Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/August

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

Latvian mezgls

I've just created this term, and I am not satisfied with definitions 4 and 5, for which I don't think I know good English equivalents (judging by what I understand of the Latvian examples I have found...). May I perhaps ask the local native speakers of English for some help in getting a better definition? I'll be very thankful for any ideas you guys may have! --Pereru (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

with a vengeance

This isn't an adjective, is it? It's just a prepositional phrase being used to describe an oun isn't it? Furius (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We introduced the L3 header prepositional phrase relatively recently, so many entries for such phrases have the somewhat confusing adjective and adverb headers. Usually the best definition is another prepositional phrase. If adverbs or adverbs are shown in the entry, I'd prefer to show them as synonyms, qualified as to their use. DCDuring TALK 15:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the entry along the lines I had in mind. The question arises whether translators should be directed (by {{trans-see}} to other entries, either adjective or adverb, to add translations. DCDuring TALK 15:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really adjectival: I would say that, in those cases where it follows the noun, it's really modifying the verb be. In other words, it's not "they are intense xs" but "they are intensely xs". Chuck Entz (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its a prep phrase used adverbially (as an adverb). Ex. He did it with a vengeance, how did he do it? --with a vengeance Leasnam (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind everyone: the entry before 15:00 today had two PoS sections each with citations. It now has one. Looking at usage at COCA it is clear that the phrase modifies verbs and adjectives much more often than it modifies nouns.

@Chuck Entz Consider the following title "Modernism with a Vengeance" (or some from this search of Google books titles), "That's double-digit inflation with a vengeance", and "We like to say that in Greenbelt we have democracy with a vengeance." I don't see how any of these can be construed adverbially. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the first example no. The second, if intended as "we have (democracy-with-a-vengeance)", then no. Second could also be interpreted adverbially if it is used that way "we have democracy (with-a...). I did not intend to mean that all prep phrases function inherently as adverbial modifiers. In many cases they do (and in ONLY those cases would I include it in a page if not SoP--cant make every single prep phrase in existense into a page can we? Are we to have (deprecated template usage) of this world? (deprecated template usage) of my world, etc and so on??), but i would not have included a header for adjectival use in with a vengeance. It is a prep phrase that can function adjectivally to modify a noun (as pretty much all prep phrases do) but its not an adjective. So instead of creating a new label it should have been removed for adj. It prob started out as adverbial phrase headered as 'adverb' (closest header available) then someone else saw a possible adj usage and added it, and now that has driven the creation of a new label header. Nice, but backwards. I might have stopped only at adv if it were opaque in meaning. So now do we make entries for all prep phrases? bc all are either adv or adj in function, but not PoS.Leasnam (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A justification for including this is that the applicable sense of vengeance is at least archaic or not used in current English apart from this expression. I couldn't even find such a sense in MW 1913, Century 1911, or MW 1828, all of which give the expression run-in treatment under vengeance, as a colloquialism. I don't have convenient access to the OED. “with a vengeance”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows that some current lexicographers find it worth including. DCDuring TALK 14:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jack

I don't see the definition for "hit" or "punch" here, usually in the face. "I got jacked in the face by some dude", for instance. Would this as a subentry under the one that has the baseball hitting definition?

not disputing you, but I was always under the impression that was short for (deprecated template usage) jack up meaning to "mess up" (I.e mess up ones face) but perhaps now by extension means "to hit" (?) Leasnam (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% but I wonder if the baseball use might not be derived from (deprecated template usage) crackerjack...If you can find 3 reliable cites for "hit/punch" you can certainly add it Leasnam (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

where are we going?

quo vadis means where are you going? could someone tell me how where are we going is translated into Latin?

quo vadimus

--Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 11:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

boarding gate

I kind of feel we should have this, but I'm not sure if it would be considered idiomatic? The translations at least would be very useful. Note we do have boarding pass. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the absence of lemmings at “boarding gate”, in OneLook Dictionary Search..

Note board (“To step or climb onto or otherwise enter a ship, aircraft, train or other conveyance.”) + gate (“passageway (as in an air terminal) where passengers can embark or disembark.”). DCDuring TALK 14:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

origin of name/McGill

Is the true origin of this name Danish?

Looks Gaelic to me. Big Dom 16:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. It means "son of the servant". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's clearly a Gaelic name. The folks at Ellis Island were creative enough at re-interpreting names that it's possible a few US instances of it are actually re-interpretations of non-Gaelic names — I've read of a German "Kämpfe" who became a "Campbell", and just now have also found a mention of a Greek "Kyriacopoulos" / "Kiriacopoulis" becoming a "Campbell" — but it's difficult to track things like that down. - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the etymology in the entry, then, because it has "son of the stranger". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you always get strange cases like Katz, which has several different origins, none of which are related to the German word Katze (“cat”), which is what most people naively assume. --Wiki Tiki 89 18:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mc" is usually a pretty good indication that a name has spent at least part of its history in Gaelic. There are enough Old Norse names in Gaelic to make an ultimate geographic origin from Denmark at least superficially plausible, though- but Modern Danish seems a bit of a stretch. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mc" only indicates that people see it as Gaelic, that does not mean it is. Hypothetically speaking, an Englishman could have met a Dane whose name was (purely hypothetically) Miggil and spelled it as McGill. I'm not saying that's very likely, but it certainly cannot be ruled out without at least a little investigation. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T-bird

I just created an entry for T-bird, but I have no idea if I've done it correctly. I listed the word as Tagalog, although it is more specifically Swardspeak, which is an argot slang derived from Englog (Tagalog-English code-switching). To make matters more complicated, the only references for the term are in English (as Swardspeak is only spoken, not written). The references do not represent usages, however, as they all describe the term in English as Tagalog/Filipino/Swardspeak. The word is well-attested in English sources about Tagalog (see the Citations tab), but it will probably never have verifiable usages in Tagalog. Two questions:

Is this good enough to pass WT:CFI?
On the Citations tab, should I use {{citation|T-bird|lang=en}} or {{citation|T-bird|lang=tl}}?

Kaldari (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T-bird is American slang or abbreviation for the Thunderbird automobile manufactured by Ford and going back to the 50s. Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

alumnus

None of the translations seem to work for me. When I edited (to add a second French translation) there had been quite a few other translations previously entered, but nothing happened when I tried to operate the regular access; clicking anywhere had no effect.
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what problem you were having. Did you click "Edit", or were you using the "Add translation" field beneath the translations? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on the road

I was just irritated by the use of "on the road" in w:Aztlán and considered it a non-native mistake for "on the way", when I suddenly thought of the etymology of road being a verbal act noun, i. e., "a ride". Sure enough, the meanings "ride" and "journey" still occur in Modern English, even if they are now considered archaic. Amazing. I had always connected "on the road" (as in "on tour", as in a musician/artist, trucker, biker etc.) with the physical road. But it appears that the idiom still preserves a trace, a subtle shade of the older meaning, even if most native speakers are probably not aware of this, either. (Not to mention the fact that raid is a doublet of road). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, roadie also appears to preserve the "ride, journey" sense in each of its meanings. In fact, "on the road" might have been a key collocation in the semantic change from action noun to the concrete sense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, certain idioms such as "the end of the road", which on the surface appear to employ "road" in a metaphorical way, could equally preserve the old "journey" sense. Ultimately, of course, it is exactly this kind of contextual ambiguity that drives semantic change. In contrast, "way" seems to have taken the opposite route: from concrete to mostly metaphorical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

philandry

Philandry has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia as a hoax word. I am at Wikimania, and don't have the time or tools to investigate this, but I thought it was worth mentioning here. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they even have dictionary-type entries in WP? DCDuring TALK 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not supposed to have dictionary entries, but occasionally they do pop up, and are usually deleted as such. My concern in this case was that the term was not tagged merely as a dicdef, but asserted to be a hoax. bd2412 T 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare, but it does meet Wiktionary CFI. At least one of the uses I see in Google Books has distinct connotations of philandering, more than mere innocuous (philanthropic) "love of men": "Neither has good reasons to suspect their partners of philandry or loss of affection. Alice sees her husband talking to the models and it is a while until she sees him again. She has little clue as to his whereabouts. It is certainly possible that Bill [went off to have sex...]" - -sche (discuss) 09:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no pressure

Shouldn't no pressure include a non-sarcastic meaning? i.e. a command not to feel social pressure despite a request that seems to the contrary. ("We could use one more player if you've finished studying. No pressure, man."). I don't know how to phrase it for a definition. Pengo (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try. OneLook has this entry indexed. Bringing something up here usually causes everyone to run to the entry to look. No pressure, though. DCDuring TALK 02:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fag marriage

Why is there even an entry? "Fag" in this case is an adjective. Just because 3 quotes from insignificant individuals have been cited, doesn't really make it a word, or a phrase.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an SoP phrase, IMO. You could {{rfd}} it, if you'd like. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If gay marriage and same-sex marriage aren't SOP, I don't see how this is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and conversely. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms have already survived RFDs; see Talk:gay marriage and Talk:same-sex marriage. I think this is just as keepable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What does SoP stand for? If it is what I think it is, then it probably should be deleted. gay marriage and same-sex marriage OTOH have significant usage, whereas fag marriage has virtually none.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOP stands for "sum of parts". At Wiktionary, entries considered to be sum of parts are usually deleted because their meaning can be inferred from their parts. If the meaning goes beyond what the individual parts mean, the entry is considered to be idiomatic and is generally kept (if it also meets the other requirements for inclusion, such as being attested). The three entries cited are sufficient to establish that the term is used, even if it's less common, so the only remaining question is whether the meanings of "fag" and "marriage" are sufficient for readers to deduce what "fag marriage" is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I'm new here to be sure, but I can't see "rump ranger" having any merit as an entry, and that is used far more than FM.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can. Rump ranger is definitely idiomatic, and a nonnative English speaker (or even a native English who isn't very worldly, or a speaker of a dialect where that phrase isn't used) might have no idea what it meant. First time I head shirt lifter I didn't have the slightest idea what it meant. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard rump ranger in my life but it is definitely widely-used and idiomatic enough to merit an entry. Same goes for uphill gardener. Big Dom 20:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 13 yo in me now asks about fart knocker Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fartknocker (no space) is in the The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang. It was coined on Beavis and Butthead apparently. Equinox ◑ 23:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also gets over 200 hits on b.g.c, so if anyone wants to create it, it's attestable. Seems to be a generic term of abuse, though, with no reference to the addressee's sexual orientation, unlike the other terms discussed in this thread. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This place... Bart Simpson friendly.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fanny bandit, butt pirate. As for fartknocker, I remember it from the 1950s and ’60s. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found fartknocker in this 1974 copy of Texas Monthly, so it definitely pre-dates Beavis and Butt-head. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rare

In the Usage note I have just added to rare#Verb it says: "Principal current, non-literary use is of the present participle raring with a verb in "raring to". The principal verb in that construction is go. Thus, raring to go ("eager (to start something)") is the expression in which rare is most often encountered as a verb."

So, should we have raring to and raring to go as entries.

Also, should this and similar expressions have parallel treatment to going to? DCDuring TALK 11:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

go

I've overhauled go, adding missing senses and deploying subsenses per this RFC. There are still some senses we are missing:

The sense of "go" that's used in "go to Google and type in 'foo'". The absence of this sense was noted on the talk page as early as 2006 and as recently as last year. It seems like a figurative derivative of sense 1.2 (the entry's main workhorse sense), but I'm not sure how to word it. (added)
The sense used in "he went (over my head and) straight to the CEO", "they were prepared to go to the President with the plan". It seems similar to the sense that's used in "I'll go to court if I have to", which we define as "resort to".
The sense used in "going through the usual channels would take too long". (Compare go through.) Or does one of our existing senses cover this? It seems similar to the sense used in "Word went to Friends in Maryland, that we were drowned" (from the Journal of William Edmundson), which in turn seems similar to the sense used in "Telegrams [...] went by wire to Halifax", which is sense 1.2.
Random House and Merriam-Webster have a sense which they word as "endure or tolerate" and "put up with : tolerate", respectively. Their usage examples are "I can't go his preaching" and "couldn't go the noise", but I can't find anything like that on Google Books.
Merriam-Webster has a sense "come to be determined", with the usex "dreams go by contraries". That seems to be an idiom and hence not a reliable indication that "go" has this sense by itself, but I can find several uses like this — but I can't tell if "come to be determined" is what they mean.

- -sche (discuss) 04:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As many a parent have asked their toddler, "Do you have to go?" Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have that sense as the last one: "To urinate or defecate." Although I think that definition is too explicit. --Wiki Tiki 89 12:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can see how a lot of uses would be covered by a less explicit definition like "use the toilet" (or perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by 'the definition too explicit'), but then I have also seen usage like this, where it does just mean "urinate", not "use the toilet". - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think more often than not, it means urinate, but it can mean anything at all that "go to the bathroom" can mean (although our current definition does not include all the possibilities: you can "go to the bathroom" in the middle of the woods with no toilet around, and you can "go to the bathroom" when you're already in the bathroom, etc., and this may also apply to go to the toilet). --Wiki Tiki 89 12:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago I added a citation at go to the bathroom where it says a dog started to "go to the bathroom" on the carpet, showing that the expression does not necessarily imply walking to a room with a toilet in it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was just trying to say. The only question is what is the best way to define it? --Wiki Tiki 89 14:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sense to cover "go to Google"-type usage. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another missing sense is an informal/colloquial/non-standard one meaning "visit", like in the phrase "I want to go London". Also possibly one to fit "once you go black you never go back" --ElisaVan (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found one citation for "go London", Citations:go#transitive:_.27visit.27.3F. I also see at least one citation for "go Paris", and there is a series of travel books titled "let's go [place]". Can anyone confirm that "visit" is the sense these are using?
"Once you go black" might be sense 33 or 40. We do have an entry once you go black, you never go back, but it's worth noting that the phrase is not limited to the second person or to the present tense: see e.g. google books:"went black" "never went back".
- -sche (discuss) 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WT:FEED:

For some reason I cannot edit the section at [1], but I still dispute some of these supposedly transitive examples.
We've only gone twenty miles today. -- "twenty miles" is adverbial
Let's go this way for a while. -- "this way" is adverbial
She was going that way anyway. -- "that way" is adverbial
Cats go "meow". -- doubtful that this is transitive
Let's go halves on this. -- "halves" is probably adverbial
That's as high as I can go. -- definitely not transitive

Agreed. All these uses are pseudo-transitive. There similar descriptions of pseudo-transitivity in a known work of Andrey Zaliznyak for Russian verbs. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right next to the "twenty miles" usex is the usex "this car can go circles around that one"; is it also intransitive / adverbial? (I'm asking; I'm not sure of the answer.)

The sense that has the "let's go this way", "she was going that way" usexes also has a citation saying "go this path up to its end", so the sense itself does seem to be transitive — but perhaps the "this way"/"that way" usexes belong under a different sense?

"Cats go meow" is transitive just like sense 1 of "say".

The same sense used in "that's as high as I can go" is also used in "I can go two fifty", so it seems to be both transitive and intransitive (like bid); I'll emend the context label accordingly.

- -sche (discuss) 19:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your conclusions.

I think the sense you are uncertain about is also transitive by a normal analysis. Consider:

The car went a short distance, only three blocks, before stalling again. and relatedly:

The car went the entire first week of May without a problem.

One can substitute many nominal expressions into the slot that an object of go in this sense would fill. It seems a bit of a strain to call them adverbials grammatically, whatever their semantics. What undisputed adverbs could be inserted into that slot?

One might say that both sentences "really" have a missing preposition for preceding the nominal, but I've never been satisfied with such approached. The preposition/particle can be inserted for clarification, but does not seem essential to convey meaning. DCDuring TALK 01:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about "went a short distance"; I've inserted a citation showing that usage. "The car went the entire first week of May without a problem" looks like sense 25 — and that highlights the fact that that sense, too, is ambitransitive. - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am not convinced that "go circles", "go a short distance", "go twenty miles" etc. are properly transitive. It is not feasible, for example, to ask "What did the car go?" and expect an answer "circles" or "a short distance", or "twenty miles". Neither is it possible to substitute a pronoun such as "it" and say, for example, "The car went it". Neither are passive forms such as "a short distance was gone by the car" possible in natural English. While not individually conclusive, all these points provide evidence against transitivity and in favour of the argument that these so-called objects are actually adverbial. 86.128.3.186 03:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar diagnostics may also indicate that there is a difference between "go" in "Cats go 'meow'" and "say" in, for example, "She said 'hello'", which are equated above.

What did she say? / She said 'hello'. -- OK

What do cats go? / Cats go 'meow'. -- Feels faulty

She said it. -- OK

Cats go it. -- Not possible

'hello' was said by her. -- Not common but feasible

'meow' is gone by cats. -- Not possible

86.128.3.186 04:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bowls as a category

There are a few items in Special:WantedCategories having to do with the sport known as bowls. At first I had no clue what was meant, but now that I do, I'm reluctant to create the categories: the name is too easily confused with the better-known name for the type of dish. Is there a synonym such as lawn bowling that would be acceptable to those familiar with the sport? If not, what's the alternative? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find w:bowling easier to understand, but that might be a US/UK difference. --BB12 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bowling already exists, but what we think of as bowling in the US is w:ten-pin bowling, which is a quite different game: in ten-pin, you knock over pins with the ball, while in bowls, there are no pins. Aside from other variations of w:skittles (sport) such as w:nine-pin bowling, w:five-pin bowling, w:candlepin bowling, w:duckpin bowling and w:Turkey bowling, there are also w:borella (game), w:bocce, w:boccia, w:boules, w:Kegel (bowling), w:bowls, w:feather bowling, w:bolas criollas, w:pétanque and w:Irish road bowling. Right now, the category is dominated by ten-pin, but maybe just throwing everything into Category:Bowling will be the solution. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility, in the event that Category:Bowling winds up with enough entries in it to justify splitting the various sports, is Category:Bowls (sport). - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of cingulum

We show the plural of cingulum to be cinguli, which doesn't seem correct. Shouldn't it be cingula? Equinox ◑ 02:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be, but both are attested. Using phrases in Google Books searches like "of cingula" and "these cingula" seems to show that cingula is more common as an English plural in books. My quick searches aren't exactly conclusive, but it looks to me like we should have cinguli as an alternative plural, and maybe marked as proscribed, since all the dictionaries and glossaries I've looked at so far give cingula as the plural. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Equinox ◑ 05:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a big fat yes

On [Britain's Got Talent], 2013 about 8:19 into the video, Simon Cowell says, "It's a big fat yes." I think this is merely an intensifier. It can also be used for "It's a big fat no." None of the meanings under fat seem to capture this exactly, but I don't know exactly how to define it. Any takers? --BB12 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already have big fat.

We seem to lack the sense of big#Adjective in He's a big liar/idiot/jerk., in which it could mean "frequent" or the expression could mean "He tells big lies." In any event, sticking with the surface meaning, it seems to be used to intensify nouns of negative valence, as at least Collins would have it.

I don't think fat can be used alone as an intensifier. For example, at COCA "fat liar" is preceded by "big" in all 14 cases. DCDuring TALK 22:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And a link to "big fat" is provided on the fat page. --BB12 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AAVE 'finna' as eye dialect

The definition for finna gives it as an eye dialect spelling of fixing to, I don't know of any research tracking the prevalence of 'finna' but I've heard it used often in speech by AAVE speakers, pronounced [ˈfɪ.nə]. I did not want to change the page myself, does anyone know more about the subject?

Also finny to. I use it sometimes. Leasnam (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Appendix:Glossary, many (probably still most) instances of the term "eye dialect" in this dictionary refer to "nonstandard spelling used to show a speaker's pronunciation". It has been noted on Talk:eye dialect that this is different from the most common definition of "eye dialect". Ideally, we should find an accurate substitute descriptor for things like finna=[ˈfɪnə]. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply call it a {{nonstandard spelling of}}; the pronunciation info shows that it reflects a nonstandard pronunciation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it is not just spelled but also pronounced differently makes me feel like calling it a mere (nonstandard / alternative / whatever) spelling variant is insufficient. Perhaps a label like {{nonstandard pronunciation spelling of|fixing to|lang=en}}? Wait, wouldn't just {{dialectal form of}} (i.e. dropping the word "eye") work? Especially if "dialectal" could be substituted via a from= parameter, as in {{alternative form of}}, with the specific dialect — in this case AAVE. - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply {{label|en|AAVE}} {{alternative form of|fixing to|lang=en}}. That's how I handle dialectal Irish forms that differ in both spelling and pronunciation from the standard. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I like that. Or even just {{alternative form of|fixing to|from=AAVE|lang=en}}, since it occurs to me {{alternative form of}} does everything I described above and a "{{dialectal form of}}" template would be redundant. I suppose that the choice of {{label|en|AAVE}} {{alternative form of|fixing to|lang=en}} vs {{alternative form of|fixing to|from=AAVE|lang=en}} in any specific case would depend upon whether the standard form (in this case, fixing to) was also used in AAVE (making finna just an alternative form valid in AAVE), or finna was the (only) AAVE form. (Or would making such a distinction be splitting too fine a hair?) - -sche (discuss) 22:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that {{alternative form of}} accepts a from= parameter. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's odd. {{alternative spelling of}}, {{standard spelling of}} and {{standard form of}} all accept such a parameter. I'll see what I can do. - -sche (discuss) 02:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified it to accept a from= parameter. Examples of usage/behaviour here. - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just one side note, that finna is not "from AAVE", since AAVE itself just inherited it from Southern American English, which uses the term as well. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Southern American English uses fixing to or fixin' to, but growing up in Texas I never noticed it being reduced to finna or finny. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe I'm wrong, but we should make sure of that. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In far northeast Texas and Ark-La-Tex I have often heard "I’m finnin" to do something. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't surprise me if— in fact, I expect— the speech of the "South Atlantic" and "East South Central" states has some differences from the the "West South Central" states (Ark-LA-Tex-OK). But I have yet to find evidence finna is used even in the eastern South; all the hits for google books:"I'm finna" are AAVE. Can anyone check what DARE has to say? By the way, note that fitting has a relevant sense which is currently labelled just "US". Is that right? (If anyone checks DARE, please see what it has to say about fitting, also.) And should that sense be moved to fitting to? Compare going to and note that I just moved fixing to.
Anyway, even if finna is also from=Southern US, it's still from2=AAVE. The "from" parameter in these templates is not etymological — and the way it displays (as "AAVE form of x" not *"form of x derived from AAVE") makes this clear, I think. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

chaser

Is there a reason we're missing the arguably most important definition of this on the Internet? As in, someone who has a kink in preferring certain kinds of people as romantic partners. We do have chubby chaser but that term is also used on its own. -- Liliana • 11:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tomato tomato redux

This discussion seemed to peter off without a firm conclusion, but the entry remains as it was. I support moving this to tomayto, tomahto, which is attestable, because that makes the distinction at issue immediately apparent. This is one case where the less common usage makes a better headword because the phrase hinges on pronunciation. bd2412 T 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But what makes you think it is less common? --Wiki Tiki 89 16:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books seems to get a lot more returns for "tomato tomato". However, there are probably uses other than the pronunciation split. bd2412 T 17:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to imagine anyone writing "tomato tomato" in a book and expecting people to realize it's pronounced "tomayto tomahto". Looking at google books:"tomato tomato", I don't see any relevant results. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and per WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, absent any objection or counter-argument. bd2412 T 12:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to keeping tomato tomato and tomato, tomato, even as redirects. --Wiki Tiki 89 12:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the tomato tomato and tomato, tomato spellings are attestable in this sense, how could on justify excluding them? DCDuring TALK 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are they attestable? I have yet to see proof. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a procedure for that. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"caption" definition

In computer science, caption has and is often used to refer to the text in a label, button, or other user interface element. This isn't included in the Wiktionary definition.

Not too different from existing senses. I've extended sense 2 to include this. Equinox ◑ 04:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

scaping

I found this citation for Rockwellish: can anyone suggest what is meant by the word "scaping" here? Equinox ◑ 10:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1995, Scott Elly Sprecher, Alms for Jude (page 320)
Visually, there seemed nothing wrong with this Rockwellish slice of Americana in scaping portrait. Casual things and people were where they should be for this date and place in Midwestern history.

landscape -> landscaping (not a sense we have) -> scaping, maybe?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

viajes (noun)

The spanish entry for viajes only mentions the verb, not the plural of viaje. Could someone who knows about formatting add the noun? Thanks.

Done —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

goalframe

I added an entry for goalframe last night, as in the frame of the goal in soccer, hockey, etc. But there also seems to be another sense that I don't understand (see here and here), maybe something to do with computing or information processing. Anyone shed any light on this other sense? Big Dom 09:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also "goal frame". This paper defines it [2] but unfortunately we'd need to pay to see it. What I can tell is that it's a kind of stack frame: see Stack frame. Equinox ◑ 13:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

volleyer

The French entry volleyer uses the noyer-style template, where -y- becomes -i- when there's no syllable after the /ɛj/ sound. fr:volleyer however has it as a regular -er suffixed verb, like jouer, parler, etc. I think they're right and we're wrong, both because of the -eyer not -ayer or -oyer ending, and because it's borrowed from English, the -y in the English spelling remains in tact. Though, can we get enough evidence to prove it? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Google Books searching with the pronouns je, il, and ils, followed by the corresponding conjugation both with -y- and -i-. The -y- forms get one or two hits each, while the -i- forms get nothing. --Wiki Tiki 89 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official Scrabble dictionary ODS 5 gives volleye, volleyera (etc.) but not volleie, volleiera. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you but I think we have enough evidence. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, verbs in -eyer always keep the <y>. Big Dom 16:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

same old same old

This doesn't seem like a noun to me. --ElisaVan (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only other candidate seems to be adjective, but it's not really used like one. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta be a phrase, mate. --ElisaVan (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's used as a noun phrase, as well as an adjective. It would seem to be a "fused-head" construction or an ellipsis for "same old, same old thing". I think you would find it can be used as a subject or object of a verb or object of a preposition. Hence, a nominsl. For example:

2001, Joy Jones, Private Lessons: A Book of Meditations for Teachers‎^[3]:
The same-old same-old is what gives comfort and familiarity to our day.
2008, Joel Krieger, Christopher S. Allen, Stephen Hellman, European Politics in Transition‎^[4], page 115:
Will the Sarkozy presidency constitute a critical juncture or the “same old, same old”?
2007, David B. Audretsch, The Entrepreneurial Society‎^[5], page 136:
Sticking to the same old same old may be known and comfortable, but, thanks to globalization, it is also increasingly known and comfortable in other, less expensive, parts of the world.

We don't seem to expect our users to get that almost all adjectives can be used as nominals, so we make it easy for them by having a separate noun PoS for many terms that are basically adjectives. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wikipedia editor who had to look up PoS to see it meant part of speech, I agree with DCDuring. This discussion is 2 years old, so maybe the discussion is already over with a consensus on calling it a noun.CharlesHBennettW (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

word as an interjection

(For discussion of word as a noun, see the BP.) I notice our entry on the interjection word gives two AAVE senses with different etymologies, namely "truth, to tell or speak the truth; the shortened form of the statement 'my word is my bond'" and "a statement of the acknowledgement of fact with a hint of nonchalant approval; abbreviated form of 'word up'". I am only familiar with one sense, "I agree; truth, that is the truth" (sort of a combination of the two). Are the current AAVE senses accurate, or should they be combined? (I guess this could be turned into a RFV of sense 1, but I'm reluctant to RFV such a hard-to-search-for sense, especially since I think it's semi-valid and merely not separable from sense 2.) - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fairly large body of AAVE fiction online, some of the popularity of which is probably attributable to its relatively authentic AAVE dialogue. I'd be surprised if we couldn't get cites for any reasonably widespread or interesting usage from that body of work. DCDuring TALK 00:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declension and pronunciation of Finnish ruoka

(Notifying Hekaheka):

According to the Finnish Wiktionary, the weak-grade forms of this word are pronounced as if spelled ruua- and sometimes spelled that way as well. The entries jälkiruoka, pääruoka and alkuruoka show both alternative declensions, but not aamuruoka, gourmetruoka/gurmeeruoka, kalanruoka, kalaruoka, kaninruoka, kissanruoka, koiranruoka, meriruoka, perinneruoka, pikaruoka, roskaruoka, sieniruoka, texmexruoka, tykinruoka, uuniruoka, vauvanruoka and vokkiruoka/wokkiruoka. I wonder, is it a regular change for weak grade -uoa- change to -uua? And is this standard Finnish? Other words ending in -uoka are vuoka and annosvuoka; does it apply to those words too? And if this is a regular change, then what about the similar sequences -yöä- (from -yökä-), -ieä- (from -iekä-) and -iea- (from -ieka-)? —CodeCa t 21:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I belong to a generation which has been taught that ruoan is the only correct way. This was the opinion of Kotus until 1980's, but now they say that both are acceptable but ruoan is still better language. The major newspapers seem to obey but people seem to have made up their mind in favor of ruuan, as it beats ruoan 3:1 in the internet. According to Kotus, vuoka should still be declined as vuoan but the public thinks differently: vuuan beats vuoan 3:2 in a simple Google search. Those who understand Finnish may be interested in this article [6]. Other words ending with -uoka, -yökä or -iekä do not come into my mind right now. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot -ieka. I think there's only one word in this category: lieka. The inflected forms with weak stem are pronounced as liean, lieassa etc. and there's therefore no doubt about spelling. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there should be a special template, {{fi-decl-ruoka}}, for handling these special cases? —CodeCa t 02:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary. It can be handled with usage notes. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin iecur should have genitive iocineris, Latin iocur may be post-Classical

Wiktionary lists iecinoris as the genitive of iecur "liver", whereas iocineris is claimed to be the genitive of iocur with the same meaning. However, modern books on PIE say that the actual paradigm was iecur, gen. iocineris, with iecineris a late form. Google iecur iocineris and you'll find a whole bunch of corroborating references. As for iocur, it was apparently a very late, post-Classical word back-formed from iocineris. Evidence of this is that the Appendix Probi condemns iocur, saying iecur non iocur, and that a recent Latin dictionary has an entry for iocineris (listed as genitive of iecur) but not one for iocur; see below. Additional complications are that both genitives can be attested with -oris instead of -eris. I suggest we fix the entry for iecur to have iocineris in place of iecineris, with an additional paradigm with iecineris given as genitive and marked as late, sourced appropriately. iocur iocineris should perhaps be deleted or listed as post-Classical, and the entry for iocineris by itself indicates that it's the genitive both of iecur and (if kept) iocur.

BTW basic Latin dictionaries often get this wrong, probably because they try to "explain away" the anomaly between iec- and ioc-, not realizing that it apparently is inherited and reflects a trace of the old PIE e/o ablaut. My older Oxford Latin Dictionary from 1891 says "iecur iecoris or iocur iocineris", and my newer New College Latin/English Dictionary (originally published 1966, revised 1995) says ''jecur -oris or -ineris or -inoris" but has a separate entry for jocineris which is described as the genitive of iecur. iocur isn't found at all probably because it's spurious in Classical times, cf. the Appendix Probi quote. Note also that my Oxford dictionary has three quotes specifically mentioning iecur and one mentioning iocineris and a number with the headword omitted, but none specifically illustrating iocur.

Benwing (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

shortcut

When used as a verb, is the past shortcutted or shortcut? Kinda interesting. Probably both. --Type56op9 (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

skazka

Can someone check the entry skazka? Especially the Russian etymology part - I probably screwed up a template or missed a mark. Also, it may be more than just a Russian fairy tale, but a type of fairy tale. Also, there is major doubt whether this is just a transliterated word, but the existence of "skazkas" suggests it may not be. Whatever the case, this is not the greatest entry I've ever made (workplace is my magnum opus, BTW). --Type56op9 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The etymological part is correct. I've fixed it a bit. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(pellegân)

I think this must be obsolete or at least literary, but I am not 100% certain. If anyone knows for sure then please add the context label. Kaixinguo (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ZxxZxxZ Perhaps you can help? --Wiki Tiki 89 14:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obsolete alternative form of پلکان for both of its senses, see also the Dehkhoda entry for پلگان --Z 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've updated the entry. --Wiki Tiki 89 12:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but

"Nobody - but nobody - tricks John Smith and gets away with it." Is this an emphatic sense of "but" that we are lacking? Is it used with other entities than "nobody"? Equinox ◑ 16:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of something that exists in Dutch: Niemand - maar dan ook niemand - ... with maar being a direct translation for but. There may be some common origin here. —CodeCa t 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ordinary usage of the "except for" sense, in my opinion. --Wiki Tiki 89 16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "nobody but [excluding] nobody" works that way, but how about (from Google Books) "a modest mambo step that anyone, but anyone, could master"? Under that sense, "anyone but anyone" is anyone except for anyone i.e. nobody can master the step, which is not the intended meaning. Equinox ◑ 17:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard such usage, but it seems it could be taking "nobody but nobody" as a template and replacing nobody with anyone. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've felt nobody but nobody as a hijacking of nobody but X to make a more emphatic statement. Thinking about it, it seems also to gain force from reduplication of nobody. It is about equivalent to "nobody, (and) I mean nobody,". This might be a case where we can actually capture the force of a snowclone with a simple dictionary entry. The force of "X but X" could be ascribed to a sense of but along the lines of Equinox's suggestion. I think X can be nobody, nothing, no one, nowhere, never. The any versions must be much rarer, but may also be attestable. Also every versions. DCDuring TALK 04:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's parallel to "nobody but X", but I don't think it has anything to do with reduplication. "Nobody but X" means only X; thus "nobody with the exception of X" means "nobody with no exception". --Wiki Tiki 89 11:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ƿidsiþ 11:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pathos

Is it me or it seems there are too many senses? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senses 1 and 3 could possibly be combined; then again, I'm not sure. Sense 2 is distinct, because pathos arguments are not limited to pity; they might try to arouse a reader's anger or outrage. I'm not sure how sense 4 would be used. - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

六

How should the reading ろっ be transcripted? --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest transcribing sentence-final sokuon as roQ. Wyang (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems complicated. Usually final っ/ッ has no sound and it's used to convey some emotions or render a final consonant without a vowel, which is impossible in Japanese (except for "n"). E.g. Korean hanbok can also be written ハンボッ (hanbo) to mark the final "k" in this case. I would just transliterate っ/ッ as nothing, so ろっ should be "ro", IMHO. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Notifying TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr, Whym, Haplology): Anyone still active? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official Romanization for っ at the end. I would use t like rot if necessary. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what about numerous interjections, where っ only shows more emotion that words without it, like あっ or　えっ? It think it would be wrong to transliterate them as "at" or "et". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, for example if there was name "Kojiro" with the Kanji written as "五二六", similar as to how "Musashi" is sometimes written as "六三四", "五二六" in this case must be written as "Kojirot". (And, yes I know "五二六" could also be written differently as in "Gonimu", which sounds ridiculous but I'm letting you know that I am aware of on'yomi and kun'yomi readings.) 50.156.82.190 08:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 五二六 would be written as こじろっ in hiragana. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if in any situation, someone decided to write 五二六 as "Kojiro" (seeing as how 五 can be read as "ko", 二 for "ji", and 六 as "ro"), would it still be rendered as "Kojirot" in romaji? 50.156.82.190 14:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reading ろっ (roQ) is special: it should only be followed by k-, p- or t-, where it duplicates the next consonant. Therefore, 五二六 cannot be "kojiro". --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the reading ろっ must have a consonant sound at the end of it. Well that's too bad, I thought it would be cool to see Japanese numeral wordplay of the kanji of Kojiro as "526", because some people associate the kanji of Musashi with the numbers "634" as in the height of the Tokyo Skytree. 50.156.82.190 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a wordplay with 37564 where it is rendered mina-goroshi which means killing everybody. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this solve the problem? --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but is ろ a official reading of 六? Because I don't want to get yourself in trouble for adding in that edit because of that rule with unverified sources. 50.156.82.190 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted myself's edit. --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfulfilled っ is also transcribed using an apostrophe, e.g. in this case ro'. As far as I am aware, ro' is not considered a reading of 六, although gemination such as ろく + ひゃく = ろっぴゃく can occur. 217.44.214.6 03:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we usually do not include sokuon-ized readings, because it is part of the Japanese grammar. See 一 (いっ), 切 (きっ), ... --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that is what I am saying. That is what I meant when I said it is not considered a reading of 六. 217.44.214.6 11:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that reading. My guess is that somebody sees the sokuon-ized reading in a name and added it into nanori readings. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Wiktionary does not seem very consistent in the way it handles this. For example:

法: はっ (hat), ほっ (hot)
合: かっ (kaQ), がっ (gaQ)
十: じゅっ (ju[p/t/k/s]) (before /p, t, k, s/)
早: さつ (satsu) [in other sources this is given as さっ; I don't know whether さつ can actually occur, or indeed whether さつ is just an error or a mistaken attempt at さっ]

Ideally this should be harmonised. Personally I prefer the apostrophe. This is also the way that Wikipedia does it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_joyo_kanji.

Also, is there a reason why Wiktionary does not use katakana for "on" readings? 217.44.214.6 13:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a phonetic/phonemic transcription IPA^(key): /∅ː/ obsolete or nonstandard characters (∅), invalid IPA characters (∅) would be the best (I think), as the small tsu kana is an anticipatory gemination mark, thus, let's say a ku follows this ろっ from IPA^(key): /ro∅ː/ obsolete or nonstandard characters (∅), invalid IPA characters (∅) you could predict that it is going to be IPA^(key): /rokːu/ (on the other hand there is no way of differentiating between vowels and consonants with the IPA^(key): /∅ː/ obsolete or nonstandard characters (∅), invalid IPA characters (∅) while it should only apply to consonants), well, anyway just a suggestion. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it is wise to use IPA for kanji readings. I think people tend to expect these in romaji format. 217.44.214.6 17:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration which says "if there is no following letter, then it is simply dropped in the transliteration." I could see something like "roQ^[sokuon]" or "roQ^[?]" might be useful, provided that we update the linked page to clarify the interpretation of "Q". I won't oppose using the style of "rot^[?]" if such a guide is provided anyway. I think the point discussed here is how to transcribe it relatively plainly, in a readable and consistent manner. Using IPA sounds like a bit overkill to me. Whym (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that individual transliteration components should be burdened with a superscript link. Perhaps the link to Wiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration should be made generally clearer in contexts where romaji is used. I do not agree either that trailing sokuon should be simply dropped in transliteration, and in the one or two cases that I have checked (see above) it does not seem to be anyway. 86.130.67.100 13:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, just to give some more variations:

ろっ (roQ)
ろっ (rot)
ろっ (ro') (' stands for a sokuon. See how to pronounce it.)

Do you disagree with having any links in a transcription, or just disagree with superscript links? The reasoning behind my suggestions is that it would be quite hard to tell the correct pronunciation in any plain and intuitive transcription without an additional guide. I don't have a strong opinion on where to put the link. --Whym (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia page for Sokuon, they suggest using an em-dash. 50.156.82.190 05:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so keen on having special in-situ explanations for specific romaji elements. I think there should be a general link to the page that explains the romaji system used by Wiktionary, which people can consult whatever questions they have, whether about sokuons or anything else. I added mention of the "t" and apostrophe renditions to the Wikipedia article; I don't recall ever seeing an em-dash used. However, now I look again, I find myself a little confused about what the Wikipedia article actually means. It says "In English writing, this is often rendered as an em dash". Does "English writing" mean romaji? Or is talking about capturing the "feel" of trailing sokuon in a translation? 109.147.185.246 03:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cappa

The etym for the Latin says: Late Latin. Perhaps the shortened form of capitulare (“headdress”), from Latin caput. Another theory derives it from Ancient Greek.

I'd like to see a little more on the Ancient Greek. What word? I'm hoping that whoever wrote this at least has a source for that which could shed more light on it. I did a fast search but came up empty. Anyone know anymore? AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

alternate Japanese readings for 月 / moon

I keep seeing people say that alternate readings for 月 (moon) is raito, arute, aporo, and mun. If they are real readings for 月 (moon), then are they on'yomi, kun'yomi, or nanori? — This unsigned comment was added by 50.156.82.190 (talk).

They are neither on'yomi or kun'yomi, more likely nanori (readings used only for names). These readings, such "raito" (I like Death Note too), "mun" (mūn) are prescribed readings by creators of novels, manga, anime, other authors, people who choose names for their children or themselves. An author may choose 一角獣 (いっかくじゅう, ikkakujū) "unicorn" to be pronounced as ユニコーン (yunikōn) and use furigana (ruby) in the text to tell readers how they want a word to be pronounced. It's an example (unicorn) I've seen myself. Here's how the prescribed pronunciation of a name would be shown, using Light Yagami, the main character of "Death Note" whose first name 月 "moon", normally pronounced "tsuki" is pronounced as "Raito", from English "light":

夜神月(やがみらいと)

Yagami Raito

Light Yagami

--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying but are these "rare" readings for moon (aporo, arute, mun, and raito), actually have been officially used by the Japanese public and with the case of raito, has that been used as a reading for moon before Death Note was first released 10-11 years ago? Because it seems like these reading for moon were created by Japanese authors of various media mediums solely for the purpose of naming their characters. 50.156.82.190 08:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I'm not aware of dictionaries that store all possible readings used in names, probably only very common ones and not sure if 月 had the reading "raito" before Death Note. There is certain unpredictability and randomness in this, as I said, it's not just authors who make up new readings but parents who name their children and give kanji fancy readings. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this http://gvfl.se/JapaneseAndGo/word_frequency_news_long.html which is the only online source I could find that has "raito", "aporo", "arute", and "mun"; be officially nanori readings of moon. It even lists "hikaru" typically Japanese for light as a reading for moon. Although the list is only a year old, I should ask the Japanese Stack Exchange for further help. Also, let me get this straight, if someone named their kid "六九六" and had it be read as Rokuro (ろくろ), it's possible for that to happen even though the closest reading of 六 is ろっ. 50.156.82.190 01:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with your last point, I already said, there's a lot of flexibility in pronouncing kanji when it comes to names. There must be a database of all possible pronunciations of names but I don't have interest in it, for these variations Japanese people usually have to supply kana anyway, so that people knew how to pronounce them. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the insight on how Japanese names can be written and pronounced, I really appreciate the help. 50.156.82.190 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clomp etymology

Our entry on clomp gives it an etymology of "onomatopoeia", but I have heard an alternate possibility. The Dutch word for clog is klomp, and this ended up in English for the stomping sound of boots. Is this true, or do both words have the same origin.--Dmol (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the etymology Leasnam (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be nice if we had an etymology for klomp. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

one's there now Leasnam (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Male madam?

The meanings of matron and patron being direct opposites doesn't help. I saw a Latvian papa that I'd never heard but tēzaurs supports both of those senses, alternative for one is papus (now that I had heard) with "male madam" being the sense its used in, so:

Krogus papa (paps, papus) – Pub (historical/rustic drinking establishment) padrone

could be it? Neitrāls vārds (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

חרס, adjective or noun?

Hi,

I noticed that this word is categorized as an adjective, but it's defined (by ceramic but also) by clay, which is a noun and not an adjective. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks by advance, — Automatik (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically that could be a valid definition if it were an adjective meaning "made of clay". But in this case, you are right. It is a noun. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aller

I suspect that I’m in the minority here, but I’m admittedly hesitant to accept this etymology. Consonant clusters can be vulnerable to extinction, so I’m not sure why a derivation from ambulare would be impossible. This etymology is also obscurer and much less common than the traditional explanation; CNRTL doesn’t mention the Gaulish verb.

Am I the only editor here who’s sceptical? --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consonant clusters can be simplified over time, but there's no other evidence that "-mb(u)l-" reduced to "-l(l)-" in French; in fact French does have a descendant of ambulare, namely ambler. I find the Celtic etymology more plausible. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ambler is attested later than aller. There aren’t many cases of ‐mbl‐ in Old French. Often times, it was an extension not inherited from Latin. There is at least one instance of a nasal consonant being lost (covent), and the plosive from computare (conter) was also lost. I can’t find any cases of ‐mbul‐ in Old French. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering parler < parabolare, I don't find aller < ambulare to be so unlikely. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial difference is that intervocalic -b- was much more likely to disappear than after a nasal. This change happened very early in Latin as all the Romance languages lost it. For French aller on the other hand, there is no evidence that it is such an early change. I agree with Angr that -mbul- would contract to -mbl-. In fact, even -mul- contracts to -mbl-, where the plosive is epenthetic: trembler. —CodeCa t 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't it very common for very common words to go through more unusual sound changes? --Wiki Tiki 89 18:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's just a cop-out linguistically speaking, as it doesn't really explain more. If you just say that anything goes under the right circumstances, then the sky really is the limit. —CodeCa t 19:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a cop-out unless you use it as a substitute for an explanation, which I'm not doing. You're saying "I don't understand how it could have happened, therefore it couldn't have happened" and I'm saying "I don't understand how it could have happened, but I'm still willing to believe it could have happened", thereby leaving room for an explanation to be found later. --Wiki Tiki 89 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is bullshit. What's the source?? Latin seems infinitely more likely. Ƿidsiþ 11:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, almost certainly from ambulare IMO. Big Dom 17:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at reorganizing the etymology to mention and reference (a) the traditional explanation and its problems, and the fact that people have attempted since at least the 17th century to account for them, and (b) the alternative explanation advanced since at least the 18th century that the word is of Celtic origin. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gun control

Noun sense 2 was previously listed as an adjective (!!): it all looks very dubious anyhow. Can someone revise it to be sane please? I can't face it. Equinox ◑ 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between pollen and pollinate

I've had some trouble remembering to spell the second vowel differently between these two words, and my confusion was temporarily complicated by the fact that the English pollinate isn't linked from the pollen article. I assume pollen is the root, and it makes sense that pollinate is defined in terms of pollen. That said, I have two points to make: should pollinate be listed at pollen#See also? Secondly, I would have found it helpful if the pollinate entry had an etymology (and so I suspect other readers may feel the same), however, writing one is beyond my ability. 209.222.58.151 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pollinate is already listed under pollen> 'Related terms'. I have added an etymology to pollinate. Leasnam (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history, it was just added. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Good. Leasnam (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

coast

I think we are missing the sense of "the coast is clear", no? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase is idiomatic (originating in SoP). Offhand I cannot think of where else coast is used this way (except maybe in the associated question: "Check the coasts...are they clear?). Why not the coast is clear ? Leasnam (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how far back we would have to go to find another use of "coast" in the same sense. Webster's 1828 referred to the "proverbial" coast is clear. I believe it might be a line from something by Dryden or Sidney. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 17th century Sidney and Dryden cites are at Citations:the coast is clear. I think the sense of coast was originally exactly one of ours. The metaphor was of the behavior of smaller sailing vessels that remained close to the coast so that they were close to relatively safe waters in the event of storms or perhaps hostile vessels. In any event the expression now seems to have its own meaning in the absence of any knowledge or the speaker or hearer of the nature of such sailing. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the coast is clear is a better entry name, as the 'the' is not optional. We do tend to remove articles from the start of entry names even when they can't be omitted. Drop in the ocean comes to mind (unless I suppose, drops in the ocean is attested with this sense). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. And also the variant: the coasts are clear. Leasnam (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no usage of the plural at COCA or BNC. More than 95% of use is with the. Was is almost as common as is. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it can be used in any tense. google books:"if the coast were clear", google books:"the coast being clear", google books:"the coast will be clear", google books:"the coast would have been clear", etc. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ঢাকা a verb?

Is the Bengali word ঢাকা (ḍhaka) also a verb meaning "to cover"? Or is it a common noun for a cover in general? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

squared

We have an adjectival sense. Cubed has no such sense. Is it really adjectival? I feel like it's more like a passive voice. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the math sense, I agree. But there is the colloquial intensifier, which still behaves like the passive voice, but doesn't really relate to the verb "to square", so I'm not sure whether to call it an adjective. --Wiki Tiki 89 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Tangential to the original topic:) I've seen informal use of "squared" to mean "doubled" when the referent is not a number: e.g. "Smith squared" = "two people named Smith". Some headlines which use the phrase "disaster squared" use this sense. Also "between the two of them they were trouble squared" (Robert H. Abel, Ghost Traps: Stories →ISBN, page 139). (It's possible this is what you mean by "the colloquial intensifier", but I interpreted that as a reference to use of "squared" to mean something like "multiplied", which I have also seen, though I'm not sure if it needs to be distinct from "doubled" or not.) - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I mean. I don't think it means the same thing as doubled, but just like the mathematical sense, it means there are two contributing factors. --Wiki Tiki 89 22:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

burned vs.burnt

Tharthan (talk • contribs) removed a reference to burnt being "chiefly British" with the edit comment:

Reverted blatant lies. Even the entry for "burn" recognises that "burnt" is used in the United States as well.

The New Oxford American Dictionary app on my computer, on the other hand, has:

verb ( past and past part. burned |bərnd| or chiefly Brit. burnt |bərnt|)

It seems to me that the reality is a more complex combination of the two. For me (California native), burned sounds right for the past tense and the past participle, but burnt sounds better for the adjective, as in:

As the tires burned, the smell of burnt rubber became overpowering

and:

Over a thousand acres have been burned, so far.

Still, I can hear myself using both forms in some cases, and regional variation wouldn't surprise me at all, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For me (south-east England, but perhaps atypically Americanised through time spent on the Internet), it's nearly always "burnt" for the adjective (e.g. "a slice of burned toast" sounds quite silly) and variable for the verb. All I can think of is that generally food gets burnt while other things get burned. I would probably say "he burnt the toast" but "I burned the evidence"; "has someone burnt those cakes?" but "I thought you burned those papers". For the particularly modern sense of laser-writing a CD or DVD, I would never use "burnt", not even adjectivally. Equinox ◑ 03:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript, after discussing this briefly with someone else: "burned" seems to suggest more of the process than the result, almost analogously to "it was burning" vs. "it (had) burned". Equinox ◑ 03:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. Even more. Perhaps if you "burnt" something, you just charred part of it, whereas if you "burned" it, you destroyed/consumed it entirely. This also explains my choices above regarding the toast versus the papers. Because: "he burnt the edge of that paper", not "burned". Equinox ◑ 03:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just sitting down to express something similar to the process-result distinction.

This may account for my sense that some of the more figurative senses of burn, which may also be more process-focused than result-focused. Specifically: "To betray." The informant burned him.; "(computing) To write data to a permanent storage medium like a compact disc or a ROM chip." We’ll burn this program onto an EEPROM one hour before the demo begins.; "To waste (time)." We have an hour to burn.; "To insult or defeat." I just burned you again.

For me, the past participle is the only form that would be burnt and only for the more literal senses. I don't know about the card game and photography senses. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Equinox, except I think the situation is the same for both the verb and the adjective. I burned the log, but I burnt my finger and my food. --Wiki Tiki 89 13:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an aspectual difference in the use of burned vs burnt it should be seen in higher relative frequency of the use of burnt in pluperfect tense with had. I have found some support for this at COCA:

(have been) burnt: 2, burned: 118, ratio: 59:1

(has been) burnt: 2, burned: 52, ratio: 26:1

{had been) burnt: 14, burned: 173, ratio: 12:1

Unfortunately for the hypothesis, BNC evidence does not follow this pattern. It does show much higher use of burnt, nearly as frequent as of burned.

That means that one would have to examine closely the semantics of use to possibly find support for the hypothesis. Perhaps examining examples of the use of burnt and burned with aspect markers such as up, down, and out would generate support. But it shows only modest increase in the relative frequency of burnt over burned (8:1) at COCA, so only some users seem to follow this pattern. BNC results show a similar modest increase. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at ngram data, I see that in American English (AmE), "burned the house" has predominated over "burnt the house" since the 1870s, whereas in British English (BrE), "burnt the house" held on until the 1970s. Likewise, in AmE, "house burned down" overtook "house burnt down" in the 1870s, while only in the 1970s did the same thing happen in BrE. And in AmE, "burned up" has outpaced "burnt up" since 1865, while in BrE, "burnt up" held on until 1975 and is even now only slightly less common. Similarly, in AmE, "burned my hand" has been more common than "burnt my hand" since circa 1870‒1900 (ditto "finger"), while in BrE, "burned my hand" only (barely) beat out "burnt my hand" in the 1970s (ditto "finger").

In AmE, "vandals burned the" is more common than "vandals burnt the"; in BrE, neither phrase is common enough to be plotted.

In AmE, "burned the toast" is ~2‒3 times more common than "burnt the toast"; in BrE, "burnt the toast" is slightly more common.

tl;dr summary: "burned", previously less common, became more common than "burnt" in AmE (in the whole range of phrases cited above) circa 1860, while in BrE that change only happened circa 1975.

- -sche (discuss) 17:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the Oxford A-Z of English Usage, Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, a New Zealand English Grammar and the Columbia Guide to Standard American English have to say. - -sche

Jeremy Butterfield's 2013 Oxford A-Z of English Usage says "Both burned and burnt are used for the past tense and past participle of burn and are equally correct. Burned is much more common for the past tense, [...]. As a past participle, burned and burnt are equally common in British English, [...] but burned is found elsewhere. [...] as an adjective, however, burnt is somewhat commoner in all varieties of English."
The 2008 Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage says the "two forms for the past tense and past participle of burn are largely interchangeable, but burned is more common as the active past (She burned her hand on the kettle - She has burned her hand); in the passive, burnt is more adjectival (emphasizing the result), and burned more verbal (emphasizing the action): The cottage was burnt down last week - The cottage was burned down by vandals.
Marianne Hundt's 1998 New Zealand English Grammar, Fact Or Fiction?: A Corpus-based Study says that, in New Zealand, "burnt - but not learnt - is used more often as a past participle[, something which] cannot simply be attributed to the fact that the past participle burnt functions as an adjective (burnt wood)[. ...] the verbal use of burnt, too, is quite frequent in both NZE and BrE: [...] on the whole, the regular form [burned] is used less frequently as an adjective in the NZE and BrE data (21 of 64 adjectives and 15 of 59 adjectives, respectively). In other words, the relative likelihood of burnt being used as an adjective is higher than for burned. In AmE, on the other hand, burned is used more frequently as an adjective than irregular burnt."
Kenneth Wilson's 2013 Columbia Guide to Standard American English says "Burned is much more common in both transitive and intransitive use in American English: We burned the rubbish. The last bridge had burned. British English uses burnt more frequently, especially in intransitive use. The participial adjectives in the United States are both burned and burnt. Both burned and burnt are used in compounds too, and all these uses are Standard. Compare CREEP."
Several books simply labelled "burned" American and "burnt" British without going into detail; I have not bothered quoting these. - -sche (discuss) 17:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longman's DCE (1987) says that burned is "usually only" used in BrE when the verb is intransitive. DCDuring TALK 18:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Burned" in the sense of "destroyed" (i.e. "The objects were photographed for archival purposes, but then immediately burned") I could see myself using, as well as in the modern "burn to a CD" sense mentioned by Equinox, and (mayhap) in the colloquial sense "to humiliate" (i.e. "He got burned.") Otherwise, I pretty much always use "burnt". Then again, my regional dialect tends to lean closer to that of English in the United Kingdom anyways, so I suppose that this should come as no surprise. Tharthan (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]