Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/July

nestor
My Chinese-English dictionary thinks this is a word in English as well. Any ideas? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a nestor that means something close to "nester", used as a coordinate of squatter, farmer, and miner, as opposing the open-range cattlemen in the American West of the late 19th century. A Nestor (sometimes nestor) is an old, and possibly wise, man, like Nestor (mythology) in Homer, whose advice may or may not be good.
 * Other dictionaries sometimes define it as "patriarch" or "leader", but perhaps "elder" is better. DCDuring TALK 04:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We have . The OED says it is not always capitalised. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What does it give as the Chinese translation? That should help us figure it out. --WikiTiki89 13:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My Chinese dictionary translates nestor as 鼻祖... ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

to let
I tried my best here, but I'm sure I stuffed something up. Anyone care to take a look? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me (added Italian translation, don't know any other). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I merged the translation table into . --WikiTiki89 15:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

whew
What is that musical-note stuff in the pronunciation section? If it has some kind of meaning, it ought to be better explained, and it probably ought not to be on the IPA line (unless it really is some kind of new IPA-recommended notation). This, that and the other (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. I removed it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd guess it was supposed to indicate a gradually falling pitch. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Strabismus. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Silflay
For anyone interested in words derived from fictional languages, I've created an English entry for, with four citations from sources independent of Watership Down and which don't even mention the book. I believe it thus meets WT:CFI. If anyone knows of more cites, feel free to add them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

to do with
We call this a preposition. Some of the fuller expressions that use it redirect to it and appear in usage examples.

The two problems I have with it are:
 * 1) it fails in the subsense definitions to fully cover use with forms of be.
 * 2) the sense definition is not substitutable in uses with forms of have, thus confusing translators and language learners, IMO.

AFAICT, it is not possible to have a single substitutable definition that covers both uses with have and uses with be.

I am having trouble finding references that cover this in a way that corresponds to our preposition treatment (which I don't object to, but am not committed to), so I'd like the thoughts of others. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Doesn't "this is to do with learning English" and "this has to do with learning English" mean the same thing? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but although in "This is '(relevant|related) to' learning English" "relevant|related to" is substitutable, in "This has '(relevant|related) to' learning English" it is not. "Relevance to" or "association with" would be substitutable with have. Although neither reads like a definition of a preposition, they seem otherwise satisfactory to me. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We could:
 * have two definitions, one for use with have, another for use with be
 * have two entries, one for have to do with, another for be to do with
 * decide substitutability is not necessary in this case.
 * I favor option 1 and would be happy to explain why if asked. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also interesting is the usage with (often with the have contracted and/or shifted).— Pingkudimmi 06:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I seem to have missed this discussion, but my impression is that "this is to do with" is considered substandard. --WikiTiki89 18:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If only they spoke/wrote standard English in the House of Commons . DCDuring TALK 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

blackify
Probably shouldn't have "niggerize" as the definition, but I'm not sure what else I would place there. Also, needs real citations. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 03:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Changed def to "To convert to the black race or culture." This is, of course, long-time abuser PaM. I say nothing about the attestability but I agree that we don't want "nigger" in definitions if we can reasonably avoid it. Equinox ◑ 05:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

one-year-old, 1-year-old
These, and many other terms starting with a different number, seem to be well attested in English. They have unhyphenated, single-word translations in Italian (see Category:Italian words suffixed with -enne) and possibly other languages. We have a definition of the suffix, but not (unlike with other suffixes) the actual words. Is their any objection to their inclusion? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * New Hart's Rules has some helpful guidelines, stating that "hyphenation often depends on the word's or phrase's role and its position in a sentence." (2005 edn, p. 52) This leads to approved usages such as "They had a one-year-old daughter" and "Their daughter was one year old". The rule in English is that compound modifiers following a noun do not need hyphens.

is that the time
Would appreciate some help writing the definition here. It's hard to word. BTW, any idea why it doesn't appear in the category "English questions" - just like at is that so.... ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not just an RfD? It doesn't seem like a good entry for even a phrasebook? DCDuring TALK 04:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it idiomatic though? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is as idiomatic as "[I've got|Don't you have] work/school tomorrow.", "Look at the time.", "", "I've got to walk the dog.", "I've got a long drive.", "The sitter has to be home by eleven." DCDuring TALK 14:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

piazza, pizer
I've expanded the entries with as much information as I could find. - -sche (discuss) 03:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is British use of piazza to mean "covered gallery" dated or still current?
 * 2) Does piazza mean anything else in Britain, besides what it means everywhere ("public square, especially if Italian")? WP says "In Britain, piazza now generally refers to a paved open pedestrian space, without grass or planting, often in front of a significant building or shops." Is this distinct from sense 1 of our entry, "public square"?
 * 3) Can anyone provide additional information (from DARE, other references, or personal experience) on where in the US piazza and pizer are used to mean "porch"? Dictionary.com says piazza is used in the Inland South, and I found a reference that pizer is used in eastern North Carolina and Appalachian Autauga county in Alabama, two rather disparate places.
 * I don't know when I will get to it, but I've inserted on the talk page for the entries. Only five pages now carry the template. DCDuring TALK  04:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

American Icelandic
See, etymology 2. What is "American Icelandic"? (Icelandic spoken by s?) - -sche (discuss) 06:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's how I would interpret it. According to the U.S. Census, as of 2010 there were 5170 ± 849 people in the United States who spoke Icelandic at home. I guess this entry would have us believe that some portion of them says instead of  for 'car', which seems plausible enough. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

quicumque vult, Athanasian wench, etc
Notwithstanding Jerome Charles Potts's bizarre appeal to the sublime authority of Google, there is no doubt at all that quicunque is the correct spelling. If Latin Wikipedia was adopted as a supporting source, JCP clearly failed to make this search and make a careful examination of the results. Is it not damning that such a facile error could be perpetuated for nine years in a purported work of reference? Yet, on his user page, JCP candidly informs us "Rule of the game : i keep from consulting dictionaries". Is this perhaps symptomatic of a new-world "US Latin" to parallel more familiar US improvements of the English language? Bjenks (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lewis & Short give "quīcumque (or -cunque )", so quicumque must have been more common in Classical Latin. Ecclesiastical scholarship virtually universally has quicunque vult as the first two words of the Athanasian creed.
 * Apparently quicunque vult/quicumque vult are synonyms for Athanasian wench, a sense we lack at quicumque vult. Some sources for the slang term "correct" it to quicumque vult. I suppose one should check for the relative frequencies of the two forms in print in the slang sense, but that seems like a long run for a short slide. So one is an alternative form of the other in that sense, provided both meet RfV (WT:ATTEST). DCDuring TALK  03:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In English works that use either Latin word, [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=quicumque%2Cquicunque&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cquicumque%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cquicunque%3B%2Cc0 Ngram Viewer] suggests quicunque was the considerably more common form until about 1910, when quicumque just barely overtook it. The [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=quicumque+vult%2Cquicunque+vult&year_start=1850&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cquicumque%20vult%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cquicunque%20vult%3B%2Cc0 story is similar] with q. vult, and [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=quicumque%2Cquicunque&year_start=1750&year_end=2008&corpus=20&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cquicumque%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cquicunque%3B%2Cc0 in German texts], where, however, quicumque overtook quicunque about a decade earlier (in 1900). - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Taking the start of modern English back to 1550, I tried this search which reveals that quicumque first appears in the early 18th century. I would speculate that the misspelling derives from the appearance of the slang term and its rendering by a writer or writers with no Latin. I understand that the age's foremost slang lexicographer Francis Grose "received a classical education", and his Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (3rd edn, London 1796) uses quicunque in the definition of "Athanasian wench". Next time I'm near a decent library, I'll look up what justification those Americans Lewis and Short give for their contrary interpretation. Bjenks (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've moved quicumque vult to quicunque vult per the evidence that the latter form is more common in Church Latin. I've left quicumque where it is (per Lewis and Short), but created quicunque pointing to it. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging Latin editors User:JohnC5 and User:I'm so meta even this acronym and User:Metaknowledge. Which form, of quicumque and quicunque, should be lemmatized? - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter very much. reflects the word's etymology ( + ( + )), whereas  probably reflects the more "natural", assimilated pronunciation: The consonantal cluster  only occurs in compounds (contrast, thrice as common) and is frequently subject to assimilation (see, for example, the variation in the accusative singular and genitive plural forms of ). Insofar as a speaker or writer is aware that  is a three-word compound,  makes most sense; insofar as this is not at the forefront of his mind,  makes most sense. As for Lewis & Short's choice of lemma, the note at the beginning of the “Orthographical Index” in (the edition I have of)  reads “A list of the principal words which are variously spelled in MSS. and editions. From Brambach’s ‘Aids to Latin Orthography.’ (In most cases the form approved by Brambach is that preferred by recent editors; but there are still several words on which high authorities differ from him or from one another. For particulars, see the Lexicon.)”, and in that index's central column I read the pithy prescription “cumque, not cunque.” I don't know the reason for that choice (be it Brambach’s or Lewis & Short’s), but they supposedly choose the forms that predominate in the best manuscripts, codices, and editions (however they determine which are best). I note that, besides Lewis & Short, Gaffiot and the Oxford Latin Dictionary also both lemmatise ; in the absence of any authority that lemmatises , I am happy to follow those three lemmings. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What a good analysis! In view of that, and especially the Cicero citations made patently available in Gaffiot, I humbly withdraw my earlier comments and acknowledge that I was misled by the 17th century English occurrences. Bjenks (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am still somewhat unclear as to why the current etymology of even mentions  in the first place. The two lemmata appear to have no etymological beaning on one another. — JohnC5 15:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's explaining that the reason a woman who has sex with "whoever wants to" is called an "Athanasian wench" is that the first words of the Athanasian creed are "whoever wants to". I think it's an important explanation; without it one would be left to wonder why a word for something Christian was being used for someone of un-Christian behaviour (irony, perhaps?). - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, but it could do that in English: "From the first words of the Athanasian Creed, 'whoever wants'." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is no reason to give the Latin. --WikiTiki89 18:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

reductionist pronunciations are still here
A discussion last September established both anecdotally and through scholarly sources that pronouncing cull, cole, etc as /kl̩/ is not (as it is currently labelled) a GenAm or general US phenomenon. However, quite a few such pronunciations are still given in entries. These need to be removed (or given an appropriate label, but the problem we ran into in September is that it's not clear what that label should be; "reductionist pronunciation used by only a handful of people in miscellaneous not-obviously-connected parts of the US" isn't a great label). The entries can be located by searching a database dump for English entries which contain l̩ after a consonant. - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree they should be removed, and I do remove them wherever I see them, but what should not be removed are cases where is found after a consonant in an unstressed syllable, e.g. battle, bottle, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/-sche&dir=prev&offset=20150705042539&limit=40&target=-sche just removed] all the ones I could find except the one in told; it's labelled "Pacific Northwest" and IIRC we did find sholarly evidence that "the 'bull'-'bowl' merger (/ʊ, o, ʌ/ before /l/)" (to /l̩/?) was present in the Pacific Northwest, even though the speaker who added the pronunciations was not from that region. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we found scholarly evidence of a bull/bowl/hull merger in the Pacific Northwest, but it did not say that they merged to /l̩/, and I find that extraordinarily unlikely. They probably merge to /ʊ/, but that's just a guess. The citation is Squizzero, R. (2009). Bulls and bowls in china shops: A perceptual experiment investigating pre-lateral vowels in Seattle English. Undergraduate thesis, University of Washington. I'm trying to think if I know anyone who could put me in touch with someone who's read that or has access to it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the user didn't speak Pacific Northwest dialect, and only use the label because it's we'd found which seemed to corroborate the pronunciation he wanted to add, I've removed it. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

tenderloins
I came across a phrase "tenderloin districts". This word is only in the dictionary as a cut of meat. An alternative definition should be added. It seems to be referring to US city districts of a dubious nature.

"Clustered in tenderloin districts in virtually every metropolitan area, peep show “movie machines” can also be found in suburban porn shops and the truck-stop adult markets that skirt highways throughout rural North America."

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/the_velvet_light_trap/summary/v062/62.herzog.html

QuentinUK (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From :
 * "[so called fr. its making possible a luxurious diet for a corrupt policeman]: a district of a city largely devoted to vice and other forms of lawbreaking that encourage political or police corrupions ⟨the dives and shady ~s of the underworld —H.E. Barnes & N.K. Teeters⟩"
 * —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Online Etymology Dictionary: "The slang meaning 'police district noted for vice' appeared first 1887 in New York, on the notion of the neighborhood of the chief theaters, restaurants, etc., being the "juiciest cut" for graft and blackmail." DCDuring TALK 13:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at a definition. Feel free to improve it as slightly or as comprehensively as you deem necessary. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. See also Tenderloin and Combat Zone. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

fōrmō v fōrma v μορφή etymology claims
fōrmō seems very confident of its etymology, claiming “From fōrma (“form”), ultimately from Ancient Greek μορφή (morphḗ).”

But fōrma is less sure of itself, claiming “Perhaps from Ancient Greek μόρφα (mórpha, ‘bodily form, build’), from μορφή (morphḗ, ‘shape, fashion, appearance, outward form, contour, figure’), via Etruscan.”

While μορφή is uncertain, denying its only claim, “Unknown. Many attempts have been made to connect it with Latin forma, but the proposed relationship is problematic.”

What's the best way to unify these? Josephholsten (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

memoir
The definition for memoir only includes autobiography and neglects to mention that it can also be a biography written by someone intimate with the subject. I personally have read many memoirs written by one person about a friend, and they are labeled as such. Merriam-Webster, Oxford English, Random House, and Collins English dictionaries mention both autobiographical and biographical meanings. As it could be seen as a significant change, I wanted to bring it up here first. Also, the limited definition has been making its way through various wiki projects which has hampered efforts to correct it so I'm trying to clear it up. I appreciate any help. Thanks, Hazmat2 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After realizing that this is a change I should make, I went ahead and made the change based on the definitions from the four dictionaries cited. It may require clean-up to meet Wiktionary standards though. Hazmat2 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

馬達
Can anyone confirm the use of 馬達 to mean "policewoman" in Hong Kong (etymology 2, Chinese)? Justinrleung (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * (Pinging who added this definition) —suzukaze (t・c) 08:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. Sorry. I didn't see this in time. I already added reference. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Chinese characters that are only used in compounds
What should the definition/part of speech be for characters that are only used in compounds? Examples: —suzukaze (t・c) 08:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 蜻
 * 2) * "see 蜻蜓"
 * 3) 睌
 * 4) * All three of the references in the Chinese section first start off their definitions with "（～䁂）" (in other words, they define 睌䁂)
 * English has something like this: fossilized morphemes that no longer have any independant meaning, but are found in compounds. The linguistic term is cranberry morpheme, named after the cran- in cranberry. A pet peeve of mine is how we tend to treat these as prefixes or suffixes in English. Of course, Chinese orthography is based on morphemes, so it's not possible to ignore them like we do in English.
 * I'm not really sure what to do with these, but there are an awful lot of them on the Chinese character pages- figuring out how to deal with this would get rid of almost all of the s in those pages, so it's worth the effort. Chuck Entz (talk)


 * suzukaze (I love your name!) and Chuck Entz, here are my ideas in a couple formats. These are influenced by my 2 years of college Japanese, the caveats being that that was a while ago and I have no experience with Chinese.


 * Combination-only character, used only in combination, idiom-only, used only in idioms, legacy character used only in set phrases, literary character, obsolete or archaic with the following exceptions, archaism, word containing outdated character, single-use character, legacy usage, throwback, aphorism, historical word fragment, historical text fragment, obsolete reading except in certain phrases, rarely used character, rarely used reading, rarely used combination, special character, uncommon, rare...


 * Okay, I'm repeating myself, so that's my brainstorm! I hope something in there gives you a useful idea. --Geekdiva (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if we define a character as, what should the part-of-speech be? It's hard to say that it should be "verb" or "noun" or "proper noun" because they are not stand-alone. —suzukaze (t・c) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have a template for this, . But I have no idea about the part of speech, it has been an issue with existing entries using that template too. —CodeCat 00:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be suitable to use Category:Chinese syllables? —suzukaze (t・c) 23:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since they're called cranberry morphemes, we could use ===Morpheme=== as a header. We already have a category for them, too. —CodeCat 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * : Thoughts? —suzukaze (t・c) 01:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (trying again:I get the feeling that it failed)—suzukaze (t・c) 04:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ping 病吗? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For single characters we already use ===Definitions===, which suits them fine because single characters usually have very generic senses and PoS is hardly relevant. If characters are only used in a limited number of compounds, like, which is only used in for pronunciation "gā" and  for pronunciation "gā", plus derivatives, we can use , as CodeCat suggested but otherwise define as "a phonetic component" (if it's a phonetic component, used in, e.g. loanwords) or "a component meaning ...". We can leave the |cat= section empty, if nothing suitable can be found or choose the part of speech, which is suitable for the translation, e.g. , 綠 is only a rare compound, I made it adj. PoS for non-inflected languages like Chinese, are artificial, anyway, you need to understand this concept in a Chinese sentence, not when looking at words in isolation, let alone single hanzi.  --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Asian carp
This term has become the object of legislation in the state of Minnesota. Fortunately, Equinox added it a few weeks ago, but a year after the legislation was signed changing the name for official purposes in Minnesota to invasive carp. I request that others hasten to add any such terms at first news of such public interest, so that we can include them while they are still topical. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any online source that pays close and timely attention to such things? DCDuring TALK 19:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WordSpy? Equinox ◑ 19:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks like a site worth watching, but I think I am interested in euphemisms. I'd say political correctness, but I'm really interested in all euphemistic tendencies, not just those of the leftish. A search for "euphemism + watch" got a few sites. For example, fact witness means what witness once may have meant. But that isn't really a euphemism, it's just a differentiation required due to the prominence of other types of witness. Zwicky blog has some. "Protologism watch" gets more. I'm going to try Gmail alerts for neologism and euphemism and add filters until they are useful. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

put off
I am trying to add the sense of put off as it is used in the example "I'm too busy to see Mr Smith today. I'll have to put him off." However, another editor has removed this, believing that it is the same as the existing sense "To delay (a task, event, etc.)". I disagree that it is the same (I am not insisting that my definition cannot be improved, however). Collins dictionary and Macmillan Dictionary  and M-W Dictionary  all agree with me that it is a different sense. Please can some other people take a look. Also, while you are looking at this, you may as well also look at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Feedback#put_off. Thanks. 109.152.148.119 21:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously the senses are related, but we often have separate definitions when the objects of a verb are different in kind, as a person (in your definition), rather than an event as in "To delay (a task, event etc.). The acceptable synonyms are different, for example, postpone is a synonym for the "event, task" definition, but one cannot "postpone a person". In the example you offer, though, it is easy to read Mr. Smith and, therefore, him as meaning "appointment with Mr. Smith", an example of metonymy.
 * OTOH, the definition that you offered is much too wordy and is not "substitutable", that is, you could not insert it into a sentence where put off is used. Furthermore, "communication" is not the essence of the matter. For example, locking the door and turning out the lights is how I "put off" trick-or-treaters at Halloween. It is not communication in the usual sense.
 * A wordy, but substitutable definition might be "To frustrate (someone) in achieving a goal that required one's participation, as by delay or evasion.". DCDuring TALK 23:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your Halloween example is sense #4. The sense I am talking about always involves communication (though I'm not necessarily saying this word has to be used in the definition). You (or someone) has to tell Mr Smith not to come. That is how you "put him off". Perhaps people are not so familiar with this sense, but I assure you that it exists. 109.152.148.119 00:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not if I don't say "put someone off from something". Please direct me to one of the dictionaries at (or other online dictionary of your choice) that makes putting off a type of communication. DCDuring TALK  00:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

hasanat
Is there a better way to define this than "brownie points from Allah", which I think belongs in WT:BJAODN? - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Observation: the plural in -s looks very rare indeed. I suspect this word might already be plural, since it comes from Arabic and ends in -t. Equinox ◑ 03:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another observation: I've never seen PAM make fun of Islam before- I wonder if it's unintentional? PAM is definitely clueless enough to make that kind of mistake. As for the plural: you're right- see . Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * PAM just wrote "points from Allah"; it was Zeggazo who added the word "brownie". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think those two usernames were the same person. Equinox ◑ 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Zeggazo was one of PAM's main alias accounts. They started out as PAM, then got a rename to North Atlanticist Usonian, then switched to Zeggazo. I think they sincerely believed that changing their account would cover their tracks, but their edits are just too obviously theirs: nobody else would ever think to create the kind of entries they do, or make the same kinds of errors in judgment (but I'm repeating myself...). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging from the entry at, it looks to me like hasanat refers to the good deeds themselves, not the credit one gets for them. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Quotation templates using both date and year
What is the purpose of this category? It is also wrongly named - the members of the category are not templates. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a maintenance category for entries with one of the quote templates having values for both date and for year, which makes the year value redundant- not something I would lose sleep over. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

drempt
Is there a worthwhile difference between sense 1 and sense 2? Could I just merge sense 2 into sense 1 by expanding sense 1's label to "dated or dialectal" or "dated or eye dialect"? - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find a dictionary that has drempt as a spelling, but a few that have it as a representation of the pronunciation (RP and US). The OED may have it.
 * I would have hoped that pronunciation spelling was the right term for this, as it would seem to be from AHD and RHU definitions: "A spelling that is supposed to represent a pronunciation more closely than a traditional spelling, as lite for light, or wanna for want to." But our definition insists "Spelling intended to represent a pronunciation not corresponding to a standard spelling", which seems to be an attempt to follow Pronunciation respelling. DCDuring TALK 02:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The "dated" label on sense 1 implies that it used to be a standard spelling but isn't anymore. (Sort of like .) I doubt that's true; the very citation we use for "drempt" also uses "undreamt" just a few words before. To be eye dialect, it would have to be used to suggest a lack of education on the part of the person using it, which might be the case in the 1935 quote (since it also has "they was chokin'" to suggest nonstandard usage), but does not seem to be the case in the 1939 quote. I don't think we need to have separate senses for 1 and 2. We could just call it a and have done with it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

egg roll
Is this what the second sense is describing? —suzukaze (t・c) 04:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be. Justinrleung (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Biscuit roll, this second sense is a literal translation of the Chinese 蛋卷 ("egg roll"), so it should probably have its own etymology. Pengo (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

tap
Is the sexual intercourse sense of tap exclusive to American English? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I never heard of it, though I could see a metaphorical sense derivation. DCDuring TALK 02:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

parallax
Definitions 1 & 2 (as of this writing) are mathematically and logically equivalent so far as I can see, and in my judgment should be merged.
 * Your merger seems reasonable. I can't make head or tail of the third def (the new #2): "The angle of seeing of the astronomical unit."? Keith the Koala (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding welsh verbal nouns
Verbal noun such as eisiau, shouldn't they have their own category?
 * Eisiau is a special case since it doesn't behave like other verbal nouns. For most verbs, we treat the verbal noun as the lemma, meaning they're all in Category:Welsh verbs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

baiji
Talk:baiji: —suzukaze (t・c) 03:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this term can also refer to a Chinese herb, 白芨. 204.11.189.94 16:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can, but I've always known it as bai ji. I created an entry for bai ji and added a second etymology with an alternative form section for baiji. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

sure
The definition of the interjection is currently "Yes, of course." When anyone I know says it, they don't mean "of course," they mean it as a weak yes. If I asked someone if I should put something in such and such a place, and they responded "Sure!" I would understand from that that they hadn't intended to put it there, whereas if they responded "Yes!" I would understand that they likely had. If they responded "Of course!" I would understand that they thought it obvious. I'm not sure how to reword the definition, or if "sure" can mean "of course" regionally.

I'd also like to know how one would express it in French, as that is what I wanted to find out when I looked it up (the current translation, "bien sûr" means "for sure" which is not the same thing). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on the intonation when you say it. We can have the weak yes as a separate sense. --WikiTiki89 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The meaning of almost any word can be said to be different based on the intonation. I don't think we are helping any normal user when we get into explaining such things at the expense of brevity.
 * I agree with Andrew's entire substantive discussion and believe the "of course" part of the misnamed "Interjection" definition is probably wrong, ie, could not be attested. I would prefer to see "Yes" as an additional sense under the Adverb header and the Interjection section removed. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the definition with what I believe is a more accurate one, but I think it still needs work. Currently, the definition looks like this:
 * 1. Yes.
 * I'll leave it to others to remove the tag if they think I've defined it well enough. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, except that is a stretch to call it an interjection. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, and a look at the definition for the English word on the French Wiktionary, I decided that the original sense exists. I agree that it's a stretch to call it an interjection, but Wiktionnaire does, so I haven't made any changes to the header. Currently, the definitions are:
 * 1. Yes.
 * 2. Yes; of course.
 * I think I'll leave the entry as it is now. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'll leave the entry as it is now. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'll leave the entry as it is now. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

almanac
Isn't there another kind of book that we call "almanac" that we don't list here? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's definitely what's specifically called a "farmer's almanac", which has a lot to do with when to plant things, etc. That's the only sort of almanac I've been exposed to, actually. Either the definition is too specific, or one is missing. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a second definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's the sense I meant. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Albanian term or terms for sworn virgins not on Wiktionary, & terms from Balkan languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins begins:

"Albanian sworn virgins (Albanian: burrnesha or virgjinesha) are women who take a vow of chastity and wear male clothing in order to live as men in the patriarchal northern Albanian society."

I think the word "or" being in italics is an error that implies the entire phrase is the Albanian term. I think both burrnesha and virgjinesha are separate words that can both be translated "sworn virgins." However, neither word was on en.Wiktionary and I'm running out of energy to look elsewhere for proof.

Sorry all I can do is point this out, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of doing this myself. Thanks in advance if you can work on this, here and/or WP! — Geekdiva (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There are other synonyms in the WP article's introduction that might not be on Wiktionary yet. See below.

Thanks! — Geekdiva (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the italics from the word "or" in the Wikipedia article. Equinox ◑ 02:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! So you had verification that that was correct? Everything I had found so far could have been referring back to the Wikipedia article itself, and so wasn't a good enough source. That's the reason I didn't make the correction myself and one of two reasons why I brought the question here, the other reason being, "Here are some words that maybe should be in Wiktionary!" — Geekdiva (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I found one of the two terms being used being on its own in a Google Books search. Also, or doesn't seem to be an Albanian word. Equinox ◑ 02:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice! Thank you very much. As for adding the words to Wiktionary, I'll leave doing or discussing it to others. — Geekdiva (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

jube
Sense: rood screen (etym 2) The accented (and currently uncited) form is referred to as the primary form. Is it, and how do we know? — Pingkudimmi 13:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/94.5.99.102
(is this the right discussion room?) It appear that this user doesn't know what they're doing in regards to Japanese; could someone please check the definitions of 接觸感應/接触感応 and 感應/感応? —suzukaze (t・c) 00:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I explained on your talk page, you've only scratched the surface: I would guess that three quarters of his thousands of edits have been reverted or deleted, and all the rest have required varying amounts of time-consuming salvage work. I block him on sight most of the time, but he just switches to a new IP. The blocks do slow him down, though. I left a message on Eirikr's talk page, but he's pretty busy in the real world and may not get to it for a while.
 * For future reference: if you see an IP making questionable edits, go to their contributions page and click "Geolocate". If it says Sky Broadband or Easynet in the UK, you can undo just about anything they've added with a clear conscience. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my latest comment on Special:AbuseFilter 40. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

活字
Could a Japanese-speaking editor please check the translation given in the Japanese entry? In Chinese this is accurately translated as "movable type". Thanks ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Old French entries and Template:oblique singular of
Old French uses the oblique singular form as the lemma form, so any uses of this are probably errors. Could someone with the necessary knowledge check all transclusions of this template? —CodeCat 01:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , can you take a look? It's only a dozen entries. The problem in the entries I looked at is that the entry with "-s" and the entry without it disagree with each other on whether the nominative singular or plural is the nominative form which has an "-s", and likewise whether the oblique singular or plural is the form which has the "-s". - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

catheter
can i do a page of a Suprapubic Catheter, and put some inages of a suprapubic catheter on the page The images will be of my own suprapubic catheter, I call my self Catheter2 I will talk about this too.


 * suprapubic + catheter is the obvious meaning of those two words together, and does not need its own entry. You can upload an image to Wikimedia. Equinox ◑ 17:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

judgement/judgment possible alternate etymology
I would like to suggest that the etymology of judgement/judgment could also be judge + -ment and judg + -ment respectively. It seems to fit okay with the definitions of judge/judg and -ment.

blur (computing)
In the context of computing, an in particular HTML, "blur" refers to the opposite of "focus" i.e. to focus an input field (currently definition 7 on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/focus). Since this definition for "focus" appears on its page I feel the definition for "blur" should also be on its page. e.g. the input field was blurred. 82.2.100.205 14:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Equinox ◑ 19:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Partikel, Pluraletantum, Singularetantum
"Partikel n. = particle (linguistics)" and the plural forms "Pluraletanta" and "Singularetanta" are attestable.

E.g. a few google book results for "das Partikel" in linguistics: So: Also: -84.161.40.207 18:14&18:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "sowohl wie um einzelne Wörter wie das Partikel (Adverb oder Präposition) mhd. umbe handelt"
 * "und in beiden Fällen unterstreicht das Partikel "nun" nicht nur den Imperativ, sondern führt als Adverb"
 * "Das Partikel chik zeigt an [...] Auch hier verliert das Partikel chik seinen auslautenden Konsonanten"
 * by a non-German: "[Title:] Am Rande der Grammatik (das Partikel und Postfix god in serbischen und kroatischen Grammatiken)"
 * "Die Verklammerung der Verse ist hier besonders eng. Die wenigen Fälle, in denen das Partikel ausgefallen ist [...] Die Partikel fallen bisweilen aus [...] Die Partikel fallen bisweilen aus [...] Die Partikel SCHON, NOCH, DANN [...]"
 * 1) Does "das Partikel" also have the plural "die Partikeln"?
 * 2) Should there be some note that those forms are sometimes prescribed and labeled incorrect?
 * Pons' "Die große Grammatik Deutsch" states: "Auch in der Physik gibt es den Fachausdruck Partikel, aber es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten: Man kann wie beim Grammatikbegriff im Singular die Partikel sagen; häufiger ist aber das Partikel (Neutrum)" - i.e. "Partikel = particle (physics)" can also be feminine. Is this true? Or is the statement good enough to include it anyway? (E.g. one could add a usage note and state "According to Pons ...".)


 * This is how the Duden splits it:
 * Die Partikel ~ die Partikeln: linguistic particle
 * Das/die Partikel ~ die Partikel: particle of matter
 * Perhaps the “neuterness” (neutrality?) of the second lemma is being analogized to the first? — JohnC5 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I knew how duden splitted it, but duden is prescriptive and incomplete (well, that's no surprise), so it many cases duden is quite useless. Thanks anyway.
 * There could also be other reasons why Partikel (linguistics) is used as a neuter, though in a way these reasons might be related:
 * By analogy with Partikel (physics) - which might be more common (in movies etc.)
 * By analogy with the German translation "Teilchen"
 * By analogy with other words ending with -(k)el - well, that should be rather unlikely in this case
 * A few quotes for the physics terms:
 * "Die Partikel hat ein Bewegungsmoment" (Strömgren, Lehrbuch der Astronomie, originally 1933). In the book there are equations and fractions, so is this quotable, i.e. does Wiki-nearly-Latex work here?
 * "wobei sich die Partikel auf einer Hyperbelbahn [um die zentrale Ladung] herumbewegt"
 * "so ist die Partikel selbst, in der per definitionem kein Vakuum ist, absolut dicht"
 * But: If neuter gender is non-standard in linguistics, then isn't it very likely that the feminine gender is non-standard in physics - any mentioned by grammarians by analogy with their Partikel?
 * Regarding the plural of das Partikel:
 * In linguistic books it is: "in der Physik auch das Partikel (Plural: die Partikel oder die Partikeln; ‚Elementarteilchen')", "In der Physik gibt es den Begriff das Partikel und bildet den Plural die Partikel oder die Partikeln"
 * "elektrostatischen Einheiten, welche das Partikel unter Zugrundelegung [...] da ja auch die Partikeln" (snippet and here just a doubtful google quote, but indeed the book uses both forms)
 * "die auf das Partikel wirkende Zentrifugalkraft [...] Die auf die Partikeln wirkende Zentrifugalkraft" (snippet and here just a doubtful google quote, but indeed the book uses both forms)
 * -80.133.127.31 01:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Pluto's Moon Nix's formal secondary designation.
Nix is one of Pluto's 5 know moons and one of the 4 smaller ones. It was discovered in 2005 along with Hydra. Physically it is the third moon out from Pluto, with Styx and Charon being nearer. Moons are often given designations as PLANETNUMBER. For example The Moon or Earth I. For a while these numbers meant the position of the satellite in orbit. Eventually though in the late 19th and early 20th centuries more and more moon's were being discovered and it was becoming a pain to change the number. So they were fixed. The thing I'm wondering is what is Nix's secondary designation. Wikipedia lists it as Pluto II, while Wiktionary lists it as Pluto III. The first would be correct at time of discovery, the second is it's current position in the system with the discovery of Styx between it and Charon. Unless they started approving shifts in the numerology again it should be still the former. Does anyone know the correct answer? Because either way. The two sites are contradicting each other.

culture
Are we missing the sense used in archaeology, e.g. Daxi culture, Dadiwan culture, etc.? This sense is countable, and as far as I can tell, refers to a particular society unearthed by archaeologists. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

[ ] in IPA
I would like a definition of how [ ] is used in IPA to add to the entry, please. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

escalera, straight
The third definition for the Spanish word ("straight", with a context of "poker") does not have a corresponding English definition. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was hard to understand. Are you saying our entry is missing the poker sense? If so, you're right, though that sense does have a translation table. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Found it! It was accidentally buried in a citation for the previous sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's what I meant. Thanks for fixing it. It looks like the entry for straight has a lot of things categorized as subsenses that aren't true subsenses. Should that be cleaned up, or is there a reason to have it like that? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

pelagus & pelagi & pelagorum
Either pelagus is incorrect/incomplete, or pelagi & pelagorum are (partly) made up. -84.161.33.177 14:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

chused
If chuse = choose, is "chused" really the past tense of chuse? —suzukaze (t・c) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems so: . Equinox ◑ 01:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

anyways
Has anyone else heard the pronunciation /ˈeˌniwiːz/? I'm from the Pacific Northwest and at first I thought it was just a quirk of my little sister but then I heard a public speaker say it this way a while back. (I don't say it this way.) —suzukaze (t・c) 04:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

rear its (ugly) head
Anyone want to try for a good definition entry? - And what would be the best headword form? "rear its ugly head" or "rear its head"? -- A LGRIF  talk 11:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it should be "rear its head", as "ugly" isn't essential to the meaning, and could theoretically be replaced with another adjective. A usage note should indicate that it is frequently used with that adjective, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Nether-Man
I have sometimes seen nether-man used in Victorian-era literature as a euphemism for the penis or man's private area. This definition is missing from the entry.

For example, "You Paterfamilias, being a man of pure and cleanly life, will bathe, but you will bathe under the eye of the police, bathe with your nether-man hidden from the vulgar gaze by what the French call calecons, bathe in batches, the men in one batch and the woman in the other."

https://books.google.com/books?id=5K0RAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22august%20it%20will%20be%20dead%22&pg=PA151#v=onepage&q=desant&f=false

Or, "Be not seduced by the example of surgeons into party-colored raiment, neither invest your ancles, like Mr. Brodie, in web gaiters, nor your nether man, like Mr. Guthrie, in white trousers."

https://books.google.com/books?id=GtoRAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22your%20nether-man%22&pg=PA360#v=onepage&q=%22your%20nether-man%22&f=false

wer - inflection?
1. was usually is considered to be an inflected form of wer - like "die" and "das" are inflected forms of "der". But grammarians resp. grammar books use two "ways" of putting it. (Something like "Wen hast Du geschlagen?" - "Ich schlug das Kind" might be more common, but might also be construcio ad sensum like "Das Mädchen ... sie".)
 * a) by gender: m./f. wer, n. was
 * b) by (something like) animacy: animate/persons wer, inanimte/things was

2. [de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kromayer_(Theologe)] mentions dativ plural "wenen". Does/Did this form exists? -80.133.127.31 01:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the one hand:
 * "wenen" is formed in a logical way compared with der and the form denen.
 * older language sometimes seems to be strange compared with current forms.
 * On the other hand:
 * Sometimes grammarians make up forms.
 * It's quite common that one doesn't know whether the answer is in singular or plural, so the question should simply be like "Wem gabst Du es?" and the answer like "Ich gab es dem Mann[e]" (sg.) oder "Ich gab es den Männern" (pl.), instead of "Wem gabst Du es?" - "Ich gab es dem Mann[e] (sg.) and "Wenen gabst Du es?" - "Ich gab es den Männern" (pl.).
 * Nom. and acc. pl. "wie" doesn't make sense, as the word does exist and means (and should have meant) something different. So it's unlikely that there was a plural.
 * These forms are certainly not part of standard German, and also not of general colloquial German. They may very well exist dialectally. -- It's however not useful to consider "was" an inflected form of "wer", because "was" is completely indeclinable. It doesn't change to "wem" in the dative. Actually, it doesn't really have a dative, but if one needs to use it in the dative case it will be in the form "was", not "wem". Kolmiel (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Duden (Schulgrammatik extra - Deutsch, p.31) says something different:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Personen (persons) !! Sachen (things) ! Nom. ! Gen. ! Dat. ! Acc.
 * wer || was
 * wessen || wessen
 * wem || (was)
 * wen || was
 * }
 * Here was has the genitive wessen (and not was), and was is an inflected form of wer.
 * Though other grammar books mention other inflections (Deutsch Klasse 1 - Intensivkurs Deutsch als Fremdsprache, p.44):
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Person (person) !! Sache (thing) ! Nom. ! Gen. ! Dat. ! Acc.
 * wer || was
 * wessen || wessen
 * wem ||
 * wen || was
 * }
 * Here it's with singulars (person, thing), and was without a dative.
 * Pons (Schulgrammatik Plus Deutsch, p.85) uses a table similar to the one from Duden, and adds an explanation:


 * "Die Dativform was wird nur nach einer Präposition verwendet. Meist wird die Verbindung aus Präposition + was aber durch ein Frageadverb ersetzt: Mit was soll ich beginnen? Womit soll ich beginnen?"
 * Pons (Pocket-Schulgrammatik Deutsch, p.34) also has another table:


 * Here is no note regarding the dative of was, but it is stated that wer is used for persons and was used for things.
 * In some modern linguistic books it's masculine instead of person(s) and neuter instead of thing(s) and was with dative wem (sometimes in brackets, sometimes besides was), but that seems to be uncommon and misleading: E.g. in case of "Wer öffnete die Tür?" - "Die Frau öffnete die Tür" that "masculine" is irritating, and the hypothetical feminine form wie (der - die - das, wer - *wie - was) has another meaning.
 * So, mentioning was as inflected form is justified - at least something like "was is considered to be an inflected form of wer" (maybe one could add something like "often" or "by some") should be added. Regarding the dative of was a note has to be added. Regarding the distinction of person(s)/thing(s): It's unclear what animals and pets are. Are they things (should be more likely) or perons (should be unlikely)? But maybe something like "Ein Kater und eine Hündin waren im Garten. Wer von den beiden öffnete die Tür?" can be found. That is, person(s) might be incorrect or misleading, as wer maybe is used for other living creatures, or pets which are treated like persons.
 * -Rdm571 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

breakfast
Is sense 3 really pronounced the same way as sense 1? And is breakfast as opposed to break-fast really the most common spelling of it? Other dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford Dictionaries, Dictionary.com, the American Heritage Dictionary, Collins, Century) don't even have sense 3, and so don't give any insight into how it might be spelled or pronounced. Incidentally, Collins has a sense we lack: "(in the Caribbean) a midday meal". - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In a Jewish context (usually referring to the meal the night after Yom Kippur), I have seen all three spellings (,, and ) and heard both pronunciations (/ˈbɹɛkfəst/ and /ˈbɹeɪkˌfæst/). It is often perceived more as a pun than a "real word". --WikiTiki89 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But and /ˈbɹeɪkˌfæst/ are probably more common. --WikiTiki89 17:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked Google Books for "Kippur break-fast(s)" and "break-fast(s) after Yom" with no space, space, and hyphen, and the data bear that out: 16 books used the unspaced form, 22 used the hyphenated form, 21 used the spaced form. Now the question is: is break-fast more common than breakfast by enough of a margin that it's best to move sense 3, or is it better to have all the senses in one entry? - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, left where it is wit a usage note. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Polish phrase?
What does "alesmy pochlali" mean? (I might not have it quite right.) I think it's Polish. Equinox ◑ 17:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on the hits it gets on Google, the language it's found in is certainly Polish, but I can't tell what it means... maybe it's an example of a -like phenomenon? Sometimes it gains a diacritic or additional words, e.g. "aleśmy wczoraj pochlali". Any idea, ? - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be "aleśmy pochlali". Basically it is a brag about alcohol intake. :)
 * This is an example of moving verb suffixes (I don't know the precise name in linguistics). The standard form of this phrase would be "ale pochlaliśmy", which roughly means "oh, how we drank". However, the 1st person plural suffix -śmy can move to different words before the verb or merge with the emphatic suffix -że to form a standalone word, giving rise to alternative forms: "ale żeśmy pochlali" and "aleśmy pochlali". The verb is, which is + .  is a conjunction that normally means "but", but when used in front of the sentence can also expresses emphasis. Example: "To piwo jest dobre" = "This beer is good", "Ale to piwo jest dobre!" - can be either a retort "But this beer is good!", or an emphasised statement "This beer is so good!" - the meaning would be determined by sentence intonation. In the latter case, the intonation would be rising and drop on "dobre", in the second the intonation would be emphasized at "Ale". --Tweenk (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

hot as in "in a hot minute", "for a hot second"
What else does this sense of hot collocate with? DCDuring TALK 01:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can find examples of "for a hot moment", the plurals with "a few", and (not on Google Books but on the web) "for a hot while". - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Most etymologies
I see that cat has six etymologies, which seems like a lot but I bet there are words with more. Anyone know which word on Wiktionary has the most separate etymologies from within one language? WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 질 - 13 etymologies. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks! WurdSnatcher (talk)
 * You might be interested in -sche's Hall of Fame. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Latin nouns derived from verbs
I recently found a situation where I was researching "assectator" and "initiator" as names, and found that Wiktionary only lists them in their verb forms instead of their (almost certainly later, derived) noun forms. For assectator, a noun form is listed here: http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2004943 and here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=assectator&la=la For initiator it is listed here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=initiator&la=la

I would edit these things myself, but I don't want to startle any editors by doing it unannounced. Rogerburks (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

echo
Tagged but not listed, with the comment “Verify that it is "fourth declension". In several books it's 3rd declension (kind of irregular, but it's coming from Greek).” - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Lewis and Shorts: "ēcho, ūs, f., = ἠχώ"
 * Georges: "ēchō, ūs, Akk. ōn, Abl. ō. f."
 * So the declension seems to be doubtful (ablative ēchō, or also ēchō besides ēchū). :-Rdm571 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

raw
This entry seems to be missing the sense used when referring to manga (not translated; original untouched scans) / anime (no translation/subtitles). I am not entirely certain but I think that it can be used as a noun ("Dragon Ball raws") and as an adjective ("raw manga scans") —suzukaze (t・c) 01:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with definition 2, "Not treated or processed (of materials, products etc.); in a natural state, unrefined, unprocessed"? DTLHS (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That definition could apply but to me it doesn't feel quite specific enough... —suzukaze (t・c) 01:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

older English in affor
Several of the citations in affor use such old English that I can only partially understand them. - -sche (discuss) 20:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What does "vytin" mean? (For that matter, what does "hagbuttares" mean?)
 * What does the "The counsall ordanis the... bairnis nor he doid affor tyme" citation translate to in modern English?
 * What does "affor" mean in "buryed in Seynt Trinite kyrke in Hull, affor the Sacrament, of the north syd of the yle"? "Before"?
 * The quotes using "hagbuttares ... vytin" and "counsall ordains" are in Scots, not English. In fact, most of the quotes appear to be in either Middle English or Scots and are thus inappropriate for an English entry. In "affor the Sacrament" I think it means "before" in the sense of "in front of", but maybe it means "opposite"/"across from" since the Sacrament is usually kept on the south side of the chancel. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the 1987 quote is totally wrong; it's clearly a nonstandard form of . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. "hagbuttares" are hagbutters and "vytin" is within. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I can't figure out exactly what the quote about the schoolmaster means. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Two edit conflicts later...
 * Hagbutters on horseback came to this town of Stirling where all the nobility was assembled, entered within the town before any within knew of them.
 * The council ordains ["orders"] the school master to provide a doctor ["master, educated man"] to teach the school and the same honest man that his bairns to give the doctor his meet about ["that the school master give his own children to the doctor to be taught"], and ordains the master to wait himself better on the bairns ["to pay better attention to the children"] than he did before, and he will answer to them thereupon.
 * If it pleases God, may my body be buried in Saint Trinity church in Hull, before the Sacrament ["Alter", I believe], in the north side of the isle --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's the north side of the aisle, not the north side of the isle. (Holy Trinity Church in Hull isn't on an island, and it's in the south part of town.) As for "ilk honest man that hes bairnis to gif the said doctur his meit about", I think it means "every honest man that has children to give that doctor his meat", i.e. everyone who has children has to pay for the teacher's food, but I'm not sure. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Isle" vs "Aisle"... completely correct. In my defence, I was in a rush, and not just because I was hoping to actually post something this time.
 * If it's Scots, then it's more likely ilk as in "of that ilk", and ... it would take someone more familiar with period Scots to make that bit clear. My interpretation is that the School Master was getting a dressing down, and being ordered to hire a competent teacher, and to send his own children to his own school, instead of being a kind of educational slumlord. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Dictionary of the Scots Language, ilk can mean "the same", but it can also mean "each, every", and to judge from the quotes in those two entries, when it means "the same" it's always preceded by something like "the", "this", "that", but when it stands alone it means "each, every". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked up the dates for those quotes: they're 16C. The one for burial in Hull is from a collection of Wills from York. So probably not (quite) Scots, that one. The one about the School Master seems to be a saga: the next week's council minutes state: The maist part of the counsaill ordainis the scuill master to gait ane doictur in all haist to tech vnder him, vnder the pane of deprevascioun of him of his office; and that the said master taik na hear waigis fra the landwart bairnis nor he dois fra the tovnes, onle it be of benevolence. "the majority of the Council orders the School Master to get a Doctor in all haste to teach under him, under the pain of deprivation of office; and that the said Master take no more wages from the country children nor from the town's, except if it's charity." They seem to have been quite upset with the School Master and his recalcitrance. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , re the quotations being Middle English and Scots: yep. (It used to be worse; the quotations used to be presented as if they were all not only English but also uses of a verb! See the edit history and RFV on the talk page.) Thanks for figuring out what "vytin" meant! It was driving me nuts.
 * you get the 'edit conflict' screen with the two edit windows where you can just copy what you previously wrote and paste it in after whatever comment caused you the edit conflict, right? I ask because previously in the BP or GP (I forget which) it came up that someone had never scrolled to the bottom of that screen to see their text, and thought they had to always retype their comments after edit conflicts.
 * - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (I am aware of that. I published my comment, got a conflict, extracted my comments from the bottom window and refactored them to make sense again out of their original (interleaved) context, published, and got another edit conflict. The third time worked. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC))
 * Re "Sacrament", which question you appear to have withdrawn: my understanding is that the Sacrament is the communion wafers and wine after transubstantiation, but that these are always kept at the altar, either while being transubstantiated and used, or else in a tabernacle in preparation for being used later, or elsewhere -- and that tabernacle is stored at the altar. So to be before the Sacrament means "before the Altar", in practice. I'm not a Christian, so I could be wrong. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha, thanks for the information; that matches what I found, which led me to withdraw my question and just update sacrament to note the use of the word "sacrament" to refer to the wafers. - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a lifelong practicing Episcopalian/Anglican, I must say I have never ever ever heard the altar referred to as the Sacrament. I'm starting to wonder if by "affor the Sacrament" he meant there should be a Eucharist service after his burial, but that seems like an odd thing to stipulate too. Maybe Sacrament has meanings in Yorkshire dialect that I'm unaware of; that wouldn't surprise me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that myself. His will does go on to specify other elements of the funeral, so perhaps that is indeed what he meant: "...north syd of the yle, and to [be] rong for wt the gret bell; havyng Messe and Dirige with all the prests and freris in Hull, they havyng for ther sallaris accordynge to ther dewtye." And he was a former mayor (father of, who was also buried in the church), so the church might have been inclined to accommodate him. - -sche (discuss) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

blime o riley
"blime o' riley" is the phrase I used as a boy in Bristol, England, in the 1950s. I sometimes heard middle-class people use "blimey O'rieley" but they always struck me as trying to seem lower than they were socially, but getting it wrong. That my phrase seems to have disappeared, at least in writing, suggests that the middle class have won. They got the phrase wrong in the 1950s, the media were controlled by the middle-class, and then, because they were computer literate, the middle-class petrified the meaning for the rest of time. this seems to be an unusual case of "folk etymology." The omnipresent phrase "blimey" seems to have been assumed to be related to "blime." No matter what, I still cringe when I hear the phrase "blimey O'Reilly" know it is an affectation. arryengrove
 * Speaking as a fellow Bristolian, I believe that the term is just Bristolian for . An alternative form of it, and more often heard, is . Of course, you are much more likely to hear Spanish spoken in Bristol these days than Bristolian. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

anthralgia
I think this is a typo or tongue slip of. It is well attested, but almost all Google Books hits (that aren’t scannos) use anthralgia once or twice and arthralgia much more often elsewhere. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * may have the same problem. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * When works which use a nonstandard spelling x also use the standard spelling y, that is IMO the clearest possible indication that x is a misspelling or typo (short of addenda to or subsequent edition of the works outright specifying that x was a mistype). Anthralgia is not even a common misspelling; arthralgia is a thousand times more common. I would delete anthralgia. Anthroconidia is so much rarer than arthroconidia that it doesn't even appear in ngrams; I would delete it, too. - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

klauen
The entry for klauen (colloquial German for ‘steal’) says that its syntactical construction is identical to that of stehlen (the standard word for ‘steal’), for which the person something is stolen from is given in the dative: Er hat mir ein Buch gestohlen means ‘He stole a book from me.’ In the Die Toten Hosen song ‘Bonnie und Clyde’, however (lyrics here), the dative is used with klauen to indicate the people for whom the object was stolen: Komm, wir klauen uns ein Auto / ich fahr' dich damit rum (Come on, we'll steal ourselves a car / I'll use it to drive you around). Is colloquial usage of the dative with klauen inconsistent, or is the entry we have simply wrong? Esszet (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of dative can mean both 'from someone' or 'for someone' although the latter is colloquial. In formal language or to make it more clear 'klauen für jemanden(acusative)' is used. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Good observation. Now. The "for someone" sense is logical when the dative is reflexive, which is the case in your example. I'll add that to stehlen. The statement of "klauen" having the same construction as "stehlen" remains valid. Kolmiel (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)