Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/May

Two issues with de
Just found the de entry and browsed through most of it. I noticed two things:


 * 1) If the link is to the article titled African American Vernacular English, why on earth would the link only be in the first three words, i.e. like "African American Vernacular English", instead of "African American Vernacular English"? This is a template problem, so I couldn't fix that for myself.
 * 2) What is "Balaang Bata sa Sugbo" doing as a usage example for Cebuano "de"? I mean, OK, it's a synonym of "Santo Niño de Cebú", but why put a double Cebuano version?

MGorrone (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: The above-mentioned template is "{ {pronunciation spelling|the|from=AAVE|lang=en} }", which results in.

MGorrone (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the AAVE template is fine as is. I agree that the Cebuano usage example in question was flawed, and have removed it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

luchóg
la The Wikipedia article Luchóg is about the computer mouse, while our entry is about the animal. Is one of these two incorrect? Also, if it does refer to the animal, it's not explained how it differs in meaning from. —CodeCat 18:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If is accurate, both terms refer to both senses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Jaffa orange
Recent additions to this entry by an anon have pushed it into the realm of POV. Personally, I had no issues with the initial definition, however, I guess that recent additions don't stray too far off from historical correctness. With that said, the subject is touchy for some and I just want to figure out if the changes should be reverted, kept as they are, or, if they should be modified. The Jaffa orange is undeniably connected to the Israeli export industry, so we should mention that somewhere, shouldn't we? --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we're a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. I've removed all mention of both Israel and Palestine and just defined the variety of orange as what it is, and mentioned the city in the etymology section. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean and I agree in principle — we're a dictionary and as such, shouldn't accept encyclopedic material. Thank you for amending the entry! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

syncronization is proscribed or misspelled?
Given that syncronize is documented as proscribed, then what is syncronization: proscribed or misspelled? Cœur (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can only talk about these things in the context of the text in which they appear. A given usage could theoretically be either be a misspelling, or an intentional spelling (which would be proscribed). Now all we need to do is figure out whether it's common for people to intentionally spell it that way. --WikiTiki89 16:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * oh well, someone changed syncronize to misspelled, so I'll assume syncronization is misspelled too. Cœur (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

whiz kid
Can this also be spelt "wiz kid"? Tharthan (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems not impossible, but it looks wrong to me. Ƿidsiþ 14:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely! "Whiz" and "wiz" are identical according to Grammarist. Perrytech 15:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that the original spelling was with wh-, compare here and here. The spelling wiz kid looks suspiciously like an old eggcorn, as whiz (both in whiz kid and standalone) may never originally have been derived from wizard, but was later interpreted that way, so that we may have an orthographical folk etymology here. People who still distinguish wh from w in pronunciation may still keep whiz (kid) apart from wizard. The spelling wiz kid is judged an eggcorn here. However, there is still uncertainty surrounding the etymology, so that it is not a clear case. ---Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

pluralia tanta
As I just found out, pluralia tanta as the plural of plurale tantum is bad Latin. Tantum in this case is adverbial, and if tantus is used as an adjective, it results in the nonsensical "plurals so great". Is it common to the point where it needs to be mentioned at all, or should the entry just be deleted? Esszet (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't delete words that are actually used just because we don't like them. Please see WT:CFI. However, it is appropriate to mark this form as nonstandard, which I have done. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

arkars
Is this the singular as well as the plural form? uses "arkars" as the singular. I found one hit for the singular "arkar" but that might be a mistake. DTLHS (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Chinese potential complements examples
Are any of these worth including:, , , , ? We already have and.

What about, as a suffix? We have. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Go for it. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think they are okay. Wyang (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a question: Is actually a suffix? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

meet (English adjective): merging suggestion
There are two sections for the adjective, and they seem to describe the same sense, so they should be merged. --Anareth (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅; and some other cleanup as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

far right
The translations for this currently soft-redirect to. But in my experience, "far right" is the more usual term in English (assuming they actually mean the same thing, which I'm not sure about..) and I believe the translations should appear at this page. Ƿidsiþ 14:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't recall ever seeing/hearing the term, to be honest (although I probably have at some point...). To me it sounds even more right than far right—closer to (although I might be splitting hairs at this point).  Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I too do not recall ever seeing or hearing the term . Tharthan (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unlike German, which I occasionally encounter, is unfamiliar to me – it must be very rare. I note there are no citations. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Widespread typo - bot fix please?
A large number of entries refer to a dictionary published by "Oglivie", but it should be "Ogilvie". Is this an easy fix for someone? Equinox ◑ 17:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

rear
Regarding the usage notes...

The derivative "childrearing" sees use in American English (at least in some of the dialects of American English that I know of), and anecdotally I can attest to having seen or heard the use of either definition one or two before.

I'm wondering whether or not we ought to add the former fact to the usage notes. I'm willing to defer to someone who knows more about this, however. Tharthan (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to -sche for rewording the usage notes. Tharthan (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I reworded the mini-notes that were placed after the first two senses. Regarding the Usage notes section, it would be good to get references for the claims. - -sche (discuss) 16:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Messina
Two different Ancient Greek translations for the town- are they both correct? DTLHS (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and no. Yes, there are two Ancient Greek names for the place, but no, they weren't both correct (one was misspelled). I removed the translation for the province (now a "Metropolitan City") because I believe only the city goes back to Ancient Greek times (feel free to put it back if I'm mistaken). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

vandalisieren
How can i move the nearly nonexistent vandalieren to the much more common vandalisieren? "Ngrams not found: vandaliert, vandalieren" --Espoo (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You would treat vandalieren similar to acceptible. Just decide what vandalieren is... dated, alternative form, misspelling, colloquial, or what. —Stephen (Talk) 06:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved the main entry to vandalisieren and labeled vandalieren "rare". That can be altered as necessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've weakened the label to "uncommon": vandalieren seems to get ~3/5 as many hits as vandalisieren, and vandaliert gets about 1/6 as many as vandalisiert (when I page through to see how many hits there are, because Google's estimates are often off), which strikes me as too high a portion to be "rare". The -is- spelling is not that common itself, which may explain why neither spelling is in the dictionaries I just made a quick check of even though both have been in use for over a century continuing to the present day. - -sche (discuss) 07:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As i already wrote Ngrams not found: vandalieren, vandaliert. Google hit results are not reliable indicators of frequency even if you page thru them and even if you remove as many dictionary sites as possible, almost all of which copy the nonsense we had here on Wiktionary. Although Ngram Viewer only records use in print, it gives a clear indication that vandalieren is much rarer in speech too and much rarer than 3/5 of the frequency of vandalisieren. --Espoo (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

there is a new sheriff in town
I created this article yesterday, but I feel that there is something wanting in the definition that I gave. Would someone mind rewording the definition so that it sounds better? I tried my best to give a good definition, but I don't really like what I ended up putting down. The etymology wording is also a bit shaky, I feel. Tharthan (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This expression is one of the uses of new sheriff in town, which is also used (bare) as a title of books, chapters, articles, etc. and with other determiners. I would define it a a noun, keep the current headword as a hard redirect. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a new sheriff in town, as the most common use (by far), deserves to be in a usage example as well. DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

穊
An IP inserted material from another website here a short while ago. Could someone sort out the wheat from the chaff in the contribution? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

hərf has screwed templates
Just stumbled upon hərf, and those inflected forms seem to stem from a misprogrammed or misused template. The code currently reads { {az-noun} } and produces (without the "Tea Room/May" stuff). Anyone fix that? What is it, missing parameters not provided to the template?

MGorrone (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the problem is missing parameters. Looking at the code, you have to add def-acc or 1 to produce an accusative form, and 2 or pl or plural to produce a plural form. 1 and 2 are the definite accusative and plural endings, whereas the other parameters are the entire definite accusative or plural forms. I've changed the template code so that the forms will be omitted if nobody has provided them. Now, the headword just shows hərf . — Eru·tuon 19:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * just found another template with the same problem: a template for Turkmen used at gar. Can you fix that too?


 * MGorrone (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did my best, though I'm not sure how to make the "uncountable" thing work. — Eru·tuon 21:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Figured it out... I think. But there are currently no Turkmen uncountable nouns. — Eru·tuon 21:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what you get for naming an entry "hərf", obviously. —CodeCat 21:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of majorant
I just looked up majorant to see IPA and found none. I googled, and found this, which has what sounds like /'mæ.dʒɔ.ɹənt/, /mə:'dʒɔ.ɹənt/ and /'meɪ.dʒəˌɹæənt/ to my ears, this which also has /'meɪ.dʒəˌɹæənt/, then this, which sounds like /'meɪ.dʒɔ.rənt/, this, which has explicit IPA as /ˈmeɪdʒər(ə)nt/, and then I got fed up of looking :). I do not know how to classify these pronunciations, nor if there are nonstandard ones, so could someone read these and put them into the article with appropriate classification (and perhaps narrower IPA)?

MGorrone (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on Stack Exchange answers, I'll go ahead and add /'meɪdʒərənt/ to the entry. MGorrone (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

cross-country
There is no entry for the adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

main page
Why don't we provide a definition of this term on Wiktionary? All I'm getting at the moment is a redirect to Wiktionary's main page. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it would be sum-of-parts? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it though? Is our main page really our principal, or most important page? It's just synonymous with, I would think. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He who pays the piper
1. Note lack of supporting documentation. 2. Entry as of 8 May 2017 may be correct as to current majority (but not universal) view. See in particular https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/classics/cucd/atkins.html#n6 (although is 2003 ancient history?). Nonetheless I agree with her that as late as the 1970s "calls the tune" and "chooses the tune" were synonymous and "tells the piper how to solo" was not involved. "Has control" in the entry is almost certainly an overreach, in my opinion. 3. Note further than in the Earl of Chesterfield's letters control is certainly not indicated, so the usage is changing over time. 'The other powers cannot well dance, when neither France nor the maritime powers can, as they used to do, pay the piper.' 4. The reason this is relevant to me is because of (brand name) internet search, and I had to check accuracy of a reference. Well, now I have to fix a Wiktionary entry (unless someone whose specialty this is gets to it before I do). Is there a way to set a tickler from this website or do I have to do it from my own calendar? Sighthndman (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

set to (and a label created for) something like "Spanish-accented English"? I expect that some words that would be used in the situation you describe, might also be put directly into the mouth of Hispanic characters in novels, etc, i.e. used to suggest that they were speaking with an accent, which the old man is then adopting mockingly. If only a few -o terms are usually derogatory, they could be ed individually; if derogatoriness is a general feature of such words, we might want to add a qualifier (like ", chiefly derogatory") directly to the template. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you mean -o... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are ways to modify words whose results don't really belong in a dictionary, e.g. you can make any noun sound comically French by prefixing it with le, but other than the famous cartoon catchphrase I doubt we'd want entries. Same goes for word games like Pig Latin: again, perhaps  came from that, but it's an exception in having truly entered English. Equinox ◑ 01:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * True, we do exclude some regular modifications, like 's or Latin -que (Talk:fasque). - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

die: synonym of laugh
Recently added by user:Romanophile. I have heard of the phrase "to die laughing". There is also "you kill me" which I think is implying much the same metaphor. Not sure that that amounts to a synonym though. Spinning Spark  10:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ‘To laugh intensely’ would probably more more accurate than simply ‘to laugh’. Even so, I’ve seen this sense quite a few times in recent years, which is probably why people say ‘I’m literally dying’. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 11:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you got any cites for it? "I'm literally laughing", which is what you get if you substitute the alleged synonym, does not make much sense.  Also, if it only occurs in set phrases then it should be presented as such. Spinning Spark  12:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Literally" is often used figuratively, so I wouldn't take "I'm literally dying" to be evidence that "die" has acquired a new literal meaning. --WikiTiki89 14:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've heard the usage that I think is being referred to, but I think it's a general image that someone is so amused, pleased, or shocked, that it's killing them. There's an episode of Graham Norton where he quotes Taylor Swift's fans saying things like "we all died like for real" (when she appeared), "I legit almost told Mama Swift to call me an ambulance because I wasn't going to make it", one song "slayed everyone to heaven and back", "while listening to the song I literally had to plan my funeral arrangements because I wasn't going to make it". - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's possible we need to add or expand a metaphorical sense of "die", which seems to be the "base" of the metaphor (which some examples above are then picking more elaborate and expressive synonyms for), but that sense is probably more general than "to laugh". Another usage we're missing (if it's citable) is ~"to black out, and usually vomit, due to excessive alcohol or drugs" ("I fucking died last night"), or perhaps a more general sense of "to fail to the point of not being able to continue". - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We also need the relatively modern intransitive sense of, roughly "be awesome", as in "&#91;Melissa&#93; McCarthy ... slayed during her monologue ... as she joined SNL’s famous Five-Timers Club." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the last sense of slay ("incapacitate by awesomeness") is an attempt to cover that. - -sche (discuss) 19:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There's also "I nearly died" when someone is mortified/embarrassed. Equinox ◑ 19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's covered by "To be mortified or shocked by a situation." - -sche (discuss) 19:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think something like "be completely overcome with laughter or emotion" would cover it. The implication is of being so completely incapacitated as to seem like one is dying. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Btw, Century has two senses we don't quite have: "to lose vital power or action; become devitalized or dead; [...] as, 'certain plants die down to the ground annually, while their roots live'" and "in theol., to be cut off from the presence or favor of God; suffer eternal punishment in the world to come: 'so long as God shall live, so long shall the damned die'". - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:ISO 3166-1
Should we strictly follow how the International Organization for Standardization names the countries and areas based on United Nations? See also w:Template:Editnotices/Page/ISO 3166-1.--Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Inside this appendix, you mean, or on Wiktionary in general? Appendices for ISO language and script codes seem useful, but this appendix seems like it could go on 'pedia. But if we keep it, I haven't seen a reason not to use the ISO's country names in it. - -sche (discuss) 04:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just mean this Appendix, without talking about Wiktionary in general. The Appendix may be kept here to link to alpla-2 and alpha-3 codes. Some ISO's country names are subject to political disputes, so I ask here while linking to a template on Wikipedia reminding users not to fight on "Taiwan, Province of China" or similar disputes. ISO just follows the UN.--Jusjih (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If this template is kept, then I guess it should use the ISO's names, with a note like the one you link to on en.WP. But I think it should be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

-cele -coele -coel suffices
It seems to me that there is some confusion in the use and etymology of the -cele -coele and -coel suffices. Which are currently indicated as being alternative forms of each other, with -cele seemingly being preferred (in the -cele entry, -coel and -coele are indicated as alternative spellings; and in the -coel and -coele entries, it is indicated that these are variants of -cele). Even though these suffices are (in my opinion erroneously) used as synonyms, there is a difference between -cele on the one hand and -coel and -coele on the other. -cele refers to tumors or hernias, and derives from Ancient Greek κηλη (tumor or growth), whereas -coel and -coele refer to body cavities, deriving from κοῖλον (cavity). This distinction is also apparent in the entries ending in -coel (which all refer to body cavities), and -cele (which all refer to tumors or hernias). I added the meaning of cavity to the -coel and -coele entries, but I am unsure of how to indicate that the -cele entry is sometimes (incorrectly) used in lieu of -coel. Any suggestions? --Kwataswagri (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If what you say is accurate, each term should probably either have  or a usage note mentioning the other page. - -sche (discuss) 20:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright. How would I convince you of my accurateness? --Kwataswagri (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

clinically proven
Okay, so I've gotten some confusion now. I did my best with the definition, but apparently this word can mean a lot of things (or, according to some sources, nothing at all actually). Some sources claim that "clinically proven" just means that the product was not tested well and was put there as sort of a copout of it. (But we don't want this in our definition I don't believe; I think we want to tell what the person writing the word means.) So, can someone define it better, or did I do a good job? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this different from "clinically" + "proven"? --WikiTiki89 14:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It just seemed like it had some idiomatic meaning. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

plank
''And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.''

What on Earth did they mean by ‘plank’ here? Is it physically possible to have a slab stuck in the eye? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's just hyperbole, to emphasize the irony in trying to correct someone else's faults when one's own faults are far greater. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. I thought that it was a sense that nobody uses anymore. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's definitely meant as hyperbole. Some translations use "beam" or "log" (see ). The Greek word is . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

rise from the dead
I'm working on this entry in my userspace. I think it's non-SOP, and I have enough quotations. However, several uses are in headlines, and the quote templates seem to want a quotation. Is there a way to indicate that I'm quoting the headline? — Eru·tuon 20:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't quite feel SOP. There's obviously more to it than just rising.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of že
I was browsing a couple Czech words today and trying to add etymology. I added information for když and kdy based on French articles (if anyone could verify that it would be great). Then I came to že. I saw an etymology «From, .» for the Slovene word. "OK, great", I thought. "Certainly the etymology is the same for Cech". But to be scrupolous, I checked with že and found «Du vieux slave же, že, qui donne le polonais że, iż, le slovaque že, le bulgare че, če, же, že en russe.» (links were to French articles of course)», that is «from, že, which gives 🇨🇬 and iż, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, če, 🇨🇬». Is the French etymology correct? Does thaat OCS word stem from the PS word given at the etymology for the Slovene word? And if so, why doesn't the French wiktionary say it, tracing the OCS directly back to PIE *ghe? That would be consistent with the etymology found for Latin hic over here: «From, from , , +. First element cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. Second element cognate with 🇨🇬,, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. More at, » (I assume the three forms given are masculine, feminine, and neuter singular nominative respectively, and that this is some kind of demostrative pronoun -- "particle"? what does that mean?). If that is not the case, are the words že in Slovene and Slovak and the word že in Czech really not from the same PS word? MGorrone (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

PS I also added translations for the examples at slavon in the meantime, if anyone could verify them it would be good. MGorrone (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't say that any of these words comes from Old Church Slavonic. People sometimes lazily consider OCS to be basically the same thing as Proto-Slavic, but it isn't. Modern Slavic languages—especially those whose speakers are predominantly Eastern Orthodox—often have OCS loanwords, but the modern languages don't descend from OCS. And I really doubt that 🇨🇬 is really from 🇨🇬, rather than from . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it seems that is really just  +, the first part cognate to 🇨🇬. Also, How can there be a connection with 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬? PIE *ǵʰ and *ǵ became PS *z, not *ž. --WikiTiki89 15:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But and 🇨🇬 can both come from  with a pure velar; in which case they're not related to . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, how would we even know that either the Latin or the Greek velars go back to palatals? Also, since the Greek velar isn't aspirated, how can it even be related to Latin h-? Clearly, the Greek particle isn't related at all, while Latin hic can in principle well reflect the same *gʰ- pronominal stem that the Sanskrit and Slavic particles might go back to. However, the Slavic *ž- is, in itself, ambiguous. And I don't get how anyone would connect Bulgarian 🇨🇬 with all this, when it starts with a completely unrelated phoneme; that's really sloppy scholarship. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * to be precise I'm not too sure how to translate "vieux slave". Literally it would be "Old Slavic", so I would have gone for Proto-Slavic, as I did in the etymology of když IIRC. I went for OCS here because it was written in Cyrillic, which would be odd for a protolanguage, and because Vieux-slave has a link to English Old Church Slavonic, but there might be room for doubt there. MGorrone (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Older literature, in particular, doesn't always differentiate between Proto-Slavic, Old Slavic and Old Church Slavonic, treating Old Church Slavonic as a dialect of Old Slavic, also known as Common Slavic, which these scholars effectively consider Proto-Slavic.
 * It all leads back to the issue of what exactly Proto-Slavic is and what a proto-language is and if a proto-language is a language in the sense of dialect continuum (like Common Slavic) or more like a regional dialect (originating from a larger, older dialect continuum) that starts spreading, becomes a lingua franca (widespread second language), and eventually develops regional variants. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

From The Monty Python
Looking from pining in w:Dead Parrot sketch, I found that is synonym for longing and yearning. Can this meaning be included in Etym2Verb or we need another sense? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 11:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the sketch it's used as a verb form, and as far as I can see we already have an entry for this, which refers you to . Ƿidsiþ 16:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I mean: is long including that sense? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 10:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

feel like just yesterday
I know it seems a little bit SOPish, but "feel like just yesterday" is far more common that "feel like just last week", etc. It has to do with a psychological effect that makes things feel closer in time than they actually were. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"I wouldn't know"
Hi, Leonardo Dicaprio says the sentence "I wouldn't know" after asking the woman engraving his oscar "you do this every year?". I do not understand the use of the modal here, nor can I find it in its entry. What paraphrase would fit best for it? --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * See . Equinox ◑ 20:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding its modality, I still can't match it with any of the ones mentioned in would. Should it have an entry of its own? It seems to be a set phrase always involving the verb to know --Backinstadiums (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, consider e.g. "I wouldn't have thought so". Equinox ◑ 21:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Could sb. please offer a translation into Spanish? I still can't grab it --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As the StackExchange thread says, the difference is usually that "I don't [know, think so, etc]" simply declares that the person doesn't [verb] — the person happens to not [verb], for whatever reason — while "I wouldn't [verb]" implies that there is a specific reason why the person doesn't [verb]. In this case, Leonardo is saying "I wouldn't know ... because I've never won an Oscar before." And as an answer to a question, "I wouldn't know" can sometimes be more dismissive than "I don't know". - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

As if on a cue... --Droigheann (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's our definition 1.6. He's saying "It might be expected that I don't know (given the constraints of the circumstances)", the circumstances in this case being that he's never won an Oscar before. It sounds complicated, but it's a common phrase in English which is well-understood and has familiar ironic overtones (roughly: "Don't ask me!"). Ƿidsiþ 19:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: definition 1.6. I am not at all familiar with any definition of determined that make "could naturally have been expected to" a paraphrase or specialization of meaning. Is it a non-current or regional (eg, UK) sense of determined. If it is either not current or regional, then it shouldn't be in a definition. Even if it is just (much) less common, the definition might be improved by a change. DCDuring (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, what do you mean by a 'cue'? Furthermore, could you please paraphrase the turtle's 'Guess I wouldn't know'? what is the illocutionary force of it? Lastly, I do not understand the final vignette, what is to be seen again? Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The turtle wouldn't know if it's a nice day for flying, because it is impossible for a turtle to fly, having no wings. A bird might say "I don't know" instead. Equinox ◑ 13:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It should have been on cue without the article, my bad. As regards the end of the strip, I guess the turtle actually thought it did skip - but not by the bird's standards. --Droigheann (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

So long as the specific modality of would is not stated, the lexicalized sentence will not be definied properly, that is technically/linguistically. I cannot find anything on Google Scholars. --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Could sb. please confirm wether in this excerpt the same sentence is being use? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence "I wouldn't know about that" (Coetzee) is doing the same thing. It means "being who I am, I am not in a position that allows me to know about that". Equinox ◑ 16:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * is 'I wouldn't know' always paraphrasable by 'How would/should I know(!)?' Otherwise, what differences can be spotted between them? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The meaning is very similar but (anecdotally!) I'd say the tone is different. "How should I know?" is often aggrieved or impatient, when asked a question one cannot reasonably answer. ("When does McDonald's open?" "How should I know? I don't work there!") "I wouldn't know" is more neutral, and in some cases might even be aloof and snobbish, indicating that one is not part of the (implied inferior) group of people who would know. ("Are the burgers at McDonald's any good?" "I imagine so, if you like fast food. I wouldn't know.") Equinox ◑ 17:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * can that snobbish feeling be detected in DiCaprio's statement? the engraver does smile though. Furthermore, then it is not the same as Coetzee's one --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * DiCaprio is joking. He's saying that he wouldn't know (isn't in a position to know) whether it's the same engraver every year, because he (Leo) isn't a successful enough actor to win an Oscar every year and find out. Equinox ◑ 18:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've just found the expression 'wouldn't you know it', which does have an entry of its own. Once again, its modality is not straightforward, plus it's an exclamation with inversion. What similarties can you see btw. them? --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Locative plural of Czech sen
sen and [Czech Wiktionary] say snech/snách, [French Wiktionary] has snéch/snách, my half-Czech half-Italian friend says snech is dreams and snách is engagements, and her Czech mom (unless I'm misunderstanding her email) says snéch is invented and the other two are fine, so who’s right and who’s wrong?

PS Is there a quicker way to link to a foreign-language Wiktionary article than just entering the full link, like for French Wikipedia you write a and it links to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/a? MGorrone (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Seems my friend was getting confused with "snahách", from snaha. MGorrone (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The French snéch was nonsense, probably a typo for snech, I corrected it. My two online sources say locative plural snech and locative plural snech, but ve snách ["in dreams"]; personally as a native speaker I perceive snech as the common form and snách as somewhat literary (although for all I know there may be dialectal differences as well).
 * See Help:Interwiki linking. --Droigheann (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

bitty
Apparently is also a baby-talk expression (possibly only in the UK) meaning something like "breast", "breastfeeding" or "breast milk", popularised by the character Harvey in Little Britain. Since I am not familiar with either the expression or the show, I've refrained from editing the entry and ask a native speaker to add this meaning.

The Wikipedia entry only refers to the catchphrase, but bitty clearly has several meanings, and the word does not refer to "extended breastfeeding" as such (that's a connotation due to the show), but to something more general, which is why the treatment over there is likely to confuse or mislead the reader. Bitty also seems to be a hypocoristic form of Elizabeth (maybe a dialectal variant of Betty?), as in Bitty Schram, which could be added to Elizabeth (given name). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this was invented for Little Britain, and isn't a term in general use. Equinox ◑ 17:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Even if that is so, it should be citable. South Park even used it once in one of their episodes. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia says South Park used it in reference to Little Britain. Seems a bit early for an entry. Equinox ◑ 18:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

give
There seems to be a sense missing that means "tell", as in give me your name or give me a random number. Or would that go under a sense that I missed? —CodeCat 20:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think those (along with give me your answer, etc.) could be lumped under a more general "to provide", because giving one's number could also be done through writing. Leasnam (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But then so could "tell", right? —CodeCat 20:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but provide is more clear. Tell can mean "provide" in non-verbal ways, but that is not what one thinks of first off Leasnam (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do any other dictionaries give "tell" as a definition of give. MWOnline gives gave me his phone number as a usage example for one of their definitions of give. (MW does not use "provide" as a definition of give.) DCDuring (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @ DCDuring, we do. It's sense 4 Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked specifically about other dictionaries because our definitions are often unreliable, being unedited or poorly edited copies of obsolete definitions from dictionaries more than a hundred years old. DCDuring (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * MW uses it in give a party, and give of. Collins uses it "to grant, provide, or bestow", and also lists it as a synonym. This is all via OneLook... Leasnam (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose we can use communicate instead Leasnam (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, one indication of a possible problem with a given definition is that it is one that no other modern dictionary offers. Sometimes the problem is a poor choice of words, other times an overspecialization of a definition. There can be more exotic problems such as those stemming from false friends or the assumption that the early stages of etymological development should yield a corresponding definition.
 * "Tell" seems like a poor definition for give because it seems overly narrow and to miss any connection with the core meaning of give. Give is not substitutable for tell in any but a small number of uses of tell. DCDuring (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT CONFLICT: Well, in a sentence like Give me a random number, the closest thing I would substitute it with would be "provide (with)" or "supply (with)" ...I sound like a broken record (IK) Leasnam (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Provide would allow for the possibility of the response: "That'll be $.0.05 per digit. How many would you like? Shall I overnight them to you?" DCDuring (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really see your point. Give allows for a response like "you give me some money first!" but it's hardly likely. Equinox ◑ 17:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of dredh
I stumbled upon the entry and noticed the Albanian descendant dredh. I went to look at the dredh entry and it says it's from. Is that two forms of the same word or is there an error in one of the entries?

Also, is there a smarter way to enter ₁ than the Character viewer? Can't seem to find it up above the sandbox, neither in Latin extended nor in Symbols… MGorrone (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can use the template to get h₁. It also has shortcuts for other Proto-Indo-European characters. — Eru·tuon 18:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The suggested development >  doesn't work phonologically. Why should the initial *t- become a *d- in Albanian, and what's going on with the rest? Demiraj's proposal is better, but if Armenian  (aorist ) is cognate, the reconstruction cannot start in *d- because that would yield t- in Armenian. The LIV reconstructs  (which is distinct from the root  or ). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

rigmarolic
please can someone create this if it is a real word, i am unfamiliar with the website 5.66.149.117 11:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's rare, but it exists: Oxford dictionary. —Stephen (Talk) 12:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

booty call
Couldn't booty call also mean someone who is used only for sex, such as a friend with benefit, corrupt relationship, etc.? I've heard people say things like "He just acts like I'm his booty call that's only used for his sexual gain." PseudoSkull (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Leasnam (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it kinda at #3 already ? Also, is it really a telephone call ? I always took it to mean "call on (someone)" like a visit or a request, not literally a telephone call Leasnam (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A booty text seems to be used to mean both a kind of booty call and an alternative to a booty (phone) call. That is, it certainly refers to the communication. I don't know whether it refers also to what happens in a successful call, whether a visit, (video) phone sex, or sexting. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We'd have to rule out analogy with booty call on that one :) but yeah it probab ly originated from a telephone call, which turned into a visitation call, or something... Leasnam (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Bourbon
In We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement there is "For the Bourbon White elite and their allies, the intimidation of the Black laborers and farmers was necessary to prevent their political involvement and to maintain their subjugated location in the economy." This use of Bourbon does not seem to be covered by any of the senses at either Bourbon or bourbon. I'm not even sure what is meant. Perhaps white gentry? Spinning Spark ''' 17:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Or is it intended to evoke the French Revolution? Has anyone else used it this way? DCDuring (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a few more -
 * It was "a fundamental impossibility" for a black person to be a Bourbon, white-supremacist Democrat, but a black individual could very well become a "progressive Democrat."
 * Colonialist power was located in Bourbon white aristocracy. Houat set up not a conflictual dyadic political structure— whites/blacks— but a triadic one: Republican France/ Bourbon white aristocracy /the free coloreds and slaves.
 * As a practical matter, blacks had been denied a fair vote and a fair count even before the 1901 Constitution, because the Black Belt Bourbon white politicians used fraud and intimidation to manipulate the black vote to support conservative Democratic candidates.
 * WIkipedia's article Bourbon Democrat would seem to suggest that the term, as applied to conservative whites generally, was limited to Mississippi in the post Civil War period. Spinning Spark ''' 23:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! Is "chiefly historical" a good label for this? DCDuring (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"Subversive" un- with nouns and verbs
I've encountered interesting ways of employing that I'm not sure are covered by our definitions. One I found particularly surprising is the noun. I think the idea is that an unconference is a conference that is organised radically differently from a traditional conference. The verb has a comparable subversive idea behind it. It's similar to, as in and anti-humor, but there may be different nuances. (There's even a book Undoing Gender by Judith Butler whose title plays on the term doing gender, and seems to follow from the same idea, but it's also a pun on .) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * unbirthday is another. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reminds me back in the 80's (I just dated myself) when 7-Up came out with a new term for their soft drink, marketed as the "un-cola". Its interpretation is like that of a blend of "not", "alternative to", and "non-traditional". Since then, it seems these types of creations have been on the rise. Leasnam (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a third sense for this, for the nouns Leasnam (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

santas pascuas
I just came across these words being used together in a Spanish book. What do they mean? I got the feminine plural of saint for santas but nothing for pascuas. --Polyknot (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, means Easter, so I suspect this is simply an old-fashioned way to refer to the holiday. Supporting this are es:pascuas and Pascuas, which redirects to Pascua. However, Google brings up this, which suggests that in context, santas pascuas more likely refers to Christmas. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

MODISMO: y santas Pascuas : and that's that/it --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm thinking of adding an entry for "y santas pascuas". What do you think? And what heading would it go under? --Polyknot (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * HEADING "y santas pascuas", an idiom --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

turn up trumps
Our definition seems (to me) to imply that the subject is a person, but the quotation suggests that the subject is the thing that turned out successful (in this case, an investment). Other dictionaries seem to differ on which definition they give. Germyb (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Citations rule. DCDuring (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Portlets
Hello What are portlets? why we use portlets and what are its advantages


 * See portlet and en:w:Portlet? If that doesn't help, en:w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing could be a better fitting place to ask the question. -84.161.18.209 10:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

French translation offered for the English word Repository
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/repositoire#French Currently, the French word "repositoire" is offered, with a link to http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/repositoire i.e. in Trésor de la langue française informatisé but it would appear that the word "repositoire" does not exist in French, and the above link leads to an error message.

Suggest removing the word repositoire.


 * The ref doesn't have it, so I removed it. The word could still exist. WT:RFV and WT:Requests for verification/Non-English is the place to ask for verification if there are doubts. -84.161.18.209 10:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Does that look better? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 13:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

wouldn't you know it
Besides its modality not being straightforward, it's an exclamation with inversion, so it would enrich the wiktionary to indicate the reasons for it, either adding a usage note or a category, as there's one for concatenative verbs. Lastly, any similarities with the sentence "I wouldn't know" should be remarked. --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

ass o'clock: can we find attestation for it?
This is an expression I ran into while watching a CarlSagan42 video some time ago. It's an English idiom, I guess, meaning (from the context it was in) either unreasonably early or unreasonably late. This definition is confirmed by [Urban Dictionary], but I fear that is not enough for attestation, so I'll keep googling, but can someone help me find more reliable sources to attest it and warrant the creation of an entry? I like the expression and find it a pity we don't have an entry for it… MGorrone (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Could this be the etymology?

One citation. Two citations. Possible third citation. OK, gotta get back to my work now :). MGorrone (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never heard this, but I've heard its synonyms God thirty (in the morning) and stupid o'clock (in the morning), both meaning unreasonably early. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some more citations here. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

take place
"Take place" seems to differ to "happen" and "occur", as one can say, "This story takes place in 1999", but not "This story happens/occurs in 1999", right? We should add usage notes to advise on this. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are right about occur not being substitutable for take place in all instances. But for the usage example you offer, I think one could say "This story happens in 1999", meaning "The events in this story happened/occurred in 1999."
 * I don't find this in my usage books, though there has been a sometime distinction mad between happen (restricted to chance events, happenstances, mishaps, etc.) and occur (either all events or restricted to events not thought of as chance events). But The Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage referred to this as a mere tendency.
 * This seems like a subtler phenomenon than we are likely to do justice to. DCDuring (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

make do and mend
Our definition "A philosophy, during World War II, of repairing clothes etc that would normally be discarded due to shortages and rationing" seems too narrow when compared with ODO example sentences which are neither restricted to WWII nor to "clothes etc". We also seem to miss the attributive (adjectival?) form make-do-and-mend. I'm shy about meddling with the entry myself as I've only heard the phrase for the first time yesterday (in a programme about British railways, which talked about the "make-do-and-mend attitude" allegedly continuing there after the war before their privatisation) - could somebody else? --Droigheann (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

disembowel
disembowel current gives the following definition:

To take or let out the bowels or interior parts of; to eviscerate.

However I'm not sure if it means interior parts of the body or even inanimate objects so I suggest changing it to:

... parts of the body ...

or:

... parts of (something) ...

depending on which it means.

What do you think? --Polyknot (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeking suggestion.
Is it correct to use the word 'operationalize'?
 * It is an Indianism - only used on the Indian subcontinent. If people understand what you mean, then carry on using it. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is a word, yes. Equinox ◑ 10:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

anyhow
Is the use of "anyhow" to mean "randomly, haphazardly" a UK thing? I never heard that meaning growing up in the US, but I've seen some British authors use it that way. JulieKahan (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sense 1 of anyhow is presently "In any way or manner whatever"; do you see "randomly, haphazardly" as a different numbered sense? I am British and I am familiar with the "In any way or manner whatever", which could extend to an idea of "randomly, haphazardly", e.g. "We flung our things together anyhow". 86.191.58.162 22:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

univerbation
I'd like to know who coined the term. The earliest occurrence I can find right now is from Actes du troisième congrès international des linguistes (1935), but it was obviously created earlier than that, since it's used in running text here. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A 1928 occurrence. Chignon – Пучок 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * An occurrence of in 1917. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Between festus and profestus and fastus and nefastus
From what I gather, from Macrobius, "festus" is that day of sacrifice and feasts, holiday. Against it is "profestus", that common day of work/ business. Now "fastus" is that day when saying is permitted, day of judgments and business. Against it is "nefastus", that day when these businesses may not be held. From this may not "profestus" be "fastus" and "festus" "nefastus"? Macrobius seems to say so... And this is noted in the Glossary of Ancient Roman Religion, where it is even said that days could be profestus and nefastus. Macrobius also gives the example of the day of Jupiter's feast (festus dies) coincide with a market day. So for the rites to be conducted and market to be held that day was made fastus. So here a festus dies may be a fastus dies... But Lewis & Short and Paul the Deacon immediately couple festus with fastus. How is this if first a festus dies is a day of no work and a fastus dies is a day of work? Moreover "fas" is for religion and "nefas" is against religion. Derived from these "fastus" seems only referred to permission of business and "nefastus" to prohibition of business and opposed to religion (which seems contradicting if a nefastus dies is a festus dies). - GuitarDudeness (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * According to Agnes Kirsopp Michels' book "The Calendar of the Roman Republic", the official calendrical classification was between "dies fasti" (days when the courts are open), ordinary "dies nefasti" (when the courts are not open), and special "dies nefasti" (marked "NP" on ancient calendar charts) which were more commonly known as "feriae" or "dies feriati" (i.e. reserved for public religious ceremonies). The words festus and profestus don't actually fit into that classification scheme, but refer to "cheerful days which should be enjoyed" and the opposite.  Ordinary ancient Romans were often not aware of abstruse calendar technicalities, so there was already a little confusion in ancient times, and some people used the phrase "dies nefasti" to refer to unlucky days of ill omen etc. (and other people, such as Gellius, considered them ignorant for doing so)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. In the above remarks, I wasn't distinguishing dies comitiales from dies fasti (another issue discussed in the Agnes Kirsopp Michels book)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

genuine leather
Hi, right the opposite meaning of genuine applies to genuine leather. How should this issue be dealt with? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not the opposite meaning, that is the exact same literal meaning. --WikiTiki89 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

bear cat
Bear cat redirects to the binturong, which is also what I understood the term to mean. —CodeCat 17:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bearcat, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear%20cat. --WikiTiki89 17:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably the source of the error in the entry is that (allegedly at least) bearcat can refer to any of three Carnivora species, including the red panda. DCDuring (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * bearcat and bear cat look like alternative spellings of the same term, so one of them should be turned into a soft redirect. —CodeCat 18:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't agree with the sources. We already have mutual and distinct content on the pages. We could send each of the definitions through RfV. DCDuring (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't enough use in Google N-grams of the different forms to refer to animals for that to help. The and the use of Bearcat as a school sports name make such simple methods useless. DCDuring (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Usage example at ember
Just stumbled on that translationless usage example and tried translating it. My Hungarian is next to zero, so I started with Google and then proceeded with a word-by-word analysis. In the process, I'm pretty sure I found a typo: mindannyiuknak was supposed to be mindannyiunknak, as I corrected. There are a couple words that should be split into to IMO. For example, "jól esett" is really two words, and indeed it's spelt as two over at esik. Besides that, I went for a guess on the last part, because beszéd as a nominative singular doesn't make much sense to me there, and I would expect an inessive plural, beszédekben. Also, félelmében is indeed an inessive singular as expected, except according to félelem it should be félelemben, with the penultimate e short and before the m, as opposed to the long one after the m in the quote. So could anyone chime in on this and on my translation, and perhaps correct the translation or the original quote? MGorrone (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: The part with the example currently reads:


 * 1) * 1922,, Tündérkert, book 1, chapter 9:
 * Az ebédrehívás mindannyiunknak jólesett, mert az ember megéhezik a sok beszéd közt s a háború félelmében.
 * The lunch call was good for all of us, because anyone is hungry between many words and the fear of war.

The same example, still untranslated, is present at megéhezik as well.

Quora has corrected me on my correction to "mindannyiuknak" (which is from mindannyi + -uk + -nak inflection, different from mindannyi + -unk + -nak inflection), on my wanting to split "jólesett" (past of the compound jólesik), and has not spoken on "félelmében", which I think might be the inessive of "félelme", from félelem + -e possessive suffix. I uncorrected the first thing and changed the translations. I am still interacting with the answerer, but I would suggest that an entry for mindannyiuk and one for jólesik be created. MGorrone (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit to paeninsularium
What's going on with ? Latin didn't have any phonemic long vowels before a nasal + consonant combination. Look at the 3rd person plural form of 1st conjugation verbs: -ant has a short vowel, from an earlier *-ānt. When the nasal was followed by a fricative, the nasal was lost altogether, but this wasn't indicated in the spelling. —CodeCat 23:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries can be, and indeed sometimes are, wrong, but same is true for wikis and books in general, and dictionaries are a better source than wikis and personal knowledge or opinion. Furthermore, German wiki has īnsula [ˈĩːnʂʊɫa] (with 'probably') and Latin wiki has īnsula [' ĩːsʊl̴a]. So both do have a long vowel, although both do not explicitly give any source for their statement. But even if there were sources, it could be POV by a selective picking of the sources. Another and neutral way would be to use something like " or " etc. or to use another diacritic besides macron for doubtful or disputed vowel lengths, as with dictionaries and maybe also with books about Latin pronunciation both can be cited.
 * Dictionaries do have īnsula, īnsulāris, īnsulānus, paenīnsula (pēnīnsula) - while the old L&S has insula, paeninsula. That is, it's īnsula or uncertain īnsula or insula. And there or other such terms like pūnctum (or doubtful pūnctum or punctum as it's punctum in L&S). -84.161.49.178 23:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries can be wrong. The understanding of Latin phonology at Latin spelling and pronunciation is that the vowel was only long after the nasal consonant was already lost. So īsula or insula, but never īnsula. It's a mystery to me why dictionaries claim that these vowels were long, but we shouldn't necessarily follow them. shows a long vowel while omitting the nasal, but since the spelling of Latin reflects the older situation before the loss of the nasal, the vowel should not be marked as long. —CodeCat 23:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a weird situation. One analysis would be that, in the Classical era, the combination of the vowel with n before s or f represents a long nasalized version of the vowel, at least phonetically. So the n then represents both vowel length and nasalization of the preceding vowel. Under that analysis, adding a macron might be pleonastic: the vowel length is already indicated by the n. Or you could say that the macroned long vowel represents the long vowel, while the n represents the nasalization (and not length). Then, īnsula is also a coherent way of representing the word. — Eru·tuon 01:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but the spelling gives the impression that there is an actual consonantal /n/ and a long vowel, thus making an extra-long syllable of some kind. But that never actually occurred; the vowel extended into the gap left by the loss of the nasal, the syllable length wasn't modified. shows the phonemes as simply a short vowel plus /n/, noting the nasalisation in the phonetic representation. I think our use of macrons should match this. —CodeCat 01:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A pleonastic marking isn't bad, and it would only pleonastic if it's assumed that the reader knows Latin pronunciation.
 * insula was already in 2008 "īnsula". Thus with "paenīnsulāris" it is more consistent, or else many entries would have to be changed.
 * F. W. Westaway, Quantity and accent in the pronunciation of Latin, 1913, page 51: "Vowels are always long before ns, nf"; page 108: "īnsulāsu̯e" and "i:nsula:swe" (in the "system of the Association Phonétique Internationale" = (old) IPA) for Catullus' "insulasve".
 * W. Sidney Allen, Vox Latina, a guide to the pronunciation of Classical Latin, 2nd edition, 1978, page 65: "One such rule concerns vowels before the groups ns and nf. [...] the vowel in such cases is always long; and this is clearly indicated by the frequent use of the apex and I longa. We also find Greek tanscriptions of the type [khnswr], [Kwnsentia] [..]. [...]"
 * -84.161.49.178 01:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I already said, there never existed, at any point in time, a long vowel before /n/ + fricative. It was originally a short vowel and /n/, and this then became a long nasal vowel. German, Latin and English Wiktionaries all indicate the latter pronunciation phonetically. Wiktionary also includes a phonemic representation, which is the underlying short vowel plus /n/. Westaway's description is, quite simply, wrong. The modern understanding is that the apex in these words indicated the long vowel after the nasal was already lost. Since long and short vowels had differing quality, the apex indicated that the quality of the vowel was as a long vowel, even though the following /n/ remained written despite not being pronounced (just as final -m was not pronounced). —CodeCat 01:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd quibble with the statement that this n or m was simply not pronounced. It was pronounced as long as there was nasalization: it just represented nasalization, not a nasal consonant as would be true in other environments. — Eru·tuon 01:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's an accurate phonological representation, because, for instance, has reflexes of a close e in its Romance descendants, as if it were spelled , and W. Sidney Allen's book quotes inscriptions that indicate it was perceived in the Classical era as having a quality similar to short i, as was true of conventional long e. That indicates to me that after having its e nasalized and lengthened, it had the long e phoneme rather than the short e one. Or maybe there's an alternative explanation. — Eru·tuon 01:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is correct. The same happened to word-final nasal vowels as well; there is evidence that -um merged with -ū at first instance, before merging with -u and -ō later on in the Romance languages. Sardinian keeps final -um and -ō separate to this day, but in other Romance languages evidence is provided by so-called metaphony. See Metaphony (Romance languages). So the vowel of -um, too, had the quality of ū, and could theoretically be denoted -ūm if we decided to use macrons to denote quality rather than length. —CodeCat 01:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the fact that we don't write -ūm is an argument against macrons before ns and nf, for consistency's sake. — Eru·tuon 02:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In theory, the best solution would probably be to write paenīnsulāriūm and mēnsēm or perhaps, like in the transliteration of Sanskrit, paenīṃsulāriūṃ and mēṃsēṃ. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was toying with the idea of using an ogonek: mę̄sę̄. That would, however, be potentially ambiguous with the ę used to transcribe open-mid vowels in Vulgar Latin or Proto-Romance. Another diacritic used for nasalization is tilde: mẽsẽ. That doesn't allow for a macron to be added, except if the tilde is added as a combining diacritic: mē̃sē̃. — Eru·tuon 18:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But then, aren't nasal vowels always long in Latin, so that the macron is redundant? Both ideas are good. One possible drawback of the tilde is that it can be hard to differentiate from a macron depending on font size, but that's a problem all the solutions using diacritics have – well, except the ogonek one. Personally, I prefer the use of the ogonek to indicate nasalisation, like in Polish and Old Lithuanian, rather than to indicate open vowels (which isn't necessary in Classical Latin anyway). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

contrived
I have tried to differentiate the two senses, but I'm not happy with the wording, any help would be appreciated. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

им-
This is currently placed in the category CAT:Russian adjective-forming prefixes (which is not even recognized by ). Does it qualify? I gather that, like Latin and English, it doesn't usually change the part of speech, just negates the meaning of the unprefixed adjective. Does "adjective-forming" require that the part of speech change from, say, verb to adjective? — Eru·tuon 05:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The only examples provided were Latin loanwords where =  (immaterial, immoral). Some of the examples have the Latin prefix  (irrational, irreal, irregular). These are borrowed prefixes, not native Russian. There are also some words where the borrowed Latin  have other senses (imperial, empire, immigrant, import, impulse). Again, these are borrowed from Latin or English, and there are not many of these words. Since it is not a native Russian prefix, I don't see why we should have this entry. Russian words such as имматериальный (immaterial) should deal with the prefix in the etymology. —Stephen (Talk) 00:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

ῥήτωρ
Is the inflection correct?

The entry has "ῥήτωρ" as nominative and vocative.

But grammars state this: -84.161.49.222 22:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for colleges, 1920, page 58 (in § 249) (an edition online at ccel.org): "Barytones use the stem as the vocative: δαῖμον, ῥῆτορ from δαίμων divinity, ῥήτωρ orator."
 * William W. Goodwin, A Greek Grammar, 1900, page 47 (in § 220): "But barytones have the vocative like the stem; as δαίμων (δαιμον-), voc. δαῖμον. (See the paradigms in 225.)", and on page 50 in § 225 it is "Nom. ῥήτωρ" with "Voc. ῥῆτορ".
 * I think you're right. I recall learning that these words had the short-vowel form of the stem in the vocative. I'll try to edit Module:grc-decl to reflect this. — Eru·tuon 01:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem was in one of the older declension templates. When I update to, the vocative singular is correct. — Eru·tuon 01:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

maybe
I thought this word was mainly American, but there's no label to that effect in the entry. I'm American and don't really know whether or how often it's used in other dialects. Could our non-American English speakers comment on this? — Eru·tuon 01:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not American. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not only American, I think it could be the reverse: perhaps is mainly British (and Irish), or at least archaic or (out)dated or less used. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 20:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? I've seen Americans use it a ton. If anything, it's the Brits who might use it less. But it's not particularly marked regionally in any way, according to my impression at least. (Compare here, for example.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

medical tourism
I'm not buying that this is a pejorative, or even that it has two distinct senses. Any opinions? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am more familiar with the term health tourism, but here in the UK both would have a pejorative connotation, as I understand it. There is a perception that people come from other countries to take advantage of our free healthcare system, and this is resented by some. I perceive "tourism" as somewhat ironic. I don't perceive two distinct senses. Mihia (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that a term to have a negative connotation by some people is not enough to label it a pejorative or derogatory term in the linguistic sense. For example, some people don't approve of the title secretary (in a company), but that doesn't make the word itself pejorative. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In the UK, "health tourism" (and, I would imagine, "medical tourism") is always used pejoratively or negatively, as far as I am aware. I don't think that someone who supported the idea of foreigners coming to the UK to get free healthcare would use that term. Mihia (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's mostly the meaning what's pejorative, not the term. I don't think British or Germans installing in Balearic Islands and Andalousia would apply the same cognitive frame. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 10:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, if the meaning is pejorative, then the term, when used with that meaning, is pejorative. A term can have multiple senses, some of which may be pejorative and others of which may not, as is indeed presently the case with this entry. Perhaps the distinction between the two senses is valid after all, but now that I look more closely, the "pejorative" sense is worded entirely wrongly for the meaning I'm talking about. It talks about going "from a rich country to a poor country, to deliver healthcare", whereas my meaning is going in the opposite direction to receive healthcare. Mihia (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read now the definitions. What is pejorative is definitively the second meaning, for obtaining or receiving: what despite could anyone find in humanitarian help? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Guys, I'm sorry, I got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. I didn't actually read the definitions properly. What I have done is added a new sense to health tourism for the pejorative meaning that I am talking about, along with a representative quote. I am not certain whether medical tourism is used in this sense, and I do not know the supposed pejorative sense at medical tourism, so I have left medical tourism alone. Sorry for the confusion. Mihia (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

aged care, elderly care, eldercare
Which of these is the most common? In Australia it is definitely "aged care". I just did a search on Bing, and "aged care" turns up the most hits. I would suggest moving the main information (including translations) to aged care. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In American English, it's eldercare. British English slightly prefers aged care. English overall has eldercare (elder care) slightly above aged care. See ngram. —Stephen (Talk) 11:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So it's a dialectal difference. Thank you. Unfortunately the entries at the moment don't reflect this. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

artillery
In this entry, the main sense we're all familiar with : Has the following quote: In the text I have, the verse says:
 * 1) Large cannon-like weapons, transportable and usually operated by more than one person.
 * Bible, 1 Sam. xx. 40
 * And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad.
 * And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city.

This is obviously not the modern sense (unless "lads" were a lot stronger in those days...), but I'm not sure what definition to give this obsolete sense. The Hebrew word it translates,, refers to tools, utensils or instruments, including weapons. Indeed, in more modern translations, the term used is generally weapons. From the Middle English Dictionary entry for the parent term, I suspect the English term referred specifically to ballistic weapons, but that's just a guess (the context of the verse would seem to require bows and arrows). I suppose it could also refer to what we in the US would refer to as gear (kit for those in the UK).

Does anyone with access to better sources on Early Modern English have more information? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the OED's definitions is weapons that discharge projectiles (bows, slings, catapults), and it actually quotes the same verse that you mention. So probably you're right that it means bows and arrows in this case. — Eru·tuon 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * has a similar sense; added as a reference in the entry. DCDuring (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Biblehub says it means "weapons of war," referring to bow, quiver, and arrows. —Stephen (Talk) 11:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Man U
The page for Man U currently says it's a "clipping", and previously it was called a "short form" and an "abbreviation". I don't think any of these are accurate. Is there a better word to describe it? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 19:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "clipping" is correct. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem at CNN effect
There's something wrong here. Possibly one of the quote templates has a bug...? Equinox ◑ 22:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Terms that would only be said by a religious person.
I don't think terms like God's country, son of Adam, or God's green earth would ever be used by an irreligious person of any sort. How can we clarify this? There are so many terms of this nature that it'd be annoying to make separate usage notes sections for each entries, so is there a label for these? For instance: "(informal, religious jargon)"? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree on e.g. God's green earth. Plenty of atheists say for God's sake too. Equinox ◑ 23:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The English of the ignorant masses still includes the deplorable, archaic relics of out benighted Christian past. DCDuring (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While enlightened individuals always say laryngeal prominence rather than Adam's apple :D. --Droigheann (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should have a label for words like that they're mainly used by British people. Or that certain SOP collocations like  are only used by people who have a job. --WikiTiki89 17:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Or that "I have a snake in my boot" is only used by people with a snake in their boot? :P I don't think any such label would be overly useful. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you understood my sarcasm. --WikiTiki89 18:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, sorry. It seems so obvious now that I've reread it. I'm too used to dealing with people who aren't sensible. ;) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm? Look the author of the 1958 quotation of God's green earth! Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 10:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

chomophyte
Is this supposed to be chromophyte? DTLHS (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The etymology was wrong though.
 * Collins has it and it is used in botany apparently. There is also chomophytic. It comes from . DCDuring (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's used in ecology, actually. One of the few hits in Google Books is an article griping about how the spelling is incorrect according to its etymology. The coinage is also semantically iffy, since the Ancient Greek refers to masses of earth, but chomophytes are found in crevices of rocks. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

cliché
Should there be a definition provided for cliché as an adjective (as a synonym for clichéd)? Some dictionaries include it, others don't; see Wikipedia for citations. Nloveladyallen (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

عام Etym. 1: From the root ع و م (ʿ-w-m)?
Hi, regarding the question mark, I'd like to know whether that's the protocol to follow for items of info. the author is not certain. Since the rule is to follow Wehr, it should be clear unless Wehr's itself shows uncertainty. --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have any rules about following Wehr. We are an independent dictionary and make our own decisions. --WikiTiki89 17:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Usage note at yak verb
"This is subject to the typically Australian 'have-a-verb' syntactic construction, as in 'I had a yak last night'. But this does not qualify 'yak' to be nominal." Really? Equinox ◑ 18:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this construction even typically Australian? I think it's universal. Although in the US, "take" is more common than "have". --WikiTiki89 18:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever heard an American say "I took a yak last night", and if I did, I would think they were referring to the wooly bovid and ask "Where did you take it? To the movies?" —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this note is nonsense in every respect, so I have taken the liberty of deleting it. Mihia (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ??? If being the object of a verb doesn't qualify yak as a noun, then having the indefinite article does. At least this is a little bit of hilarity. (I was curious, and the note was by an IP years ago.) — Eru·tuon 04:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

belief
What's the real difference between senses 1 and 2? Equinox ◑ 01:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's some discussion at Talk:belief. Germyb (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It might not address the question directly though. Germyb (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The second definition seems to distinguish the case in which someone chooses to believe something, as opposed to the case in which someone either assumes something is true or concludes that it is most likely to be true through objective analysis. (I do not mean to imply that someone can't do both.) For example, I would expect an impartial investigator to believe that a child did or did not cheat on a test in the first sense. I might expect the child's parent to believe that the child did not cheat in the second sense. Germyb (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

studyholic
Is this a word in English? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I'd call it "rare". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of "OD." in etymology of scraffle
What does "OD." mean in the etymology of scraffle? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Old Dutch? DTLHS (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure looks like it. I'm'a change it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've updated it a little; the form shown there is actually Middle Dutch Leasnam (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian: приз
Hi everyone, I started learning Russian and frequently use Wiktionary for Russian words. About the word приз (prize), Wiktionary says it's accent-a (genitive при́за, nominative plural при́зы, genitive plural при́зов). I usually hear accent-c (genitive при́за, nominative plural призы́, genitive plural призо́в). Could a native speaker confirm which version is correct? Best wishes Christopher
 * Thank you, Christopher and sorry about the mistake. I have fixed it now. Could you please run your program to fix the inflected forms for ? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Benwing2 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have a User:WingerBot/feedme page or something like that where we can just add links lemmas that we want your bot to fix? --WikiTiki89 15:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a good idea. I think he set up some link long ago but I forgot what it is. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I found the links. User:Benwing2/words-needing-regenerate-infl is for regenerating inflections, and User:Benwing2/words-needing-regenerate-pron is for regenerating pronunciations. Benwing2 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

اللات "the definitive article آل (ʾāl)"
Hi, could sb. confirm whether this is a typo, and it should be أل? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That whole bullet point of the etymology was totally wrong. I removed it. --WikiTiki89 17:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the term is definite article. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If it were spelled with a hamza above - أل or with a madda - آل, then it wouldn't be the article (now), even if it were originally. I'm pretty sure that's what Backinstadiums is asking.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

dual/plural forms of فم
Hi, just as similar words and even its plural form أَفْوَاه, its dual might have waaw فَموان. Furthermore, there's the alternative plural أفمام Is there any reason for them not to have been included? --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason other than nobody added it or deemed necessary to add or couldn't verify. Do you really trust the Almaany dictionary? These alternative forms are not in Hans Wehr or my grammar references. It needs more checking. There are Google book hits but someone with a better Arabic knowledge could check those. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you list your grammatical references? --Backinstadiums (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. ISBN-13: 978-0936347400, 0936347406; (An Introduction To Koranic and Classical Arabic) (There is also An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic: An Elementary Grammar of the Language Key to Exercise) 2. ISBN-13: 978-0521541596 ISBN-10: 052154159X, (A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is what I meant regarding Wehr's. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)--Backinstadiums (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point. We can use Wehr as a reference without copying everything it does. --WikiTiki89 18:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

bio box
We have the ridiculous situation in this entry where we have the context label "(theater, Australia)". I don't know about you, but to me the juxtaposition of the US spelling and the label "Australia" looks ridiculous and unbecoming of a dictionary. Anything we can do about it? This, that and the other (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's one way:
 * Mihia (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Using invisible Unicode characters is silly and inadequate, particularly as it breaks the automatic categorisation... This, that and the other (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was intentionally a silly and cryptic hack. I guess that wasn't clear. Mihia (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a duplicate label (except for spelling) can be added to Module:labels/data/topical. — Eru·tuon 07:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a duplicate label (except for spelling) can be added to Module:labels/data/topical. — Eru·tuon 07:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * given that American English also makes use of "theatre", why not just switch the label to display that? - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

paper-cut
Is it Chinglish to use paper-cut to refer to a work of Chinese paper cutting? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly. There is an article that mentions it here . SemperBlotto (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)