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 21:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kiril kovachev I'm indifferent; it's already there and it exists. I'd maybe have an entry for the full form and list this as an alternative form, but I wouldn't be heartbroken either way this goes. Chernorizets (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say close this vote personally, it's been up for over a year and no one else's objected to its presence, and it's common enough (although putting it as an alternative form could be good to) that I'd say it warrants keeping. Moreover, this discussion's been stalled for ages until your post just now, and I don't think the argument for removal is so strong. Perhaps I'll go find some quotations and put them on the page and we can settle this. @Chernorizets Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 21:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kiril kovachev sounds good. I was only made aware of it because of a discussion on Discord :) Finding quotations and closing the RFV would be the ideal way to go, if you have the cycles for it. Chernorizets (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kiril kovachev Just for clarity, RFV isn't a vote on keeping, it has to do with finding quotations so that a term can pass our WT:Criteria for inclusion. Vininn126 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 Thanks, it seems I misunderstood a little bit. I thought there was a danger of words being deleted if they aren't able to be verified within some time.
 * Anyway, I added some quotations — please check whether these are acceptable. Would there be anything else we need to do for this request? @Chernorizets Pinging for your visibility as well :) Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 17:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kiril kovachev These appear to be from magazines? If so, everything appears to be in order and we can say this is RFV passed! Vininn126 (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 Yep, the first one is a magazine, but otherwise I believe the other two are books. One of those is in several volumes. I'm not sure whether we need a different template for the magazine — there's no by the looks of it, right? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 11:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but there is . Vininn126 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kiril kovachev Splendid :) Chernorizets (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)