Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/August

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

Meaning of 'docket' in administrative agencies of the executive branch

The Wiktionary entry 'docket' explains meaning of 'docket' in law, more precisely as used by courts in the judicial branch. This is covered even by the Wikipedia article w:Docket_(court). However, it appears that the meaning of 'docket' in administrative agencies (e.g. NTSB or FAA) of the executive branch is different. This meaning is not covered by the Wiktionary entry, nor by the Wikipedia article(s). I raised the issue in the Wikipedia talk page w:Talk:Docket_(court) but was advised that the Wikipedia article is only about 'docket' as used by courts in the judicial branch and was also told that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So, I'm here! :) Please, read the replies in w:Talk:Docket_(court) discussion, it gives a good insight into the issue, a lot better than I could ever provide myself. I'm not a native English speaker, let alone familiar with US law concepts, I cannot resolve the issue myself. --Sivullinen (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Voseo present subjunctive for e→ie

The English and Spanish Wiktionary seem to have a different idea on how to conjugate e→ie verbs for vos in the present subjunctive. For example, this and this (created according to template). Which standard should be used? Codeofdusk (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody knows here, I would try asking on the Spanish wiktionary (on whatever page is equivalent to this one). 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I always learned that voseo terms were NEVER EVER irregular, apart from sos and andá. --A230rjfowe (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell & Tally cognates?

According to the page for English tell, it lists English tally as a cognate. However, their etymologies seem inconsistent with them being cognates.

Namely, Latin dolus (“guile, deceit, fraud”) is given in the etymology of tale, compared to Latin talea (“a cutting, rod, stick”) listed in the etymology of tally.

Is it a coincidence that tell and tally sound similar?

Tally shouldn't be listed as a cognate IMHO. A tally-mark is a notch made on a tally (--a stick used to keep count by marking it with notches), so the similarity is purely coincidental. To keep tally is to observe/handle the marking of the stick, i.e. to keep count... Leasnam (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‘àla’ – alternative form or misspelling?

Hi, does anyone know whether ‘àla’ is considered an alternative form or misspelling of ‘à la’? P.s.: ‘ala’ is considered an alternative form according to its entry. —James Haigh (talk) 2015-08-04T21:07:50Z

I personally object to labelling things "misspellings". Misspellings always imply a particular standard of judgement, such as an official spelling. But not everyone always follows such standards, and it's not up to us to decide whether they are right or wrong in doing so. So I think "alternative form" is more appropriate. —CodeCa t 21:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy. If the author would agree that something is a misspelling if it were pointed out to him, then it is a misspelling. --Wiki Tiki 89 22:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just peer pressure? —CodeCa t 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no pressure, merely asking yes or no. It's like typos: if I type "the wmoen" for "the women" and it's raised, I'll agree yes it was an error. If "the" is raised, I'll stand firm: that's how to spell "the". Equinox ◑ 22:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But with something like àla vs à la it's much less clear. Some people would disagree with àla, while for others it's the normal way of writing it. However, most people who are not confident with their spelling will change it whenever someone else tells them they're spelling it wrong, regardless of whether a majority actually does spell it differently. That's what I mean by peer pressure. It's a question of "not knowing any better" and who gets to decide what better is. —CodeCa t 23:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like "Are you sure you spelled this word right?" Then they go check their own favorite sources or whatever and tell you. You're not pressuring them into anything. --Wiki Tiki 89 23:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4tw

Looking around on Google Groups for citations of the "for the win" sense, I also find a lot of uses of 4TW in sexual contexts, sometimes by itself ("Shemale Kimber Will Show You A Good Time 4TW"), sometimes extended ("Tiana- Real Catholic School Teen Slut q'`4Tw", "Jackie- Twisted Taboo is her Specialty JU'4TW", "Sloan- Playful Slut Can be Your Mommy 4Tw;YU", "Libby- Domination Temptress Bitch +4tw[F"). Any idea what it means? - -sche (discuss) 23:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some Usenet posters would append alphanumeric gibberish to their subject lines, to get around any killfiles that had blocked the message by subject previously. I think that's all you're seeing; it doesn't appear in the message bodies. Equinox ◑ 23:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that's probably it. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we should add this sense: # Phrase used on Usenet to get around killfiles. You know I'm kidding. --Wiki Tiki 89 00:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TW can also mean transwoman (that's a sense we should probably have) which might explain the first one and might be citeable in the same way that m4w, m4m would be (another type of entry we should have?). As Equinox says, the rest are probably random strings - I tried a few other random three-character strings ("p7z", "2L4") and got similar results. There's just so much spam on Usenet that any of the 46,656 random three character strings gets dozens of hits. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tuvu

One of the examples in this Latvian term, skatīties tuvu, means something like "to look at nearby things", "to look at something near", indicating that attention is concentrated within a field of vision with rather small radius (hence the use of tuvu "near"). I wasn't sure about how to translate this into English: "to look near" sounds bad to me, and "to have a close look" seems to mean (I think...) something slightly different. Perhaps one of the resident native speakers of English could give me a hand? @Neitrāls vārds:, maybe you can help? --Pereru (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an en-N speaker, but how about "to look in the immediate vicinity." It also seems that one can "un-idiomaticize" the en words by tacking on -by ~ to look close by, to look nearby (kind of like it is right now.) Also, at least when a perfective prefix is added, it mirrors the en idiomatic sense – apskatīt tuvu ~ examine closely, look closely. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someday I'll need to find a good explanation for the use of those perfective markers in Latvian, @Neitrāls vārds:. Maybe there is a good description somewhere that you know? They certainly aren't used the way the Russian perfective prefixes are, i.e. almost as part of a grammatical paradigm. They're more like English aspectual markers (the 'up' in 'to drink up' or 'to eat up', for example), right? And they also add non-aspectual information, so that apskatīties' still has a little of "around" to its ap- -- or doesn't it? I'm really far from understanding these things well... --Pereru (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be similar to the Slavic system, the only "real" difference are the split forms that were copied from Finnics (piesiet : siet klāt, aizsiet : siet ciet) where the split form allows "de-perfectivizing", at the same time communicating the spatial information (there's a bit of discussion on this by Marta Rudzīte in here), whether or not you can make the split form is my private test to determine whether a pref. is purely perfective or spatial/qualitative as well. This probably allowed lv to avoid creating a "frequentative tense" as Lithuanian did (which somewhat resembles the Russian imperfectives, e.g., privjazyvat')

Curiously, while the split forms are imperfective in lv, words like ära in et (jarā in liv) "away" are called something like perfectivity adverbs (perfektiivsusadverb), this is conjecture, but they may be viewed as some type of an intensifier maybe, because Finnics already mark perfectivity on the object.

Back to apskatīt, in my test I cannot make a split form from it *skatīt apkārt doesn't really work) which would suggest it being a "plain perfectivization". The English constructs are similar in some ways, but then the best transl. for "drink up!" would be dzer ārā! (or maybe dzer laukā!) Which raises the question of their true nature, because the concept of "drink up!" is very perfective...? Neitrāls vārds (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought "to look around", which suggests you aren't moving your own body, but are studying everything in your vicinity. Equinox ◑ 23:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I'll settle for a combination of your suggestions, like "to look around nearby" -- would you agree this is OK in English? --Pereru (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danish verbs ending in -ere; pronunciation?

There are a number of Danish verbs ending in -ere; a few of them are fingere, præsentere, introducere, fundere and citere. Wiktionary semi-consistently indicates that the penultimate syllable is long, which seems wrong to me. Stødt and stressed, yes, but not elongated. Am I mistaken?
Also, would it make sense to create a category of these words? Perhaps a subcategory of Category:Danish terms derived from Latin?__Gamren (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Der var fejl på introducere samt citere. Jeg har rettet dem nu. De to andre transskriptioner er korrekte - [ɐ] er et udtryk for /rə/, og så står man tilbage med en vokal (der indgår i stavelseskernen) med stød: Denne vokal er dermed lang. Der er en længere forklaring bagved (samt visse særsituationer). Note hertil: DDO har lavet en simplificering mht. vokallængde og stød (f.eks. [1]), den korrekte repræsentation i IPA er [ˈɡ̊ʁoːˀ]. Vedr. kategori, du tænkte vel ikke på Category:Danish words suffixed with -ere? Den fremkaldes i etymologisektionen af koden {{suffix|[ORDETS ROD]|ere}}, du kan følge duellere som eksempel. Vh. --ContraVentum (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hvis du siger det, er det nok korrekt, selv om jeg ikke selv kan høre nogen forskel i længde på de tre stavelser i citere. Kan du anbefale nogen "længere forklaring"?__Gamren (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eventuelt w:Stød for en overordnet beskrivelse. En lille bemærkning - i artiklen benyttes alligevel den forkerte notation somme tider. --ContraVentum (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

marshmallowlike

This word seems to be almost always spelt as marshmallow-like. Is there a reason? My Pocket Oxford Dictionary states that -like should be considered as appendable to all nouns (all such words virtually exist in English), but doesn't discuss the spelling issue. Lmaltier (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The longer a noun is, the less likely (somehow) it is that you can add -like without a hyphen. I can see some unhyphenated uses in Google Books, but they might be rare. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not just how long the noun is, but how natural vs nonce-like the noun is, with concessions in favour of hyphenating even natural, non-nonce-y constructions if they would otherwise be unclear. For example, "an L-like shape" (plenty of things are L-like, but "Llike" would be unclear), "a marshmallow-like pillow" (it's not common to talk about things being similar to marshmallows). Longer "(-)like" terms tend to be nonce-y. Our entries tend to avoid hyphens, but that is often not representative of usage; for example, "asparagus-like" is more common than what we have an entry for, "asparaguslike" (I will move the entry now). - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight. It could be compared to italics: when a word is not found in dictionaries, it's more likely to be italicized. Here, it's more likely to be written with a hyphen. Lmaltier (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request pronunciation

Can we get a pronunciation guide for Blunger?https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blunger Westley Turner (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

apartmentmate

Is this really nonstandard? If so, why? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It feels nonstandard or at least weird (nonce-y?) to me. In my experience, the standard term in British English is "flatmate", which dwarfs it by a couple orders of magnitude in Ngrams, and the standard term in American English is "roommate", which dwarfs both "flatmate" and "apartmentmate". Even on the raw web it gets only a couple thousand hits, compared to the 700 million which "apartment" gets, and a lot of the Google Image search results for the singular and plural are Asians (possibly non-native speakers). Changing the label to "rare" and adding a usage note that "the usual term is..." (we apparently have many such notes already) might also work, though. - -sche (discuss) 04:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard or seen this word. Terms I've used myself are roommate and suitemate. Terms I've heard but not used (or not used very much) are roomie, housemate, living mate, flatmate, and bedmate. In my experience, roommate is used both for people who share a bedroom or for those who share an apartment but not a bedroom, while suitemate is used to emphasize the fact that these people do not share a bedroom. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a word I'd ever use. My usage and what I hear is along the same lines as what Wikitiki89 relates. I like -sche's Usage note wording. It might be worth a template. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To move things along I've made changes to the entry that might be sufficient, but the Usage notes approach might be better. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Rare" is definitely a better tag than "nonstandard". I may have used this term once or twice myself as an American "back-translation" of flatmate to emphasize that he and I had separate bedrooms, but usually I would say roommate (or flatmate when conversing with British/Irish friends). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with rare is that it is not obvious when the term means absolutely rare, like hapax legomena, or relatively rare, as in this case. Sadly, merely adding relatively to the label/context, requires that users understand that we would mean relative to synonyms or alternative forms. Which of the two needs to be clear and the forms and synonyms need to, at least, be present in the entry, which they often are not. A usage note seems essential. Perhaps one could be templatized (and use subst:?) to speed the creation of such notes.

Also, when this problem arises in polysemic entries, a usage note is often not clearly connected with a specific sense and may not even be noticed by a user. For such case we could use {{lb}} or {{cx}} (possibly with anchor) to direct users to the Usage notes or a specific appropriate usage note. DCDuring TALK 12:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pathologic

Should the translations be moved to pathological? The only problem I can foresee is splitting into the various translation headings under pathological. Donnanz (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Sense 2, the second medical sense at pathological seems clearly to be a synonym of pathologic, but the other senses don't seem so to me. I don't know whether pathologic or pathological is is more common in that use. I also wonder whether there is a US/RoW, NA/RoW, or other difference in alternation in different varieties of English. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either way. Pathologic is not used in British English, only pathological, and the entry is now suitably labelled to reflect this. Donnanz (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that now it says pathologic is American English, but actually it isn't used in American English either. It should probably be labeled "rare" or "obsolete" or something else to show that it isn't really used (much). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; I think it was BrE (and perhaps AmE too) but is simply dated. Equinox ◑ 10:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I may have started something - I was referring to this [2] and this [3]. Donnanz (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Google Books search (with preview) shows abundant 21st Century use. The usage context may be (medicine) or similar. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gheg Albanian categories

We currently have two categores for Gheg:

Category:Gheg Albanian, which is populated by tagging certain senses of sq entries with {{label|sq|Gheg}}
Category:Gheg Albanian language, which is populated by aln entries.

Is that really a good idea? Is there a difference between the Gheg Albanian language and the Gheg dialect of Albanian? Or should the {{label|sq|Gheg}} senses be broken out and made into separate aln entries? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous (long, inconclusive) discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2011/October#Gheg_Albanian. - -sche (discuss) 04:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ß

Don't you guys think that a definition this long like this should belong in an encyclopedia? I don't know if I'm just being too critical, but I had to notice this. It seems way too explanatory for a dictionary IMO. Should we shorten it? NativeCat ^{drop by and say Hi!} 04:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of the few cases where Wiktionary should approach encyclopedic levels of explanation (since it's directly about language use) but it's absolutely incorrect to have that information in the definition. I've moved it to the usage notes and added examples to make it a bit clearer. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the distinction "encyclopaedia vs. dictionary" is one of length. There are encyclopaedias with an average entry length of just some lines, and there are dictionaries with an average entry length of several pages. The question is what kind of a dictionary wiktionary should be, and it seems common opinion that it should strive towards shortness. Well. I just think that the notes of ß are quite short, actually. Kolmiel (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the word OMNIS

The alternative m/f plural form (omnis, Kennedy 73) is not given. Sorry I can't edit it, but it looks too hard, and maybe other -is adjs are affected.

All adjectives using {{la-decl-3rd-2E}} are affected by this: the older masculine/feminine nominative/accusative plural ending -īs is not given. I'm not sure if all two-ending third-declension adjectives are attested with the -īs form though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be only the accusative plural. The nominative plural was -ēs already in Proto-Italic. —CodeCa t 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I'd like to have an article written about me. Is it ever appropriate to ask someone else to do this here?

No, we don't do biographies. See WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:la-decl-3rd-N-I

Is -um really an acceptable alternative for -ium for non-pure neuter i-stems in the genitive plural? My Latin professor didn't say anything about it, and if it isn't found in Classical Latin, it should be marked accordingly. Esszet (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of heterochroma iridium

Wikipedia's page is at "-chromia" and not "-chroma". Is this a mistake at Wiktionary? —suzukaze (t・c) 02:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is an old error; someone pointed out the same thing on the talk page ten years ago, but no one followed up. Yes, judging from the total absence of Google Books and Scholar hits for "-chroma" via the many hits for "-chromia", I'll move the page. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

high-rise

Would anyone agree that it's an adjective too? [4]. Donnanz (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Very high-rise neighborhood/pants"? "this one is more high-rise than that one"? "that building/those pants is/are high-rise"? Even if found in such usage, IMO it isn't dictionary-worthy, but it would be includable under current CFI. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "high-rise apartment block" seems OK to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly OK as usage, but it falls short of being evidence of true adjectivity. After virtually any noun can be used attributively. Similarly with noun phrases. Is the sentence "I lived for a time in a red-brick house." evidence that red-brick is an adjective? DCDuring TALK 19:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the adjectival "high-rise block", etc. precede the noun "high-rise"? Equinox ◑ 19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several hits where if it was only a noun, "were high-rises" would be expected instead of "was high-rise":

1997, Eleanor Smith Morris, British Town Planning and Urban Design: Principles and Policies, Addison-Wesley Longman
It is difficult to remember that families were thrilled to move out of their damp, 'unfit for habitation' houses in London's East End into new housing, no matter that it was high-rise.
2004, Richard Turkington, Ronald van Kempen, F. Wassenberg, High-rise Housing in Europe: Current Trends and Future Prospects →ISBN
Between 1962 and 1965, 14% of new housing was high-rise, of which two-thirds was 5-6 storey [...]
2006, Barbara Miller Lane, Housing and Dwelling: Perspectives on Modern Domestic Architecture, Routledge →ISBN, page 365
During the 1950s and 1960s most conventional public housing built in large cities was high-rise.

And some comparatives/intensifiers:

2007, Ultra high performance concrete: (UHPC) ; 10 years of research and development at the University of Kassel, kassel university press GmbH →ISBN, page 193
In addition coarse grained UHPC with artificial or natural high strength aggregates were developed e.g. for highly loaded columns and for extremely high-rise buildings (Schmidt et al. 2003).
2008, Stephen Graham, Cities, War, and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics, John Wiley & Sons →ISBN, page 271
That pattern, preexisting the attack on this particular citadel, will be strongly accentuated, but in less high-rise, less representative, less ''signature'' fashion, and more heavily barricaded and secured even than before.
2013, Max Steuer, The Scientific Study of Society, Springer Science & Business Media →ISBN, page 299
The latter is more high rise, and reads much like a troubled English estate.
2014 March/April, Alexander Bakhlanov, quoted in "Pollution has more than one solution", ITS Magazine
Take two theoretical megacities with roughly the same number of inhabitants where one is very high rise and compact while the other is relatively low rise and spread over a much wider area.

Adjectival use seems to begin in the late 1950s (according to Google Books) - the earliest noun use I can find is in a 1962 issue of LIFE (where it's used attributively, but then glossed as a noun). — This unsigned comment was added by Smurrayinchester (talk • contribs) at 06:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The unsigned research above is quite impressive, who wrote it? Donnanz (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

monophylly

This word (with two "l"s) (the condition of being monophyllous) doesn't seem to exist. With a single "l" it has a different meaning. I am trying to translate the French noun monophyllie without success. Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy solution: monophylly actually does exist, is easily citeable, and I've therefore created it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder why I couldn't see it. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kaka

Cookie (used here for Swedish and Icelandic) is not a really helpful translation for anything, since it means different things on different sides of the pond. What does it mean exactly for these languages?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a Wikipedia link to the Swedish entry. In a photo what looks like a cookie is described as en småkaka. Donnanz (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

value

It seems we are missing a big sense here: the one in He did not share his parents' values.. Unless this falls under one of the senses we already have in some way that I don't see. --Wiki Tiki 89 11:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're right. The verb senses have something similar (as a verb), but not the noun. Leasnam (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at it Leasnam (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sklep

The translation says "cellar (enclosed underground space)" and the relevant definition at cellar "An enclosed underground space, often under a building; used for storage or shelter." Now in Czech blocks of flats, especially of the concrete panel type, to each flat usually belongs a storage space also called a "sklep", even when it is (which is quite often) on the ground floor, rather than underground. (They commonly look like this.) Would you call these "cellar" in English too? I ask because I don't know whether the English or the Czech headword are imprecise. --Droigheann (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a cellar has to be at least partly underground. Perhaps "storage space (such as a cellar or closet)" is a better translation? - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I put a usage note to sklep. --Droigheann (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Man

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/your_man

Is this definition for the Hiberno-English term 'your man/woman' sufficient?

I'm only second generation Irish but I feel this expression covers something lacking in Standard English.

It's not a simple case of he/him, she/her. I feel like it's a bit like the 'distant' pronoun in Korean's three-way distinction. Someone far from both the speaker and the listener; often someone they haven't met. The best example would be a celebrity or a politician.

As I say, I'm second generation so this is the gist I get from my cousins and other relatives. Maybe someone who lives in Ireland could verify this?

86.190.220.174 01:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have connected this with the informal English use of "your friend/pal/man/guy/gal/girlfriend" in referring to someone who is substantively or conversationally associated with the hearer. Sometimes the point is to imply a relationship of substance when there isn't one or the relationship is distant: "Your gal Clinton seems to be having some email problems." If the Irish use is different, it would seem worth recording, though the citations don't make the distinctive sense unambiguously clear. DCDuring TALK 05:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Irish use (which I've heard but don't use myself) is quite different. There's no suggestion that the listener has any relationship with the person being referred to at all. I was once on top of a cliff in County Donegal with a local, and we were looking down at the beach where there was someone walking. The fellow next to me said, "Look at your man down there [doing something remarkable]". Or an Irish friend of mine was telling a story of one time when she was in a pub, and she said "...and your man behind the bar said...", when I wasn't even present at the time. It really just means "that guy/the guy". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - An interdialect false friend, then. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't say it's a different enough meaning to call it a false friend. --WikiTiki89 13:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - A misleading friend then. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Would it have misled you in those situations? --Wiki Tiki 89 14:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. I wouldn't have even noticed it otherwise. In my idiolect, it only occurs in partisan political banter, in which there is an element of guilt by association that the usage invokes, as "Your gal Clinton seems to be having some email problems.". I would read/hear any usage as parallel to that, especially with regards to the "guilt by association". DCDuring TALK 16:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The first time I heard it I did think, "Why is he my man? What does he have to do with me?" but after hearing it a few times I realized it was just a figure of speech that meant "that guy". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the citations of messages touches on this:

A South African woman, just married to an Irishman and newly arrived in this country, was shocked when her husband told her, "I just saw yer man in the shop when I was getting the messages (groceries)." "My what?" "Yer man. […]" "I swear to you, Michael," she said tearfully, "I haven't been unfaithful."

Incidentally, that book also mentions an Irish sense of inside:

"Inside" is a room you're not in at the time. If you are in the kitchen, "inside" is the sitting room (living room). If you are in the sitting room, "inside" is the kitchen.

- -sche (discuss) 17:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary

I think Wiktionary has been genericized into wiktionary based on my reading of usage included in the (new) entry. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of those quotes look like they are referring to a wiktionary as one language Wiktionary (e.g. en.wikt; definition 3 of Wiktionary#Proper_noun). Can't tell if all are doing that though. Pengo (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they are not all doing that, and the one that clearly is (definition 2 of wiktionary#Noun) has genericized from definition 3 of Wiktionary#Proper_noun. Riverstogo (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple POS sections vs. multiple headwords

Many words can be of the same POS in different ways, ex. ultrahard can be countable and uncountable. Some of such articles have multiple POS headers, like ultrahard, and some others only have multiple headwords. Should there be multiple POS headers (like two Adjective headers in this case) ? I think multiple headword template should suffice. Yurivict (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our current policy is to have multiple POS sections (of the same POS). --Wiki Tiki 89 21:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? I don't think so. Certainly for nouns that are countable in some senses and uncountable in others, our policy is to have only one POS header, with ~ on the headword line ({{en-noun|~}}) and the senses labelled "countable" and "uncountable". Only in cases where where e.g. foobarem is both the dative singular of foobaro and the accusative plural of foobare have I seen multiple headers (in Latvian adjective entries in particular), and that's because we're dealing with two different lemmas' inflected forms. In the case of ultrahard, it seems we need to modify {{en-adj}} to take ~. - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I meant is that our policy is to have two POS sections rather than two headword lines in one POS section. If you can fit in in one headword line, that doesn't apply. --Wiki Tiki 89 02:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, true. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sofees

This is labelled as an archaic form of two different words, which is a lemma-level definition (archaic form = archaic lemma). But the entry is also categorised as a noun plural form. If so, then what is it the singular of? That should be the definition, and the current definitions should be moved to the singular entry. —CodeCa t 21:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that both senses are just the plural of the archaic/obsolete Sofee, which may or may not be attestable. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

en-verb template doesn't do a good job validating input, and isn't well documented

When I change the template for the word 'abide' to {{en-verb|aaa|bbb|ing}}, the verbal forms it produces are abides, aaabbbing, aaabbbed. Where does the concatenation aaabbb come from? Documentation doesn't mention that arguments #1 and #2 are ever combined. It shouldn't even allow ing or es or s as the last argument after two forms were defined, because allowing them has no meaning, and is pretty much invalid.

Additionally, documentation is vague to possibly wrong at some places, for example {{en-verb|t|y|ing}} (changed the -ie to -y) - what does this mean? What is t, why would this mean that ie is affected?

Also, placing another en-verb in the same section just appends another inflection description. Code should prevent duplicates.

Could somebody please verify and fix the code and documentation? Should I file WikiMedia bugs for such things? Yurivict (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia bugs are not for locally created templates, JS, CSS, or modules.

The examples are what I find helpful. With respect to the use of {{en-verb}} for headword tie#Verb, the t is the unchanging part of the written forms, the y only being applied to the ing-form. So for retie the inflection line is {{en-verb|ret|y|ing}}. The template (actually the underlying module it invokes) uses the headword to construct the other forms by addition of s or d.

Validating input is not normal practice here, however desirable it might be. We are forced to be happy with semi-intelligible error messages if an error is discovered. It is considered better to have conspicuous failure that virtually forces the contributor to correct an omitted or out-of-order parameter, but not usually other faulty input. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{en-verb|t|y|ing}} in tie#Verb is a very fuzzy use with an overly-complex template logic. Should just type them explicitly in such non-standard cases. It appears that |t| can only be used with verbs beginning with 't', otherwise forms that come back are wrong. Yurivict (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a typing shortcut, for Christ's sake. DCDuring TALK 03:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What verbs is that syntax returning the wrong forms for? If, as a test, I put {{en-verb|r|y|ing}} on rie, it displays the forms I'd expect (at least in "preview"). - -sche (discuss) 06:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

man child

Sense 3, this looks like an adjective Leasnam (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chiaux

I don't know what to make of this. There's citations, but no definition. —CodeCa t 16:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"un chiaux" shows that the expected singular is attested, so I've added it. But in the past, we've declined to include alternative letter-case forms of words where the case difference doesn't have semantic significance and isn't maintained in the modern era (e.g. we don't have Rights even though a lot of older documents capitalize rights in that way), so I'm tempted to RFD this. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

freedom of speech

Someone has asked for etymology, but I don't think it's really necessary; can't you just click on freedom and speech? Or is there more behind the request? Donnanz (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They might want to know first/early uses of the phrases and the meaning at the time(s), especially in some historically important documents. It would be easy to get too encyclopedic in such an effort. Scholar pore over the words of Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, constitutions, declarations on human rights etc. and write books on original meaning etc. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice User:-sche has crept in and added some. Cheers. Donnanz (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figure the requester must have wanted to know when the phrase originated. The answer seems to be 'a long time ago, in a language far far away'. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do, did, d'

From the pron section of do: "(UK, some speakers, used only when 'do' is unstressed and the next word starts with /j/) IPA(key): /d͡ʒ/". This isn't limited to the UK; US speakers also do this. What about Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ? Is it just a general phenomenon? Examples: jew wanna = do you want to, jeet = did you eat. The latter highlights that did is also reduced in this way. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The assimilation of /dj/ to /dʒ/ across word boundaries is completely normal and predictable, so I would say that the real change here is reducing /duːj/ to /dj/. There's several intermediate stages too, such as [dɨj] or [dɨː]. —CodeCa t 19:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my idiolect, "do you" is never reduced to /dj-/. The only reduction that happens is "do" is completely dropped: "do you want to" > "you wanna" (/juːˈwɒ̃.nuː/ or /jəˈwɒ̃.nə/) and "where do you want to go" > "where you wanna go". However, with "did you", the "did" is never dropped ~~and is never reduced to [dj-] either~~. Whenever it is reduced, it is always to /dʒ(j)-/: "did you eat" > "d'you eat" (/dʒ(j)uːˈwiːʔ/) and "where did you want go" > "where'd you wanna go" (/ˈweɹdʒ(j)ə-/ or /ˈweɹdʒ(j)uː-/). --Wiki Tiki 89 20:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second though, that's not true, "where'd you wanna go" can still sometimes be pronounced with /-dj-/ rather than /-dʒ(j)-/, but then it can easily be confused with "where do you wanna go". --Wiki Tiki 89 20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my speech it sounds OK to say "jew wanna eat?" (do you want to eat?) but "where jew wanna go" is not possible (except with the meaning "where did you want to go?"). Benwing2 (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify real (currency)

There are two Noun sections there, one says that this is the older currency with plurals reis/réis/reals, and another one is for modern Brazilian currency with plurals reais/reals. Are plurals really supposed to be different when the base form is the same in English? Articles linked to reis/réis don't correspond to currency at all. Could someone with the knowledge of this subject correct? Yurivict (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

make it rain: should we re-create it?

I noticed that this article has been deleted in 2010 with the reason: fatuous entry. I would like to say that while that act indeed can be considered fatuous (for ex. I myself would never do it), this term is certainly familiar to the vast categories of people: students, comedy club goers, strip club goers, among others. Wiktionary (alike wikipedia) isn't in a position of making judgements on the subject matters (no-POV policy). It only should make determinations on the validity of particular words or idioms, and their familiarity to the speakers. And this is certainly an identifiable idiom. Hence, I propose to re-create this entry. Opinions? Yurivict (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted content was: "To click your heels together and be on stage 4.-Mike C. To toss money generously at stage 4.-Alex F." Equinox ◑ 21:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with make it rain "to bring work or prosperity to an enterprise, as by selling of inventing." which looks like it is attestable. It is probably a backformation from rainmaker, but that is from a agricultural metaphorical sense of make + it + rain.

There seems to be a contemporary AAVE sense which is something like "to cause a substantial amount of paper money to fall on a crowd or audience".

The AAVE sense also has some association with the idea of achieving sufficient financial success to afford such an extravagance. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant these two: 1. "to bring prosperity to enterprise" 2. "to throw bills around" I first assumed it was declared fatuous because of the second meaning. Yurivict (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes entries for includable terms are so bad that we should start over. This looks to me like one of those cases. I would not undelete the fatuous entry. A new entry should have attestation, especially as no OneLook reference has an entry for make it rain, though many have the "bring prosperity" sense in their entries for rainmaker. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing to un-delete an entry. I am proposing to re-write it in a good way. It obviously has valid meanings. Also googling images for it brings whole lot of pictures corresponding to meaning#2. Google image results for make it rain. Yurivict (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be reading too much into the deletion. Note that the entry was not formatted (no Language, no PoS, no inflection line) and had only the two silly definitions.

There has never been anything preventing you from replacing it with good content. If it were to turn out bad, but in good faith, it might be RfDed, RfVed, RfCed, or rewritten, because this is a wiki. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think our first definition is overly specific. It should just be "to make a lot of money" or something like that. And it should probably come after the (slightly more) literal sense of throwing paper money in the air. --Wiki Tiki 89 01:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek noun χάος (uncountable )

In the entry it appears as countable. I believe it is uncountable.SoSivr (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

an

"(Britain, nonstandard) Form of a used in many British regional accents before some words beginning with a pronounced h". This isn't just a UK phenomenon; in fact, I thought someone said in a previous discussion that "an historic(al)" with a pronounced 'h' was more common in the US than the UK. - -sche (discuss) 08:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the UK, but in the US, if you write "an historical", then you don't pronounced the "h". If you pronounce the "h", then you write "a historical". You never have "an" with a consonantal "h". --Wiki Tiki 89 12:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it, but not in regular speech. I vaguely remember the phrase "This is an historic occasion" being uttered in a very formal speech. I think it may be the sort of elevated, hypercorrect pronunciation associated with upper-class education of a certain era. As for the entry: there shouldn't be two senses: the only difference is in the environment for the variant, not the variant itself. I'm sure those who say "an historic" don't think of it as any different than saying "an apple". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz: Just to clarify, you heard the "h" pronounced in that speech? --Wiki Tiki 89 13:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. You don't hear that kind of thing much, anymore- the emphasis is on being folksy and in touch with the average person. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok (but how does that make you more in touch with the average person?). --Wiki Tiki 89 14:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to expand on my original comment, I have heard "an historic(al) (occasion|event)" with a pronounced /h/ in the US. It's an affectation. Grammarist, in the process of deprecating it, notes usage in some reputable printed media, which highlights the need for an to note its use in print (where one could argue it's impossible to know if the /h/ is intended to be pronounced) as well as in speech (where it precedes pronounced /h/). Relatedly, the usage notes say the use of an before a silent h is "optional", but I don't think that's the case — who says /ə ɝb/ for a herb? - -sche (discuss) 16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that article is very trustworthy. It claims "As far as we know, there are no modern English dialects in which the h in historic is silent (please correct us if we’re wrong)", which I'm pretty sure is wrong. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people in New York who still don't pronounce the h in historic. The thing about the an being optional before silent h is totally wrong and we should remove it. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, come to think of it, a + [vowel] is attestable in representations of nonstandard/dialectal speech (and presumably also in nonstandard/dialectal speech itself), e.g. the line "Well, ain't this a innerestin sitchation?" in Moira Young's Blood Red Road (2011, →ISBN, but it's a stretch to think that's what the note was intended to acknowledge. what do you think of these changes? - -sche (discuss) 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, but I would mention that in writing, such usage of an before h occurs only in places where certain dialects used to, or still do, drop the /h/ sound (specifically this occurs when the vowel after h is unstressed). --Wiki Tiki 89 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. Edward Good's Grammar Book for You and I-- Oops, Me!, page 84, says:

[If the] beginning h is weakly pronounced (historic, habitual), you may use an, especially in British English. an historic occasion (hisTORic) an habitual offender (haBITual).

Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (2015, →ISBN, page 2, says:

Before words beginning with h [...] the standard modern approach is to use a (never an) together with an aspirated h [...], but not to demur if others use an with minimal or nil aspiration given to the following h (an historic /әn (h)ɪs'tɒrɪk/, an horrific /әn (h)ɒ'rɪfɪk/, etc.).

It goes on to note that Wells (third edition, 2008) shows that 6% of British speakers use an historic, and even more writers do.

- -sche (discuss) 16:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the standard on which articles should exist?

Some strange articles can be found in wiktionary. Here is one example: 2.4 children. I see why this is the wikipedia entry, but why this is in the wiktionary? Wikipdia article names shouldn't generally be added to wiktionary, unless these are very stable terms in English.

Someone also adds a lot of Chinese dish names, like doufuhua. These aren't English words either. Maybe there should be the special category, like "English (Transliterated Foreign Dish Names)" or something like this? Yurivict (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wiktionary has nontraditional entries like your examples. I think you'd find that they would meet WT:RFV and WT:RFD if challenged. But I think there is value to normal Wiktionary users in both of the entries you cite as examples, so these policies have not led to a bad result.

doufuhua To some extent contributors are all too eager to show that words from their languages have arguably become part of English. Particularly in the case of words from languages with non-Roman scripts there is a good case for having them as many cannot read the non-Roman scripts. Such an entry could well be called a "pronunciation spelling" redirecting users to the corresponding Wiktionary article in the non-Roman script and to the most relevant WP article. In all cases they can be RfVed, though quick Google Books and OneLook checks may show that our attestation standard would easily be met. If they otherwise meet WT:CFI on what grounds would you exclude them. Or how would you have CFI amended?

2.4 children could easily be encountered in English text. It has meaning beyond the meanings of its components. There is also little point in compelling readers who encounter the term to search for a WP article when we can provide something simple that enables them to get on with their reading and provide a good WP link for them to boot.

For those of us who are accustomed to traditional print dictionaries and a less globally integrated world it takes some getting used to. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doufuhua would have to be used in running English text, conveying meaning. Being of foreign origin is not a criterion for exclusion. Message is a French word, after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the line between doufuhua and spaghetti? It is very common to adopt a dish by transliterating the foreign name; if you ask a native English speaker "what's that?" and they say "doufuhua", then that's probably the English name for it. In this case, I'm a little concerned about the spelling, as it doesn't look like this spelling can be cited.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your fundamental questions: the rules are at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. In a nutshell: the term should have been actually used, its meaning should not be deducible from its parts, and in most cases we don't include names of specific people or companies. 2.4 children passes all of these rules (since it doesn't literally two-and-two-fifths of a child, thank goodness). Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‘él’ and ‘ella’ as subjective ‘it’ in Spanish

In Spanish, are ‘él’ and ‘ella’ ever used as subject pronouns to refer to non-personal masculine and feminine antecedents, respectively, the way ‘il‘ and ‘elle’ are used in French and ‘er’ and ‘sie’ are used in German? I know that the word that would normally be translated as a subjective ‘it’ into English is generally left out in Spanish (e.g. Está aquí – It's here), but I'm guessing there are times when you would want to say it explicitly, and since French, German, and (I'm guessing) most other European languages use masculine and feminine third-person singular pronouns as subjects to refer to non-personal masculine and feminine antecedents, respectively, I assumed that Spanish did so as well. I was unable to verify that online, however (this is the closest thing I found, and even the RAE has them listed as simply personal pronouns), and so I came here to find out how, if at all, subjective ‘it’ is explicitly expressed in Spanish. Are ‘él’ and ‘ella’ used, or is it something else? I'm guessing whatever rule there is for the singular also applies to the plural, by the way. Esszet (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although it rarely occurs, él and ella may be used as subjective or objective ‘it’ (él, ella, a él, a ella, de él, de ella). Ella es una universidad divertida. —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, "él" & "ella" are "lui" et "elle".... or alternatively "il" et "elle". As for the gender-neutral case, you can say "él" but probably you would say "eso" "ese" or "esto" or "este", am I right? Just like French "ça"... but "il" as in "il pleut" (Spanish "Llueve ahora")

Edit: Yes, as Stephen pointed out, "a él" is a good example.Hwfr (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-ion and related suffixes

I have been thinking of putting -tion, -sion, and -ation words in the -ion category, because of their identical functions and other similarity. -ion, -tion and -ation have identical etymologies as well, not sure about -sion (the -sion entries are strewn over). The separate categories should be kept; maybe linking the other categories to the -ion category should do?

e.g.

fuse > fusion; act > action; explode > explosion; accuse > accusation; realize > realization; tessellate > tessellation; continue > continuation; conclude -> conclusion; ...

I don't know how to deal with them exactly. And -sion needs cleanup (look at the garbage at the bottom!) and a category. Hillcrest98 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've sort of cleaned it up. But Category:English words suffixed with -sion doesn't contain any entries, and I can't name any either. Fusion, vision, conclusion (and so on) are all borrowed from Latin or from French (almost all of those are borrowed rather than inherited into French too). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Underexpression and overexpression might be examples though. Underexpression is currently listed as from underexpress +‎ -ion which is I suppose better than saying underexpress +‎ -sion then that the third -s- gets dropped. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making the entire -tion category (et al) a subcategory of the -ion category (while still also leaving it in the categories it's in now) sounds OK. (Changing -tion words to categorize into the -ion category would not be good IMO.) - -sche (discuss) 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

울다

User:Eirikr asks "Does this verb also have a sense of "to make a noise" or "to cry out"?". Moving the question here, rather than making entry requiring {{attention}}. I don't know a good answer to the question. Naver dictionaries give this, the third one is funny:

cry, weep, howl, bawl, wail
cry, chirp
기타 (gita, “guitar”)

--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

빽빽 울다 (ppaekppaek ulda) means "cheep, peep, chirp". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious question about senses 1 and 3: does it gently weep? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz Yes, the same question was in my head :) Still love this song. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

road game

I have never heard of a road game, is it an American term, and the equivalent of away game? Donnanz (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see w:Road (sports). The term perhaps made more sense in the early days, when teams would commonly go on tours of the country in a big road trip. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's more to it than I thought. I have added that link to the entry. Cheers. Donnanz (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help thinking these would be best covered by road and away as game is just one of the possible nouns you can use, such as away win, away match, road win(s) ("leading the league in road wins"). But keep on the road as not easily derived from the sum of its parts (even if you have the sense at road). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I entered some missing derived terms. That should help. Donnanz (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Renard Migrant IMO, road game itself is not easily derived. Nor home game. Also, let's take the time to note that road game and several related entries have been RfD. Purple backpack89 23:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion migrated to a RfD discussion, which is now closed as there was a clear consensus to keep all the articles. Purple backpack89 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xhosa

* {{a|[[w:English phonology|Anglicized]]}} {{IPA|/koˈsɑ/|lang=en}}

English doesn't even have /o/ so that's not Anglicized. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be /əʊ/, of course. (I think some accents do have /o/, BTW.) Equinox ◑ 16:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, presumably /o/ was just shorthand for /oʊ/ in English, like /r/ for /ɹ/. I've expanded the pronunciation section. - -sche (discuss) 17:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to have left out what I would find to be the most natural pronunciation: /ˈkoʊ.sə/. Also, since when do we allow "native" (i.e. foreign) pronunciations in English entries? --Wiki Tiki 89 17:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I only fixed the /o/ and didn't notice the /a/; the dictionaries have the schwa you're familiar with. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish -na

The Swedish entry currently has two definitions for this suffix under one etymology: one that forms the definite plural of many nouns, and one that forms verbs. The given etymology seems appropriate for the second definition, but it's not appropriate for the first definition. I think the two should be split up into separate etymology entries, even if one of the etymologies is not known. The Old Norse morphology article offers some ideas on the etymologies of all the definite endings, but I lack a Swedish-specific source. Eishiya (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that -na forms definite noun endings, but only for common nouns. Neuter nouns usually end in -en for the definite plural. On the other hand, I'm not sure about the verb ending. You can always check a few entries in Swedish Wiktionary (or on this site). Donnanz (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this [5] on the Swedish site, but no etymology given I'm afraid. Donnanz (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina

Can anyone verify the pronunciation /kaɪɹəˈlaɪnə/ (specifically the /kaɪ-/)? It sounds unlikely to me. --Wiki Tiki 89 20:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by EP seven years ago. I'd say it's simply a mistake, possibly because the vowel which is used (the AIR / CARE / SQUARE vowel) is so hard to notate — perhaps EP thought /aɪɹ/ = air. You can hear three North Carolinians pronounce the state's name (albeit in a very formal setting) here, at 0:06, 2:55 and 3:30. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought too, but I thought I'd ask just to make sure. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard it pronounced that way, if that helps Leasnam (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern accents can do some amazing things to vowels, but making both long a and long i into the same diphthong isn't one of them. If anything, I would expect the accented vowel to be pretty much a monophthong. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever heard the pronunciation IPA^(key): /nɔːθ kæəˈlaːnə/? I swear it exists, including the /r/ dropped intervocalically. Benwing2 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I've ever heard it in the wild, but I have heard that some nonrhotic Southern accents drop intervocalic /r/ as well as coda /r/. John Harris once told of his surprise at hearing his surname pronounced /ˈhæ.ɪs/ by a Southerner. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not in this particular word, but I have heard that in other words. --Wiki Tiki 89 12:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can find eye dialect which suggests it in white speech:

1941 September 8, Robert Coughlan, "Our Bob" Reynolds, the marrying senator from North Carolina "don't hate nobody," including the Germans:
[I]n his thickest mountain drawl [...] Reynolds would [...] imitate Senator Morrison[: ...] "Now ah want to ask you folks. Don't you all want a Senator who's satisfied just with good ol' No'th Ca'olina hen's eggs, that cost 26¢ a dozen?" The folks uproariously and overwhelmingly did. They gave Our Bob the nomination by a plurality of 100,000 votes, […]

And Labov has heard it in black speech:

William Labov, Dialect Diversity in America: The Politics of Language Change (2012, →ISBN:
R-pronunciation among African Americans

Furthermore, /r/ is often dropped between two vowels, as in Flo'ida, Ca'olina, inte'ested.

- -sche (discuss) 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latin noun modules

There are currently two modules for the declension of Latin nouns: Module:la-utilities and Module:la-noun. The former covers first and second declension nouns, and the latter covers third declension nouns (fourth and fifth declension nouns aren't covered by any module at the moment). It would obviously make sense to merge them and add support for fourth and fifth declension nouns, but there are two problems with that: there are differences in formatting between the two modules, and Module:la-noun cannot automatically detect on the basis of the word itself at the moment which pattern to use. Resolving the differences in formatting should be simple: just decide which one is better (I prefer that of Module:la-noun; it appears to be much easier to read and edit) and merge the two modules with that formatting. As for the automatic detection of appropriate declension patterns for, I realize that that would be much more difficult for third declension nouns; maybe a |type= parameter can be created to specify the appropriate pattern so that we wouldn't have to use a separate template for each pattern? Anyone else have any different opinions on this? Esszet (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely should be merged. But where are the declension functions in Module:la-utilities even being used? It looks like most nouns are still using the old non-module templates. I think it's a good idea to have a single template {{la-decl-noun}} or similar rather than a bunch of templates. It might make sense to have the type parameter be one of the numbered params for typing convenience, and omittable whenever the autodetection code works. You could have the first param be the nom sg with macrons, the 2nd param the decl type when it can't be inferred, and the 3rd param the gen sg when it can't be inferred. Further parameters can be named, e.g. |loc=1 for nouns with a locative and overrides to allow any individual case form to be manually specified. So e.g.

{{la-decl-noun|saxum}} (inferrable as 2nd neuter)
{{la-decl-noun|vōx}} (inferrable as 3rd non-neuter with genitive vōcis)
{{la-decl-noun|rēx||rēgis}} (inferrable as 3rd non-neuter, non-inferrable genitive given)
{{la-decl-noun|rūs|3n|rūris|loc=1}} (need to specify 3rd neuter, with genitive rūris, with a locative)
{{la-decl-noun|sēnsus|4}} (need to specify 4th decl non-neuter)

Benwing2 (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was completely shocked to find out that Template:la-decl-first, which (I think) is one of only two templates that make use of Module:la-utilities, is not used in any entries at all (see here) and that Template:la-decl-second, which is the other one, is used in a grand total of one entry (vesper, see here), and that's because I added it to it a few days ago. It might be best to merge all Latin noun declension templates into one comprehensive one, but before we do that, we need to have one big Latin noun declension module that covers all five declensions. Anyone have any objections to the proposed merger? Esszet (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I put a bunch of work into {{la-decl-first}} and {{la-decl-second}} which simplify the use of Latin templates a heap. There's a list of examples on each page to show how it simplifies the usage, under "Comparison to previous templates". I was going to do the third declension too before pushing for a global change over, but it was more complicated and more work than I had time for and I dropped the ball on it. Pengo (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the first and second declension, the whole declension table could more-or-less be inferred out just from the lemma. With the third it becomes more complicated as you can't always tell which option is being used. It would be easy to stick with thinking of templates as a "fill in the blanks" exercise, but with Lua it's possible to move towards thinking about what makes sense for the user of the template? My thinking is that for Latin, ideally, the templates should try to emulate the "citation form" commonly found in dictionaries, and build the tables from that. So for example the citation form "nox, noctis f", would become {{la-decl|nox|noctis|f}} and "vetus, -eris" would become {{la-decl|vetus|-eris}} or something like that. And this is how I was going to attempt to make {{la-decl-third}}, though I'm still not sure if all use-cases are covered 100% with this approach. Yes, absolutely, the goal would be eventually to unify templates and drop the "first" or "second"—but I believe it doesn't even need to be a parameter as I'm pretty sure it can always be inferred. (It could be a parameter for highly exceptional cases) Pengo (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Esszet, Benwing2, Pengo: This sort of thing is an excellent endeavour. If I had more time and were more Lua-competent, I'd help. Failing that, I'd just like to point out that ObsequiousNewt has recently done excellent work on {{grc-decl}} and {{grc-adecl}}; some of his solutions therein may be applicable to Luacising the Latin declension templates. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{form of}} template adds ".23English" to links. Is this a bug?

I added such clause {{alternative form of|cattle prod#Verb|cattle prod (as verb)|lang=en}} to the cattle-prod article. However, section "#Verb" is mistranslated into non-existent "#Verb.23English", and doesn't work. Is this a bug, or I am doing something wrong? Yurivict (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most templates with a language parameter don’t allow section linking, because they link to the language section automatically. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By default 'form of' only links to language section, which in this case isn't sufficient. I wonder if there is the URL link that would link to language section first, and then to POS. Also, it shouldn't produce that ".23English". If this is done by Lua code, it should have complained instead of outputting the wrong string. Yurivict (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with section linking is that the position number of sections is very fickle. For example you could have the noun form FOOs link to FOO#Noun, but if someone adds a translingual section with a noun section, or even another English noun section, the link will take users to the wrong section. Links to a language section may not always be the most precise, but they are always correct. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity nicknames

Are terms like R-Pattz, J-Lo, K-Stew WT-worthy? All words in all languages, I guess, right? --A230rjfowe (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they meet CFI, I'd say they belong on Wiktionary. Having these entries would definitely be helpful. --Tweenk (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

whoop-de-doo

In the "usage notes", it says that the word whoop-de-do is often used sarcastically. However, as far as I know, it is *always* used sarcastically. Maybe in the past it had a different connotation. Shouldn't it be noted right up front that it is always used sarcastically? As it stands, the given definition comes across as a joke. — This unsigned comment was added by 74.61.46.124 (talk).

Maybe the usage notes themselves are sarcastic. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 01:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology for arabic days of the week

Considering that the pages for the English days all have their etymology, shouldn't the Arabic ones also have them? Especially since they are rather simple for the most part; Saturday is literally called "the first" (الأَحَد) and they go on till Thursday being "the fifth" (الخَمِيس), then Friday is the congregation/gathering and Saturday is the rest (fully these should all be "day of ..." but that would only be when preceded by يوم, literally meaning day, as in يوم الأحد -> first day). I'm not very familiar with editing on this site, so I'd appreciate it if someone could put these in for me.

172.164.18.29 07:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and add them if you want. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-statement or incomplete statement of fact. "Accusative" English, adjective, 2nd sense

Mis-statement or incomplete statement of fact. "Accusative", English adjective, 2nd sense. First sentence reads: 2. (grammar) Applied to the case (as the fourth case of Latin, Lithuanian and Greek nouns) which expresses the immediate object on which the action or influence of a transitive verb has its limited influence. I suggest it should read: 2. (grammar) Applied to the case (as the fourth case of Latin, Lithuanian and Greek nouns) which expresses the anticipation of an immediate object on which the action or influence of a transitive verb has its limited influence.

sostanziale

Is this Italian word ever used as a noun to mean "noun", similar to sostantivo (“substantive”, “noun”)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. One dictionary has a noun sense - meaning something like "essence" (that which is essential). But I can't see a grammatical noun anywhere - that is sostantivo. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SemperBlotto: Thanks. In that case, I'm stumped. Would you mind translating the Italian citation I've added to Citations:triale tantum, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to cook my dinner, but will try later. But at a glance it looks like "sostanziale" is being used as an adjective in front of a Latin term in italics. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go - it sounds a bit stilted but gets the message across. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

罰企

Is there a succinct English equivalent for this word? —suzukaze (t・c) 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, no. I just added the Mandarin equivalent 罰站. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's not you, it's me

'It also implies that the reason for relationship termination is something vague, based on emotions and feelings, rather than something that the other person has said or done' and 'The reason why I want to end our relationship is unspecified' don't seem correct - please help to improve them. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Should it even be kept? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it can be an excuse to sidle out of a relationship without giving a proper reason, but that's not what it means: literally, it's stating that the other person's behaviour etc. isn't the cause of the breakup. Equinox ◑ 12:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The expression is certainly a set phrase in the US. I think the definition (misformatted as a non-gloss definition) is not correct. IMO, the essence of this expression is its use. Ie, it needs a proper non-gloss definition. Though it may have been and may still be most commonly used in conversations about romantic relationships, it is of wider application in relationships (eg, friendships) and not exclusively in termination of romantic relationships. It would be interesting to determine in which film or popular novel this was first used. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I can't write the definition; I have only made a few edits to English, ever. I am going to delete 'It also implies that the reason for relationship termination is something vague, based on emotions and feelings, rather than something that the other person has said or done' if no-one has any objections. I deleted the reference to Seinfeld because I am sure that it was a popular expression before then. I think it was an expression that was used and that passed into use on TV and so on rather than the other way round. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, rather than implying 'that the reason for relationship termination is something vague, based on emotions and feelings, rather than something that the other person has said or done', I think it can imply the opposite. If I said 'DCDuring, it's not you, it's me', I might be implying that everything was down to DCDuring. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also has the function of trying to make the dumpee feel less bad, without any real adverse consequence to the dumper, and cutting off the possibility of a defensive response by the dumpee. DCDuring TALK 14:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewy?

Is this pejorative? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The times I've seen or heard it used were pertaining to rather unflattering aspects of Jewish characteristics (e.g. Bob Saggett is beginning to look rather Jewy now that he's getting older.), but I wouldn't say it's pejorative. More like: adhering to or typical of Jewish stereotypes (i.e. stereotypically Jewish). Leasnam (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, Leasnam: It's not vulgar slang, but it's definitely pejorative. OED lists it as "depreciative and offensive" Pengo (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it can be...I've only heard it used by Jewish persons referring to other Jews, so...I guess we can add self-deprecating to the list as well. Leasnam (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

false cognate

May require RFA or demotion, e.g. to (rare), of the current 1st sense. In a recent discussion on Wikipedia we've run into difficulties in locating sources that use this specific term to talk about words that might be plausibly cognates but aren't. (Mentions as a part of a definition are easy enough to find; actual uses, not so much.)

There also seem to be indications for a 3rd sense entirely: a word that sounds or looks similar to a word in another language, while meaning something different altogether. See e.g. this paper (e.g. red#English : red#Turkish), this guide on Spanish education (e.g. pie#English : pie#Spanish), or this StackExchange answer.--Tropylium (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even our own usage over at Category:False cognates and false friends appears to follow the 3rd more than the 1st. --Tropylium (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 1 covers things like Mbabaram "dog" (synonymous with, but unrelated to, English "dog") and many languages' words for "ma" and "pa". Sense 3 is a subset of sense 1, referring only to apparent relatives which are not only not related but also not of a similar meaning. Is the requirement that terms have dissimilar meanings really part of the definition of "false cognate", i.e. would you really say that Mbabaram "dog" and English "dog" are not false cognates, because they mean the same thing, whereas you would say English "dog" and Swedish "dog" ("died") were false cognates? That seems improbable, because it seems like you would only discuss the false cognancy of two words if there were a reason (like synonymy) that someone might consider them cognates, and there's no reason I can see that anyone would ever suspect English "dog" and Swedish "dog" ("died"), or English "pie" and Spanish "pie", of being cognates in the first place. - -sche (discuss) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Florian Blaschke wrote on WP: "A definition of "false cognate" that does not even require a similarity in meaning would be ridiculously broad. Words that sound similar but mean something totally different are ubiquitous and therefore completely uninteresting." - -sche (discuss) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-sche's notes on what other references say

Quite a few references, e.g. MacMillan, erroneously define "false cognate" as "false friend", i.e. a word that appears to mean the same thing as another word, but doesn't (with the etymological relationship or non-relationship of the terms being irrelevant, according to those references — even though, clearly, it is relevant). - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro J. Chamizo-Domínguez, Semantics and Pragmatics of False Friends (2012, →ISBN, page 3: "Conversely, the Italian word cazzo [cock, penis] and the Spanish word cazo [ladle, small saucepan] would be false friends and false cognates inasmuch as their respective meanings are different; additionally, there is not any etymological [...] common root for both words. This makes the set of false friends wider than the set of false cognates, since all false cognates are false friends, but not all false friends are false cognates." Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, this definition would seem to exclude Mbabaram "dog" / English "dog" and Mandarin "ma" / English "ma" from being false cognates, because they're synonymous... which I find a strange exclusion. - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Spangler, John Alex Mazzante, Using Reading to Teach a World Language (2015, →ISBN, page 34: "False cognates are words in different languages that are similar in form and meaning but have different roots. They appear to have a common linguistic origin (regardless of meaning) but actually do not. [...] The two terms, "false cognates" and "false friends," are sometimes used incorrectly or interchangeably by some teachers[. ...] Purposes/Goals of Strategy: [...] Recognize false cognates, which are pairs of words in different languages that are similar in form and meaning but have different roots." - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely wrong that all false cognates are false friends. As you mention, words can be accidentally similar and accidentally synonymous, then being false cognates, but not false friends. Indeed, false cognates are often not false friends because their similar meaning is what misleads us to think they're related. “False friends” and “false cognates” are two completely different concepts. But that's only if we decide to use a well-defined terminology, and that doesn't seem to be the case. It has also been noted—and I myself have seen this discussion several times, although I'm relatively new to wiktionary—that our entries misuse the term eye dialect, but nothing can be done about it, because the misuse is so well attested. Kolmiel (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

double take

Two questions about the current definition,"A take#Noun, commonly used as a comical reaction to a surprising sight, in which someone casually sees something, briefly stops looking at it, realizes what it is, and snaps attention back to it with an expression of surprise or disbelief."

(1) Wouldn't reaction be better than take, where the appropriate sense comes after as many as 6 definitions for different things?

(2) Is it necessary to emphasize it can be (intentionally) comical, especially as the first example sentence is "Smith passes the car and does a double take as he realizes it is on fire." ? --Droigheann (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word reaction occurs just six words later in the definition, so a simple substitution wouldn't be good style. How would you rewrite the whole definition?
It is certainly usually comedic. The usage example is just made up and may not reflect actual usage. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that take in the acting sense is not a very good word to use in a definition as it is not at all common in general use. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about "reaction", I overlooked that. What about "An abrupt movement, ..."?
It is? I thought it was more like when you genuinely start and look again because your brain has finally processed what it had seen. But if that is the case shouldn't we at least change the order of the two example sentences? --Droigheann (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that either of the usage examples reflect real usage. In writing, I find the term mostly in stage direction, apparently in comedy. In speech it may be sometimes used in narration/dramatization of a story. Real citations would qualify us to depart from the standard definitions. In the absence of citations I will defer to your judgment, which may be right. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Most of the dictionaries you linked to at the entry don't mention its being mostly comedic and/or theatrical; BNC search [6] and the two relevant WR threads [7][8] don't seem to support this claim either; OTOH nobody here seems to oppose it, so not being en-N myself I'll just think of this debate as inconclusive and won't meddle with the entry (save for having substituted "abrupt movement" for "take"). --Droigheann (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect professional lexicographers, but I'm not always sure that they are basing their definitions on much evidence. Being able to use Google Books as a corpus is a new development, newer than some of their print editions. And researching a word like take is particularly difficult. Searches at google books for "a double take", "do|does|doing|did|done a double take" etc. might generate some relevant hits. DCDuring TALK 03:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was too focused on take. I reduced the "comic" to an example. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

math

<<(countable, Canada, US) A math course.>> Is the word "math" used to mean math course? It is apparently definition three. Is it used in this sense? 2602:306:3653:8A10:7553:A374:560B:1B1A 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, students use it this way; I've added one quotation from a book. It's comparable to a waitress saying "table three ordered two waters" (two servings of water). - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems problematic in exactly the way your comparison points out; anything can be used that way. "I need two Germans to graduate." "I need two calculuses to graduate." "Table three ordered two pies" (two slices of pie). There's the argument what the possible is much broader here then the citable, but it is a fairly general form in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "pies" is often used to mean "slices of pie". If I heard two pies, I'd think two whole pies, not slices of a pie. 2602:306:3653:8A10:A8F5:5D80:541F:88EE 00:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems plausible to me. Similar case: if a restaurant sells cheesecake as a dessert, a waiter asking the kitchen for "two cheesecakes" would surely mean two portions, not two whole cakes. Equinox ◑ 00:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Math majors/students/questions/degrees/certifications/books/papers/homework assignments/tests/problems/exams could all be referred to as maths in the appropriate context. I suppose this kind of elision is more likely with a shortened word like math rather than mathematics. DCDuring TALK 04:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

vesper

Why does the Latin word have two possible declensions? Are they entirely interchangeable? Equally common? A usage note would be helpful here. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was used in both cases, that is: with genetive -eris and genetive -eri. Although from what L&S say, it was in practice an irregular mix of both: "(in class. prose mostly acc. vesperum [2 decl], and abl. vespere [3 decl], or adverb. vesperi; the plur. not used)".

Or: it's of both 2nd and 3rd declensions, and don't bother to use either exclusively, because the Classical authors didn't. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the entry and added a usage note based on L&S, after corroborating with the corpus. One issue I have is that I'm not sure how to characterise the "adverbial" forms (described in the Declension section), or whether they should have 'Adverb' L3 sections. Perhaps the Latin cabal has thoughts? @I'm so meta even this acronym, JohnC5, Angr. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see an argument for vespere, vesperī being declared adverbs of their own right as opposed to idiomatic uses of a particular case, but L&S, OLD, and Gaffiot do not break them out into their own lemmata. On the other hand, someone has made domi and humī into adverbs (but not domō, domum, or rūrī). I'm fine with adding a few extra idiomatic adverbs, but it would be nice to have a policy to help us decide when a funny use of a case breaks free into adverbiality.

Personally, I would prefer if we were called the Coniūrātiō Latīnōrum. ObsequiousNewt and I are already in the Fraktur Cabal. —John C5 01:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]