Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/November

affirmative imperative forms abolirse
So all the affirmative imperative forms of abolirse are the same? --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly they are not! I'll look at it. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I dunno how to fix it. Sorry. After 10 years on WT, I still totally suck at templates. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The faculty and I came up with a lesson plan on this.... Should the children be given double HW?

confused
Bit of an emergency here. I just realised that no translations exist for the most common sense - unable to think clearly or understand! How did this happen? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Easy: the sense was missing altogether until recently. No one in the 10-year history of the entry seems to have noticed its absence until the entry was tagged for attention in April, and no one got around to adding the sense until this week. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Webster 1913 didn't have an entry for the adjective. Perhaps they thought it was covered by the verb definitions. If they had applied our criteria for including an adjective distinct from a past participle, they would have had such an adjective definition as searching COHA for usage of "more confused" shows that the most common current sense was nearly as common for at least fifty years before 1910. Webster 1828 lacked the sense and COHA shows usage only of thoughts, feelings, and sensations being confused, not persons. Century showed the sense as the fourth, also suggesting recency.
 * As to why the [entry] wasn't subsequently improved: we have no systematic review and evidently not enough users for less systematic wiki processes to work quickly. DCDuring TALK 09:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MW 2nd (1930s) has an adjective sense more or less equivalent to the currently "most common" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

MGTOW
Here's discussion from Cloudcuckoolander's talk page regarding the tone of the definition of MGTOW. I'm not a regular Wiktionary editor, but two editors suggested adding this to the tea room. So I'm just going to copy-and-paste what has been discussed there so far, apologies if it's usually done differently. -- 71.208.37.30 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cloudcuckoolander, you didn't give a reason for your recent changes to the MGTOW definition, so I'm going to revert back. If you want to change the MGTOW definition, please discuss it on Talk:MGTOW. -- 71.208.37.30 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The one who modified the definition without discussion was you. The fact that this modification remained in place for nearly a month was an oversight. We don't always catch things right away. Your modification, simply put, was not in keeping with NPOV. There's obviously a delicate balance to be struck when defining words. It wouldn't be accurate to define as "a person perceived as moving too slowly," because that's not what it's used to mean. But when a definition requires us to describe an opinion or belief, it isn't neutral to present said opinion or belief as anything other than an opinion or belief. We can't state that MGTOWs are remaining single due to the "risks of marriage" without qualification because that makes it seem as if the riskiness of marriage is objective fact. And we certainly can't use a loaded word like "gynocentrism" in place of the more neutral word "feminism." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't realize these policies were so different from Wikipedia's manual of style which suggests avoiding unsupported attributions in that way. Two questions. First, would you object to the definition being stated in a less pejorative way to MGTOW? The tone of the current definition strikes me as much more condescending than it needs to be with the placement of phrase "what they perceive as" in the definition.
 * Would you object to a change going from:
 * a movement of (mainly) heterosexual men committed to remaining single and/or celibate due to what they perceive as the risks of relationships, the undesirable qualities of modern women, and the negative influence of feminism.
 * to:
 * a movement of (mainly) heterosexual men who believe the risks of relationships with women are significant enough that they have committed to remaining single and/or celibate.
 * That would still indicate it's a belief of people who identify as MGTOW. It would also avoid having to use the term 'feminism' (which is irrelevant to the definition) or gynocentrism, and bit about "undesirable qualities of modern women" (which also irrelevant to the definition).
 * Second, would you object to having this discussion in the talk page for the MGTOW article/definition? If anyone wanted to look back and see why certain decisions were made about changes to the definition, it seems like it would be more efficient to have them in one place than have to hunt around several user talk pages. That's the standard practice on Wikipedia, and I've always found it useful. Is there a reason why this is generally not done on Wiktionary? -- 71.208.37.30 03:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Second, would you object to having this discussion in the talk page for the MGTOW article/definition? If anyone wanted to look back and see why certain decisions were made about changes to the definition, it seems like it would be more efficient to have them in one place than have to hunt around several user talk pages. That's the standard practice on Wikipedia, and I've always found it useful. Is there a reason why this is generally not done on Wiktionary? -- 71.208.37.30 03:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Second, would you object to having this discussion in the talk page for the MGTOW article/definition? If anyone wanted to look back and see why certain decisions were made about changes to the definition, it seems like it would be more efficient to have them in one place than have to hunt around several user talk pages. That's the standard practice on Wikipedia, and I've always found it useful. Is there a reason why this is generally not done on Wiktionary? -- 71.208.37.30 03:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Might be worth moving this discussion to WT:TR, so that more users will see it. Wikipedia has far more users than we do, and talk pages don't get many eyeballs. Equinox ◑ 03:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Tea Room is probably the most appropriate place to have this discussion. Definitions are based on what available citations say, so if you want to see significant changes made to a definition, you may need to provide CFI-compliant citations to support said changes. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cloudcuckoolander, you mean provide WT:CFI-compliant citations to support that the tone of the definition should be less condescending? How would I go about doing that? -- 71.208.37.30 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The definitions of words on Wiktionary are derived from citations (i.e. instances in which a word is used in a book, magazine, movie, etc.). If you think the current definition of a word is inaccurate or incomplete, and wish to see it changed, then the case for modifying the definition in line with your suggestions will be stronger if you are able to provide some citations that show the word being used in a way that reflects the specific meaning you ascribe to it.
 * Regarding tone: sometimes entries will be intentionally or unintentionally biased, contain inappropriate humour, etc. In that case, one wouldn't need to justify editing the entry to remove said elements, since our policies stipulate that definitions be written in a neutral and serious tone. But, to be honest, I don't see anything amiss with the current definition of MGTOW, and I think what you're seeing as condescension is likely just NPOV in action. NPOV is kind of like harsh fluorescent lighting in that it often makes for an unflattering picture regardless of the subject.
 * The Tea Room is probably the best place to propose/discuss changes to MGTOW entry. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral. Search for definitons what they perceive as, the only one containing that attribution is the MGTOW definition. If you look at the definition of atheist, for example, it's phrased like the change I suggested. I'll add this discussion to WT:TR. -- 71.208.37.30 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

just a snit
I grew up with this word used to mean a little bit, but I just noticed that this sense is entirely missing from the entry. I see that Merriam-Webster's entry doesn't have that sense either.

I know that side of my family brought along a lot of dialectal German, suggesting a derivation from or something similar. Is anyone else familiar with the little bit sense of, or is this just an odd remnant of family baggage? &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The OED doesn't have anything like that either, only n.1 "Obs. The glowing part of the wick of a candle when blown out." and n.2 "slang (orig. and chiefly U.S.). A state of agitation; a fit of rage or bad temper; a tantrum, sulk. Freq. in phr. in a snit." --WikiTiki89 11:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I searched for "snit of"; most of the results were scannos for "suit" (e.g. "snit of clothes"), but I found this, which might be the sense you're talking about (or might be confusion between chit and slip, etc.): "When I came to I found that snit of a door girl standing over me, scowling." (2012, Natalie Essary, Helluva Luxe) Equinox ◑ 12:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I did find some instances of, in the sense of "a little bit of something". But I cannot find much that jives with how my family uses "a snit of something" without the "bit".  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

by
Is the preposition missing the sense used in "go by sea/bus"? —CodeCat 01:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it isnt sense 6, which seems to be the nearest...by bus seems to imply by (way/means/method of) bus and is instrumental. Is this not covered by 6? Leasnam (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey look below¶ this page is categorised as a Spanish verb ending in -ir !

Chugger
At Talk:chugger This, that and the other noted in July that they removed the given etymology "first appeared in print in London newspaper Metro's Say What Column in June 2002, as a provocative invention of jounalist Keith Barker-Main" on the grounds on incredulity.

Happening across this in early October I did some research and found that this etymology is actually correct and the word can be dated to 26 June 2002 (more sources and explanation on the talk page).

As such I suggest that it should be restored to the article, but I thought I'd bring it up here first as my talk page post hasn't generated any responses in a month. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't believe it because it was badly written (misspelt "journalist", and Column shouldn't have been capitalized) and also because Metro, as a free newspaper, wouldn't be expected to have the intellectual "power" to coin words. (I certainly know that any attempt to coin a word in my local free commuter newspaper would have no chance of catching on.) These, along with the prominent mention of the person's name (I suspected self-promotion), raised red flags for me. However, it seems like I was wrong in this case. I'd be happy to see a properly-formatted version of the etymology restored to the article. This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlisted English Idiom (New/Regional?) "All over hell and breakfast"
Maybe it's simply that nobody has bothered to enter it, or that it is very new, but perhaps it's a regional expression? Where I come from (South/Central Texas), we use the phrase "all over hell and breakfast" often to describe someone or something constantly moving about or changing locations rapidly. For example, if I went to many different places in town this morning, driving about seemingly at random and appearing very rushed, you would say "He was running all over hell and breakfast this morning". If I was looking for something specific and had to search several stores to get it, you could phrase it as "He looked all over hell and breakfast for it" or "He went all over hell and breakfast to find it".

It's also used, albeit less commonly, when objects are scattered in a mess. Imagine someone drops a bag full of small items (such as marbles); when the bag lands, the impact causes it to burst and the items are strewn about randomly, and you have to search the whole area to gather them all. Telling this anecdote, you might say "They(the items) were scattered all over hell and breakfast".

I hear this expression commonly enough, but does anybody else? If so, perhaps someone should create a page for it and add it to the list of English idioms.--75.1.154.100 17:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "All over hell and breakfast" gets 7 hits on books.google.com, which is good; "between hell and breakfast" gets 30, which is even better. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this sense of "off" covered?
> A quote: "Two rooms open off of the library and are named for their decorative schemes, the Room of the Mausoleum of Hadrian, and the Room of the Festoons." I wonder if this sense is covered in Wiktionary. I've discovered this sense at Stack Exchange English Language Learners, thanks to a comment made by a native speaker. ---CopperKettle (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See [[off of]]. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To say that a room or corridor "leads off" another is also common. Equinox ◑ 12:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DCDuring, Equinox! A passage by J.K. Rowling uses "off" without "of"; this use could be common too. Does it mean the sense should be added to off, not only to off of? The quote: "The room set aside for the guidance department at Winterdown Comprehensive opened off the school library. It had no windows and was lit by a single strip light. (The Casual Vacancy, J. K. Rowling)" --CopperKettle (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that many authorities, eg, Garner's Modern American Usage (2009), consider off of to be a usage inferior to off, ie, of is superfluous. In the example above, it is superfluous, but very common in speech. One could also use from instead of off of in that example. Equinox's alternative verb suggestion may be better yet, but some would say lead off of. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

isomorphic - problems with biology explanation
I find the biology explanation of this word, isomorphic, to be ambigous and a bit hard to understand.

quote "(biology) Having a similar structure or function to something that is not related genetically or through evolution."

First of all it should be "nor through evolution" not or, right?

But the issue I have is the word "related" in reference to evolution. Isomorphic definitely means that there is no genetic relation between the isomorphic structures or functions. But the process which will make similar structures appear through evolution at different places independently makes them related in the sense that they produce the same typ of structure. If a trait is not related genetically then that implies that it does not share a common ancestor with that trait. Emphasizing that the branching in evolution happens before the development of the isomorphic trait would be good for explanation. As it is now the "or through evolution" part confuses by adding something that is obvious from the previous statement (genetically related).

My suggestion: Having a similar structure or function that has evolved independently at a different place and/or time.

Other suggestions?
 * I would replace "at a different place and/or time" by something like "in different species". Dakdada (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If biologists can say that 'humans are more closely related (genetically) to fungi than to plants' (They can and do.), then the very wording "not related genetically" is problematic. A similar problem exists with 'through evolution'. Even 'evolved independently' doesn't work without 'independently' implicitly needing to exclude the possibility of having an environment with shared characteristics.
 * I think the idea is that the isomorphic characteristic has evolved in descendants from a common ancestor that did not have the characteristic. I'll try to find someone who has defined and used the term that way. As the term is being used technically, in the context of biology, we can use technical terms in the definition.
 * Another approach is the simpler approach of saying 'not closely related genetically'. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We could also define it with reference to isomorphism. See isomorphism ("the similarity in form of organisms of different ancestry") and Isomorphism ("a similarity of form or structure between organisms, generally between organisms with independent ancestries, e.g. after convergent evolution."). DCDuring TALK 13:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Isomorphism: "identity in form; in genetics, referring to genotypes of polypoid organisms that produce similar gametes even though containing genes in different combinations on homologous chromosomes." This is how several medical dictionaries define it, focusing on the genes that account for the characteristic, rather than the characteristic itself. This has the advantage of avoiding the problem of characteristics that may only develop in response to macroenvironmental conditions, but the disadvantage of depending on more biological knowledge than many users will have, even if they studied some biology. We may need this kind of definition in addition to the one in question. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That medical definition is quite different from the evolutionary one. Dakdada (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is talking about the same phenomenon, but more causally. I would propose that it be added, not that it replace a simpler definition that focused on apparent traits . The WP definition is better than the one this discussion started with. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I would prefer this definition from above because of its conciseness and brevity, preferably with reference to the wikipedia article on isomorphism. "the similarity in form of organisms of different ancestry"--109.228.139.93 16:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The definition is definitely problematic. As DCDuring points out, all known living organisms are genetically related. Also, as it can be about structure, you could actually have two structures within the one organism that are isomorphic (i.e. having a different genetic basis, although performing the same function). Terms like "genetic basis" or "convergent evolution" or "independent ancestries" (as used in Isomorphism (biology)) might help. Pengo (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

sympathy
There's nothing to cover sympathy in the sense sympathy for Communism, sympathy for Islamic extremism, etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've had a go at adding something. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

伽羅
Kyara (伽羅) is a special type of incense made from agarwood, and it's known to be very expensive.
 * So, what's your question? We have neither English kyara, nor Japanese entries. Are you requesting creation of these entries? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My sources say the Japanese term means "aloeswood"; Taxus cuspidata and aloes-wood perfume. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I just finished adding an entry for . Please have a look and adjust as deemed necessary.
 * FWIW, aloeswood and agarwood appear to be synonyms, at least as far as the relevant senses of are concerned.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Massive. Thanks! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

emergency
I added a quote to emergency, and called it an adjective. However, I'm not convinced it is an adjective. What do you think? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an attributive use of the noun, not an adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

makhorka, махорка
Can someone pls. check the taxonomy and formatting? Calling. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Webelo vs. Webelos
The term "Webelos" is generally preferred in the Scouting community (even in singular usage) over "Webelo" because the final "s" is derived from the word "Scout". Whether you use "Wolf, Bear, Lion, Scout" as the origin of "Webelos" or the more contemporary "We'll be loyal Scouts" as its derivation, the word Scout(s) is a key word in the words being contracted to form the term "Webelos". The Boy Scouts of America own a trademark on the term Webelos

I propose to move the main definition of the term from "Webelo" to "Webelos". Because singular words in English rarely end with the letter "s", the term "Webelo" is occasionally seen when the term is used in the singular, although this variant is not used in publications by the Boy Scouts of America, the owner of the "Webelos" trademark. I'm not sure how to write the definition of "Webelo" to indicate that this spelling is sometimes seen, but is probably incorrect. Since there is a trademark involved, the normal logic of a dictionary that any commonly seen spelling is correct may not apply in this particular case. I am unaware of any usage of the term in any spelling that refers to anything other than the Scout program, so I don't think that claims of a generic use of a trademark term could apply here.

A previous attempt by another editor to indicate that Webelos was the preferred term was reverted. Because of this, I am proposing this change in the tea room, rather than starting an edit war directly on the "Webelo" and "Webelos" pages. ToddDTaft (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind we are descriptivist and we define terms by how they are used, rather than how certain organisations want to have them used &mdash; trademarks or not. Does real-world usage reflect what you are saying? Equinox ◑ 18:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There's not many uses in Google Books outside the Scouting and Boy's Life magazines and a few Boy Scouts' publications. It looks like the Boy Scouts use it as an adjective, with a few rare uses as a noun. If they have to talk about one Webelos, they say a Webelos Scout. I think that it should be treated as an adjective, with the noun being mentioned as rare, and the Webelo singular as non-standard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * From back when I first became a Boy Scout in the early 1990s until now (my son's now a Scout), I've heard the singular word in regular use. "He's a Webelo" wouldn't be uncommon at all and I never heard anyone say that the singular version ends with an "s" until I read this.  Even if that's the stance of the Boy Scouts of America, in my experience it's not one that's getting passed down to the trenches. 03:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

asbestos
The entry for asbestos includes an adjective sense meaning "of or related to asbestos". There are lots of translations there too. However, I don't think it should be listed as an adjective, as it is just an attributive use of a noun, right? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd bet on it not being a true adjective. As it is a question of attestation, we would give the section an RfV. This is a very common problem, but I don't think we can short-cut the RfV process. It might be useful to insert usage examples under the noun PoS, one with it being used as a nominal, another with it being used attributively. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose almost all noun definitions should have both noun and attributive-use translation sections. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think we can skip the RFV. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

pennorth (plural pennorths)?
Hi :) First time newbie here, please be kind.

Concerning the entry for the word 'pennorth'. It says:

"pennorth (plural pennorths)"

I believe that the plural is like the word 'cannon': ie one cannon, many cannon. No terminating 's'. Indeed, the 'derived terms' shown agree with me:

"two penn’orth, twopenn’orth, two pennorth"

Sorry, I have no references I can cite to back this up.

Now, having said all that, I'm confused -- because I did try to edit the page to remove the offending text [ie amend "pennorth (plural pennorths)" to simply "pennorth"] but ... I couldn't find that text, so couldn't remove it!

Here's hoping you're having a good day :) Pendant (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think both forms are encountered. You can see "pennorths" in some books here: . Equinox ◑ 18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at the examples from Equinox, I think there's actually a subtle difference between "two pennorth" and "two pennorths" in a lot of writing. two penn'orth means "an amount of something that is worth two pence" while two pennorths means "two amounts of something worth one penny each". Compare these two examples:
 * "Let's have a glass of whisky - Irish, hot, and two pennorth of rum."
 * "Three two pennorths of rum for himself and wife would have amounted to four weeks' subscription, and this would be considered a very 'small Saturday night allowance' by hundreds of men and women. "
 * But I'm not sure this distinction was universally maintained. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm drawing a blank: do we have a standardized way of noting that kind of distinction? (Compare .) - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We do the same thing at and  - give both plurals in the inflection line, and then explain them in the usage note. I think that's the most user-friendly way of doing it - while we could do something like "(plural pennorth (single quantity) or pennorths (discrete quantities))", trying to get that information into one or two words hinders rather than helps user understanding. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

widdershins
I removed dialectal from this because it's not; as I said in the edit summary, it's used in standard English in books about magic and witchcraft, whether fiction or nonfiction. It does need a tag; "counterclockwise" is the unmarked general English word for "widdershins", so "widdershins" needs a context tag noting that. I just don't know how to concisely define how it's used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , perhaps? Or ? - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Paganism doesn't really describe its use in modern fantasy; it's a much more common word in everyday use then deasil is. And I actually find the use of dialectal to be problematic in and of itself. Saying it's limited to some group of people isn't very helpful; what group?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

gain ground and lose ground
The definitions (written by a Wonderfool sock in 2011) for gain ground and lose ground are really not very good. Can someone do better? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added definitions consistent with other dictionaries' definitions and RfVed what we had, though I think the new defs include the existing ones. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

unforgiving
While we're on the topic of shitty WF entries, the definition for unforgiving ("not forgiving") could do with improvement too. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a run at this one too. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better. Taking the liberty of striking this. Equinox ◑ 22:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

department
While on the topic of lousy definitions, the entry for department leaves a lot to be desired too. I might have a go at improving later myself, if nobody else feels like it. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing these out. The right venue is RfC, though definitional cleanup sometimes doesn't always get full attention there. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a run at this one, mostly de-Websterizing it, which goes a long way with many English entries. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gini
There’s a »Gini coefficient«. You might consider adding »Gini« to your various variantions of »gini«. If Gini relates to Gino, I don’t know. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You could have done it (and added [[Gini]] too). Those variations are accessible using the edit tab. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

meed
I just added a quotation here, could someone check if it's okay? (Q: Should I have added it to Citations:meed instead? What's the difference?) Thanks much ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was fine. I added some WP links: not essential, but good for users.
 * Citations pages are handy for showing time pattern and for placement of cites that are "too" numerous or not particularly good illustrations of usage. The latter situation can arise because we need peculiar quotes to establish idiomaticity, what word class a term falls in, or some other point other than meaning.
 * In this case it would have been nice if someone had said which sense the citations supported. Perhaps they weren't sure. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In the [YOUR ITEM HERE] department
The rfv of in the trouser department has brought to light a hole in our coverage, but I'm not sure how best to deal with it. This expression is just one of a huge number of possible permutations of what looks a lot like a snowclone: "in the X department", where X is some attribute or aspect (or metonymic reference to one), almost always in the singular.

To show some of the variety, here are the first couple dozen permutations gleaned from Google Books:


 * nutritionally sound
 * brain
 * talent/self-control
 * military
 * forbearance
 * spirit
 * proficiency
 * fortitude
 * audio
 * personal loyalty
 * support
 * intelligence
 * ego
 * cleavage
 * looks
 * etiquette
 * dessert
 * concentration
 * trouser
 * firepower
 * fun
 * social skills
 * innocence
 * bedroom

There were a few repeats of "in the brain department" that I left out, but otherwise there was only one of each- these aren't set phrases.

Is there a way to define this as sense of department, or are we stuck dealing with it as a snowclone? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to cover it at department, though I'm certainly not up to that challenge right now. DCDuring TALK 03:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we possibly need a non-gloss definition - eg, Used to frame the subject of discussion indirectly or euphemistically - and then a couple of good usage examples. Even if we have this though, I'd say "trouser department" is an exception that we should keep, since it seems to be uniquely metonymic and opaque. For example, I can't find any evidence for "in the blouse department" as a euphemism, and only one of the usages of "in the bra department" on Google Books seems not to refer to actual bras. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and think the opacity is ascribable to its being euphemistic. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at in the chest department. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Lite
There is nothing at this entry about the meaning "any division of a window or door created by a mullion", a variant of "light". 216.8.172.35 14:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Initialisms
Is this edit OK? Perhaps there's been a change of policy for initialisms and the like that I am not aware of. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

danso
Can someone with Korean knowledge please look at danso - there's odd formatting, and potential etymology. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

enough to choke a horse
This is an adjective, not a noun, right? Or am I missing sth? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's an idiomatic phrase that doesn't really work very well with the traditional parts of speech notation. "Determiner" probably works best here. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Prepositional phrase? — Ungoliant (falai) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is this even here? It is a simple hyperbole along the lines of enough to sink a ship and at least 100 others. It should be deleted. -- A LGRIF  talk 13:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

greenshirt
Upper or lowercase? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think both (not sure about both senses though). Upper case seems to be more common and we should probably move the primary entry there. Equinox ◑ 22:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing vertebrate binomials: the most commonly found in books
Here's the most common binomial names of vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, etc), as found in books (via google ngram data), that we don't have entries for:


 * 1) Xenopus laevis - Xenopus - African clawed frog - clawed frog
 * 2) Macaca fascicularis - Macaca - long-tailed macaque - macaque
 * 3) Salvelinus fontinalis - Salvelinus - American brook charr, brook trout - charr
 * 4) Peromyscus maniculatus - Peromyscus - deer mouse
 * 5) Castor canadensis -  - American beaver - beaver
 * 6) Parus major - Parus - great tit - tit
 * 7) Ursus americanus - Ursus - American black bear - black bear
 * 8) Hirundo rustica - Hirundo - barn swallow - swallow
 * 9) Saimiri sciureus - Saimiru - South American squirrel monkey - squirrel monkey
 * 10) Lepomis macrochirus - Lepomis - bluegill
 * 11) more... (the complete top 100, including blue links)

Each of these binomial names appear in a huge number of books/volumes/papers. (And it would be great if they were added to Wiktionary)

For all species, not just vertebrates, see User:Pengo/2gram-species, which also has more details about the methodology. [Note: the English common names listed are from a database, and are not necessarily the most commonly accepted names or capitalizations] —Pengo (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have edited the English vernacular names above to the canonical lowercase form we use (same as WP's) and will do the same on the longer list. I am relieved that we at least have vernacular names for five of the top ten above, genus names for eight of the top ten, and vernacular hypernyms for four of the five missing vernacular names. Our coverage remains very spotty. At User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa#From_11/01/2014_dump are the most-linked-to (using ) missing taxa. At User:DCDuring/Vernacular plant names from Wikipedia disambiguation pages are some vernacular names used for more than one species, sometimes for species from different families and even kingdoms. Regional genus and species lists are available, such as the county and state lists available from the USDA Plants Database. Any of these approaches will lead us to add some of the taxa that users are more likely to come across. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As before, the list of the top 100 has a large number of species of disease agents, presumably found in medical books. As there often are no distinctive vernacular names, the approach will not prioritize many of them.
 * Cool. Just to clarify, 2gram-species is basically the same list I posted before. The above list, extracted from 2gram-chordata, is from the same source list but with everything but vertebrates filtered out (and common names added). Pengo (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

'shun!' as a military command

 * I've been watching a movie and a ship officer there gave the following command: "Ship's company .. shun!" I started looking online and found that it's an abridgement of attention. Might such niche military use merit the inclusion of this sense in the article shun? --CopperKettle (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It probably belongs at 'shun as eye dialect or pronunciation spelling or something. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added it in at shun. DCDuring TALK  16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DCDuring! Back to my movie, "In Which We Serve" (1942) as a fact, it has some jargon in it. (0: --CopperKettle (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They pronounce the first two syllables as well, but they are pronounced in a low voice, quiet and drawn out. It’s one of the drill commands. Drill commands have two parts, the call and the execute. The call tells the group which command to prepare for, and the execute is a sharp utterance to go. Attennnnnnnnn-SHUN! Dress-riiiiiiight-DRESS! Stand-aaaaaat-EASE! Shoulderrrrrr-ARMS! Orderrrrrrr-ARMS! Abouuuuuut-FACE! Column-riiiiiiiight-MARCH! The group hears the entire sequence, but onlookers may only hear the execution syllable. Another common pronunciation of Attennnnnnnnn-SHUN is Attennnnnnnnn-HUT! This one is common among less professional groups, small police forces, marching bands, etc. The U.S. mililtary does not permit the use of Attennnnnnnnn-HUT! —Stephen (Talk) 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In my limited military career shun was the third element of att - ten - shun. The first two elements being help get the timing right (as in Ready, Steady, Go). S a g a C i t y (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

nothing to it
This isn't a noun... --Type56op9 (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just don't try to call it an interjection. The definition wording has it as an adjective, which is inadequate.
 * This is certainly used as a polite response in lieu of "you're welcome", which would warrant a non-gloss definition that also explained how it differs from you're welcome. It is also used literally, so is warranted. I think it can appear after forms of be both with a literal meaning and one related to the use in the "you're welcome" sense (needs cites). In the last uses it is certainly a nominal. We usually call noun phrases 'nouns', but this one seems so restricted in how it can be used that it might better be called a phrase. DCDuring TALK  12:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

sanjo
Someone with Korean knowledge could improve this. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

sss
A crappy Wonderfool entry. It's gotta be an interjection, right? --Type56op9 (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Classic WF. Yeah I've changed it to an intj. Equinox ◑ 12:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What emotion is the snake expressing? DCDuring TALK 12:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Intjs are not always emotions, animal noises especially. Equinox ◑ 19:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you didn't add it, you wouldn't have to nominate it. --WikiTiki89 16:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is this term even here? It's an Onomatopoeia, but somehow, it just doesn't seem like an actual "word". Muaadth on fire (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Under what definition of interjection can this be called an Interjection? Here are MW Online's definitions:
 * 1 a : the act of uttering exclamations :  ejaculation
 * b : the act of putting in between :  interposition
 * 2: an ejaculatory utterance usually lacking grammatical connection: as
 * a : a word or phrase used in exclamation (as Heavens! Dear me!)
 * b : a cry or inarticulate utterance (as Alas! ouch! phooey! ugh!) expressing an emotion
 * 3 : something that is interjected or that interrupts
 * If there is another definition under which it does fit, we should attest it and add it, and notify MW as a courtesy.
 * Also what 'meaning' does 'sss' have? DCDuring TALK 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Meow" and "woof" are interjections but do not express emotion any more than "sss". Chambers has "a syntactically independent word or phrase of an exclamatory nature, usu (EQUINOX NOTE: NOT ALWAYS) expressing strong or sudden emotion". Equinox ◑ 19:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See sss! at bottom of table. —Stephen (Talk) 19:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pshaw! DCDuring TALK 20:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

TV land
Might this be a proper noun? --Type56op9 (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

इसरो
What part of speech should this be? I put it in as an initialism, since Category:Hindi initialisms already exists, but it's not really a Hindi initialism so much as a Hindi transliteration of an English acronym. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would call it a Hindi acronym. —Stephen (Talk) 18:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
Hi, I hope I'm putting this in the right place. I'm the wiktionary user Habemus, and I really haven't been active for a long time, but I think I wasn't really worrying a lot about copyrights. I feel I probably used http://www.kanjinetworks.com/index.cfm and maybe a book I have for some of the Kanji [Chinese Character] etymologies I worked on a long time ago. Is there a way that should be added... or....? And a lot of the stuff I added I wasn't really paying attention to copyright.... Like should I have cited Google searches or dictionaries? Maybe it's best just to leave anything other than the kanji or delete anything I did. I was maybe like 15~16. So, maybe just undo any changes I did other than the kanji pages and link the kanji etymologies from that website? Would that be best? I don't want to be doing anything wrong, so it would be great to clear up that stuff. >< I really don't plan on being an editor much and it would be great if someone could just help clear that stuff up. And while it probably didn't violate copyright, I probably used Bachelor for Ainu stuff if I did much. Thanks, Habemus (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting us: an admin will probably take a look. Why is it you don't plan on editing here much? We'd be happy to have you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, other than being scrupulous about copyright infringement, no reason in particular. Just "not my thing"? But thanks for that and thanks for all you guys do! Thanks again! Habemus (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi - has there been any progress on this? Thank you! Habemus (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Looking at stuff I did, like the Ainu/Sicilian I don't see many sources. Would someone be able to just remove those or source those? Or is there really no necessity. Or my entry cataglottis - looks like I put it in but maybe I got the wording from somewhere but who knows? Or my sicilian conjugation template for ~ari verbs - did I make that or copy it? Can it all just be deleted? Habemus (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

front garden
If you are a speaker of American English could you look at the image at front garden and tell me if that is a 'front garden' to you? Thanks. Kaixinguo (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Definitely 'English', but a front garden. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but now I am really confused. I thought that that would be a front yard to you. What is a front yard? I was going to mark 'front garden' as 'British'. Kaixinguo (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd call it a yard if a child could play in it, eg, it had a relatively level lawn, though I'd rather call that a front lawn. As I read the entry for front garden, that term is used/understood in all Anglophone countries, but front yard is a synonym only in the US, as in the UK it has a different meaning. I'd also call something a yard if it were walled, with walls one could not step over, or were paved (whether or not walled), as few front lawns/front yards are in the US, in contrast to back yards/patios, which often are. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What that pictures looks like to me is a front garden that takes up all or most of the front yard, so it is both. Had it not flowers and such, it would be a front yard, which is typically a lawn, but in this instance the front yard is clearly a garden, with a lined walk. Leasnam (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For me, what's shown in the photo is definitely not a front yard, because it's not an expanse of grass. I wouldn't call it a "front garden" either, because that's not a term in my dialect. I'd just call it a garden in front of the house. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I ask what your dialect might be? Thanks. So, how would the following be described in America? link link and picture five on this link: link? Kaixinguo (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this (first pic):link? To me that is still a 'front garden' even though there are only a few poxy roses. Kaixinguo (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And this: (pics one and three):link? Thanks. Kaixinguo (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd call all of them 'yards', front or back by their location. For the one in which only a small patch of grass is visible through the gate, I assume it is mostly lawn beyond the wall. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I speak American English. I guess I'd call all of the things in those linked photos "lawns", except maybe this one since there's no visible expanse of grass. It's difficult to be sure what American-English term I'd use for something that isn't usual in America, and the landscaping in these photos isn't usual in America. It's sort of like roundabouts, which Wiktionary tells us are called traffic circles in America, but in fact, they pretty much are only found in New England, so those of us from the rest of the country don't have a word for them, and when we encounter them for the first time in the UK, then we call them roundabouts because that's what our British hosts call them. Likewise, if I were staying in one of these houses, I'd probably call the outside area the garden, simply because that's what my British hosts would call it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)\
 * I would call them 'lawns' too, but lawns in 'front gardens' or 'back gardens'. I am still not clear on whether or not 'front garden' and 'back garden' ought to be given label the 'UK'. I wonder whether the 'UK' definition of 'front yard' which I added ought to be deleted as well; in reality when is a yard (enclosed paved area) ever at the front of a house? Perhaps my definition is really an account of how someone from England would imagine a 'front yard' if we didn't realise that it is synonymous with 'front garden', rather than being a term that is used ever in the UK. Kaixinguo (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that the American definition of a garden is more rigorous than the UK one; any lawn or even a few square metres of paving with some nice potted plants could be called a 'garden' in the UK. Perhaps there is some relation to the tradition of having a garden and that it is seen as a bit of a failure here to just have a lawn and no plants. Also, I like the house in Highgate quite a lot, I only need an extra £2,749,990. Kaixinguo (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For me (southern California), it's a front yard with a garden in it. I would call any open space adjacent to a house a yard, whether it's got plants, concrete or bare dirt in it. If you mention a yard to me, I'll visualize a lawn with plantings around it, but none of those is necessary for it to be a yard. As for "front garden", I've never referred to anything that way, even if there's nothing but plants in front of the house. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my usage as well. (I grew up in New York.) JulieKahan (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

steamer
"A vessel in which articles are subjected to the action of steam, as in washing, and in various processes of manufacture."

I was thinking of broadening this to include a hand-held steamer. Here's a link to one on sale at John Lewis (just the first good picture I found). I'm not sure if it justifies and additional sense because it does the same job using steam, just it isn't a vessel. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A possible cheat is to add one or more "or"s to the definition (as "or device" after "vessel"), rather than a whole new definition. If some languages make a distinction an energetic contributor could subsequently split the senses. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

full speed ahead
Given as a noun, says it can be used as an adjective and an adverb. However, the quote looks like an interjection. Bit of a confusion for the humble reader. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So add usage examples. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

how much
Adverb? --Type56op9 (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * much is defined as an adverb, so I'd say that requires that this be an adverb too. —CodeCat 10:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is always a determiner, with the use under Adverb being an instance of a fused-head use. This would be in accord with CGEL (2002), I think. It functions as a nominal in the usage example and can even be the object of a preposition ("You're selling that for how much?"). But I would not want to call it a noun or pronoun. The OneLook references (us, Oxford, UD) provide no help on word class.
 * I don't know how normal users interpret and get value from either of PoS headers, but we have chosen to add Determiner to the more traditional ones. I think it conveys more information to those who understand it than Adverb does in this case. Perhaps a usage note on fused heads would help some users a little, without harming too many others (because they probably would find it easier to ignore a usage note). DCDuring TALK 16:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:en:Sports abbreviations
Could this be a viable category? Pur ple back pack 89  00:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather name it Category:English sports abbreviations. —CodeCat 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But...could it work as a category or not? Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  00:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dún Laoghaire Pronunciation.
The entry for Dún Laoghaire recently had pronunciation added. I don't understand IPA, but noticed there is only one pronunciation given. The usual is "Dun" rhyming with "bun", but I've also heard it said as "doon". Is this a regional variation?--Dmol (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually the Irish pronunciation. In English in my experience it's pronounced as if spelled "dun leary" . —CodeCat 10:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) I don't know the answer to your question, but I have to say that that's Irish pronunciation not English. The pronunciation it gives would sound a bit like "Doon Leera" (with a dark L and a tapped R). I've always pronounced it "Dun Leary", but that's definitely my ignorant Sasanach pronunciation. I don't know what actual English-speaking Dubliners call it. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When I was in Dublin, I heard the local English speakers pronounce the first word to rhyme with and the second word to rhyme with, which is what CodeCat and Smurrayinchester both said. The Irish (Gaelic) pronunciation of the second word depends on the speaker's dialect: in Munster it's ; in Connacht and Ulster . The first word is  in all dialects. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

distain
Goes in circles through derivatives, but is never defined. Something I distain. --Dcshank (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Muses
Would it be possible to add a new label Muses to topic cat? --Fsojic (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Citations:lean into
The term lean in/lean-in seems to be gaining some traction in a non-SoP, figurative sense. I think it means "to put oneself into (an extended effort)". It is now the title of a book by Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, who first publicly used the term as shown below.
 * 2011,, Forrestal Lecture at the United States Naval Academy.
 * We need to find a way for women to not drop out, but to lean in to their careers and give them the flexibility they need to stay in the workforce.

I have not yet found much independent use of the term (Books, Groups, News) and shows no reference defining it in this sense. It's hard to find web use of it. Does anyone have any intuition one way or the other about this? DCDuring TALK 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * lean into is definitely better, though doesn't have this sense, only an Irish slang sense. DCDuring TALK  22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

selbst
Can someone who knows the nitty-gritty of German grammar take a look at this diff. Obviously marking an entry "Ambiguous part of speech" is a bad idea, but is the IP correct that this is more of a pronoun than an adjective adverb (in sense 1, at least)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The senses needed to be split; that probably caused or encouraged the IP's edit. I have split them. When the word means "personally, by one's self / by oneself", de.Wikt labels it a demonstrative pronoun; DWDS also labels it a pronoun. When it means "even", de.Wikt labels it an adverb and a particle; DWDS labels it an adverb. The Duden labels it a particle in both meanings. "Particle" seems to be our catch-all for things which don't unambiguously belong to another part of speech, so we could use "particle" for one or both headers, if there were disagreement about using more specific headers. - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When meaning "personally, by oneself", it seems to be an adverb as well. At least, it occupies the same syntactical position that an adverb would. The same for Dutch as well. —CodeCat 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Nhjoavi
ive, wasnt, theyre, etc. etc. as "nonstandard alternatives" for I've, wasn't, they're... Are these useful entries in any way? Equinox ◑ 19:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly not very, but citations and distribution of alternatives might be useful for the study of such non-standard orthography. DCDuring TALK 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

nonsensical
Would somebody have an idea when the first occurrences of these words go back to? I've the feeling that they can't be that old. --Fsojic (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to : "1610s, from non- + sense; perhaps influenced by French nonsens." Same source has nonsensical around 1650. I suspect ultimate source is OED. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between and etymologies of English gog, agog, goggle
I encountered the word recently for the first time in a while, and I got to wondering about it. I hypothesized that this term is +. By extension, would be  +.

Upon looking up the terms here, though, I find conflicting and apparently incomplete etymologies (which I omit here; please see the entries themselves), pointing variously to French, Italian, Welsh, and Irish. I cannot trace any of these further back, however, as all are dead ends (French, Welsh , and Irish do not exist, and there's no etym at Italian ).

Does anyone have any more detail that could be added to our entries? &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 22:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One promising possibility is which has a Middle English source for that term. The same page may be the source for gog and goggle etymologies given. The Middle English is confirmed in the apparently exhaustive multivolume Middle English Dictionary here. The ATILF entry for gogues doesn't seem to me to support gogues being from Old French. DCDuring TALK  22:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

acerata
There are three question marks in this article, where (I guess) an editor doubts the veracity of the meaning. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

back to nature
An adjective? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My first thought would be adverb. But that question is best settled by citations. — Keφr 09:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of Google Books citations for "the back to nature", but usually with hyphens and often within quotes ('the back-to-nature movement', 'the "back-to-nature" women). Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikihiero has too little hieroglyphs
Wikihiero has too little hieroglyphs (less than A100 in JSesh is A500), am I allowed to post images of Ancient Egyptian words.Can someone import hieroglyphs from JSesh to Wikihiero, Thanks.
 * We have no control over this. You should ask at . Or at . (Sorry, . Another over-hyped and confusing piece of software WMF introduced for no reason.)
 * Speaking of hieroglyphs, given that they have been included in Unicode since at least version 5.2, why are we not using Unicode hieroglyphs? — Keφr 08:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikihiero allows much more complex composition than you can do with Unicode. Kaldari (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -1 for going with Unicode! 1) there are many hiero variants for one word and so putting the definition under the transliterated title makes more sense; 2) can't get arrangement; 3) can't enter them with Manuel de Codage syntax; 4) they are thin and tiny and I can't see how anyone can read them. Hyarmendacil (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

euforia, euforía
Are these synonyms? Alternative forms? Cognates? —CodeCat 02:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Two extraneous facts are relevant here:


 * 1) The authoritative DRAE doesn't recognize euforía.
 * 2) The euforía entry was contributed by Luciferwildcat.
 * That's not to say euforía doesn't exist- it gets 99 hits on Google Books- but euforia gets 477,000 hits. I would call it either an alternative form or a misspelling, but I don't know Spanish well enough to say which. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I went through the GB hits and wrote down the author’s location:


 * Alicante: 1
 * Argentina: 8
 * Bolivia: 2
 * Chile: 1
 * Colombia: 1
 * Cuba: 1
 * Ecuador: 2
 * Germany: 1
 * Granada: 2
 * Madrid: 3
 * Peru: 1
 * Seville: 2
 * Spain (other): 2
 * Uruguay: 2
 * Venezuela: 2
 * ?: 6
 * A clear case for the labels rare and chiefly South America. Nonstandard may also be necessary, as one of the authors placed a sic after the word, another surrounded it with quotation marks and one hit was an etymological work mentioning that people only use academia and euforia but not academía and euforía. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Two vulgar terms
I have difficulty believing that written as two words refers to the labia majora, while  written together refers to the labia minora, but I have no inclination whatsoever to research these two terms on Google Books. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think either term is that specific in intent. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

lavo
According to De Vaan 2008, in early texts there is a distinction between and. The former is contained in compounds ending in -luere. Is this an Old Latin distinction (which we now treat as a separate language) or was this carried on into Classical Latin? —CodeCat 17:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Enucleate: additional definition: "explain"?
Thefreedictionary.com gives an additional definition of "enucleate" (and quotes sources for it): [archaic] to explain, elucidate or clarify. This definition also appears to be applied by a crossword on which I am working, which uses Chambers as its authority. Should this additional definition be added to the entry for "enucleate"? It's not clear to me how this definition relates to the others already given, other than, perhaps, in the sense of extracting (i.e. finding) the hub or nub of something.


 * Confirmed that Chambers has this sense. We should probably try to cite it for ourselves. Equinox ◑ 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

public transport and mass transit
Is there any difference between public transport and mass transit? If not, I think we should add a "trans-see" to mass transit. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that mass transit only seems to apply to local transport within cities, which makes it slightly narrower than public transport. I've never heard Amtrak or Greyhound buses referred to as "mass transit" (see, eg, this cite), but their British equivalents (long-distance train companies like Virgin, and National Express) are very commonly referred to as public transport. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both terms have only been in wide use in the second half of the 20th century. Mass transit, public transit, and indeed the associated sense of transit seem to be principally US terms.
 * I think there are negative social-class/status associations derived from the words mass and public, but that it is stronger with mass. For example, I think mass transit in NYC tends not to be used often to refer to commuter railroads, which serve a generally more affluent ridership, though they do not radically differ from subways. (Cost and crowding differ predictably.) As both terms are very colloquial, usage is probably sensitive to the tendency to avoid referring to class distinctions needlessly. In the US (COCA), public transit is nearly three times as frequent as mass transit. Public transit does not appear at all in BNC.
 * So, I think the desirability of not using depends on whether we have good enough usage notes and labels to allow translators the opportunity to capture connotative distinctions. DCDuring TALK  14:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comparing all six combinations of mass/public and transit/transport/transportation shows that public transport overwhelms all others combined 45 to 1 in the UK. (Most use of mass transport in both the UK and the US is in scientific and technical literature in a completely different sense.) In the US the terms used are public transportation (43%), mass transit (32%), public transit (16%), public transport (6%), and mass transportation (3%). I am not sure I can tease out all the differences or account for relative frequency. I'd be inclined to say that transit is used distinctively in the US, that public transport merits an entry for whatever its UK meaning us, and that there is no corresponding lexical term in the US. But apparently Wiktionary contributors abhor vacuums. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)