Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/March

whole shebang
How is sense 2 used? Is it distinct from sense 1? - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's distinct. People often use it for houses, but they also use it for cars, etc. --WikiWinters (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

red book
Shouldn't it be capitalized? It had a proper noun header before I replaced it with a common one. --WikiWinters (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * see also - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard) 22:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have thought so, but all but one of the citations are lower case. The first sense, I suppose, could be lower case if one was talking about red books in general, but specific instances of a red book might be upper case.  The second sense, the Devil's red book, I personally would certainly have written upper case, but three of the four citations are lower case even here. Spinning Spark ''' 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Quaker terminology
As a member of the Society of Friends, I notice that there is a gaping hole in Quaker terminology. I have filled in some entries for terms that do not have a more generic use (such as using "elder" as a verb), but I am not sure where to draw the line. Should I be adding entries for terms like "monthly meeting", "quarterly meeting", and "yearly meeting", which are organizational groupings, or is the additional sense of "meeting" as a Quaker unit of administration sufficient? Similarly, the phrases "meeting for business" (a term for the Quaker form of consensual decision making that is seen as a special form of worship) and "meeting for worship" (the standard Quaker religious service) are used by Quakers as standard phrases, but can certainly be seen as simple extensions of their consituent parts. What about standard Quaker officers such as "recording clerk"?


 * Don't add entries for things whose names make their nature obvious (e.g. monthly meeting = a meeting that is monthly). Equinox ◑ 01:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well that right there tells me I should probably add monthly meeting, because that is not what monthly meeting means.


 * If a "monthly meeting" is not a meeting that is monthly then please add it. Quakers must be lunatics. Gold plate it up! Equinox ◑ 01:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, I think I have a sense of what to do, and I am trying to be conservative about it - adding material to usage notes rather than entirely new entries. BTW - you do realise that you just insulted my religion. Good thing I am not touchy about it. Kiwima (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

evaluative diversity
Erm so what does it actually mean. The "usage notes" sound like a political manifesto. Equinox ◑ 03:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like it means "diversity of evaluations". DCDuring TALK 13:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The Wikipedia article seems to been created for promotional reasons (see w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evaluative diversity), and the editing pattern of this user doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either. These entries seem to stem from an attempt to generalize all the different isms under a single umbrella (slightly ironic, given that one of the key concepts behind the actual philosophical concept of evaluativism is that differences between worldviews are fundamental and that there exists no objective underlying pattern to nature). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

inflow
Not too convinced by the "influence" sense. The citations are mostly using the words together, e.g. "inflow and influence", suggesting that they are not the same thing, just a collocation. I believe this sense is mistaken and is just the usual "flowing inward" sense. Equinox ◑ 04:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the citations unambiguously support the "influence" definition. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like Anglish-cruft to me. The fact that a rare Germanic cognate of a common Latinate term has only 21st century citations is odd - I would expect this word to be more common pre-1750 or so, but I can't find much evidence of its use. I did find one "citation" (as a verb) - Hobbes' Leviathan quotes an English translation of a Latin text as "The first cause does not necessarily inflow any thing into the second, by force of the essential subordination of the second causes, by which it may help it to work" (Causam primam nihil necessario influere in secundam, ex vi subordinationis causae secundae ad primam, quo illam ad agendum juvet). However, this is a deliberately bad translation by Hobbes as a caricature of verbose theologians, and in the context of the mangled sentence conveys no meaning. There's a possible citation in Summa Theologiae/Supplement to the Third Part/Question 27, but I don't understand enough theology to parse the sentences it occurs in. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Summa Theologica noun usage appears to me to be an intentionally literal translation of influus, influxus, or influxio, probably being used in a Medieval/Ecclesiastical sense diverging from classical Latin. If the exact interpretation of the word was in doubt in 1917, at least in the view of the 'Fathers of the English Dominican Province', responsible for the translation, an intentionally awkward translation would have forced a reader who was concerned about the exact meaning to go to hermeneutical literature.
 * This tends to confirm my general preference to avoid religious literature, as also poetry, whenever possible as a source on unambiguous citations of words supposedly in general use. If this were the citation that made a difference between inclusion and exclusion of a definition, it might be worth the effort to investigate further, but even then .... DCDuring TALK 16:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect most citations will be literal translations of influus (or cognates like Einfluss). Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What Means "Silverside"?
"Now, you've turned into an old silverside! Why, you even dress like an old silverside!" What does Mary Skinner mean by this in 19th century New York?
 * Do you mean the Mary Skinner played by Elizabeth Taylor in ?
 * Given that it is from a movie made in 1947, or the 1939 play, or the earlier popular autobiographical work by, or the TV sitcom, I'd look for a shallow meaning, easily read by a movie audience. I assume that it just means a late middle-aged male, of conservative habits. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The word probably isn't meant to carry intrinsic meaning, it's probably just intended to carry tone of voice or sentiment. If it does hold meaning it's probably 'silver' in reference to hair colour implying age & keeping to age related fashions. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverside for actual meanings independent of context. 09:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

stall
Is there any reason to believe that Etymology 2 (currently marked ) isn't just the same as Etymology 1? Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The usually reliable Online Etymology Dictionary splits them. I think one or two defs in Ety 1 belong in Ety 2. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ultimately the two are the selfsame word, it's just that Etym 2 developed from the verb (esp. in a causative sense "to bring to a halt; cause to come to a halt or standstill"), and then developed deverbal noun senses of its own Leasnam (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

sex goddess
How is meaning #2 different from #1?
 * Look again. Definition 2 was only there for 11 minutes until User:Equinox reverted the edits that added it. By the time you posted this, it was already gone. Timing can be funny, sometimes ... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

been
Would it be correct to describe this as an alternative past participle of come/go? For example:
 * "Could you go to the shops?" "I've already been to the shops."

Currently, we have this in "be" as "(intransitive, without predicate) elliptical form of "be here", "go to and return from" or similar. ", but this doesn't sound right to me. As far as I can tell, it only applies to "been". For any other tense form in Standard English, it fails:
 * *"I will be to the shops."
 * *"I am to the shops."
 * *"I was to the shops."
 * *"Are you to the shops?"

The usage examples at be would then be:
 * "The postman has been today, but my tickets have still not yet come." > "The postman has come today"/"The postman came today"
 * "I have been to Spain many times." > "I have gone to Spain many times."

It seems to odd to have such a definition for the most irregular verb in the English language when only one of its many conjugations has such a meaning. Should we move or change this definition?

In terms of lemmings, Chambers says "in past tense to go", Collins says "(used in the perfect or past perfect tenses only) to pay a visit; go", American Heritage has "To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?", Merriam-Webster has "to come or go  ", and Oxford UK English has "Come; go; visit: ‘he’s from Missouri’ ‘I have just been to Thailand’ ‘the doctor’s been twice today’". The Oxford one is the only one to hint at any use of inflected forms other than "been", but that example doesn't imply movement the way the others do. To me it's just the standard is (has such a state) + from (having as a source). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think some folks do use it in other tenses. It would be a bit of research project to confirm this and determine the scope of usage.
 * I would make it "especially in the past and perfect". Even in my idiolect I could say "I will have been to the store and back by then." [future (tense) perfect (aspect)]). DCDuring TALK 15:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * de.Wikt, which has a remarkably good entry for be, has this as sense 12, "als been, mit Formen von have: besuchen" = " to visit". I do think it's appropriate to keep the sense at be, since it doesn't seem like a past tense of go per se but a (merely) somewhat specialized use of be: "I have already been to the shops." &rarr; "I have already been at the shops." &rarr; "I have already (existed, had presence, etc &mdash; the usual sense of be) at the shops." - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This came up before, and someone made the interesting point that "went" is actually a completely different verb, yet is accepted as the past tense of "go", so why cannot "been" be accepted as a past participle of "go"? I still wasn't convinced though. As far as the tenses with which it is used are concerned, rather than listing these, would it not be clearer to say "only as past participle 'been'"? 31.51.2.19 03:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I always understood the difference to involve the current condition of the subject of the verb. "He has gone to France" implies he is still in France. Whereas, "He has been to France" implies he is no longer in France. -- A LGRIF  talk 10:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * went is the past tense of go: I go, I will go, I went. In Modern English it is the same verb with a different root. In the past (Middle English and earlier) they were two different verbs but over time merged to become one. It is the same case with to be: I am, I will be, I was, showing three different roots. Note in the original example you could say Could you go to the shops? I've already gone to the shops. Here been can replace gone with the same meaning but that doesn't make it the same verb. Danielklein (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Imperfect questions
Many thanks and well done for our clever Wiktionary. I've put in You makes something and takes a choice, and the dictionary has given me the right expression:: you pays your money and you takes your choice! Well done! 77.196.145.45 14:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a great example of what our new search engine is supposed to do. I'm happy but a bit surprised that it managed make the connection. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

sherbet
I think this entry needs a new definition for the West Asian fruit drink (also spelled sharbat). Or is it already covered by sense 1? Wikipedia doesn't have an atricle for the milk-containing juice (since it is the US version of sorbet), while the Asian beverage has a separate article under the name sharbat. The Persian, Arabic, Marathi etc. translations of sherbet/sharbat are now under sense 1. By the way a fourth definition is probably needed too: Sharbat#In Central Asia.

– Einstein2 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Straightening out the entries for sorbet, sherbert, and sherbet and recording the etymology seems quite worthwhile. Minor regional difference in the recipes could be ignored. sharbat would benefit from attestation, but see . DCDuring TALK  16:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a third definition to sherbet with quotations. Thanks for creating sharbat—after a quick search, it doesn't seem obsolete:, , etc. Einstein2 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I had added a non-obsolete definition, too, limited to the Middle-Eastern confection/drink. The cites you give are in italics, which is an indication that the word had not fully become English in the opinion of the author. But there do seem to be enough unambiguous cites to support a definition such as the one I added. DCDuring TALK 21:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen it, but doesn't sharbat only mean the Middle Eastern drink? If so, the two senses don't differ so they should be merged. In The Century Dictionary, sharbat redirects to the entry sherbet which says "A favorite cooling drink of the East, made of fruit-juices diluted with water, and variously sweetened and flavored." — that's why I think that the obsolete sense and the one you added are the same. Einstein2 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Could be. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I merged the definitions, please have a look at it. Einstein2 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoever tackles this - here in New Zealand, Sorbet can refer to a non-frozen fruit desert made with gelatin and often egg whites - similar to the current definition of sorbet, but not requiring the frozen part.
 * Yes, it will require some work. You could add the definition you are sure about with a label limiting it NZ. Otherwise anything distinctive about NZ usage might be neglected. DCDuring TALK 05:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

showed as a past participle
Is it nonstandard, regional, colloquial or something? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added usage examples and usage notes to showed and shown. We could probably use a similar note in an appendix on irregular English verbs, for many of which the same preferences apply. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Appendix:English irregular verbs lacks such a note, but it would not be easy to write a correct and helpful one. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

tetratheism
I added references and a more general definition. Since I'm new to editing on Wiktionary, I started an suggested discussion here. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

American and British cakes, cookies, crackers, biscuits and wafers
Based on our entries and Wikipedia's, this is my understanding of how cake, cookie, cracker, biscuit and wafer are used in North America and the UK: Am I missing anything, or getting anything wrong? How are these terms used in Australia and New Zealand? I'd like to draft a (better) usage note explaining these terms. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * cake: in both North America and the UK: A rich, sweet dessert food, typically made of flour, sugar and eggs and baked in an oven, and often covered in icing. This thing and the thing which this is a slice of.
 * cookie:
 * North America: A small, flat, baked cake which is either crisp or soft but firm (often with chocolate chips, candies or nuts mixed in). One of these.
 * UK: "A specifically American-style biscuit." (What does this mean? That Brits refer to the thing on the left (not the right) of this picture as a cookie? Or that they only refer to American-style things like this as cookies? If the latter, then (a) the use of the word "biscuit" in the definition is confusing and should be dropped in favour of something clearer, like an explicit reference to the preceding sense, and (b) what distinguishes an American-style cookie from a non-American-style cookie? Can someone provide some images to clarify what is and isn't included in this sense?)
 * UK: A sweet baked cake (as in the previous sense) which has chocolate chips, fruit, nuts etc. baked into it.
 * Wikipedia says these things can also be called cookies, but in which variety of English? What else could they be called?
 * cracker: in both North America and the UK: A dry, thin, crispy, and usually salty or savoury baked bread. This thing and also this thing.
 * biscuit:
 * North America: A small, usually soft and flaky bread, generally made with baking soda, which is similar in texture to a scone but which is usually not sweet. The thing on the left of this picture.
 * UK: A small, flat, baked cake which is either crisp or soft but firm. The thing on the right of this picture. (Is such a biscuit always sweet, or can it be not sweet? If it's always sweet, it would seem to correspond to what American English calls a cookie.)
 * UK, alternatively: A cracker. (The entry has the usex cheese and biscuits. Is this redundant to the previous sense? The things on the right of this picture, which are supposedly biscuits in the previous sense, looks like what American English would call crackers.)
 * wafer: in both North America and the UK: A light, thin, flat biscuit/cookie. This thing and also this thing.


 * In US graham crackers and animal crackers, at least, are sweet, not savory. Otherwise, the US looks good to me. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition does say "usually salty or savoury". I'll move the words around a bit and add "(but sometimes sweet, as in the case of graham crackers and animal crackers)", since the rest of the definition ("dry, thin, crispy ... baked bread") seems to describe those things well enough that I don't think another sense is needed. - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Although in the US (and many other places) sugar finds its way into many foods, including savory crackers, a look at the "crackers" Amazon offers shows that, among top selling items, only graham crackers and animal crackers are basically sweet, cookie-like. I suppose that is a justification for having [[graham cracker]] (made from graham flour) and [[animal cracker]] (shaped like animal cartoons) as entries. DCDuring TALK 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can speak to New Zealand usage, and suspect from the above that UK is similar. Cake is fine. As for biscuits and cookies - the term "biscuit" is more general, and includes everything that is called a cookie in the US. The term "cookie" can also be used, but is more limited in scope, referring to something that is round and sweet. Thus, your picture of two biscuits does not include anything that would be called a cookie, but the chocolate chip cookie picture could be called either a biscuit or a cookie. I do not think your biscuit picture includes anything that would be called a cracker in either the US or New Zealand, because the things on the right are chocolate and presumably sweet. I think the "American style biscuit" means that it is round, very sweet, and chewier. If it is no sweeter than a graham cracker or animal cracker, then it is a biscuit even if it is round. Thus, your wafer pictures are biscuits, but not cookies (the nilla wafers are borderline). Kiwima (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Does sense 1 of biscuit cover how the term is used in New Zealand, or is New Zealand usage even broader? - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, sense 1 of biscuit covers the term used in New Zealand.Kiwima (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In the UK a "biscuit" is usually a US cookie (i.e. a crunchy baked sweetish thing). Due to US influence, such as "cookies and cream" ice-cream, there are some kinds that we would probably call "cookies", esp the ones that aren't brown and plain and boring (so an Oreo might be a "cookie", but a digestive biscuit would not be. Equinox ◑ 03:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, -sche, you are correct about "cheese and biscuits", but that's something of a set phrase: I get the feeling that, shown a 'cheese biscuit' and asked to name it, most Brits would say "cracker". A biscuit is almost always the sweetish cookie snack thing. Equinox ◑ 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments below, it seems there are a few other set phrases where biscuit means "cracker". Do you think the sense is OK as it is, or should it include a context tag like "now chiefly in set phrases"? - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * One British friend told me that in order to be a cookie, it has to have chocolate chips in it, so these are cookies but nothing here is one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) I've tried to clean up cookie a bit. As you say, it was very misleading - almost backwards, in fact. A British cookie is a flat biscuit with chocolate chips, fruit etc baked into it. An American cookie is anything small, flat, sweet and firm - an Oreo is a cookie to Americans, but not to Brits. I think a British biscuit is not necessarily sweet (water biscuits and ship biscuits are crackers, and digestive biscuits and Hovis biscuits contain sugar, but their salt and wholemeal grain content makes them taste fairly savoury), but if you just said "I'm going to get some biscuits", you'd always be referring to the sweeter half of the cookie-cracker spectrum. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (By the way, the brown biscuits on the right-hand side of this image are certainly not crackers! They're Bourbon biscuits and are very sweet and chocolately (more-or-less the British version of Oreos, but crumblier and a bit less sickly sweet). They only look like crackers because there's so much sugar on them that it looks like crystalized salt.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, while American-ish usage of cookie has been spreading to Britain, it's possible there's also been a bit of influence in the other direction: judging from various stores' websites, it seems that Americans buy tins of fancy sweets which include things like this that are sometimes labelled (and therefore potentially sometimes referred to in speech as) biscuits. Flat, crisp-not-chewy, chocolate-covered rather than chip-containing things. - -sche (discuss) 10:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably a result of the common American perception of anything British as automatically sophisticated. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the good side of Americans' perception of the British. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Poking around on Google Books for "biscuits" + various American English spellings, I find enough hits that I've changed the "UK" label to "chiefly UK, rare in the US". (I'll try to explain the matter in more detail in a usage note.) - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So, Brits: would you ever refer to Oreos as "cookies", or only as "biscuits"? Equinox says "an Oreo might be a 'cookie'", but Smurray edited [[cookie]] to say Oreos are only called cookies in the US. In general, could you refer to a creme-filled [cookie/biscuit] as a "cookie", or are biscuits only called "cookies" if they contain chocolate (or presumably other flavoured) chips or fruit? - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In Australia, which I imagine is similar, you'd generally call an Oreo a biscuit. You'd only call it a cookie if you were reading it off the packaging, which does say "cookie"; contrast with one image of an Oreo pack (I think from Europe) referring to them as "sandwich biscuits". I feel like the word cookie in Australia is largely defined by cookie monster, and so still sounds like an American word, and would mostly be used in set phrases like "choc chip cookie", "cookies and cream", "that's the way the cookie crumbles", "browser cookie", "tough cookie", "smart cookie". Pengo (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am from England; I have never heard of "Oreos", but from the images I see in Google image search I would never call those "cookies". The only type of biscuit that I would call a cookie is something like this or this or this (the last illustrating that they do not always have to have bits of stuff in them). I do not agree with the present UK definition of cookie as "A specifically American-style sweet baked cake, with chocolate chips, fruit, nuts etc. baked into it". I have no perception that the type of biscuits that I would call cookies are "American-style". Also, in the UK they specifically are not "cakes". Cakes are different altogether. Finally, as illustrated earlier, they do not necessarily have things baked into them. Thus the definition is wrong on almost every point. 31.51.2.19 03:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reworded the definition a bit and removed "American style", since it indeed makes no sense to say that in British English "cookie" refers only to American-style biscuits, as if those formed a subset of all possible biscuits/cookies, when in fact "cookie" refers to more things in American English than in British English. What's an example of something a British person would call a "cookie" that doesn't have something baked into it? A ? - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An example would be the third picture linked above -- basically think of a chocolate-chip cookie without the chocolate chips. This would be a "plain cookie". I still do not agree with the use of the word "cake" in the definition. 31.51.2.19 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From a British perspective, a cookie is defined as a particular type of biscuit. The UK definition at biscuit as "A cracker" is quite wrong from a British perspective, by the way. Over here a "cracker" is, again, a particular type of biscuit. 31.51.2.19 03:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that "cake" sounds odd in the definition - in the UK at least, cakes and biscuits are thought of as different things (see Jaffa Cakes). "small, flat, baked good" or "food made from small, flat pieces of baked dough" would probably be better. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the point about chocolate chips: one popular UK choc-chip brand, "Maryland", is advertised and packaged as a "cookie". Of course the brand name is supposed to suggest USA. Equinox ◑ 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's my attempt at a usage note: Template:U:en:biscuits and cookies. Improvements welcome. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Australian usage:
 * cake - Sweet round or square dessert usually made of a baked batter of flour, eggs, sugar, often milk and other ingredients for flavouring (e.g. cocoa, chocolate chips, dried fruit, nuts, etc.) often iced or frosted. May be elaborately decorated. May be cut into any other shape desired before being decorated (cartoon character shape, fire engine, etc.). A cake usually has a height of 5 cm or more, a width of 20 cm or more and has many small air-holes from cooking which can give it a light, fluffy texture. Other heavier cakes are possible too, e.g. fruit cake. There are also cheesecakes and ice-cream cakes which are cake-shaped (high, round or square or shaped) and are used for celebrations (birthdays, etc.) in lieu of a traditional cake. Despite not being baked these are often just called cakes
 * cookie - American word for sweet biscuit. If you want to buy biscuits at McDonalds (a kid's dessert item) you order cookies since the restaurant chain decided not to use the locally preferred word. As mentioned above also seen in choc-chip cookie, etc. A computer cookie is always a cookie, however. You definitely can't call it a browser biscuit! Due to American influence cookie is gradually supplanting biscuit as the word of choice for a sweet biscuit
 * cracker - Usually called a dry biscuit. May be salted or plain or contain flavoured ingredients mixed into the dough such as cracked (black) pepper or poppy seeds. Usually eaten with savoury toppings such as cheese, although sweet toppings are possible. May be made of flours other than wheat such as rye, etc. Often has holes or indentations on the surface. Water cracker is a name for a specific small round variety (approx. 4-5 cm across) with small holes punched through them. A major manufacturer of biscuits in Australia - Arnott's - also calls some varieties crispbread. Something which a lot of Australians do is butter two slices of crispbread, add a thin layer of Vegemite and then squeeze the two biscuits together, producing "worms" through the holes in the surface of both sides (search for Vegemite worms for images!)
 * biscuit - A small (2 to 5 cm) sweet or dry/savoury flat bread (less than 1 cm in height). Some varieties of sweet biscuit are crème filled - actually two biscuits with a layer of crème pressed between them, e.g. Oreo (a recent addition to Aussie supermarket shelves). May also be chocolate coated e.g. Tim Tams. Savoury biscuits can include crackers or a biscuit baked with powdered toppings. Some plain dry biscuits have whole grains baked into them
 * wafer - The inside of a Kit Kat. Similar to a very flat, unsweetened waffle. Usually no more than 1 mm thick. Has a grid pattern on it. Wedge shaped wafers may be used to decorate fancy ice cream dishes
 * In fact, the Arnott's website is quite educational in terms of the language they use. They use the terms chocolate biscuit, sweet biscuit, savoury biscuit, as well as cookie and cracker. However, they seem to use cookie as a sub-type of sweet biscuit and cracker as a sub-type of savoury biscuit. Biscuits (including cookies, crackers and wafers) are usually crumbly/crunchy (either hard crunchy (Ginger Nut, Butternut Snap) or soft crunchy (Scotch Finger, Teddy Bear)) when fresh although the texture may change when stale to be soft or tough/chewy. Cakes are always soft, even when heavy. Danielklein (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Misspelling of page name, can't move due to me creating it already with the right spelling.
So, I accidentally made this page https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kjälva which is a misspelling. Could anyone remove it?


 * ✅. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

preferred meaning of "rout"
I had met only one meaning of "rout" until I came here -- this: noun 3.3 or this: verb 3.1 -- and I found it very strange for it to be so far down.

Is there any way of suggesting where these alternatives are used?

I live in and have travelled extensively in England & Wales and spent some time in Scotland yet have only obviously met the single meaning. The term is used in the Press in the same sense. 09:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Many of our multi-etymology entries are in more-or-less chronological order, as are many definitions within an Etymology. In this case it is particularly hard to believe that this is good for normal users. It might be good for some of those with specialized interests, but I'm not so sure that they couldn't live with another ordering. DCDuring TALK 03:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Structure of existing theosoph and new theosophe
How do you structure therelationship between existing theosoph and new theosophe?

OED Online shows the word theosophe as the earliest attestation of the entry theosoph. Knowing that, do I create an Alternative forms section in theosoph entry with a link to theosophe entry and use in theosophe? Or since both are attested to 1820s (theosophe) and 1830s (theosoph) do they both just point to the same modern lemma? Is the etymology included in both,or since etymologies in dictionaries show that 🇨🇬 is a cognate of theosoph does theosophe show 🇨🇬 as the first part of its etymology? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

long
I did this, but then got a bit nervous about it. Is it in the right place? This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the right place to me. 73.23.156.236 17:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

morbidly obese
Surprised to see three senses here (though an anon just merged two of them, which made me notice it): "1. Possessing a state of obesity deemed to be life-threatening. 2. Having excessive body fat. 3. Having a body mass index greater than 39.99 kg/m2." Are these really not just different ways of saying the same thing? i.e. #3 means #1, and is just putting a (temporary, subject to future change) specific measurement on it. Equinox ◑ 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Go down to one. The third sense is I assume specific to some medical body. That could plausibly go in the usage notes if we find out which body it is. Perhaps even better than that would be 'see Wikipedia' which we've used for complicated sports rules, like a balk in baseball which is awfully complicated and a full definition could go on for several paragraphs. 95.144.169.113 16:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Having excessive body fat' is just plain wrong. That's being overweight. 95.144.169.113 16:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done (q.v.). 95.144.169.113 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

ooze
Once again we have some noun-sense duplication between etymologies 1 and 2. (As a matter of usability, I've noticed that many users don't scroll down far enough to find a second ety, and assume some basic sense is missing, and re-add it under the earliest part-of-speech section that fits.) Equinox ◑ 00:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You should put a hidden comment in the entry itself, so that when the next person comes along, he can see your comment warning them of the two etymologies and so not to change, or add an entry incorrectly. -- A LGRIF  talk 10:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

BODMAS, BEDMAS and BOMDAS
I know that are not supposed to use acronyms etc as parts of speech these days, but these three are defined as phrases. There are manifestly not (no words separated by spaces). How should we describe them? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before in the Beer Parlour and 'phrase' was received favourably. I've searched for it but I can't find it. 95.144.169.113 11:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the caps matter, if you say BODMAS is a phrase you understand it means that the letters stand for words and the words make up a phrase. 'The phrase BODMAS' sounds right. 95.144.169.113 16:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Kitsch - problem with text of definition.
Under the ETYMOLOGY section for "KITSCH", the following is written: " - the word and concept were popularized in the 1930s by several critics who opposed it to avant garde art". The sentence structure of this does not make sense, the part, "who opposed it to avant garde art", does not seem to be grammatically correct and seems to have the word that describes what the statement is talking about missing. I can't tell if "to avant garde" is supposed to be an infinitive verb form, or what it is supposed to be. I never heard of people going around "avant garding art". This needs to be corrected with a more complete description in terms that are easier to understand and less grammatically awkward. Linstrum (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The grammar is all right: to oppose is to set in contrast or balance, so "to oppose X to Y" means "to contrast X with Y", or to set up X and Y as opposites. Equinox ◑ 04:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this use of "oppose" is so unusual that the sentence would appear to be an error to many people. I think it would be advisable to reword the sentence so as to make it more reader-friendly. 81.132.192.120 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

selling short
Good evening.

My bad english is pretty good, but my english is pretty bad, so I need help.

Would you be kind explaining to me what does exactly mean the sentence
 * You might be selling the sign-maker short.

in last xkcd "what if" (link) ?

Thanks for your work. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. We didn't have the appropriate entry. See sell short or sell something short in a few minutes. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * sell oneself short. Equinox ◑ 20:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Equinox, even if belittle is not a word I understand as now, I think the Wiktionary is providing sufficient information for me to understand the meaning.
 * I will try to create all these words on French Wiktionary, as so French-speaking people can understand that. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And thanks to DCDuring, of course. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems like we're still missing the phenomenon Arséniure de Gallium asked most directly about, sell someone short. And isn't sell oneself short just a reflexive use of that, and don't both phrases in turn have the same basic meaning as sell something short? In other words, couldn't we centralize things on sell short? - -sche [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3ATea_room%2F2015%2FMarch&diff=32324361&oldid=32324239 17:01, 10 March 2015] (forgot to sign)
 * Whether the entry is at sell short or sell something short, the meaning is "to underestimate or undervalue something". The usual convention in English is that persons are included when "something" is used as a placeholder. We sometimes use a headword with a placeholder in cases where the object usually occurs between the other parts of the headword. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * sell short = mésestimer
 * but in finance, sell short = vendre à découvert (i.e., sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, but only on loan, with the goal of repurchasing it at an advantageous price, then returning the security to the owner and pocketing the profit) —Stephen (Talk) 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. That's why there are two senses at [[sell something short]]. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

oral sex
The entry and the definition ignore anilingus, which is considered a form of oral sex, including by the project itself. So the definition could be more accurate. (Unless people seriously consider the anus a genital.) --Romanophile (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Chambers' definition is very similar to ours (i.e. stimulation of genitals), and personally I probably wouldn't consider anilingus to count as "oral sex", any more than French kissing (it's oral, but not sex). We should compare some more sources. Equinox ◑ 21:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you think that anal sex is a contradiction? --Romanophile (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Anal sex, when it involves at least one genital penis is. However the lines get blurred and it gets easy to think of the anus as a "genital" since it is used in lieu of one when actually it's the penis that makes it sex; not the anus. So, technically it is not oral sex, no more than licking your palm or sucking a finger would be considered "oral sex" Leasnam (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that Wiktionary was concerned with how a word is attestably used. One's opinions about that is worth less than one citation. DCDuring TALK 02:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You had me on the first part of that...yet the second part sounds a little, well, opiniony Leasnam (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So ‘lesbian sex’ is an oxymoron. Good to know. --Romanophile (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are always two things to consider, the technical aspect and the usage aspect. Technically, by standard definitions, sex involves a genital (penis or vagina, so lesbian sex is sex, "technically"). If it becomes standard through attestable sources that the definition has changed, then let it be so, no sweat. Words, terms, and meanings always evolve over time we can't dispute that Leasnam (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The oxymoron claim reminds me of people complaining about "PIN number", because it expands to "personal identification number number" and is thus redundant. Maybe, but (i) people still say it, and (ii) everyone knows what it means. If you expect language to be totally logical you will always be disappointed. Equinox ◑ 22:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean that PIN number is a tautology, not an oxymoron. Unless the meaning of oxymoron has changed from use... :-P Danielklein (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

punch list
Is this term used outside the US? If not, is there an equivalent? DCDuring TALK 22:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently the UK/Irish name for it is a "snagging list". Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That sounds like it might work in Australia and NZ, but perhaps not Canada. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm Australian and I've never heard either punch list or snagging list before. Possibly industry specific terms not in general use? Danielklein (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Homeowners who hire contractors use it in the US. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

gib
Here in New Zealand, the term "gib" is used for gypsum plaster (also called drywall), and also used as a verb for installing the stuff. I am not sure of the etymology, although I suspect it is from a product name, since GIB is the most common brand. However, it is now used similarly to the way "xerox" and "hoover" have evolved into words (see, e.g. http://www.jaxhamilton.co.nz/part-2-birth-eve/). Should this be added to the topic? I can find lots and lots of examples of the usage, but in fairly transient sources such as real estate ads. Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

magnetical
I notice that all the example sentances for meanings other than the first use the word "magnetic" rather than "magnetical". What's up with that?


 * Well spotted. That will be because the entry is based on the old Webster dictionary from 1913, which merged similar words together (so the heading would have been Magnetic, Magnetical). We should fix it up. Equinox ◑ 23:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

prejudge, postjudge?
We have prejudge, can we attest postjudge as well? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems barely attestable. If someone can scrape together enough for an entry, it needs some "rare" or "nonstandard" gloss. Just not a word that people use. Equinox ◑ 03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Would it mean "to judge when it no longer made any difference"? All normal judging is after the fact, so it would be unlikely to have merely temporal meaning. It would be likely only used in contrast with prejudge. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I found attestation for the contrastive use, not the other. The attestation is for strict contrast with prejudge. It seems also to be used for implicit contrast without use of prejudge in the preceding text. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

prodrome, postdrome?
New Scientist (7th March 2015): a feature on migraines uses prodrome which Wiktionary states is probably by analogy with syndrome, and also postdrome which Wiktionary doesn't list. A visitor: 78.151.56.162 14:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added - thanks for spotting it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

developer
Having seen Tea_room/2012/February, I would say that somebody who plans/designs software without typesetting any code is a software developer, too. Does such a person create the software, or should planning/designing be added to the definition? --Uwe Lück (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A software developer; a person or company who creates or modifies computer software


 * I've never heard of a software developer who didn't program. Try searching job-finder sites and look at the requirements for such posts. Equinox ◑ 16:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What about systems analysts? Can they be called developers? DCDuring TALK 17:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not as far as I know. It's literally a synonym for "programmer", though some low-level programmers might get snobby about it and consider "developers" to be the higher-level enterprisey kind. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When looking at video games, anyone that works on the product can be called "game developer". For example, the content of the Game Developer Magazine doesn't cover code only, but has lots of content about design or art. Same goes for the IGDA (International Game Developer Association) which is about everyone in the industry, and not restricted to programmers. Based on this I'd say it's the same in Software Development, where terms could have been mixed up since >90% of developers are programmers.


 * Also, from Wikipedia: "In short, developers "make" software for the world to use. Their work includes researching, designing, implementing, and testing software."

should
I've split out some senses at should, but I'm not sure about the current sense 4. Should this be merged into another sense, moved to should have, or kept where it is? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this does not need a separate entry. It is simply a modal past, similarly could have, must have, will have, etc etc. which do not have or need entries. ("must have" is actually a re-direct). IMO nº4 should be eliminated (should = advice / personal opinion). In the future I might state that IMO nº4 should have been eliminated (should still = advice / personal opinion, but now talking about a past time frame). -- Using the example in the entry -- When they press the button, the building should blow up (present time frame) When they pressed the button, the building should have blown up (past time frame). --
 * I would suggest that to better organize this entry, there are 4 modes --


 * 1) Subjunctive future -- If I should be late, go without me.
 * 2) Mild obligation / strong advice. Speaker has no authority to enforce. -- You should wear a seat belt, You shouldn't drink and drive
 * 3) Simple advice / personal opinion. Speaker believes that an action is correct, beneficial or desirable. -- You should brush your teeth every day.
 * 4) Possibility / probability. Speaker believes that an action is likely to happen, or become. -- When you press this button, the pilot flame should ignite., You should be warm enough with this coat. -- A LGRIF  talk  15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the basis that "should have" has no place in this entry, and that there are no comments neither for nor against my proposed clean-up, I have gone ahead with some minor improvements. -- A LGRIF  talk 13:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

boost and car batteries
I'm a brand-new Wiktionary editor, although I've contributed to Wikipedia & Wikivoyage. I was inspired to join today when I couldn't find any online dictionary which included a very common Canadian / North American usage of boost. However, I realize it won't stand without some examples, citations, etc. but I don't have enough experience to put them in without making a mess. Perhaps some kind soul could help? Here are some examples:


 * "Your battery is dead and you need a boost..." (followed by detailed instructions on how to jump start a car). From Wheels.ca http://www.wheels.ca/guides/heres-how-to-safely-jump-start-a-dead-battery/


 * "How to boost a car battery" (again, followed by detailed instructions) From the Globe & Mail newspaper's website http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/how-to-boost-a-car-battery/article1212493/


 * "We’ll help with any roadside emergency, whether you’ve run out of gas on the side of the road, locked your keys in the car, or you need a tow or boost." Alberta Motor Association website: https://ama.ab.ca/auto-and-driving/roadside-assistance/


 * Bisset, Alex (editor). Canadian Oxford Paperback Dictionary, ISBN 0-19-541453-5, copyright 2000. "Boost. vtr. 5. Boost: N Amer recharge (a car battery). n. 4. N Amer. the action of recharging a car battery." p. 104.


 * "Are you in need of an emergency jump start? Let the pros at Swift Towing help give your battery a boost to have you on your way in no time!" From towing company website: http://towing-calgary.ca/jump-start/


 * This Canadian Tire video showing how to jump start a car is titled "Battery Boosting - Car To Car". The description says "The video will show you how to jump start a car using a booster cable. It also provides some safety tips to consider when using jumper cables to boost your battery from car to car." http://video.canadiantire.ca/v/11032/battery-boosting-car-to-car-booster-cables-motomaster/


 * "Boosting a dead battery the safe and effective way". Again, followed by detailed instructions. The Weather Network: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/boosting-a-dead-battery-the-safe-and-effective-way/43137/


 * "Boosting a dead battery"- article in October 1980 Popular Mechanics magazine, found through Google Books: https://books.google.ca/books?id=RtQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA152&dq=boost+car+battery&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s8MBVbehB8GryASczIHIDw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=boost%20car%20battery&f=false

There are lots more examples using the search terms
 * boost car battery

in a Google Books search, but I think examples going from 1980 to 2000 to today should be sufficient. I'd be very grateful for help or even just a pointer to helpful Wiktionary pages so that I can get a quick handle on how to do this myself.--Cornata (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm relieved that we at least have the right definition for the verb, though it is not just Canadian, being used in the US as well. I don't know about UK, Australia, India, etc.
 * Of the citations above, the one from Popular Mechanics is the only one certain to be accepted, as it is "durably archived" and is a use, not a mention (See use-mention distinction.). The Canadian Oxford Dictionary citation confirms the meaning and may be useful as a reference, but does not count toward attestation, as it is a mention, not a use of boost. For now, add the appropriate definition and the Popular Mechanics citation. If someone challenges the definition in WT:RfV, we can find additional citations valid for attestation. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the feedback, very helpful. I see that Equinox has plunged in and added some other examples.Cornata (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In Australia we seem to prefer terms using jump: jumper cable, jump-start, etc. We would certainly understand if someone said boost in relation to a car, however. Danielklein (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the US we use those same terms, probably more than boost terms. I've never heard of a booster cable, for example. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

elide 3rd definition ("merge or join")
This definition is spurious. The cited example of its usage is erroneous, probably involving the author's confusing 'elide' with similar sounding word 'align'. 98.82.55.52 02:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Though you are correct that "elide" tends to reference a removal, the result in language is often a merger, or at least a connection. In the phrase "Mark's shoe", for example, one of the sibilants is typically elided (few would enunciate both in speech) and the result is a slurring together of the words, effectively merging them. Though I would never personally use the word for a merger, the quote about the interests being elided makes sense if this sort of merger is meant and intervening obstacles were removed. Ur-Abraxas (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

crystallized ginger
Often refers to ginger that is candied, not crystallized. Is this idiomatic, or do we just need a new sense under crystallize? --Tropylium (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Existing definitions: crystallize = "to coat something with crystals, especially with sugar"; candy = "To cook in, or coat with, sugar syrup". What's missing? Equinox ◑ 13:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The current culinary sense of crystallize does not cover "to cook in sugar", only "to coat with sugar". "Crystallized ginger" is however always cooked, yet does not necessarily have an additional sugar coating. See e.g. |1, |2.
 * I get the impression that the term has been reanalyzed as "ginger that has been turned into crystalline-ish form" (i.e. pieced and then candied), rather than "ginger that has been covered in (sugar) crystals". The current definition #2 of crystallize fits loosely for this meaning — but since crystallized ginger is not actually a crystal, it might need some kind of adjustment. --Tropylium (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Something like "To make to resemble crystal"? Normal humans (and even engineers and laboratory scientists) often settle for much less than perfect conformity to idealized definitions in using a word for their purposes. Often our definitions focus on the idealized at the neglect of normal usage. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Crystallised/candied ginger is often slightly crunchy and has a texture as if made of coarse, soft crystals compressed together. It may or may not have an additional coating of sugar (either fine like icing sugar or coarse crystals) depending on the recipe. Candied ginger and crystallised ginger are generally used interchangeably. Danielklein (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Crystallized ginger is made from ginger root, something that will never form crystals, "soft" or otherwise. If the root seems crunchy, it is because sugar has been pressed into it. The sugar coating is usually on the outside. Though the term is somewhat inaccurate, it is in use and companies are free to call their products what they choose.Ur-Abraxas (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

expat and expatriate
This article might make one re-think the definition to reflect the reality of the way these words are actually used: White only expats -- <i>A LGRIF </i ><font color="#FFD700"> talk 09:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How different from immigrant/emigrant? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Guardian’s selling point is to make everyone look like a racist (except themselves). I wouldn’t use that article as evidence of anything. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference in usage (at least in the UK) between expatriate and immigrant, but I think it's incorrect to try to divide it along racial lines (no-one talks about Polish expats or Romanian expats, even those these are both white-majority countries, while "expat groups" that I've been to have included African-American and black and Asian British members). I think it's more correct to say that expatriate simply has a more positive valence than immigrant.
 * I'd imagine there are several reasons for this. The most obvious one is that in most English-speaking countries, people moving into the country is seen as a threat, while people moving out is not (currently), which has led to immigrants becoming tabloid hate figures, and the word immigrant becoming an easy political buzzword to make people angry (and has to some extent replaced migrant as a deixis-free term for anyone who moves across a border). The difficulties in distinguishing immigrant and emigrant (especially in speech) seem to be driving emigrant out of use as immigrant becomes more popular, which means that expatriate has had to fill the gap. Because immigrants tend to be stigmatized*, expatriate also seems to have been taken on by migrants as the chosen term for referencing themselves (as an immigrant/expatriate myself, I see a lot of internet adverts for "expat social events" and "expat tax advice", but I can't remember ever seeing ads for "immigrant social events" or "immigrant tax advice"), which naturally means that it will take on a more positive tinge. Because expats describe themselves that way even when talking in the context of their new country, the word seems to have undergone a shift in meaning from emigrant to simply migrant. I think we should have a usage note, but just one along the lines of:
 * "In many English-speaking areas, the terms and  can have negative connotations. The term  is generally more positive, and is especially used by migrants to refer to themselves. The term  is no longer widely used, due to confusion with ."
 * Those are the facts of usage, as far as I see it. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (*)and also to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from disliking immigration while being an immigrant oneself, as is fairly common among British retirees who've decided to live out their sunset years on the Mediterranean coast and the newspaper columnists who decry the state of Britain while writing from their Florida mansions
 * The Macquarie Dictionary defines an expat as someone who has given up their native country or has been evicted from it. An emigrant is some someone who is living in a country other than their native country, whether or not they still retain ties to their motherland. So someone who has been naturalised (but is not a dual citizen) is an expat while an emigrant or immigrant may or may not be depending on their relationship with their motherland. Yes, I know this is more prescriptive than descriptive, however, it does reflect the way I've always understood and used these words. The words may have different connotations outside of Australia. Danielklein (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

central business district
My London friend claims that this term is never used in the UK. In Australia though it's very common. Any ideas? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your friend is correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My (British) geography teacher used the term in secondary-school geography class. I've never heard it since. Equinox ◑ 15:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's in use in the US and the abbreviation CBD also. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

quell.
Quell - spelling? A topical, rather toxic, medical product meant to kill lice. (It is applied to the hair and scalp in a uniform manner to kill all the lice on the head and then washed out some time later. A certain number of applications may be needed.)

2601:7:9600:78E:C097:7C45:B4C4:D5B8 15:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Greg Alan z.


 * That's a brand name, and it's Kwell. Equinox ◑ 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

shopping mall
I know this is supposed to be an Americanism, but I hear it in Australia all the time. What about in the UK? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the UK, but it is common here in New Zealand as well.
 * It may be creeping in amongst the "yoof", but normal people say "shopping centre" in the UK. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean yutes? DCDuring TALK 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the U.S. we have both shopping malls and shopping centers. They are not the same. Malls have everything under one roof (and surrounded by a vast parking lot). Shopping centers are multiple separate stores that share a single large parking lot. —Stephen (Talk) 16:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They seem to be the same in the UK - see, as an example, the "Shopping Centre" section of . SemperBlotto (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, what Stephen's calling a shopping center is what I would call a shopping plaza or a strip mall. I'm not sure I would use the term shopping center in en-US at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * shopping center is old-fashioned and not used so much anymore. It was very popular in the 1940s–70s, but in the 1970s the malls came into their own. As the malls became so popular, businesses did not want to be associated with old-fashioned "shopping centers" anymore. Today we even have the term strip mall, which is hardly a mall at all, but a shopping center with the stores arranged in a row along a block or more of a street or highway. —Stephen (Talk) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't offer these as definitions, but there are some characteristics that differentiate various (mostly) post-WWII retail venues:
 * shopping center, anchored by a grocery store or, possibly, a drug store, with complementary everyday retail, with relatively abundant parking.
 * shopping mall, usually (mostly, less so in warm and dry climates) under one roof, anchored by one or more department stores, with complementary specialty retail, surrounded by abundant parking.
 * strip mall, row or stores, no obvious anchor, sufficient off-street parking.
 * outlet mall, large aggregation of stores, not indoors, offering brand name goods, often seconds, overstocks, out-of-fashion items, at relatively low prices.
 * big-box stores, many type of stores, sometimes category-killers, but stand-alone.
 * We should have something for these. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd call it a "shopping centre" but I might think "mall". I literally don't know how to pronounce that word though, so I never say it. I don't think many people in the UK say it. Equinox ◑ 20:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Homophonic with maul in the US. DCDuring TALK 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

accept
What sense of are fabric labels like these using? "Wash in the warmest water the fabric will accept", "if a fabric will accept a low-heat iron,...", etc. All of the senses in our entry which have usexes show usage with humans or human organizations as subjects; the same can be said of all of Dictionary.com's senses except 12 "to receive or contain" (which has a usex about a socket accepting a certain kind of plug). Merriam-Webster has "1b: to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) a surface that will not accept ink". - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The fabric uses seem like "to tolerate/accommodate without (noticeable?) damage/impairment ". Because of the qualification it doesn't seem quite the same as either the Dictionary.com or MW definitions. Perhaps it could be a subsense of a definition like MW's. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

simple
Should we add a grammatical sense to this adjective (as opposed to continuous)? --Fsojic (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Simple" isn't always contrasted with "continuous", though. It generally means "formed by inflection" and is opposed to periphrastic. The simple present in English (which is contrasted with the continuous or progressive present) is one example, but there are others, e.g. the simple past in French in German (il alla/er ging), which is contrasted with the perfect (il est allé/er ist gegangen). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations:esquivalience
Are these citations sufficient to recreate the entry, or does anyone think that there is a problem with any of them? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The top one is not a genuine use, but an invented example for a dictionary. The middle example is a bit iffy - it's from a section of a book about how the word was coined. The bottom seems fine. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm aware of the context, but I'm not sure how whether it's "genuine" factors into the CFI. A usage example in a dictionary is still a use, not a mention. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. As I commented on the 2011 RFV of crocklet, WT:CFI says "[the requirement that words be shown to be] Conveying meaning [...] filters out [...] made-up examples of how a word might be used". - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

it never rains but it pours
Are there any phrases similar to this but with neutral or positive valence? For example, if a person has had nothing to do for a long time, and suddenly has a great many things that need to be done (some of them positive and enjoyable, some stressful and burdensome). - -sche (discuss) 08:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * British English has a snowclone "You wait ages for a [X] and then three come along at one". The standard form is the lament "You wait ages for a bus, and then three come along at once", but the phrase is very versatile (eg 1, 2, 3, 4). Maybe not Wiktionary material though, since its meaning is always transparent. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say necessarily has a negative valence. It can be said of good things that happen in rapid succession after a long period of nothing good happening, can't it? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, too, but our definition suggests otherwise. Can we find citations of positive use? The first hit for clearly thinks it's negative: "We have a proverb about trouble: 'It never rains, but it pours.' But that is the philosophy of pessimism." On the other hand, the next hit is "But, he added, 'it never rains but it pours,' and at the present meeting they had had brought before them not only Mr. Joy's valve gear but also two other excellent substitutes for the link motion." - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This quote from  is about never getting a marriage proposal until one is past forty, and then getting three at once. (The woman in question picked the wrong suitor to say yes to, which was negative, but the saying itself was referring to the presumably positive experience of being proposed to.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Skip (noun)
In the United Kingdom "skip" is used to designate a large rubbish bin. Reference: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pressrelease/pressreleasepage.aspx?id=6635

I did not want to edit the existing entries, because I was not sure how to append the documentation.


 * This is already in there: "(Australia, New Zealand, UK) A large open-topped rubbish bin, designed to be lifted onto the back of a truck to take away both bin and contents; called a dumpster in North America (where "skip" is completely unknown and incomprehensible). " Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

dit#English
It looks to me as if Etymology 1 and Etymology 4 should be merged:

Etymology 1
From, , from ...

Verb

 * 1)  To stop up; block (an opening); close.

Etymology 4
Old English ...

Verb

 * 1)  To close up.

Would an expert please review this entry? Danielklein (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

filmic
Why would this term be considered non-standard? My Oxford doesn't claim as such. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's non-standard but it is only used in certain situations, e.g. academic papers. If I were talking conversationally about the effects in a film I'd just watched, I might say "cinematic" but not "filmic". Equinox ◑ 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's non-standard either. I just heard someone use it in a conversation, so I don't think it's restricted to academic papers. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

as far as one is concerned
Why don't we have this? We have in one's opinion. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DCDuring TALK 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not? I think as far as someone is concerned is better, but not without adding redirects for at least present and past tenses and seven different personal pronouns + something for a total of 16 hard redirects. That omits perfect aspect, future tense, modals, but I think they are very unlikely to be used in the search box. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We could do with a target for AFAIC and AFAIAC -- <i>A LGRIF </i ><font color="#FFD700"> talk 17:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

potlatch: meaning "similar to" potluck?
I have a comment /slash question. I was almost going to add it ) to the "Talk:" page for the word "potlatch", -- [as the first section of a new Talk: page!] -- but a little birdie there recommended to post it here instead.

In the entry for the word "potlatch", I noticed that definition no. 2 said: << "A communal meal to which guests bring dishes to share." >>

Isn't that similar to (or, the same as) the meaning of "potluck"? Could there be some (perhaps misguided) 'folk etymology' taking place, here? Perhaps "by way of" some inadvertent malapropism?

Maybe not. Maybe "potlatch" can mean << "A communal meal to which guests bring dishes to share." >>, without any hint of contamination from (and maybe even without any shared etymology with) the word "potluck".

I do not know the answer. I am just asking the question.

Thanks! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the Etymology section of potluck? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, not until today (when I saw your reply). Thank you, (@User:Angr) for that question. But since the comments there might [also] shed some light on potlatch, maybe now there should be a cross-reference from the entry for potlatch, pointing to potluck (the Etymology section of potluck) -- (right?) Just an idea... from: --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to potluck to sense 2 of potlatch; potluck itself links back to potlatch in its sense 3. Is this sufficient? - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick! ...as far as, whether it is "sufficient" or not ... I don't know. IMHO it is better than nothing. Others might have ideas for improvement... which is fine. Thanks! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

breaking of the waters
We don't seem to have either a noun or a verb entry for the rupturing of the membranes at the end of pregnancy. I can't decide on the best combination of words. Feel free to add them. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s. I've added the Italian noun . SemperBlotto (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The dictionary lemma for the verb would be presumably be "one's waters break", but that's borderline gibberish even if grammatically it's equivalent to "her waters broke". Do we have any similar entries for this sort of verb phrase? waters is also horribly deficient, and there's nothing at break either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In US English we would say "her water broke", I think (confirmed by Cambridge Adv. Learners Dict).
 * Wouldn't entry and links at bag of waters, appropriate definitions and usage examples at water, waters, and break address the concern by putting the appropriate enrties at the top of a failed-search listing. It could be supplemented by hard redirects to ed definitions. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

cataloging of german colloquial first singular present dropping -e
In german, colloquially, the first person singular present final schwa is often dropped, but these versions are not cataloged in wiktionary (as far as I can tell). I think one is meant to use an apostrophe to mark this in poetry or song lyrics or whatever, but this is often not respected and wiktionary should be cataloging it regardless.
 * We do have some e-less first-person singular forms marked as such, e.g., , and . The prescriptive rules of German call for an apostrophe on apocopated verb forms only if the form would be difficult to read or understand, otherwise not: examples from Duden are (where  without an apostrophe would look funny) vs.  and , where  and  are easy to read and understand without an apostrophe. The same rules apply to the second-person singular imperative, by the way. In spite of the official rules, though, the apostrophe is widespread in actual use, and if someone wanted to created pages like , , , , and , they would probably be verifiable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, what is the policy? Should I start adding them by hand now as I feel it's appropriate?Telmac (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you like, but keep verifiability in mind. Verbs commonly used in the spoken language are much more likely to have e-less forms than verbs like . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but that "The prescriptive rules of German call for an apostrophe on apocopated verb forms only if the form would be difficult to read or understand" could be (kind of) wrong. The currect prescriptive rules (Rechtschreibreform 1996, 2004, 2006, 2010/11) might be like that, but traditionally (local rules in different German states, rules from ca. 1900) it might be different. So forms like "hör" could be wrong, at least in case of traditional rules, and then there should at least be usage note. -15:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Otaku
There seem to be many problems with this entry. First, the usage of the term has changed greatly over a couple decades. A Japanese prime minister has even identified himself as one, as have over 42% of surveyed Japanese persons (in one form or another). The usage used to be negative but now is more mainstream and somewhat comically self-deprecatory. It's usage as "geek" is far from the mark and generally has come to mean anyone who is deeply involved in any topic, and more specifically, anime, manga, idol-worship, comics, movies, pop music, or another subcultural element.

It's meaning as "home" is also somewhat inaccurate as it formerly referred to another person's home rather than one's own.

In any case, its present usage is almost never as "home" of any type, and the assumed meaning that was ascribed as "geek" has now become its chief meaning, no longer "rare". Ur-Abraxas (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What entry are you talking about? Neither the English entry at  nor the Japanese entry at  has any "rare" label.  If you're referring to the Japanese entry at, the "rare" label is intended to convey that the  sense is rare for that spelling.  A usage note would help clarify that ambiguity.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 00:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the "geek" sense that is incorrect (there never was a "geek" usage, though someone arguing a very broad definition of "geek" may debate that - a person obsessed with or focused on some aspect of subculture would hardly be called a "geek"), as well as the main definition now that the "geek" sense has become mainstream.Ur-Abraxas (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: geek, where are you from? I ask out of curiosity.  The sense of "someone obsessed with a particular subject" is commonly expressed as "[SUBJECT] geek" in the idiolects I'm familiar with, as someone who grew up on the US east coast.
 * About the Japanese entries, or  is the more common spelling for this sense.  As far as I've seen, the rare tag is still appropriate for the  spelling.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

four-year college
Does this has a specific meaning in American English? If so, it seems idiomatic. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The name comes from the assumed minimum time it takes to get a degree: we have two-year colleges, such as community colleges, and four-year colleges, which are universities. I'm not so sure the whole phrase is idiomatic: you can talk about two/four-year schools, two/four-year institutions of higher learning, etc. There are also two-year and four-year degrees. My personal case demonstrates why these terms aren't strictly SOP: being a bit of a professional student, I took a number of years to get a two-year degree at a two-year college, but also took university-transferrable classes, so that when I finally transferred to a four-year college, I was able to graduate with a four-year degree in two years. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a contrast to a two-year college, aka junior college (usually private) or community college (publicly funded). Two-year college is a convenient term to include both junior college and community colleges. Junior colleges leading to an a associate degree in two years (of full-time study) were an innovation of the second half of the nineteenth century. I think of four-year as a polite equivalent to real. DCDuring TALK 02:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all four-year colleges are universities, though. A college that offers a Bachelor's degree is a four-year college; a university has to offer some graduate degree such as a Master's. I think four-year college is idiomatic for the reason Chuck mentioned; also, a student who earns a lot of credit through placement tests could get a Bachelor's in only three years. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

feel-good factor
Can this term be used outside the context of an election? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. About the morale of a workforce, about an audience for a speech or a TV show, or an ad, about self-congratulation generally. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

reengage
Re-engage to me is to repeat some activity with the thought of an advanced achievement. Reengage to me would be like trying to put your transmission back in gear again. Would this be correct?


 * I don't think the hyphen would affect the meaning. Either one can mean "engage again" in any sense of engage, as far as I know. Equinox ◑ 14:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

false marriage
Should we have an entry for false marriage, i.e. a marriage into which the parties enter for some other reson than for sharing their lives? Such reason could e.g. be assistance in obtaining a residence permit. It seems to be at least a semi-legal term as the UK and Canadian immigrations, and perhaps others too, have guidelines for such conduct. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just realised that we have sham marriage. The entry lists fake marriage, false marriage, fictitious marriage and mock marriage as synonyms, but the question remains - should we have them? We also have marriage of convenience. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * marriage of convenience seems entryworthy as a euphemism. Some of others don't seem to belong in the same synset, based on the differences in meaning of the adjectives. We could also have marriage for show, fraudulent marriage and others, but these, sham marriage, and the ones listed there as synonyms don't seem to have any real meaning beyond that of their components. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Roman
On the page for the word Roman, there is no definition of the adjective meaning to do with the verb 'Romans', meaning the civilization.


 * Is this not good enough: "Of or from the Roman Empire"? Equinox ◑ 14:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

bangs
The example sentance under the verb form does not strike me as very useful, and I suspect it was added as an act of vandalism. However, it has been there since it was added by an anonymous user in 2012, so perhaps I am missing something here.


 * Ha, I think that will be an in-jokey reference to our own User:Dick Laurent (formerly known as Ric). Equinox ◑ 19:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By Wonderfool in one of his IP phases. Do we really need an example sentence in a form-of entry? Chuck Entz (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. I try to keep them at the lemma form, unless the inflected form is so weird that it might otherwise be challenged. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Do we really need an example sentence in a form-of entry?" Maybe not for English. Lithuanian? Definitely. But either way: who cares? Is there not enough room for them? Are they hurting anyone or anything?
 * The way people get offended by harmless little example sentences that demonstrate perfectly the nature of the off-color words they're being used to illustrate... is amazing. Come let us not wallow in the reality of human existence, but let us elevate ourselves to such unspeakable idiocy as this -- "The noble king went in, saw his wife the young queen basking in the soft light of her ornate lamps, and spoke softly to her saying, my dear, I wish to bang you immediately." Fucking seriously. — <font face="Lucida console"> [Ric Laurent] — 08:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was from WF in fact. I must say it was quite funny at the time. It's pleasant to see that such humour has not become stale after 4 years. "I wish to bang you immediately", indeed --Type56op9 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

elisi as a Finnish word
A claim is made that elisi is a Kotus class 53 word (like muistaa), and it is

Third-person singular conditional present form of elää. Conditional present connegative form of elää.

When looking at a conjugation table, the corresponding form is /eläisi/ in both accounts. Now my own linguistic head says elisi is incorrect. But it is less apparently incorrect verb inflection than e.g. helkkisi or muistisi (which'd be a correct noun inflection). 84.250.122.35 18:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right. The correct form is eläisi. I have erased the Finnish section of "elisi". --Hekaheka (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I checked the page history, and the erroneous form has been there since Oct. 2007. Good work, Anon. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I found some usage after all, rolled back my deletion and added tag "rare, nonstandard". --Hekaheka (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

so help me God
What does this phrase actually mean? I don't think our definition is right. For some reason, we've defined it as a noun. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Converted to a non-gloss definition. The pre-existing definition might have tempted a particularly naive learner to substitute the word oath for the phrase. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

residence
I noticed this sense, which I thought a bit strange: a place where a corporation is established. Is this an Americanism? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a Britishism too? DCDuring TALK 11:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In England how does one refer to corporations residing in other countries, such as Scotland or Jersey. In the US corporations (which are "persons") reside in states. It may be that the terms extends to sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, etc. DCDuring TALK 11:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

on-campus, off-campus
Are these really only used in American English? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. I've removed the US tag --Type56op9 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

suppa
The page "suppa" claims that the word suppa can be an adjective meaning "Narrow" in Finnish. I haven't been able to verify such a sense. Kielitoimiston sanakirja gives only a noun meaning (http://www.kielitoimistonsanakirja.fi/netmot.exe?ListWord=suppa&SearchWord=suppa&dic=1&page=results&UI=fi80&Opt=1), Urbaani sanakirja does not have such an entry (http://urbaanisanakirja.com/search/?q=suppa) and I as a native Finnish speaker don't recognize such a meaning for the word "suppa". Timo Nurmi's dictionary "Uusi suomen kielen sanakirja" (1998) doesn't have such an entry at all. Perhaps suppa means narrow in another language and the person who added that meaning forgot to tell what language it was? Someone who knows please fix this. 91.154.122.198 13:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an error; suppea means "narrow" --fixed. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

intransitive build in computer science
There exists another sense of build, which means 'to compile successfully'. For example: "the docs built yesterday without any trouble". This sense is somewhat informal, though technical. Telmac (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to improve the definition. 174.47.29.50 09:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. DCDuring TALK 13:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it need the word compile, at least in a usage example, to be intelligible? DCDuring TALK 13:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's usually transitive (now added); and yes, I think "compile" is necessary (also now added): even though you can build things other than executables (e.g. Windows Help files) it's still a process of compilation. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dutchman
Sense 3 is "a German". Dated, or even obsolete? 174.47.29.50 09:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dated seems appropriate, or archaic. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Archaic, I'd say. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * shows some use referring to German descent in relatively current fiction, but, though my (Germanic) parents used it that way, I haven't heard people of even my generation use it. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Except for "Pennsylvania Dutch", of course ;) Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

company
Isn't a sense like "circle of friends, companions; group of people meeting socially" missing here? Einstein2 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is that different from sense 4, "social visitors or companions"? - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Which Inflection-table?
Which Ancient Greek noun inflection-table do I add for νόσημα, ατος, τό? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . See ὄνομα for an illustration of how it works. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * TVM, could someone verify I did it right (i.e. someone skilled in Greek)? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks right to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerned about Donnanz's misguided crusade against non-British spellings
I am concerned about Donnanz's misguided crusade against non-British spellings. He is now tackling e.g. sulf/sulph for sulfur compounds, e.g. : this is not a simple BrE/AmE issue since the official scientific rules prefer sulf (Blotto can back me up, I expect) regardless of country. And in the other areas Donnanz has been tackling, he seems to show a blindness to language change and evolution, and a pigheaded insistence on separate US and UK forms, whereas there is actually a wide continuum even within a single country, let alone in Hong Kong, Trinidad, and countless other English-speaking areas. Can we stop him?! Equinox ◑ 02:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Before he has a go at me, I'm British, and pretty damn literate. Equinox ◑ 02:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I share your concern. If you think it's bad enough, he could be blocked. I think it is rather important for someone intending to be a constructive participant here to be essentially descriptive and fact-oriented. The worst thing of all is to be chauvinistic or focused on one's own idiolect, believing that one's own subset of the language is more than one of many clouds of data points.
 * If he doesn't outgrow his pathology, we should block him. DCDuring TALK 04:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can back up Equinox on sulfur/sulphur. Chemical terms (and, I assume drugs containing the term) are spelled with an "f" throughout the scientific community, just as is spelled with an "i". They should not be labelled as American or British (etc). The general populace spells these words with an f/ph, and with or without an "i", depending on their country of origin. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop Donnanz. Thank you very much for this post in Beer parlour. Oops, it's Tea room; oh well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's put politely, I can stop quite readily, and there is no need for a block. Is it just sulf- / sulph- you're mainly concerned about? I was using Oxford for guidance, but I know it's not as cut and dried as all that with those. There shouldn't be any question about the -ph- spellings, but I won't argue about the -f- spellings. I wasn't planning to do any more of those anyway. With other non-sulphur-related words I realise that it can vary, but that can be catered for. There are categories for American, British and Canadian spellings, but I don't know of any others. Commonwealth countries usually follow British practice, but there can be variations of course. A crusade, huh? Donnanz (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By "Oxford for guidance", you mean http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been using my hard copy, which is virtually the same, though the online version may be more up to date than my 2005 edition. Donnanz (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Luckily enough, we go by evidence whenever we can, not by reference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought that the rule was not to include etymologies in alternative forms. --Romanophile (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel that etymology should be included in both forms, but I have been concentrating on the British etymologies. In a lot of cases nobody has got round to putting them in under either spelling. Donnanz (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, the "alternative form" is not consistently British. I guess it depends on which spelling was entered first. Well before my time. Donnanz (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Equinox: what do you think e.g. of sulfide? The frequency picture in GNV shows that while sulfide is on par with sulphide in the British corpus after 2000, in 20th century sulphide was predominant. Here, removing American label is not so unequivocal action as in some other cases, such as sulfamethoxazole (GNV, British corpus). --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

college
It looks to me as if the many definitions of college could use a bit of a cleanup. Unfortunately, I don't feel I am up to the task, because I am only familiar with American and New Zealand usage, and this is a term where each country seems to define it differently.

Here in New Zealand, it refers to a secondary school, not a tertiary institution (with the exception of a specialized division - definition 10 - such as College of Engineering or College of Law). At the very least, that makes definition 5 (an institution of higher education) wrong.Kiwima (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Education has some tricky differences between countries; I've mainly only encountered the UK/US/Canada ones, where "school", "college", and "public/private school" can vary quite widely. I just glanced at and it does mention secondary school (among other things). Please add the sense! Our editors represent a pretty biased cross-section of world Englishes, as I was complaining earlier (hah), and I think that one area where we need work is in Aussie vs. NZ English. Equinox ◑ 04:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You could start by labeling as "NZ" the usages you know are New Zealand uses and similarly for "US". I wonder whether any of the definitions are shared among all Anglophone areas. DCDuring TALK 04:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They were secondary schools in the 1960s; schools were in three stages - primary, intermediate and secondary. I never went to intermediate school as I lived outside the nearest city which had one {Invercargill), going straight from primary school to secondary in Invercargill. But of course a lot has changed since the 1960s. Donnanz (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have done what I could to clean it up. Kiwima (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"shaded it"
This BBC News article uses the phrase "shaded it" a couple of times. What does this mean? Does it fall under any of the senses at shade? This, that and the other (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an unusual meaning of the verb that we are missing, and corresponds to the sense #6 of the noun (that also had no definition!). It means to be ahead by a small amount. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lithuanian nagas
I think that term has been neglected for a long, long time. Who wants to give it some attention? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notification. I have added basic information there. Maybe its stress pattern is 4, though I should confirm it precisely. --Eryk Kij (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late response. It is absolutely correct now. Thank you. --Viskonsas (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

predominantly/predominately
What, exactly, is the difference in meaning between predominantly and predominately? Are they synonyms? Is one more "correct" than the other? Is there some subtle difference in usage that should be noted (like the often-confused size and mass)? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 15:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO is "correct" and  is just a misspelling that may have become an alternative spelling over time. The same goes for the two underlying adjectives. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The usually sound World Wide Words has something to say on this. DCDuring TALK 09:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This Google N-gram shows that predominantly is much more common, but that predominately is gaining ground. Other dictionaries define predominately as meaning "predominantly". DCDuring TALK 09:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have adapted the usage note from predominately to also note this relationship in predominantly. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

carajo
The carajo is the basket high up in the mast of old sailing ships, where sailors were put on the outlook for land or pirate ships. This basket is called 'crow nest' in English and 'kraaienest' in Dutch. This was the most uncomfortable place on these ships, where there was much movement and usually a cold wind. There is an old saying in Castilian "Cuando el grajo vuele abajo hace frio de carajo" When the crow flies low it is cold like (in the) crow nest. Nothing rude about that. To be put on guard in the crow nest was often a punishment dealt out by the captain. If you were sent to the crow nest it was like being sent to hell. 'Vete al carajo' became to mean something like 'Go to hell'. This curse also came to be used in the hinterland, where the meaning of the word 'carajo' was not understood and where it obtained its vulgar connotation. A black espresso with cognac is widely known as a 'carajillo' (little crow nest). Probably because such drink would give you warmth and strength to go on guard in the crow nest.

Meaning of Affix
Affix is simply "translated" as affix. But which meanings does it actually have? E.g. Meyers (1905) and Brockhaus (1911) only have it as "prefix or suffix". duden.de has a similar meaning, though it could maybe be understand to include other -fixes as well. "Affixum" has the general meaning of "That which is affixed" and suffix, but that's another word.

So, does Affix also mean "That which is affixed" and "suffix"? -22:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC), comment added by IP.
 * This is a general problem with many definitions but it also arises from the way Wiktionary is built up over time. Perhaps, when the entry Affix was first created, affix only had one sense. Then someone added more senses to affix, which now made not just Affix, but any other entry using that term as a definition, ambiguous. I don't really know what way this could be solved, because there will always be cases where an English entry is edited, but all the non-English entries that refer to it are not. And it's not likely that that will change, as it would be a pain. —CodeCat 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

peruse?
Question: Please let me know if using the word pruse in the following sentence is acceptable. My husband and I were prusing through you cookbook last night enjoying your recipe titles.
 * You must mean peruse. I would say "My husband and I were perusing your cookbook....". The through is not wrong, but is not necessary and could be considered redundant. DCDuring TALK 03:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

guild
I have two questions regarding guild. First: What about the MMORPG usage of this word? Although named for the "group of tradespeople" sense, I feel like the usage is distinct enough to warrant its own entry. The word clan does have an entry for its video game sense. In games, and especially MMORPGs, the sense is that of a group of players who regularly play together, similar to a (video game) clan. The key difference is that while clans are usually not formalised within the game mechanics, guilds always are. Second: Where did the 'u' in the spelling come from? Did a particular author or dictionary popularise it? Is there any known or hypothesised reason for it, such as perceived etymology, influence from other words, or avoiding confusion with gild? 73.23.156.236 03:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Added the gaming sense. Not sure about the spelling but it doesn't seem unique (guilt, guide, guise...); anyone? Equinox ◑ 04:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, words with "gui" are mostly from some historical stage of French, and they tend to be from a Germanic source, with the "gui" replacing an original "wi". That doesn't seem to be the case here, though. One reason for the "u" is shared with (maybe borrowed from?) French: it ensures that the "g" is pronounced hard, as in guilt, rather than soft, as in gist. It may be that the "u" was added by analogy of "gu" words of French origin. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I also think it's a French influence. It was used alongside gui-words for quite a while without a 'u', and there were also numerous spellings that suggested a pronunciation with a non-hard g (with y or yogh). Perhaps as the hard-g pronunciation spread, so did the relatively unambiguous "gui" spelling borrowed from French. In the absence of resources that chronicle the spellings of that particular word through time and space, I'll have to be content with guesses. Thank you! 73.23.156.236 15:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

forthwith
According to forthwith was a preposition before it was an adverb. That helps explain the curious etymology, but we lack a preposition section (or a link in the entry to any differently spelled Middle English version) and we lack Old English forð mid, the precursor. It would be nice to see an example of the preposition in use in Modern English, Middle English, and Old English. DCDuring TALK 10:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * lists fō̆rth-with |pos=adv Also fourth-, furþ-. There are three definitions there with quotes dating to a. 1395. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Thanks. I'd bookmarked the MED, but forgot all about it. I'm going to check the OED to see if I can find some support for this preposition claim. I don't really trust my ability to read the quotations findable with full-text search at MED. DCDuring TALK 21:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

rudern: auxiliary "haben" or "sein"
rudern currently says the auxiliary is "haben". It could be "haben" or "sein". I looked at Template:de-verb-weak/documentation but could not figure out how to make it say "haben or sein"? Should documentation be improved? Or what should I be reading to more easily know how to contribute? --Hugovdm (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The documentation should definitely be improved. is how to fix it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! FWIW I've gone ahead and mentioned this on de-conj-weak and de-verb-weak... though it should clearly be mentioned on many more templates. --Hugovdm (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

private school
The definition of private school is specific to US, Canada, and Australia. I know the term is used in the UK as well - does it have a different meaning there? If it is the same, perhaps we should remove the contextualisation. Otherwise, can someone who knows add a definition for the UK?


 * A private school in the UK is a school not run by a local authority (borough or district within a county), and fees are paid for education. A public school such as Eton, despite the name, is in the same category. Public schools are a cut above private schools, and the parents have to be quite wealthy to send their children to a public school. Donnanz (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

conform
I would love it if a smarty pants could add a usage note explaining the difference between "conform to" and "conform with". Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking through the uses out there in the literature, they appear to be interchangable. In my own personal usage, I tend to use "to" with a plural (conform to the rules) and "with" with a singular (conform with the standard), but I find plenty of examples that go the other way. Kiwima (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my idiolect conform to implies that the target of the conformity is more rigid, geometric, etc than would be the target of conform with. It would be interesting to compare, , and to see how real lexicographers treat this. DCDuring TALK  12:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At least one dictionary has usage examples of "conform with a plan" contrasted with "conform to a rule", which conforms with my idiolect. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fowler objected to conform with, but few others seem to, not even the picky Garner's Modern American Usage. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And, lastly, conform to is about 11 times more common at COCA and 7-8 times more common at BNC than conform with. DCDuring TALK 12:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am reasonably sure that the usage qualifications (thing vs person) on the two transitive definitions are less important than those that lead to a different choice of following preposition. Probably the definitions should be changed as well, but I don't want to force the translations to conform to definitions that don't conform with the idiolects of our native speakers. DCDuring TALK 12:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

body electric
Does this term have a meaning of its own? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This may help: Equinox ◑ 18:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

-ible/-able redundancy
Some adjectives are well attested in both -ible and -able forms; an example would be reflectible and reflectable. This extends to attested derivations like reflectibility and reflectability. Do we have any kind of order of precedence by which to determine that one is the alternative spelling of the other? Does it matter which one is more widely used, or which one was the first to be used? Do we just present them as two distinct words? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about previous practice, but I support going by frequency, especially if there are huge differences. In the above mentioned case, neither of the two forms is a clear frequency winner, as per and, so I would leave them alone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see what legitimate basis there is other than frequency for preferring one suffix over the other. Generally, the "ible" forms are derived from Latin adjectives ending in "ibilis" and the "able" forms are modern constructs from a verb + "able". It is possible that the public-school-class of Great Britain prefers the "ible" forms because the use of such forms is a marker, however imperfect, of frivolous education and therefore social class. DCDuring TALK 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)