Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/April

This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live.

oculometric Noun or Adjective?

The definition of oculometric is that it is a kind of biometrics (which are a noun) but the usages all seem to be adjectives as in oculometric measures. Please assist, is it both? WilliamKF (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Silent Sam resolved it as being an adjective. WilliamKF (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nipponophile/Japanophile

Hello,
Neither the Nipponophile nor Japanophile pages mention or reference the other. If one is more "correct" should not both pages state that and, even if they are both equally acceptable, should they not be cross-linked as they are synonyms.
Thank you
— This unsigned comment was added by 63.224.159.60 (talk) at 23:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Done, thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 04:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your other left

Are your other left (“left (said to someone who had been given the direction 'left' but mistakenly moved or looked right)”) and your other right (vice versa) idiomatic? I can see two arguments that they are.

To the extent that people only have one left (in a given orientation), "your other left" does not make literal sense, especially given that it is not a reference to another left side, but rather the same left side that "your left" refers to. Compare a situation where you say "it's on your left" to someone who is facing away from you, and they turn around to look at you before looking to their (new) left; there, it would be more sensible to speak of "your other left", and yet I don't recall hearing anyone do so (instead they say "well, now it's on your right").
Their usage context ("said to someone who had been given the direction 'left' but mistakenly moved or looked right") is potentially lexicographically interesting, though not too much so.

I recognise that these are not strong arguments.
Is "[your/the] other [x]" used with other [x]s? If someone were looking at a blue hat and a red hat and you directed them to pick up the blue one and they picked up the red one, my experience is that you would say "(no,) the blue one" not "(no,) [your/the] other blue" — "(no,) the other blue" is what you would use if they picked up e.g. a cyan hat and you were clarifying that you weren't referring to cyan as blue when you said "pick up the blue one". - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case in which language is used humorously. It would be easy to simply dismiss such as non-lexical phenomena, which is what serious dictionaries do.

I think the expressions are used in an idiomatic way strictly in cases in which the hearer made an obvious error in a binary choice situation: eg, black vs white, right vs left, blue vs red(?), up vs down(?), apple vs orange(?). The blue/cyan situation seems to me a case of {{&lit}}. The "other right"/"other left" pair is the prototype for a snowclone. The snowclone would belong in an appendix as we have no good way to present the headword. The most likely way a normal person could gain access to the snowclone on Wiktionary is if at least the most common instances of the snowclone were included as normal entries. DCDuring TALK 02:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to something obviously nonexistent is not necessarily idiomatic. It’s just a joke. As a stereotypical phrase, I suppose we could include this the way we do proverbs. —Michael Z. 2014-04-09 21:14 z

If it is included, I prefer lemmatizing it as other left. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same construct is used for many other words. Consider the Sopranos quote: "He tries to leave, you break his other neck." --Wiki Tiki 89 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "his other neck"? I found a transcript of the episode and didn't see anything in the immediate vicinity of that line which clarified, or that mentioned an initial neck with which this "other neck" would contrast like "your other left" contrasts with "left". - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not providing context. His neck was already broken at the time. --Wiki Tiki 89 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparatives/superlatives of often

The terms oftener and oftenest given in the headwords line of often looked strange to me, so I did an Ngram. Should we mention somehow that they are dated or out of style or something? --Wiki Tiki 89 18:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just make a usage note explaining that they're less common than their periphrastic equivalents nowadays. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

contrary to

The entry contrary to now defines it as a preposition synonymous to despite and contra. I am not confident about how it should be described. Could somebody correct it. --LPfi (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that it isn't sum of parts, being contrary (“against, opposite”) + to. — Pingku^dimmi 16:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi Usage examples would certainly help. I think that the objects with which it is used are more restricted than the uses of despite, which makes me wonder whether despite is a good gloss. I'll look at some real uses to see what improvements might be made.

@Pingku Many lexicographers seem to agree, as only MWOnline, Oxford, and McGraw-Hill Idioms have it per “Tea room/2014/April”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. But certainly *"against to" and ?"opposite to" are not perfectly substitutable for contrary to. Where did those glosses come from anyway? Contrary is not a preposition by itself, whereas against, certainly, and opposite, probably for the matter under discussion, both are. Contrary has adjective definitions in our entry that are relevant to the discussion. DCDuring TALK 20:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ALIQUANDO CONVERSUS

When I visited St Peters Basilica at Vatican (Rome) I was intrigued by the inscriptions on the upper part of the walls. I have since read that the letters are about 8 feet high. According to Seminarian Guides, North American College, Rome, The portion on the left nave is: EGO ROGAVI PRO TE, O PETRE, UT NON DEFICIAT FIDES TUA: ET TU ALIQUANDO CONVERSUS CONFIRMA FRATRES TUOS, based on scripture found at Luke 22:32. = King James Version translates this passage as follows: I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may never fail; and you in turn must strengthen your brothers. = The translation seems quite straightforward, but the two words "ALIQUANDO CONVERSUS" intrigued me. I guess CONVERSUS is very close to "in turn." Does ALIQUANDO, as used in this passage from Luke, mean something like "finally" or "afterward"? = Is this what it is about? Jesus has prayed that Peter's faith will never fail, and promises that experiences of successfully having passed through [ALIQUANDO] trials of his faith will make Peter stronger; and he should use his new strength to encourage his brothers to become stronger as well.

Where did you get that KJV translation? It actually says, "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." A more literal translation of the Latin would be "and thou, once converted, strengthen thy brethren", but of course the KJV is a translation of the Greek ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην περὶ σοῦ ἵνα μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἡ πίστις σου· καὶ σύ ποτε ἐπιστρέψας στήριξον τοὺς ἀδελφούς σου, not the Latin; πότε (póte) really does just mean "when". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective Form for 'Polyhistor?'

Does the word 'polyhistor' have an adjective form — e. g.: 'polyhistoric?' — RandomDSdevel (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-n-#Interfix

I’m not sure whether this entry is correct. Javanese seems to me to have the suffix -nese, which came from Chinese and Japanese by analogy, rather than having the interfix -n- and the suffix -ese. They are just two different analyses of the same thing, but isn’t it better to have -nese than -n-? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Javanese uses a Chinese/Japanese-inspired -nese suffix is not implausible, but it seems more likely to me that it's just Java + -n (suffix, not interfix) + -ese, i.e. Javan + -ese. Redundant suffixes are not uncommon. Somewhat unrelated but perhaps interesting: this discussion of the -v- in Whovian and Peruvian. - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why don’t we categorize it as a suffix? An interfix links two free morphemes, while -n- is placed between a root and a suffix, like -in- in Esperanto. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The -n + -ese explanation and the -nese by analogy with Japanese and Chinese explanation don’t work for Panamanian and Torontonian. I think this really is an interfix, even if some of the examples are wrong.

Incidentally, the Latin entry calls it an infix. Should we standardise the name of this POS? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interfixes and infixes are different. The latter are inserted inside the root, like in absofuckinglutely. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the -n- is added just to break up the hiatus that would otherwise form. I think the choice of -n- (as opposed to some other consonant) is analogous with words where the -n is part of the word, though, like Chinese and Japanese. This kind of random stem extension is not unique to English either. Dutch has a similar formation, where the demonymic suffix -aar is arbitrarily extended to -enaar by analogy with many place names ending in -en. Compare Eindhovenaar < Eindhoven, Bredanaar < Breda and Maastrichtenaar < Maastricht. —CodeCa t 16:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. The categorization as an interfix seems okay, if not perfect. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that pretty exactly what you'd call an epenthesis? — Blarkh (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English vend

Wouldn't this entry require some kind of context tags? I mean, as a non-native speaker, I always use sell - sale, not vend. --Fsojic (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much only use vend for vending machines. --Wiki Tiki 89 00:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work as a "vendor", being the fellow who wanders up and down the grandstands at sporting events and sells cotton candy ("fairy floss"), peanuts, beers, etc. and we definitely used the verb "to vend" to describe the process of selling, mostly in the abstract sense of "Before I moved to beer, I was [i]vending[/i] cotton candy, but then I turned 21 and could sell alcohol." Anecdotal, but for what it's worth. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page Dimethylimidazole

The page http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dimethylimidazol- refers to a wrong chemical structure. unsigned comment by User:134.95.39.3 12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that "(4,5-dimethylimidazol-1-yl)acetic acid" is incorrect? Rather than saying it’s wrong, it would be more useful if you explained what would be correct. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is aufhängen (German) not a weak verb?

The entry currently claims it is a strong verb. Other sources (duden.de and my German course book) seem to suggest it is weak? (Thus "Etwas wird aufgehängt".) --Hugovdm (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely weak. I'll fix it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish verbs rendirse and dejarse

The Spanish verbs rendirse and dejarse need proper definitions. The current definitions seems more proper for the etymology sections. --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...there seems to be an entire category with this stuff: Category:Spanish combined forms. I am not familiar with Spanish, so I don't know what the ideal versions of these pages should look like; but what is certain that after visiting the pages in their current format, I do not really get a good idea of what the words actually mean or how they are used. --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the 3rd person reflexive of rendir, dejar. Maybe {{es-compound of}} could add glosses to the clitic pronouns. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just having the line third person reflexive of X would seem like a huge improvement. The current version makes them look like independent verbs. --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are, on some level. It's hard to tell the difference if there is one. —CodeCa t 22:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Spanish entries tend to include reflexive senses in the cliticless form (case in point: the definition that explains what rendirse means is at rendir as “(reflexive) to surrender, give in, give up”). Not very easy to follow considering rendirse doesn’t even mention se is a reflexive pronoun. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

quietus

Shouldn't the "i" be the long vowel? Seeing that it developed to quiet /ˈkwaiət/ instead of /ˌkwiˈet/ --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are English borrowings from Latin really that predictable. --Wiki Tiki 89 06:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. quiētus is right. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italian rhymes

Does amore rhyme with cuore? If not, what should the corresponding rhyme page for cuore be? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. -ɔre. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not -wɔre as in soir? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the question is why is Rhymes:French:-waʁ separate from Rhymes:French:-aʁ? Does French poetry really not allow one to rhyme soir with tard? But even if it doesn't, Italian rules may be different. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think older French poetry did not allow this, but modern poetry might, depending on dialect. In Quebec, for example, soir and tard do not rhyme in informal speech. But this cannot be generalized to Italian; the history of French oi and Italian uo have very little in common. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aren’t rhymes matched based on the stressed vowel onwards? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the issue is whether [wɔ] is considered a different vowel from [ɔ] in Italian, as (apparently) [wa] is considered a different vowel from [a] in French. For comparison, there are accents of English where cute doesn't rhyme with boot, though in standard RP and GenAm it does. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But in any case, amore has /o/, not /ɔ/. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 11:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hammer and sickle

The first sense is wrong: a tractor can symbolise both industry and agriculture, but I suspect I cannot call a tractor "hammer and sickle". As for the second sense, I think it is also slightly wrong — "hammer and sickle" refers to a specific symbol of communism, not necessarily on the flag of the USSR (say, File:Logo of the Fourth International.svg); but even if corrected, I suspect this sense to be sum-of-parts. I am not sure what is the best course of action here. — Keφr 18:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it might pass "Egyptian pyramid" test; and the phrase is almost always "hammer and sickle", rather than "sickle and hammer". Not sure how to call that test. — Keφr 18:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sense wouldn't seem to belong in an dictionary even if there were usage with that meaning. I was a little surprised that there is not more metonomic usage of the term to mean something like "Soviet rule" or "Soviet control". I have yet to find three instances even narrowing the date range to 1945-1975, when I would expect such usage. DCDuring TALK 23:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Russian iconography, the hammer and sickle is a symbol that embodies the unity of the workers (hammer) and peasants (sickle). —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we are not defining what hammer and sickle may mean, but what hammer and sickle may mean. — Keφr 13:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

way

Copied from Talk:way:

I've encountered this strange usage in an old book from 1944 called "Stick and Rudder". Example:
"But he doesn't reach that cloud; he passes 'way underneath it."
It's not a misprint. Every time the author uses "way" as an adverb, it begins with an apostrophe. Is the adverb "way" short for something?
--174.101.198.62 21:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe adverbial way comes from away, in which case we should split it off as a second etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your belief is in accord with Douglas Harper (2001–2024) “way”, in Online Etymology Dictionary., Century, et al. Century and RHU explicitly cover (deprecated template usage) 'way as an alternative form of adverb way. But apparently in Old or Middle English a- + way (noun) => away, with the aphesis leading back to way (adverb), also in earlyish Middle English times. DCDuring TALK 01:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reading Heinlein's Starship Troopers and he writes (p. 88): "That night I tried to figure out how such things could be kept from happening. Of course, they hardly ever do nowadays—but even once is ’way too many." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read that and remember finding that odd. --Wiki Tiki 89 20:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an entry for 'way and separated the adverb into Etymology 2 at way. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

matchboard

Hi, can someone please improve the definition of matchboard? I started writing it, and realised I have no skill in carpentry nor in defining words. --WonderfoolatEaster (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We are used to you. Done. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'll try to learn some carpentry over the forthcoming days. --WonderfoolatEaster (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  For using matchboard for flooring, there is no substitute for a flooring nailer, the purpose but not the nature of which is clear from the component terms. Commons has no images, but Google Images does.

demand partner

Hi! I've run across the term "demand partner" and am wondering what it means. I see it in the context of electronic marketing companies' websites mostly, for example these pages: https://www.coadvertise.com/en/content/demand-partner ; http://tlvmedia.com/. I don't see an entry on the word in Wiktionary. Thanks! :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be analogous to the SoP capacity-on-demand partner, which seems to be used in the cloud-server business. I don't understand how the analogy might apply to the two web usage examples you provide. DCDuring TALK 23:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, ok, thanks! I did some more research and I think it might be related to demand-side platforms in real-time advertisement bidding. I would assume therefore that it refers to the advertisers investing in advertisement via DSPs, but that's nothing more than speculation. (Found a couple more usage examples... http://www.lifestreetmedia.com/exchange/demandpartners/ (as "Exchange Demand Partners") and http://www.tapsense.com/employment/demand-partner-manager/ (as a job position, Demand Partner Manager). :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not getting it, though you seem to be on the right track. I am unable to find durably archived citations for usage at Google Books of "demand partner" with "advertising", but some more specific replacements for "advertising" may lead to better results. I doubt that it would be found in scholarly journals, newspapers or at Google Groups/Usenet. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

quite

Does it really have a comparative and a superlative? I don't quite see how it could be used. --Fsojic (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any usages, there are just some paltry few at most. Quite likely all usage consists of instance of more or most separated by punctuation from quite. Even more, quite and more (or most) are not in the same constituent in usage I~~the~~ looked at. I'd be inclined to remove the comparative and superlative. An RfD doesn't really work as the comparatives and superlatives aren't entries. We could do an RfV, though some seem to want to limit the necessity of using citation evidence to definitions and not matters like establishing a PoS. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the b.g.c. hits I'm pretty convinced it's not comparable. Probably no one ever intended to claim it was; I bet someone just forgot to add the |- inside {{en-adv}}. I've added it now, removing the imaginary "more quite" and "most quite". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit on the high-handed side for a wiki. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

infinity

Really messy definitions here. I should probably call for citations. And I think these are the senses we should aim for having cited:

Everyday sense of "that which goes on without end"; I think you could also find figurative/hyperbolic (pun intended) usages meaning "astoundingly large quantity".
Mathematics sense of "infinitely large cardinal number": when someone speaks of "an infinity of natural numbers" or "a larger infinity of real numbers than natural ones" they mean this sense.
There is a quite distinct sense of "idealised infinitely distant point", which I attempted to capture in the definition I added. When someone speaks of "point at infinity" or sequences/integrals diverging to infinity, they mean this sense. The quotation of Riordan given in [[infinity]] uses infinity in the sense of "integral which diverges to infinity (in this sense)"; this may warrant a separate definition.
There might be usages where infinity is applied to elements of non-Archimedean ordered fields, e.g. hyperreal numbers; this is related to the above, but somewhat distinct.
I find it quite probable that infinity is used to mean the symbol ∞. Any citations for "number which is very large compared to some characteristic number" I would rather examined carefully if they can be folded into any of the above senses.

Shall I proceed with this? Any other ideas for improvements? And what should happen to the translation table? — Keφr 18:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sac#Verb

I'm trying to decide how to generalize the context tag without losing any information. Currently, the tag is:

{{context|transitive|informal|video games|chiefly|[[roguelike]]s|lang=en}}

But I know for a fact this is also used in chess, but the following options seem too confusing:

{{context|transitive|informal|chess|video games|chiefly|[[roguelike]]s|lang=en}}

{{context|transitive|informal|video games|chiefly|[[roguelike]]s|chess|lang=en}}

My theory is that this is used in any game-related context that has sacrifices and it just so happens that roguelikes are one common type of game that have sacrifices (are there any games that involve sacrificing something where the term "sac" is not used?). In that case, I think we could just generalize to:

{{context|transitive|informal|games|lang=en}}

But I feel that that de-emphasizes chess. I also have another feeling that this term is used in any modern context at all in which sacrificing something is common. I'm interested to know whether this is used in real military contexts or anything like that? Since in that case we could just have:

{{context|transitive|slang|lang=en}}

With a few usage examples from different contexts. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

undress

What's the difference between the reflexive and intransitive senses? --Fsojic (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was intended to say "to remove someone's clothing". This sense seems much rarer since it can be misunderstood as the reflexive sense. It's much more common for the sake of clarity to use the transitive sense with a dummy object (as in "undressing people/things"). We typically combine transitive and intransitive senses when they mean the same thing, I see no reason not to do this here. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no semantic difference between the reflexive and intransive senses, there's a syntactic difference in their constructions: "He undressed himself" (reflexive) vs. "He undressed" (intransitive). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider "He undressed himself" to be the transitive sense with the reflexive pronoun. How could it be that "undress oneself" is attested earlier than the transitive sense? --Wiki Tiki 89 16:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that means the transitive sense is first attested only with the reflexive pronoun, and is not attested with a nonreflexive direct object (e.g. "The boy's mother undressed him and put him in the bathtub") until some time later. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any transitive verb in English at all that has a different meaning when used with a reflexive pronoun? If not, it's a meaningless distinction. --Wiki Tiki 89 19:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sense 1 of avail says "transitive, often reflexive", but I wonder if it's ever nonreflexive in that meaning. Can you avail someone else of an opportunity? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... there are few hits each for google books:"availed him of the opportunity", google books:"availed me of the opportunity", google books:"availed us of the opportunity", google books:"availed them of the opportunity", google books:"availed it of the opportunity", google books:"availed her of the opportunity". --Wiki Tiki 89 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would I make an entry for this?

In Dutch, there's a certain fixed phrase where you add "zich een ongeluk" to an intransitive verb to imply a very vigorous, intense or desperate action. Literally this means "(to) oneself an accident", where the word zich takes the role of a reflexive indirect object and is different for different subjects. For example, "ik schreeuw me een ongeluk" literally means "I shout (to) myself an accident", implying that you shout vigorously until you're blue in the face. But the phrasing can be used with any verb, such as "ik schrok me een ongeluk" ("I got scared out of my wits"), "zij heeft zich gisteren een ongeluk gezocht" ("yesterday she spent ages searching and searching") and so on.

I don't really know how to make an entry for this. For starters it doesn't seem to have a single part of speech. It's more like a modifier for an intransitive verb, but it doesn't behave like an adverb. Syntactically, "zich een ongeluk" is simply a combination of indirect and direct object. So where should I place the entry (at zich een ongeluk, ongeluk or somewhere else) and what part of speech should be used? —CodeCa t 16:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compare English one's ass off (which we currently have as work one's ass off, but perhaps it should be moved). --Wiki Tiki 89 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Phrase", perhaps? Also note all along, which is marked as an adverb although I don't think it's comprised of any. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, a phrase is something with a finite verb in it. A complete utterance in other words. Anything else would be a phrasal (part of speech). In Dutch, the distinction between objects and adverbs is significant because of how they behave in word order. Adverbs will intervene between the indirect and direct object, like in the example given above, zij heeft zich gisteren een ongeluk gezocht. You can put arbitrarily many adverbs in between the two, but it would sound very odd (probably just plain wrong) to put "zich" together with "een ongeluk" if an adverb preceded or followed ("heeft gisteren zich een ongeluk gezocht" is weird, and "heeft zich een ongeluk gisteren gezocht" even weirder). —CodeCa t 16:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noun phrases, adjective phrases, and prepositional phrases don't have finite verbs in them. It's clauses that have finite verbs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as I see it

Worth an entry? --Fsojic (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If only we had a phrasebook, this would certainly be included there. But see “as I see it”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. for two reference lemmings that have it. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's idiomatic. We have the relevant definition of see (namely "to understand"), and it can be used in other forms than the first-person singular present tense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the expression doesn't work with any other of the senses, for some of which there are valid substitute or circumlocutions used with see. One doesn't say "As I smell/hear/taste/touch/feel/sense it". One can say "It looks/sounds/smells/feels to me like/that […] .".

Note too that it cannot be passivized, nor does every tense/aspect work. ?"as I had seen it", *"as I was seeing it", *"as I will see/will have seen/will be/have been seeing it", ?"as I had been seeing it". "As I saw it (then)" does seem acceptable.

When delivered in the first person it has a less-than-literal discourse function, of softening an assertion. That is, it is more like a speech act than anything else.

We have a number of clausal expressions like this that serve to qualify an associated assertion. Many of them have become set phrases, this one nearly so. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides its more literal meaning, "as I see it" is also a clause or sentence-modifying adverb. A bunch of them are in Category:English modal adverbs. "As I see it" probably belongs there if it were to be created. As an aside, I just noticed "as far as I know" redirects to "as far as one knows" which might be preventing it from being considered a modal adverb (in the third person it's no longer the "speaker's view of the truth value", something which appears to be part of the definition given in the category) —Pengo (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In persons other than the first it does still seem have a kind of modal function, and a similar, if less dramatic, kind of speech-act function as the first person singular form.

Many idioms allow person and number to be changed. I find it extremely hard to believe that a potential idiom that has a varying element within it is less of an idiom than one with similar properties that has the varying element preceding or following it. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

forgettery

I recall running into this word originally as a calque of sorts of French oubliette. Has anyone else run into this kind of dungeon sense for this word? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

beauty box

I added an entry for the Finnish term "beauty box", which is quite commonly used here for a "small bag for one's makeups and accessories". I was surprised to find that there's no English entry for it, as it is clearly more than a sum of parts: it is not necessarily a box and you don't keep your beuty in it. I grew more surprised when I saw that there's no English Wikipedia entry for it even if they seem to have an entry for all sorts of trivial everyday items and, that there are no Onelook hits and, that in a Google search I get three pages of Finnish links before a sensible English one. Can it be that this seemingly English term is more commonly used in Finland than in the English-speaking world? If so, what is this quite necessary item called in English? I was also under the impression that especially a man's similar pouch or bag would be called "necessary" but we don't have that sense either. Would someone be so kind as to shed some light on this issue? --Hekaheka (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Wikipedia article Body hygiene kit which gives the synonyms bathroom kit, sponge bag, toilet bag, toilet kit, toiletry bag, toiletry kit, travel kit, wash bag, washbag, wet pack, which answers one of my questions. I would still be interested in reading comments on the English usage of "beauty box". --Hekaheka (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't recall it as an expression that I've heard before. It does not appear in OneLook. Also men have Dopp kit. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have called it a vanity bag. JulieKahan (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of this, but the first thing I thought of when I saw the word "beauty box" is a box for makeup, leading me to believe that if it exists it is SOP. In English, boxes and bags tend to always be distinguished properly (cf. lunchbox vs lunch bag). Also, a box/bag for makeup is (to me) not the same thing as a toiletry bag. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a pseudo-anglicism like German Beamer. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vanity case. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With this type of entry, I always look at Google Images search first. A picture is worth a thousand words. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion I draw from looking at COCA, BNC, and Google images is that "beauty box" is used mostly by businesses to characterize some product offering, which can range from an empty case sometimes with a mirror in the hinged top, to a bag or box of assorted beauty aids, a hard case containing a full color range of eyeshadows and various other cosmetics, or a hard case containing a limited range of such products.

There were no occurrences in either BNC or COCA, but the new 1.8 billion-word Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE) has 192 uses, only 5 in the US, but 56 in the UK, and 75 in Malaysia, 25 in Singapore, 11 in the Philippines, SE Asia clearly being the center of usage!!! (BTW, as all the BYU databases (except BNC) are downloadable, could all the downloadable corpora be considered durably archived?) DCDuring TALK 23:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

raten, transitive and intransitive uses

raten - if I understand correctly, meaning 1 (to advise) is actually transitive, and meaning 2 (to guess) is intransitive? --Hugovdm (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the entry is right. In "guess" -sense also intransitive usage is possible but in German transitive verb is defined as a verb that allows a direct object (Verb, das ein direktes Objekt (Akkusativobjekt) zulässt). Examples:

Ich rate dir dazu, die Chance zu ergreifen.

I advice you to take the chance.

Das rätst du nie. (transitive use)

You will never guess that.

Lass mich raten! (intransitive use)

Let me guess!

--Hekaheka (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've made my first Wiktionary edit - added these three examples. Please let me know if I did something wrong. ;) --Hugovdm (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1st Person Imperatives in Latin

Since there are no 1st person imperatives in Latin, wouldn't it make sense to delete the boxes for them in Module:la-verb? Esszet (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them how? —CodeCa t 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know – I'm not familiar with modules – but couldn't you restructure the ‘Imperatives’ section so that its layout would be as it was in the old conjugation tables? Esszet (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the old layout more confusing, because the columns didn't match with the ones above. In the new layout, they match up so that it's immediately clear what person/number an imperative form is for. And it's also immediately obvious that there are no first-person imperatives, which was not so obvious in the old style. It's more schematic this way. I don't mind it all that much that it makes the table slightly bigger; clarity should come first. —CodeCa t 22:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the old layout; it didn't have the completely superfluous ‘1st Person Imperatives’ columns (if there are no columns for them at all, it should be pretty clear that they don't exist), and although it didn't match that of the sections above it, it wasn't confusing; in fact, it could be navigated with ease. Esszet (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeatedly had problems locating the second-person plural imperative because it wasn't in the same column as the other second-person plural forms. The new layout aligns them together, which makes it more obvious that they are grammatically aligned as well. I really don't want it to be changed. —CodeCa t 22:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never had that problem. I knew that the layout of the ‘Imperatives’ section was slightly different because imperatives don't exist in the first person in Latin. Should we see what other people think? Esszet (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The table in libero looks very clear and clean. I don’t see how it could be improved upon. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as improvement goes, I think we might want to add the supine, and maybe any other non-finite forms that exist (I don't know). —CodeCa t 12:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right, why don't you just include all the inflected forms of the participles. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inflected forms of the participles can be found in the participles' own entries, but I do think our Latin conjugation tables should include the supine and the gerund. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ‘Imperative’ section used to be set up so that the imperatives were divided into two columns (active and passive), which were then each subdivided into three sub-columns (2nd person present, 2nd person future, and 3rd person future, and so that they were divided into two rows: singular and plural. I prefer that setup because it used less space and didn't have the ridiculous ‘1st person’ columns.

As for the gerund and the supine, I suppose we should put them in a ‘verbal nouns’ row with two columns under a ‘present active’ heading at the bottom of the table. Esszet (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would the second column be for? —CodeCa t 21:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first column would be for the gerund, and the second would be for the supine. Esszet (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean making the table two rows taller though. One row for the forms themselves, and another for the column headers. —CodeCa t 02:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're going to have to make it taller in any case. And I was just going to say that you should put the ‘gerund’ and ‘supine’ boxes next to their respective verbal nouns rather than over them. It will look better if there is one word in the space occupied by 2 columns in the rows above it rather than 3. That's 1 1/2 rows we'd be adding to the table. Do you think that would be too much? Esszet (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a variety of layouts here. 1 and 2 are your original suggestion, 3 and 4 are alternatives that I tried. Personally I like 3; it looks uncluttered and makes good use of all the available space at the same time, and it also lists the case forms. The arrangement with active and passive on separate rows also matches with how the rest of the table is arranged. —CodeCa t 03:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the Italian way. I've created it in my sandbox. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Kc kennylau's model is closest to what I had in mind. Can you just add a ‘present active’ heading and center the nouns themselves? Esszet (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This? --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how that looks at all. My preference is still for 3 or maybe 4. —CodeCa t 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer 3 more than 4, because in 4 there's some space left. (Balancing haha) --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kc kennylau: Yes, that. I don't like 3 and 4 because as for 3, we don't need to include inflected forms of the gerund and supine or change the layout of the infinitives and participles sections, and because as for 4, it looks unbalanced and it also needlessly rearranges the layout of the infinitives and participles sections, although I prefer that rearrangement to the one in 3. Oh, and the gerund of liberāre in the nominative is also liberāre (cf. Juvenal's famous statement ‘Difficile est satūram nōn scribere’). Esszet (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we should ask other people what they think. Esszet (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dar

I looked up "dar" in Wiktionary and saw the words and definitions in quite a few languages. I was surprised not to see Farsi (Persian). It is a noun that means "gate" and is the word from which English gets the word "door". Does anyone feel like adding this to Wiktionary? CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persian is written in the Arabic script, not the Latin script. I think this is what you're looking for: در. --Wiki Tiki 89 02:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Persian is cognate with English door, but it is not the origin of the English word. To put it in terms of human relationships, is door’s second cousin, not its grandmother. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably call it a third or fourth cousin. --Wiki Tiki 89 16:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexual

Is sapiosexual a real word or is it a highly informal term? Please provide references to reliable sources. Davidoko99 (talk)

I think you'll need to go to WT:RFV for that. —CodeCa t 02:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be cited already. Besides, the request is all based on misunderstandings: "highly informal term"s are "real word"s by our standards, and we go by usage, not "references to reliable sources". I think User:Davidoko99 needs to read WT:CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

priors

Is this use of "priors" figuratively speaking about prior criminal convictions (the second noun entry here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prior)? Or is there another meaning which is something like "prejudice", "bias", or "preconceived notion?"

Here's the quote: It seems to me that Mr Crook has revealed more about his own priors than those of Mr Piketty's fans.
Here's the source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/04/inequality

Nearwater (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Bayesian inference a prior is a prior probability distribution. This is almost certainly the meaning or the source of the meaning intended in a discussion of a book of economics. Economists and others have come to use it to mean "prior beliefs" generally. Thus your inference that the meaning in the review is "prejudice", "bias", or "preconceived notion" is close, but prior(s) is not pejorative IMO. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cordus

How is an adjective the alternative form of a noun? Makes no sense. 124.168.103.178 12:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Easily fixed. "Alternative form of chordus" (not chorda) per Lewis & Short. As a wiki Wiktionary allows, even encourages folks to make corrective edits. The sources available to us are mostly available online to all. DCDuring TALK 13:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

piliginous

In "Water Music", T.C. Boyle writes "Quick piliginous things flashed through the undergrowth..." (Chapter "The Niger", subchapter "Hegira").

According to http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/piliginous, it means "hairy" or "hirsute". — This unsigned comment was added by Rstinejr (talk • contribs).

Perhaps he meant piligerous. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't follow from the Latin, but perhaps the form is due to analogy with fuliginous. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading all of the definitions, I'm still confused with the appropriate application. This word is an extremely important part of today's web, can someone please help? Proofing.

I apologize inadvance if this is the wrong place to seek help!

The word is "proofing." Most dictionaries define this word as a baking technique and then afterwards will have a second meaning which seems to dance around what I originally assumed was the definition. I originally thought the word "proofing" was short for "proof reading" which I consider to be the process of checking for basic grammar and punctuation in anything written.

My understanding is that anything beyond checking for basic grammar and punctuation is closer to "copy editing." So the word "proofing" seems like it could only be used to refer to the process of currently proof reading something. Or it could be used in other ways like "I'm going to be proofing a lot of papers after dinner."

- Can someone please verify that this is correct or incorrect? **

Here's where I want to make sure I'm safe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepress_proofing The second paragraph says "The primary goal of 'proofing' is to serve as a tool for customer verification that the entire job is accurate." When using the word in this context, it seems like the word is being used specifically to describe a process that has nothing to do with written text, but only visual graphics.

Word can obviously have different meanings and be used in various ways, but what I'd like to confirm or learn here is what the general universally understood meaning of the word "proofing" is.

Questions: 1. Is it mostly used to mean "proof reading" for written text? 2. Or is it mostly used to describe accuracy when printing graphics? 3. Or is it simply a word used interchangeably with "quality control" or "final inspection?" 4. Is there was a website called www.proofing.com, what service is that website most likely providing, is it "proof reading" services?

Thank you in advance, I'm sorry if this is the most stupid question you have ever seen in your life.

A bit verbose, perhaps, but not stupid. The first definition at proof#Verb is "to proofread". It is not confined to text, but to all parts of a document, including text formatting (including headings), correspondence between graphics items and the text, the correct printing of graphics, etc. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be missing one or more senses related to making proofs (in one or more noun senses), for instance, generating image proofs. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise there. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

φρέαρ

I might be missing something really opvious here, but I don't see how this is an irregular noun? Looks like a normal third declension neuter to me. Furius (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose someone thought the disappearing ρ made it irregular, but it doesn't really. This isn't even the only r/n-stem in Greek that inflects like this (cf. ἧπαρ, ὕδωρ). It's not a common inflection type, but it's not irregular. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between uncommon and irregular though? —CodeCa t 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

come as no surprise

Worth an entry? --Fsojic (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms ande Phrasal Verbs thinks so, but no other OneLook reference. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of similar forms: it was (will be, would be) no surprise. The meaning seems quite transparent to me. Equinox ◑ 13:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coign

COIGN

The primary meaning is 'point of vasntage', not as given. says the OED.JohnWheater (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting coign and coign of vantage mixed up. When not followed by "of vantage", coign means what our definitions say it does. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

zootechnician/zootechnics

Besides being cool words, these are "zootecnista" and "zootecnia" in Spanish. --Cromwellt|Talk|Contribs 11:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective Form of or Synonym for 'Well-Being?'

Hello; I was wondering if either an adjective form of the word 'well-being' or a synonym of it that is an adjective exists. Does anybody know if one does? — RandomDSdevel (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um…is anybody home? — RandomDSdevel (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: well#Adjective. --Wiki Tiki 89 18:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That, as well as 'healthy,' 'happy,' and 'prosperous' — these words are from the definition of 'well-being,' which states that this word is an uncountable noun used to denote 'a state of health, happiness, or prosperity' — should do nicely. I wonder why nobody noticed I was here yesterday, though…?

— RandomDSdevel (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful if you provided a sentence where you wanted to used this adjectival synonym for well-being. This lack of context is probably why nobody bothered to try to answer your question. Other synonyms include: prosperous, successful, fit, healthy, robust, sound, wholesome, happy, beneficial, gainful, advantageous, contented, gratifying, and satisfactory. —Stephen ^(Talk) 18:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well now you tell me…; sorry, but I didn't have a sentence in which I wanted to use an adjectival synonym for 'well-being' because all I'm doing right now is making up a list of personality traits for use as inspiration about what kind of careers would suit me the best (I'm working on a résumé for my English class.)

— RandomDSdevel (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Word

This is nothing really big. I was just suggesting you put the Latin word "tadet" and all its forms and meanings in the site because I could not find it.

Lewis and Short knows nothing of "tadet". Did you mean, perhaps, taedet? --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 02:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]