Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/August

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← July 2021 · August 2021 · September 2021 → · (current)

---

aller

For verb sense 6, it says that for aller to mean ‘to suit’ it must be followed by à but the currently untranslated usexCette robe te va bien ! ― (please add an English translation of this usage example) which surely means “This dress suits you indeed!” (though I’m not confident enough to add this) doesn’t contain an à. Why is that? Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This is just typical French grammar. Say te was replaced by Marie. It would read "Cette robe va bien à Marie !", with the à. The reason the à disappears is that prepositions are implied by indirect object pronouns (me, te, lui, nous, vous, leur). Some of those pronouns are the same as direct object pronouns, which can be confusing, but it doesn't really create ambiguities if you know which verbs would normally have prepositions and which would not. A similar thing can be seen in English, in which we say "She mailed a letter to me," but "She mailed me a letter" (the to disappears in the second instance, when the indirect object is moved to before the direct object). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

That makes a bit more sense now that you’ve explained that what I was taught were reflexive pronouns are an example of indirect object pronouns but surely “aller” is simply intransitive, as the use of “à” separates the verb (“va”) from the object it’s referring to (“Marie”), meaning that “aller” has an indirect object? In the original example ‘te’ is an indirect object pronoun and so “va” takes an indirect object and is intransitive anyway. It would only be transitive if you could say something like "Cette robe va bien Marie !", I would have thought, so how can it be “transitive with à”? Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm no linguist or grammarian, but I think in French, verbs that can take an indirect object are considered transitive with the preposition rather than intransitive. Many of the reflexive pronouns are the same as the indirect and direct object ones, but there are differences in the third person. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

involve

I think we're missing the most basic definition here, to suit my job involves making phone calls and following economic trends Queenofnortheast (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Just added a sense 1 for this. Improve as needed. Equinox ◑ 11:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Is new sense 1 definitely distinct from "archaic" sense 9, "To connect with something .. etc. etc.", which has the example "The contrary necessarily involves a contradiction"? Although written a long time ago, this example seems non-archaic language and uncannily similar to sense #1. Or did it mean something different when it was written? There is also a 2013 example for #9, again hard to distinguish from #1, and contradicting the "archaic" label. Also, isn't the "hair cut" example for sense #3 just another example of #1? Mihia (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you’re saying here, also one of the examples at sense 4 seems to fit in with the new sense 1 and I’m unsure of the meaning involve is taking in the other quote. Sense 4 seems to be ill-defined. Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I sent sense #3 to RFV. More listings may follow! I think the #4 example "The gathering number, as it moves along / Involves a vast involuntary throng" is possibly supposed to be distinct from #1 in that the sense is dynamic, of gathering in, or assimilating, rather than static. "Earth with hell / To mingle and involve" seems to have the sense of "blend or merge", which again does seem distinct from #1, though I do wonder whether #4 needs an "archaic" label. Are there modern-language examples of #4, as distinct from e.g. #1 and #2? I'm also not certain about sense #5, "To envelop, enfold, entangle". One of the usexes, "to involve a person in debt or misery" seems barely modern language in the defined sense, though perhaps it could just scrape in without a label?, while the other, "He's involved in the crime", seems very likely an adjectival, not verbal, use of "involved". If this is converted to e.g. "He tried to involve me in his crime", then would this be distinct sense #5, or just sense #2, "To engage (someone) to participate in a task", perhaps with the definition slightly tweaked or extended? "He tried to involve me in his crime" does seem pretty similar to one of the existing sense #2 examples, "How can we involve the audience more during the show?" Mihia (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The second example of sense 5 does look a bit like sense 2 now that you mention it (but then “He’s involved in the crime” doesn’t just mean “He’s engaged in the crime” but it can mean “He has been engaged in the crime” or “He’s facilitated the crime”. The first example “To involve a person in debt or misery” sounds rather literary or archaic but seems plausible. You would normally ‘put’ a person into, or ‘trap’ a person in, debt though. Also you ‘make’ a person miserable, to say that you ‘envelop, enfold or entangle’ them seems like using a selection of archaisms to define an archaism (though that may be the only sensible approach). In sense 4, example 1, ‘involves’ could be replaced with ‘gathers’ rather than ‘includes/comprises’ but ‘gathers’ already appears in the sentence, so I think the quote should simply be moved and the ‘gather in; take in’ part of the definition should be stricken. Bearing all this in mind I’ve sent sense 4 to rfv. Sense 5 seems probably acceptable but it could perhaps be reworded and it would benefit from supporting quotations. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right that the "crime"-related usage of sense #5 is potentially distinct, but just needs a better (or at least valid) example, and, as you say, perhaps a tweak of the definition. It seems to me that the first quotation for #9, "He knows / His end with mine involved", might be essentially the same as #5, and since the other two quotations for #9 are suspiciously similar to #1, this might call into question the evidence for #9 too. Mihia (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree about examples 1 and 3 for sense 9 but example 2 might mean ‘the contrary necessarily ‘implies’ a contradiction, rather than ‘the contrary necessarily ‘includes’ a contradiction (though this is the same as ‘the contrary necessarily ‘after taking it to its logical conclusion, includes’ a contradiction). Perhaps we should keep ‘implies’ as the definition of sense 9 and remove the excess verbiage? Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I moved the 2013 "primes" example from #9 to #1 as this clearly cannot be correct to illustrate an "archaic" sense. I feel unsure whether the other #9 examples illustrate a distinct archaic sense or can be explained under one or more modern senses, so I will leave those for now. It seems to me that there is a potential sense something like "to cause to become entangled or implicated", e.g. "Don't let her involve you in a relationship" or "In his testimony, the accused attempted to involve several innocent parties in the crime". I don't know whether this is a separate sense or an extension of #2 and or #5. To me there seems a continuum between the "engage to participate" of #2 and the "entangle" of #5, and it is hard to know where to draw definition lines. Mihia (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There are a few places where it’s hard to draw the line, such as ‘mingle’ and ‘entangle’. It’s occurred to me that perhaps the crime sense could be defined as ‘complicit’ and separated from sense of ‘entangled/trapped in debt’. (The usex about misery seems particularly strange though). Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, "mingle" itself is intransitive, of course, while "entangle" is transitive. In the #4 "mingle" example, "Earth with hell / To mingle and involve", it seems to me that "involve", like "mingle", is intended to be intransitive, though this does also highlight the problem that definition #4 seems to mix up transitive and intransitive uses. My feeling is that the "misery" usex, in the meaning that is probably intended, may be verging on obsolete usage, or may in fact be altogether obsolete. The problem, as in #9, is that it can be interpreted in a modern way too -- a way that overlaps e.g. "Don't let her involve you in a relationship". Mihia (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, "complicit" is an adjective of course, so cannot directly be a definition of "involve". A number of examples in the present article (I have changed one or two, but some remain) use "involved" as an adjective. These are all invalid and eventually will need to be fixed/deleted. The "crime" example, "He's involved in the crime", is one of these. While a verbal interpretation is just about possible, in any normal interpretation, "involved" is an adjective. For definitions of "involve" that would fit the "crime" usage, we need to be looking not at "He's involved in the crime" but at examples such as perhaps "In his testimony, the accused attempted to involve several innocent parties in the crime", making sure also that they are not sense #2, "To engage (someone) to participate in a task". Mihia (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I hadn’t properly considered the transitivity issue and the problem of providing a usex for a verb that contains a participle, because of their similarity (or arguably equivalence) to adjectives. It seems that sense 5 is similar to sense 3, if we take our definition 2 of complicate: ‘to involve in a convoluted manner’, though it seems subtly different in meaning (and in fact shows that our definitions are slightly circular). Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

While adjective "involved" does of course grammatically derive from the participle, IMO it must be treated separately from the verb, as indeed the article involved already does. Sense #3 of "involve" is another example of why. The adjective "involved" meaning "complicated" is clearly in common use. However, the verb "involve" meaning "to complicate" apparently is not, and if it ever existed in this sense, may be obsolete. The adjective cannot be used to exemplify the verb, as is presently the case at #3. Mihia (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• In the end I left #5 alone, apart from deleting the invalid adjectival example, and extended #2 to include e.g. "I don't want to involve him in my personal affairs". #2 is presently not the greatest definition ever, and could be capable of improvement. Mihia (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you’re improvement of sense 2 means that uses of ‘involve’ and it’s conjugated forms relating to criminal activity are now fully covered; either in this entry (eg. “She doesn’t want to involve herself in her boyfriend’s crime by giving the police a false alibi” is sense 2), or in involved (eg. “He is involved in crime” is sense 2). Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I also seemingly came across an archaic sense of ‘involve’ meaning ‘analyse’ while trying to prove ‘involve’ = ‘complicate’ (Hurlstone, E. T., Murphy, F. S. (1838). Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Exchequer: With a Table of the Names of Cases and a Digest of the Principal Matters : from Hilary Term, 7 W. IV. 1836 to Michaelmas Term, 1 Vict. 1837, Both Inclusive. United Kingdom: H. Butterworth and R. Pheney. - Page 248: ‘Involve the problem as you will.’ shortly followed by ‘involve this case as you will.’Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether those examples may in fact be instances of "involve = complicate/elaborate". In other words, "try to complicate matters as much as you want, but the end result will be the same". My feeling is that this sense ought to have existed, and it's just a matter of finding examples amongst the reams of other stuff. Mihia (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I found that while looking through GoogleBooks for evidence of the ‘complicate’ sense but I couldn’t find any 100% clear evidence of it having existed, so that was the closest example I could find (but its meaning is unfortunately open to interpretation). Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

In any case I copied this example to the RFV thread, where it can be considered. Mihia (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

something in it/not much in it/in it/in

There seem to be a few meanings for ‘something in it’ and ‘not much in it’ which aren’t quite covered by our much, something, in it or in entries. What do we think about creating entries for ‘something in it’ explaining that it means something like ‘something (of importance/profitable/different) in it and for ‘not much in it’ explaining that it means ‘not much (of importance/profitable/different) in it’? See the conversation on my talk page with @Equinox for background to this. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It could be seen as general use of "something" to imply "something significant/important", not limited to use with "in it", but extendable to e.g. "something in this", or as also seen in e.g. "I think you've got something there" (when someone makes an important point). Mihia (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

sense 4 of ‘something’ meaning ‘something superlative or notable’ seems closest but ‘not much in it’ seems to be short for ‘not much notable in (the difference in the distance/time/price referred to in two compared or comparable measurements)’, so ‘it’ is standing in for a long phrase. There’s a similar thing going on with ‘something in it’, so I think that they’re both probably entry-worthy. Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

not yet

I am aware that this horse has already been flogged to within an inch of its life, but nevertheless I wish to raise again the issue of the "not quite; not exactly" sense at not yet (originally reading "almost, not quite"), which has IMO somewhat hastily been signed off at RFV as verified, despite, at my last reckoning, unless I am losing track, a majority of people doubting its existence as a separate sense. To me, the "not yet ecstatic" quotation seems unproblematically explained as the "ordinary" meaning of "not yet". The other two ("not yet black" and "not yet miserable") are harder to explain, but may just be odd idiosyncrasies, word order errors, or slight mistranslation. Pinging the people who participated there (discussion now moved to Talk:not_yet). Is everyone happy about this? Can we have a show of hands or something? @-sche, @Kiwima, @Overlordnat1, @Chuck Entz, @PUC. Mihia (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the current cites are actually evidence of a distinct sense. I note that it's not a sense that the OED has (however, the OED does have an archaic sense of "not yet" that we don't: namely, "no longer"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the "no longer" sense can be explained as "not" plus sense 1.3 of "yet". Mihia (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The word has now been flagged in RFD, which seems to me to be a better place for this sort of discussion. IMO, RFV is for straightforward questions of finding citations, which is why there is no voting there, and where the default, in the absence of evidence is to delete a word. When it becomes a matter of opinion and people need to vote, I am more comfortable with the case being argued at RFD, where people can vote and where the default if there is no consensus is to keep a word. Kiwima (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It can also be a matter of opinion whether citations prove the challenged sense. Also, the grounds for deletion (or, in fact, probable demotion to "translation hub") are that "not yet" is sum-of-parts. This judgement is potentially affected by "not yet" allegedly having a sense distinction that is not represented at "yet". Mihia (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m personally unchanged in my opinion, weak keep for not yet, weak delete for sense 2 of not yet but as I’ve already voted to keep it in the RFD and can live with and understand sense 2 passing RFV, I haven’t got much to add, other than to suggest that sense 2 is marked as ‘non-standard’ or ‘rare’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There is only one sense. I don't understand this recurrent habit of "citing" a sense B by just finding sentences that could cite either A or B and distributing them haphazardly between the two senses. Equinox ◑ 12:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

involve (2)

1. (mathematics) To raise to any assigned power; to multiply, as a quantity, into itself a given number of times.

   a quantity involved to the third or fourth power

Anyone recognise this as being in modern use? If not I'll label it obsolete or archaic. Mihia (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It sounds distinctly archaic or obsolete to me, at least I’ve never heard it before personally. Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Quoted and tagged as archaic Queenofnortheast (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Paralympian

Please help to add translations to Paralympian (both the noun and adjective), which is appearing as WOTD on 25 August 2021. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And to Paralympiad, appearing as WOTD on 5 September 2021. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

-nado

Is it correct for us to call this a suffix and not just a blend with "tornado"? We only have one word that uses it, which is firenado. Equinox ◑ 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

x + -nado always means "a/an x tornado" (e.g. firenado = "a fire tornado") ? If so, I would consider it a blend, but that's just my view Leasnam (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

snownado is also citable, and sharknado might be, but where the number of examples is low, I think we could just view them as blends. (Compare Talk:-mageddon and Talk:-geddon, though, which have only six examples each in their categories and yet get called suffixes... OTOH, at least some other references speak of those as suffixes, whereas the only mentions of a "suffix -nado" I can find in literature are about Japanese.) - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I have created snownado (as a blend for now, since I am sceptical of this "suffix"). We had sharknado but it was speedied: it is a film title and occurs in a book title, but there may not be much or any "real" use in English. Equinox ◑ 09:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

cowson

Having originally sent cowson to RFC, I’ve since improved the article myself by doing various things such as improving the definitions, splitting the noun and adjective senses and adding quotes. For this reason I’ve now untagged it. I hope it is much improved but please feel free to improve upon it further yourselves, if you wish. Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Now fully archived on talk page and deleted from RFC page. Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

shirtsleeves

Re figurative sense "non-professional status": the citations mostly seem to refer to the proverb shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations, so it may in fact mean "poverty". Anyone know? Equinox ◑ 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Or "working-class status"? —Mahāgaja · talk 08:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

actor, etc.

Why do we list the "feminine form" (actress) in the headword? It's not really a feminine form and should instead be a coordinate term. Some other pages seem to have the same thing, like waiter. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 23:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a feminine form only in sense #1, so I agree it probably shouldn't be listed in the heading as if it applied universally. Mihia (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

For English I agree, these are coordinate terms. Ultimateria (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, it's becoming more common to use "actor" regardless of sex/gender. Maybe @-sche can help with a more comprehensive usage note. Ultimateria (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

English of course doesn't do male-female forms of nouns like a lot of other languages. But it seems important to link actress and actor. What is the correct way? Equinox ◑ 09:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't it be mentioned against the applicable definition(s) (since there's probably only one, i.e. the first one)? Mihia (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

That's in modern English. In fact, it did just occur to me whether, in olden days, e.g. in some very old legal document or something, "actress" may have been used generally, outside the theatrical meaning. I don't know, but it seems not completely impossible. Mihia (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Century 1911 doesn't show that meaning. OED? DCDuring (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Our actress entry states that on rare occasions the word can be used to describe a female actor, other than one who performs on stage or film, and provides a quote as an example. Perhaps we should just change the label on actor from ‘feminine actress’ to ‘feminine (especially sense 1) actress’? Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I should have looked there! Mihia (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It should be a coordinate term in my opinion, as I said. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Similar issues arise in multiple languages:

In actor there's 7. (software engineering) entity, 8. (linguistics, grammar) argument where a female/feminine form makes no sense.

Begleiter once had (i just fixed it): "female Begleiterin" and "4. (grammar) article". But that also makes no sense as 4. has no female/feminine form.

It makes more sense to link the female/feminine term as coordinate term or hyponym (of specific senses), and possibly as derived term (actor + -ess, Begleiter + -in).

--2003:DE:3720:3785:B5AC:A1CA:85C4:8445 21:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

thereto

"1. To that. 2. To it." What is the difference? The given citations would work at either sense, AFAICT. Equinox ◑ 09:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

oltremare

Could an Italian speaker check this entry? Should the first heading be "Adjective" rather than "Adverb" (and is there a difference between "overseas" and "abroad")? For the noun sense, what sort of noun is "overseas, abroad"? Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've made a first stab cleaning it up. @Imetsia Is my understanding of the Treccani entry correct that as an adjective it modifies colors but not objects themselves (e.g. "un vestito oltramare")? If so we should remove the adjective sense and consider it an attributive noun. Also, could you add a short usex to the noun sense "overseas"? Ultimateria (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: OK, I've tried to spruce it up. And, yes, your understanding is correct. I don't necessarily oppose making that sense an attributive noun, but I'm a bit hesitant to do so because other Italian dictionaries call it an adjective. Imetsia (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia, Ultimateria: looks good! — SGconlaw (talk)€

undercooked

1. Insufficiently cooked.
2. Not overcooked.

Not sure I get this. Are there really two senses here? And wouldn't "not overcooked" normally imply, or at least include, "cooked to the proper extent"? Mihia (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks wrong. Equinox ◑ 21:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If one says something is "not overcooked", one implies that it is cooked just right and not that it is "undercooked" which generally only means it is insufficiently cooked (sense 1). — SGconlaw (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm tempted just to delete sense 2, but I suppose it should go through the proper process so I listed it at RFV. Mihia (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

reach - of a missile

We had: "(intransitive) To strike or touch with a missile. His bullet reached its intended target." I rephrased it: "Of a missile: to strike or touch" (because, in the usage example, the bullet isn't striking someone with a missile, but as a missile); then I realised the usex is transitive, so I changed the sense from intransitive. But what's the story here? Was the usex bad, perhaps added later without understanding what the sense was trying to convey? Is it even a truly separate sense? If a bullet reaches someone then of course we expect it to penetrate and not suddenly drop dead. That's physics. Equinox ◑ 12:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Another one of those articles where initial impression is that there are too many separate definitions, but if one were to go through them carefully I dunno. Anyway, at the moment there seems to be no other verb sense that directly applies to a projectile, in the ordinary sense of hitting a target, per the usex. I find the word "missile" slightly offputting, as I think of the kind of missile that would e.g. bring down a plane, while this is presumably just one example of an intended general sense. "touch" is offputting too. I think the definition could be made to read more readably to apply generally to projectiles attaining the target, then if anyone cares to the whole article could be assessed for possible reduction of number of senses. Mihia (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There also seems, despite the profusion of senses, to be nothing that exactly fits e.g. "My letter never reached him". Mihia (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

under, nearly, almost

Is it correct that "under" is a preposition in "under an hour", yet "nearly" and "almost" are adverbs in "nearly/almost an hour"? If so, what is the argument for the PoS being different? Mihia (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That's how I view them. I suppose the justification is that, when assigning words to word classes, one shouldn't rely too much on a single class of usage. Nearly and almost are common degree adverbs, modifying many adjectives and adverbs. Under is not so used. Also, it is often that case that nouns with temporal or locative menaings are used adverbially, so an hour can be viewed as a noun or as a temporal adverb. This doesn't satisfy me very much, but it's all I can offer. I also didn't find anything helpful in CGEL's several mentions of nearly. DCDuring (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

To me, the fact that a word is a particular PoS in many or most contexts is not really evidence that it is always that PoS in all contexts. After all, there must be numerous fully accepted cases of words that are often or usually one PoS but can be another PoS in a particular context. Your second point does not seem to discriminate between "under" and "almost/nearly", since we can say e.g. "I stayed under/almost/nearly an hour", where "an hour" is probably adverbial, but also e.g. "I stayed for under/almost/nearly an hour" where "an hour" can only be a noun. Mihia (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't denied what you said initially. English is sloppy about PoSes, I suppose in pursuit of economy of expression. Often elision can be asserted to allow us to believe that the rules of conventional standard grammar are being honored, surface appearance to the contrary notwithstanding. DCDuring (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you (or anyone) think about the PoS of "about" and "around" in e.g. "about/around an hour"? Mihia (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I think these are unambiguously adverbs when used with a definition analogous to the definitions of under, nearly, and almost.

Looking back on your original question, I think that a/an can be viewed as not the determiner/article, but rather the synonym of one (which I consider syntactically an adjective, though our entry does not). If so, it is easier to accept the adverb PoS and reject the preposition reading. DCDuring (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That did occur to me too, but I don't think it stands up. In a case such as "under/nearly/almost 300 people", yes, it can be argued that the bracketing is "[under/nearly/almost 300] people", consistent with "under/nearly/almost" being adverbial, but in the case of "under/nearly/almost an/one hour", surely the bracketing is not "[under/nearly/almost an/one] hour" but "under/nearly/almost [an/one hour]". Mihia (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That's where we disagree. What if instead of containing a, the phrase was "under/nearly/almost two/three/.../N hours"? Would you really insist on your rebracketing? I really don't see a syntactic distinction between one/a and two. DCDuring (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In my perception, "two/three hours" etc., at least for low numbers, is most often conceived of as a continuously divisible period of time rather than a number of discrete things, so yes, the bracketing would then be the same. Thus, it is generally natural to say "less than two hours" (= "less than [two hours]") rather than "fewer than two hours" (= "[fewer than two] hours), unless for some reason we are only counting time in whole hours. Analogously, "around/about/under/nearly two hours", for me, generally means "around/about/under/nearly [two hours]" and not "[around/about/under/nearly two] hours". Mihia (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

PGmc *hnajjōną

Was this perhaps rather a class 1 weak verb (i.e. *hnajjaną, *hnajjijaną, *hnajjigjaną ?) I don't really see much evidence for it being class 2 weak. Examples of Old languages include: Old English hnǣġan/hnǣgan (class 1), Old Saxon tō-hnēgian (class 1a), and Old Norse hneggja. I don't see any of these being class 2. Leasnam (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe suppletive if from "go" and some suffix? Cp. Ger. zuneigegehen (zu Neige gehen ). ApisAzuli (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe...but at this time I am only puzzling with the form. There is also the Old Norse gneggja (*ga- + *hnajjijaną ?) making it more mysterious. Both Old Norse words have a short vowel, so this reconstruction may have to be split into different North and West Germanic terms. Leasnam (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The more I look at it, I think *hnajjijaną might be right. It seems like it could give rise to Old Norse hneggja as well as Proto-West Germanic *hnaiijan, *hnaījan (> Proto-West Germanic *hnaigijan₂) Leasnam (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Armenian

(This is a post from last year, which I'm moving here as it was evidently intended as a general question to the community, though it was posted at User talk:83.165.102.121.)

1. Cut Throat, by Christopher Bush, published 1932 e book , pos. 330: "Bit close, is he?" "Close! He's an Armenian". Has anynone met with this meaning for "Armenian"? Thank you — This unsigned comment was added by Prparga (talk • contribs) at 18:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

@Prparga What meaning do you see here? I am guessing it might be "close" in the sense of "stingy, tight-fisted", in which case it's probably just somebody's stereotype of Armenians being stingy. More context would help. Equinox ◑ 18:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Russian" as a term for mammary intercourse

"tit fuck" lists "Russian" as a synonym. I balked at this, but it's been repeatedly reverted and reinstated, and a little Googling found at least some assertions that this sense exists: [1] [2] [3] (sense 7, at the top of the page). On the other hand, I don't think any of these uses convey meaning. Can we find some good citations for adding "mammary intercourse" as a sense of "Russian"? Otherwise, I guess the synonym entry should go. —Kodiologist (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

There’s one hit on GoogleBooks: Earle, S., Sharp, K. (2016). Sex in Cyberspace: Men Who Pay For Sex. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. Page 5(?) (the pages are technically unnumbered). It’s a glossary and lists ‘Russian’ as a synonym for ‘tit fuck’ rather than it appearing naturally as part of a sentence; though only the preview of the book appears for free online, so it may be used within the book. Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It failed RFV (as can be seen in Talk:Russian), so feel free to remove it from the synonyms. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

We now have 4 sources for ‘Russian’ which weren’t brought to light in the original RFV process, where ‘Russian’ means precisely what was claimed (tit fuck), so it should probably be re-included in the Russian entry (and subsequently re-listed as a synonym at the tit fuck page.). Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Overlordnat1: see WT:CFI, 3 durably archived uses are required. As far as i can see, there currently are none. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3720:3717:85ca:7eff:acfd:5153 (talk) at 22:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC).

There is [4](page x, the glossary), as well as the three web hits found by @Kodiologist([5] [6] [7] (sense 7, at the top of the page)). We probably shouldn’t be relying on Urban Dictionary but GoogleBooks counts as durably archived and the other two hits arguably do, they clearly convey meaning too in fact. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"they clearly convey meaning too in fact" — They do? All four uses seem to bring it up solely to define it, so none are an example of the word in actual use. —Kodiologist (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

reddit, thetfp, urbandictionary don't count as durably archived. that google book's glossary is only a mention and no use. --2003:de:3720:3717:85ca:7eff:acfd:5153 07:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A sentence like “Mexicans call a titty-fuck a Russian” seems more valid than “titty-fuck = Russian”, I would say it’s more than a mention, and all 3 of the websites are still accessible after more than 10 years so it seems unlikely they will suddenly be taken down; besides which the Urban Dictionary hit has been durably archived on the internet archive and could arguably be thought of as a Lemma (though Urban Dictionary is notoriously unreliable admittedly). It would be a shame if we didn’t include a clearly valid definition through pedantic application of vaguely defined rules, in my humble opinion. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Such a sentence is only a mention, maybe WT:CFI#Conveying meaning + use–mention distinction help. (Also as for that sentence: Those Mexicans probably speak Mexican or Spanish and would use ruso and not Russian.) A use would be like: ^?"After she gave him some Russian, he came on her tits". --2003:de:3720:3717:85ca:7eff:acfd:5153 11:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

under

Adj sense:

1. Being lower; being beneath something.
   • 1611, Bible (King James Version), 1 Corinthians ix. 27

     I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection.

   • 1825, Thomas Moore, The Minster Boy

     The minstrel fell, but the foeman's chain / Could not bring his proud soul under.

The only way I can make sense of the first quotation, both semantically in the full sentence context and in terms of PoS, is if it is an archaic/poetic word order for "I keep my body under". But is that what it does really mean? Any opinions anyone? Also, any opinions on the PoS of "under" in the "minstrel" example? Can you "bring something adjective"? Isn't it more likely an adverb? Mihia (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Both seem to me to be about keeping body or soul under control or submission. The both seem adverbial. DCDuring (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for taking on the definitions of these common English function words with such care. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of these kinds of articles are in a not-great shape. I've had a go at tidying up one or two, but PoS always seems to be problematic with certain senses. Anyway, I've moved the above 1825 quote to adverb. On the 1611 quote, are you interpreting "I keep under my body" analogously to "I keep warm my body", which in ordinary modern English we would say as "I keep my body warm"? If so, would "under" not be an adjective, as "warm" is? Or are you seeing it in a different way? Mihia (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I interpret it as a way of saying "bring it into subjection", using simple words that normal Anglo-Saxon 17th century churchgoers would understand. DCDuring (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, but do you see it as grammatically analogous to "I keep warm my body = I keep my body warm", or do you see some other grammatical explanation? Mihia (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Yes, the syntax seems the same as warm''s. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Mihia (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I see it as grammatically analogous to "I keep warm my body" on the surface, adverbial in the verbal phrase. In diachrony and not through the lense of modern language there may be different interpretations, cp. inter, equivalent to keep with. That's still adverbial I suppose, but the composition of prepositional head and convoluted suffixes complicates things, see *under. It would simply have to go to keep under if it isn't transparent per say.

There is a chance it was actually akin to sound, gesund cp. Ger. gesund halten, gesunde Haltung, gesund bleiben. Complicated indeed. Stay safe -- adv. or adj.? ApisAzuli (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Stay safe -- adv. or adj. ? I would say adj. Compare stay calm vs. stay calmly (compare other verbs like: do it calmly, work calmly, sleep calmly, etc.) Leasnam (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree -- "safe" in "stay safe" is surely an adjective as it describes the state in which you should remain. Mihia (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

gender of cities, states, etc. in Italian

(Notifying GianWiki, Metaknowledge, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia, Sartma): I notice for example that San Paolo is given as feminine for the city of São Paulo, Brazil, but masculine for the state it belongs to. This tendency to make cities feminine seems to apply even to cities ending in -o in Italy (e.g. Torino, Milano). Is this universally the case? What about for countries? Benwing2 (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't really speak Italian, but I suspect that the gender for cities and states may very well follow from the gender for the common nouns meaning "city" and "state" (according to the translations at city and state, that would be città f and stato m, respectively). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that is correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Berlino (f., sense state) and New York (m., sense city - though as translation of English New York given as f.) would contradict. But well, the entries could simply be incorrect... — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3720:3797:755f:907c:f604:176 (talk).

I don't speak Italian but I guess they follow the same logic as French. The word city is feminine in French, Italian and Spanish. When we talk about Paris, we use a feminine adjective after to be (Paris est belle) but we use a masculine one before the noun (le beau Paris). Not sure if Italian and Spanish do that too. For provinces or states, we use a gender depending on history: la Normandie, la Louisiane, le Texas. It must be difficult for a foreigner to find any logic in that. Countries in French and Italian have genders mostly depending on their ending. All the "ie" are feminine (Italie, Colombie, Russie). Some have no logic (Canada is masculine). Portugal is masculine because all "al" words are masculine in French. I'm pretty sure Italian follows the same logic. We also give a gender to brands or names of vehicles depending of what they are. A car is feminine so it's "la Tesla", a boat is masculine so it's "le Titanic". User:Ericdec85

So would one write in French, le Paris de la Belle Époque était gaie?  --Lambiam 10:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

阿魯納恰爾邦 vs 阿魯納查爾邦

(Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly): This entry has, as of now, not been created (It refers to the Arunachal Pradesh). I wonder which of 阿魯納恰爾 and 阿魯納查爾 is the prevailing form in attestable material (or considered "standard", although such standard, if exists, may vary from place to place). From a purely Mandarin point of view 恰 (qià) appears a closer match to the च (ca) syllable (Hindi IPA^(key): /t͡ʃə/, Sanskrit IPA^(key): /t͡ɕə/) phonetically, since 查 (chá) has a retroflex initial, although this is certain not the case with Cantonese. — This unsigned comment was added by Frigoris (talk • contribs).

assener

Wiktionary's and Wiktionnaire's recorded pronunciation is: a.sə.ne. Wiktionnaire's written pronunciation is: a.sə.ne. Larousse's notes for the entry asséner under 'difficultés orthographe et prononciation' give as.ne and a.se.ne as the only admissible forms. — This unsigned comment was added by Can't Spell Won't Spell (talk • contribs).

Special:Contributions/2003:DE:3720:3797:DD04:C3FD:9FC8:4F28

An anon has removed "male" from a bunch of English definitions and has motivated doing so by adding quotes where both men and women are implied. The usefulness of these quotes aside, is this genuinely a much-needed improvement or is it the German gender discussion applied to English gendered words? Some of the translation sections had to be reverted because they only included masculine forms. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"are implied"

incorrect, it's not "implied" ("without being stated directly"), but it's stated directly, it's expressed (e.g. by adjectives like female).

"the German gender discussion"

incorrect/irrelevant, it's about English and English usage.

"because they only included masculine forms"

incorrect, simply look at the translations. E.g. "Volapük: Linglänan, hi-Linglänan (male)" where the first is not masculine/male, or "Vietnamese: người Anh (male or female)" with người (“human”) and qualifier. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3720:3797:755f:907c:f604:176 (talk).

a) Being forced to add adjectives to explain what is included in a term risks contradicting the usage you're implying – if Englishman naturally referred to English women, then why do you need to specify?; b) Not an irrelevant consideration – you're editing from Germany and have made quite a few changes to German entries. Applying subjective logic to other languages happens all the time and is worth discussing.; c) The majority of the languages in the translation section only had masculine translations even though feminine forms exist. Changing the entire structure to fit Volapük or any chosen language is just plain wrong. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

a) rhetoric (like it's also "young and old" and "and children" in one example). c) 1. the translations weren't only masculine/male to begin with, hence the top of the translations and the given translations didn't fit from the beginning. 2. Quotes have been added, the sense/definition improved, and fittingly to that top of the translations was adjusted, as the translations are there to translate the English senses and not something else. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3720:3797:755f:907c:f604:176 (talk).

Sounds like addapting the translation sections to inude both f. a d m. where the English header cannot usefully distinguish sounds like a problem without a one-size fits all solution. 2A00:20:6090:E41B:F99A:43E:308:BB5A 14:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese editora & editor

• editora f: 1. female equivalent of editor; 2. publishing company
• editor m: 1. editor (person who edits); 2. publisher (one who publishes, especially books)

Does "one who publishes" mean "person who publishes" or "person who or company/organisation which publishes"? Or is editora used for things, and editor for persons? --21:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3720:3760:755f:907c:f604:176 (talk).

Good catch. It works like this: person -> either; company/org -> feminine; software -> masculine. I’ll make the required changes. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

扒帶子

We need more evidence on the pronunciation of 扒 here. Is the pinyin bā or pá? --Frigoris (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it’s pá (pronunciation 2) as that is the sense of the word which means “to gather up, rake up; to pickpocket”. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No it's bā, as in, 剥；脱. See Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian (bādài) or Xiandai Hanyu Cidian page 18 (bādài). ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

behind

Is there any good reason why at behind the definition "(of a watch or clock) Slow" is under "adverb", while at slow, the definition "Behind in time; indicating a time earlier than the true time" is under "adjective"? Mihia (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Likewise, at behind, the definition "Overdue, in arrears" is adverb, with example I'm two weeks behind in my schedule, yet at overdue, the example his library books were three days overdue is adjective. Any good reason? Mihia (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one - perhaps because there is no Adjective header, so when the editor who added those senses added them, they placed them under Adverb as the nearest PoS (?) - btw, I see those definitions/senses as adjectival. For the 'behind' sense of time, I can see how it might have originated from an adverb, as in My watch is running behind (in telling the time) => My watch is behind due to ellipsis. It somehow doesn't quite feel like a true adjective though...more like a quasi-adjective (if there is such a thing). For instance, one can say "that thing is slow." and that is a complete thought. However, if one were to say "That thing is behind." ...behind what ? behind in what way ? It doesn't seem final. It begs the question "behind in doing what" and that perhaps makes it somewhat adverbial (?). But in today's usage it's been contorted into an adjective, so I think that is how we should now show it Leasnam (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Both seem adjectival. I agree with Leasnam's conjecture as to why as well. DCDuring (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

My ESL instinct is it must be prepositional, behind time. If you disagree with any of the above, you know the deal, three quotations. I could care less if that's a little behind, or retarded -- which seems to have a different etymology from the same root on account of German behindert, viz. hindered, or was German likely reanalyzed on that less fine point of euphemism (cp. Behindi "retard", formally Behinderter)? ApisAzuli (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the senses of behind are a total nightmare in terms of PoS. Here's another one. It seems to me that "I'm very behind with my work" is adjectival (setting aside the idea that it could be an intransitive preposition), so what about "I'm a long way behind with my work"? Is that instead adverbial by virtue of "a long way"? What do you think? Mihia (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And of course again we hit the age-old and seemingly intractable problem whereby e.g. "I sat in front, and she sat behind" is apparently adverbial, while "I was in front, and she was behind", being equivalent to "she was situated in a rearward position", for want of a neater phrase, is apparently adjectival, and yet again "She sat behind me" we would class as prepositional. Duplicating these kinds of cases over two three PoSes, for what seems essentially a very similar meaning, is a pain in the neck. One way out would be to do what e.g. M-W does, and have a heading encompassing multiple PoS. For "behind", they have a heading "adverb or adjective". I suppose another way out would be to call them all prepositions and to hell with it. Ho-hum. Mihia (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

repent

What is the difference in meaning between senses 3 and 4:

• (transitive) To feel pain on account of; to remember with sorrow.
• (transitive) To be sorry for, to regret.

They appear to have slightly different translations. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I think what the editor may have been aiming for is an almost cynical sense akin to to the bleaching semantics of to say sorry - lip service, white washing, or kneeling before a tyrant. In the simplest case it is the utterance itself that is understood as the act of penance, by which it differs conceptually from the other definitions. This can be seen in rather cynic usage of regret, typically like so: I regret to inform you that your dog that kept me awake every night has eventually run into my line of fire while I was hunting rabbits in the garden. I have repented my sins immediately. Please find the bill for clean-up attached. Cheers ApisAzuli (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't see two separate senses here. If there are, then the distinction certainly needs to be more clearly explained, and illustrated by examples. (I don't think we need separate senses for more and less sincere uses, if that was indeed the intention.) Mihia (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

request to change the page 'mahcawq' to 'mahcawg'

this one's pretty short! strachey writes <mahcawg> not <mahcawq> for pumpkin (https://ibb.co/VwSSXM9) — This unsigned comment was added by 71.168.227.38 (talk) at 00:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC).

If the spelling mahcawq is attested, we can keep it as well, though. The best thing would be to start an RFV for the q spelling to see if it's attested. If both spelling are attested, we can have both entries; if only one is, then we'll go with that spelling. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Our spelling follows the British Library manuscript, whereas anon is using the Bodleian manuscript. We should probably have the Bodleian spellings as well, marked as such. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"chon" in French

Hi,

I'm a guinea pig enthusiast from France and I'm following many Facebook groups about them. Most people on those groups refer them as "chon" (singular) or "chons" (plural). Both pronunciations are /ʃɔ̃/. It comes from "cochon d'Inde" (pig from India / guinea pig). This word will never be in any dictionary but is used every day by many people. Should it be added in the Wiktionary? I also realized that the German word Meeri (short for Meerschweinchen) is not in the Wiktionary either. I think they could be added as jargon words. User:Ericdec85

Not being in any dictionary isn't a problem. Demonstrating that the term is in use is another matter. Looking through Google Books, I see a series of children's books set in "Chonland" that refer to "chons" throughout, which would certainly qualify as one example (we call them "cites"), but you would have to find 2 more independant of those to meet WT:ATTEST. There are a respectable number of Google Books hits for "chon d'Inde", but they all seem to be unstances of cochon d'Inde where the the OCR doesn't recognize that the preceding "co" as part of the same word. Perhaps there are enthusiast publications that use the term (I'm not very good at searching periodicals). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

On frwikt there's only 1 non-durable cite (from a pet forum). This might be tricky. – Jberkel 15:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

voldoen (aan)

The entry for the Dutch verb voldoen has:

1. to satisfy, to meet
2. to suffice

I think the definition for sense 1 is wrong in that the English verbs are transitive (and meet in this sense even requires the presence of an object), whereas in Dutch the goal or criterion that is met is indicated with a prepositional phrase, using the preposition aan. For example, Deze oplossing voldoet aan onze behoeften = This solution meets our needs. What is the preferred way to indicate such things? (For English verbs, we have separate entries for, for example, get, get by, get on. That approach does not work for Dutch, I think.) BTW, neither of the current two senses covers the use in een schuld voldoen (“to pay a debt”). @Lingo Bingo Dingo  --Lambiam 08:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam What do you think of the current state of the entry? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

De huidige toestand voldoet geheel aan, neen, overtreft zelfs mijn stoutste verwachtingen.  --Lambiam 20:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

denial

A refusal to comply with a request.

Every time we asked for an interview we got a denial.

I intend to add and accommodate more typical but presently-lacking examples along the lines of The denial of medical treatment to those who cannot afford to pay is scandalous, possibly by extending or amending this definition, but I seem to be having a mental blank about "comply with a request". Is a "denial" in this sense always a failure/refusal to provide or grant something, or can it be used for other "refusals to comply"? Mihia (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be phrased as ‘refusal to provide a service’ but what about ‘denied us the satisfaction’? Can one say: “My neighbour denied us the ball”, instead of ‘refused to give us the ball’? It sounds odd but it might be semantically sound, I’m not sure. Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Both "denied us the satisfaction" and "denied us the ball" would be covered by a definition along the lines of "failure/refusal to provide or grant something". What I am wondering is whether there are any uses of "denial" to mean "refusal to comply with a request" that aren't compatible with such a definition. If not, the inclusion of words such as "provide" or "grant" would make a tighter definition. Mihia (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I suppose, weakly, one could always say that the request was not granted, whatever the request... hmmm, so let's make it "failure/refusal to provide or grant something requested/desired". Mihia (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that would work. It includes the ‘denied the opportunity to…’ construction which normally refers to something desired rather than requested. Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

In a denial-of-service attack, the denial is not the failure/refusal to provide or grant service, but the withholding/thwarting of access to the service.  --Lambiam 21:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

We may need a new sense for that. Also there’s no sense currently meaning ‘disownment/disavowal’, relating to sense 6 of deny (e.g Jesus being ‘denied thrice’ by Peter). Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyway I made the suggested change to #3, the "refusal to comply" sense. Couldn't one say that a denial-of-service attack is an attack that causes a denial of service, i.e. causes or gives rise to a failure of service provision, so is explainable by #3? Mihia (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Good. I suppose it could be thought of as sense 3, just about. I’ve added the ‘disownment/disavowal’ definition too. Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't be so detailed. Maybe something like "prevent from having something wanted or requested"? It doesn't really matter if the one who would provide something doesn't provide it or some other party acts to prevent provision of it, or even if some random combination of events leads indirectly to their not having it. "The death of his father denied him the opportunity to set things right between them". Chuck Entz (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This is about denial, the noun. You seem to be referring to the verb. (Or maybe you are making a separate or transferrable point?) Mihia (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did overlook that. Still, the noun can be used to refer to pretty much any action of the verb, so I'm not so sure my point is irrelevant. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The argument of hearts

Sense 3 of the entry for argument harbours a subsense: “(figuratively) the contents [of a literary work] themselves”. But is this not, rather, sense 8.2: “(countable, obsolete) The subject matter of an artistic representation, discourse, or writing; a theme or topic”?  --Lambiam 21:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: OED, sense 7: "The summary or abstract of the subject matter of a book; a syllabus; figurative the contents." — SGconlaw (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@SGconlaw — I do not doubt that the sense of contents exists (next to that of summary), but how is it different from our sense 8.2? Does OED have another sense that more closely corresponds to our 8.2 than their sense 7?  --Lambiam 19:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: it does – sense 6: "Subject matter of discussion or discourse in speech or writing; theme, subject. Obsolete or archaic." It seems the difference between our sense 3 and sense 8.2 is that sense 3 is a way of referring to a literary work as a whole, while sense 8.2 refers to the topic of the work, what the work is about. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

female fellows

I don't believe that a woman or girl can be referred to as a fellow in English, even rarely, unless you make it clear that you are doing something unusual. The only context where this is violated is women who are fellows in a scientific or academic society. My belief is directly at odds with one of the definitions/senses on the fellow page that has been there since 2013 and is labeled as 'rare'. I don't see the three cites there (two added by the hard-working Kiwima) as confirming a 'rare' sense of 'fellow' to refer to a woman or girl. To my mind, those three examples are highly contextualized by quotation marks and references to masculinity and are therefore not indicative of a rare sense of 'fellow'. Kiwima said I might bring this up at rfd or here. I think this is an interesting issue to mull over. No mainline dictionary I could find has female fellows. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Besides the cites currently in the entry, Maxim Gorky also has a character say "Tell her I'll be there immediately! Tell her she's a fine fellow! I'll just get a present for her and I'll come!". But I do think the current arrangement and sequence of senses could be improved. Might it make more sense to define it as "a person, usually a man" and then put "a man" beneath that as a subsense (or just the next sense on the same level)...? I also wonder if "a man without good breeding or worth" needs to be tagged as obsolete. The senses that relate to sharing characteristics could also be grouped as subsenses (I have now done this). - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I've definitely heard people sing "For She's a Jolly Good Fellow" to women. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Ditto. We have a quotation for someone singing “The Queen’s a jolly good fellow.” and along with the other quotes for this sense and the fact that a professional colleague or associate who is female is also a fellow (though this is of course covered by the other senses), this forms part of a convincing body of evidence that a fellow can be female, albeit rarely outside of certain circumstances. If this gets sent to RFD I’ll vote ‘keep’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

mad lad

I created this entry today, but now I'm not sure if it was a legitimate creation. It seems like I can find three cites of the words 'mad' and 'lad' together, but I don't know if they conform to my definition, which is similar to the first urban dictionary definition. Is it a legitimate definition? I think this could be interesting for someone who looks into slang words a lot to look at. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this also used for female persons? My first impression is that this is a sum of parts. Are you mad? is a question one may hear directed at someone who wantonly engages in unnecessarily dangerous or egregiously weird behaviour. Google Ngrams Viewer shows a neck-and-neck race between mad lad and mad bloke, but they are completely dominated by mad fellow.  --Lambiam 19:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This was originally a British phrase that could be seen as sum of parts (a "lad" is a young man, especially one who is cool/popular, "one of the lads" etc.) and obviously "mad" can mean acting in a crazy way. But it has become an Internet meme phrase (not just in Britain?) for someone who thinks they are doing something wacky and daring, but is actually unimpressive. It is used sarcastically. See e.g. "madlads" on Reddit and one of the best-known examples. Equinox ◑ 13:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've heard it used in Canada, where "lad" and that sense of "mad" are definitely not part of normal speech. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

adverse

• Sense 1: "Unfavorable; antagonistic in purpose or effect; hostile; actively opposing one's interests or wishes; contrary to one's welfare; acting against; working in an opposing direction. adverse criticism; adverse weather"
• Sense 2: "Opposed; contrary; opposing one's interests or desire. adverse circumstances"

How do these senses differ? Why are adverse criticism and adverse weather under #1, while adverse circumstances is under #2? (Note some of the translations differ too.) Equinox ◑ 18:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, no difference in senses is clearly demonstrated by the present entries. Mihia (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

clearing vs clearance

Hi. clearing says

(soccer) The act of removing the ball from one's own goal area by kicking it.

and in clearance

(soccer) The act of kicking a ball away from the goal one is defending.

Well, I think that is same, that is, are synonyms. Is true? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, must be! Equinox ◑ 23:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: And which do you think is used the most? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There's also a verb clear, and clearing and clearance can both be used to describe (almost?) any sense of that verb. Whether one is more common in football I don't know; the sports fan Wonderfool can possibly help. Equinox ◑ 00:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

In this sense, "clearance" is generally more common, outside of certain patterns. One would (almost) never say "the goalkeeper's clearing", only "the goalkeeper's clearance". However, one can use gerund phrases such as "clearing the ball", e.g. "they aren't very good at clearing the ball". Mihia (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox, Mihia: Thanks. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

"Plural unknown or uncertain"

The template {{en-noun|?}} used to show no plural at all, but now it says "plural unknown or uncertain". I think this is bad. It suggests that there is no known plural whatsoever, even to experts. But really this template means that Wiktionary editors are not yet sure about the plural. Often there is one, to be added later. Can we revert this template change? Equinox ◑ 00:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, probably best not to have this message. Maybe have some hovertext explaining why no plural is currently shown? Or is that not useful for some users (eg, those using mobile devices), in which case is there a different solution? — SGconlaw (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Benwing2 made this change. I also oppose it; it's misleading and unnecessary — I don't think any (hover)text is needed at all. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, revert this to just not showing a plural. If we don't know the information, it shouldn't be included. This is akin to putting "Unknown" in an etymology just because the etym was left blank. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• I also agree that the text "plural unknown or uncertain" should be removed. Per Equinox, it reads as if no one knows whether there is a plural, or what the plural is, whereas in fact probably just whoever added the entry was not certain. Since all comments have opposed this change, can someone with the necessary permissions/authority undo it now? Mihia (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  I wanted Ben to deal with this to avoid collateral damage, but as he has not done so, I undid it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Great, thanks. Mihia (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sligeach

Both Sligigh and Shligigh are given as the genitive. And how is it pronounced? --Espoo (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Espoo: They're both right in a way. Sligigh is "technically" the genitive (call it the de jure genitive), but the genitive case of definite nouns such as proper nouns always undergoes lenition, so in practice it will always appear as Shligigh (call it the de facto genitive). Shligigh is pronounced /ˈ(h)lʲɪɟɪɟ/, /ˈ(h)lʲɪɟə/ or /ˈ(h)lʲɪɟi(ː)/ depending on the dialect. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Does lenition occur only in certain environments? Do declension charts normally show the forms without lenition? In any case, there shouldn't be a different genitive form in the declension chart than after the headword.

Is Contae Shligigh always spelled that way, never Contae Sligigh?

Are Shligigh and Sligigh pronounced differently? According to the lenition chart, s is pronounced /sˠ/ or /ʃ/ and sh is pronounced /h/. Are your pronunciations saying that sh is sometimes silent?

Is only one of the three pronunciations/dialects you list used in the county or town of Sligo? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sligo mentions only one pronunciation. --Espoo (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, the genitive of Sligeach always appears as Shligigh. I can't think of a case where lenition wouldn't occur. The declension tables aren't refined enough to show lenition in this case, because only definite nouns without the definite article (which largely means proper nouns) undergo it, and our tables don't differentiate between common nouns and proper nouns. Sligigh, if it occurred, would be pronounced with /ʃlʲ/. Shligigh is ideally pronounced with /hlʲ/, but a lot of speakers (especially nonnative speakers, and Irish has far more nonnative speakers than native speakers) drop the /h/ before a consonant. The pronunciation of the final -igh varies by dialect; in Sligo itself speakers presumably pronounced it /iː/ since that's the pronunciation in Mayo and Donegal, which are the two counties with Gaeltacht areas closest to Sligo (Sligo itself has no Gaeltacht). —Mahāgaja · talk 19:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

OG smoker

Came across that phrase multiple items in an article about blunts for marijuana. Couldn't find a definition though. There is a Wiktionary entry for O.G., though possibly the meaning is ocean grown (as one variety was grown near the ocean in California). Seems like a common phrase. An OG smoker seems to be an experienced or connoisseur pothead. -- Jonathan Webley (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it looks like the adjective sense we have for O.G.. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Without a doubt Ocean Grown is a reinterpretation of O.G., and the majority of putative O.G. Smokers doesn't care, so to them it is simply the adjective sense of O.G., indeed, which has become a nonce word pretty much, original gangster, old geezer, whatever. Actually, O.G. appears to be sum of parts from o' (ol') and gee (2.4. (US, slang) A guy), subject to interpretation. 2A00:20:6059:1C35:2037:7694:184C:B942 01:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

shut up

3. (transitive) To enclose (a person, animal or thing) in a room or other place so that it cannot leave.

4. (transitive) To put (an object) in a secure enclosed place.

As far as it applies to "thing" and "object", are these distinct? To my eye, "thing ... cannot leave" in #3 is slightly strangely written, but if this was fixed then would there actually be a difference with #4? Mihia (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I say merge them. Maybe into 3, removing "so that it cannot leave". Ultimateria (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

They seem slightly distinct but could be merged if reworded. I don’t think the word ‘thing’ is necessary or helpful in sense 3 and should probably be removed, as ‘things’, in the normal sense of the word, don’t really move of their own accord without somebody moving them, either manually or by using a power source (such as is the case with a battery-operated toy or a car, for example). Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Merged. Mihia (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

👍 Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

help the Halloween party

Given as a dated Irish synonym of trick or treat. But does it really have the same implications: give us treats or else we will play pranks on you? Equinox ◑ 21:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Does trick or treat have those connotations? I wouldn't say it does anymore. But an expanded non-gloss definition could be useful here. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently malicious damage claims increased by 160% on October 31 2017 in the U.K., according to Aviva (https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/rights-if-house-gets-egged-11413722), so it sometimes happens (though I’m not sure ‘prank’ or ‘trick’ is the best term to describe such criminal mischief and most trick-or-treaters don’t behave like that). Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

varsku

I'm really green using Wiktionary, so I would like to ask knowledgeable users to make an entry for me. The Norwegian word, varsku, does not exist in Wiktionary. Google Translate has it as meaning, "warns". I have a paperback dictionary by Einar Haugen, Universitetsforlaget 1974 that tells me that it is a verb with past tense varskudde and past participle, varskudd. First meaning is "alert, warn (om about)". The second is "inform, notify".

Wiktionary is complex and I don't want to make an error while making a new entry.

Thank you!

• See the contents of Category:Norwegian Nynorsk verbs or Category:Norwegian Bokmål verbs - find the closest fit and copy the formatting. SemperBlotto. And are you sure of the spelling? (these verbs seem to end in "e"). (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Curiously, there is an Afrikaans verb waarsku with the meaning “to warn”, which appears to be a cognate. According to the Bokmålsordboka, varsku is an alternative form of varsko, at the same time a verb (borrowed from Low German), a noun and an interjection. Nynorsk has only the spelling varsku. The first part is undoubtedly related to English aware and beware; it is less clear if the second component is related to show or shy, but the o in varsko may suggest the former.  --Lambiam 15:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

top oneself

Definition 2 for ‘top oneself’ is to overdose, shouldn’t that read ‘to die from an overdose’ or ‘to overdose to the point of death’? It could be argued that ‘to kill oneself’ includes ‘to kill oneself accidentally, especially through irresponsibility’ and sense 2 could be thought of as either an extension, or specific instance, or sense 1 (commit suicide). ‘Overdose’ itself is sometimes used with the specific meaning ‘to take an excessive dose, leading to ones death’ rather than the more general sense of ‘to take an excessive dose’, which could perhaps be reflected in our overdose entry but regardless of that I don’t think that ‘top oneself’ can be used to refer to the actions of someone who OD’ed but came out alive in the end. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the specifics of the definition, but "to overdose to the point of death" would be more naturally expressed as "to fatally overdose". Chuck Entz (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's an empirical question. It wouldn't surprise me much if it did not always mean to die from an overdose in some usage. In my idiolect it would mean "die from an overdose". I suppose that what makes it not redundant to the more general suicide sense is that the overdosage could be excessive, but not intentionally so. DCDuring (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

’Overdose to the point of death’ does sound rather clunky, unlike the other two possibilities, that’s true. Perhaps I should create a definition for a new sense: ‘to accidentally fatally overdose’ and RFV/RFD the ‘overdose’ sense? Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sent to RFD. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Now in RFV Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

media

Hi. I have added a new third etymology in "media" as clipping of "multimedia" in computing. So is right? Please, review. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this is probably wrong. Multimedia refers to a combination of different media (e.g. joint audio and video capabilities on a computer), but a "media file" in your example may just be a file containing a single medium (e.g. sound alone). We might however be missing a sense of media. Equinox ◑ 15:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: ¡In Android is used also as "Silence media in Silent mode". And this in adjust volume there are three modus: Media, Ringtone and Alarm. In Spanish "Media" is translated like "multimedia". --Vivaelcelta (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "media" needs a sense like "(computing) files containing sensory data such as video or audio". But it's not multimedia in every case, as I explained above. Equinox ◑ 22:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vivaelcelta: I've added this sense: "(computing) Files and data comprising material viewable by humans, but usually not plain text; audiovisual material." It could perhaps be improved. I hope it handles what you were trying to say. Equinox ◑ 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

*

In the Translingual section, sense 3.2 in symbol and sense 5.1 in punctuation mark both refer to the same meaning, don't they? If so, then is "*" under this sense a symbol or a punctuation mark? --ItMarki (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that in sense 5.1 it is not a punctuation mark but a symbol (aka known as wildcard character). Moreover, I question if the use for masking profanity (punctuation mark sense 1) qualifies as a punctuation mark.  --Lambiam 12:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Is an asterisk ever a "punctuation mark"? Mihia (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Module:headword/data

Lingao (onb) is a "language with spaces between syllables". Please add it into data.no_multiword_cat. Thanks. --沈澄心✉ 01:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@沈澄心: Done. (You'll probably get a faster response next time if you post edit requests in the Beer Parlour or Grease Pit.) — Eru·tuon 19:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

in the blood

Would it be worth having an entry for "(it's) in the blood"?

The things alleged to be "in the blood" are certainly not necessarily "in the blood" in a literal sense.

Not to mention, the phrasing has occasionally been altered by speakers in recent decades in a way that has formed a variant: "(it's) in the DNA". So "(it's) in the blood" is clearly an established phrase in the language. Tharthan (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it would be preferable to add a figurative sense to blood. This use comes close sense 2 as it stands, but not quite. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t mind a new entry, though a figurative sense might work instead. We also don’t have the meaning of ‘friend/mate/man’ for blood as our entry currently stands. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that "in someone's blood" also exists in the same sense. Mihia (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd have thought in someone's blood to be more common, which means we should have redirects from in my blood, in your blood, etc. Also, "someone" can be an animal, eg, a wolf.

I note that we don't a few of the MWOnline's 15 senses and subsenses and that MWOnline has a run-in entry at blood for in one's blood. DCDuring (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

If we don't end up having an entry for in the blood or in someone's blood, and we opt instead to add an additional figurative sense to the blood entry, we at the very least ought to have a redirect for those phrases to that sense for the benefit of non-native English speaker Wiktionary users who might look that phrase up here and not assume that they would need to go to the blood entry to get an explanation. Tharthan (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should have redirects from the longer phrases if we put this at blood. I'm not sure whether it'd be better at blood or at in someone's blood and/or in the blood: how many variants using blood are there besides those two (considering things like "in his blood" to be in someone's blood)? OTOH, maybe the number of things other than blood that can be used suggests it's a sense of blood; something can also be in a person's or a political party's DNA (for which reason we need to broaden the currently business-specific sense at DNA!), soul, bones, etc. (Side note, we have "framework" as a sense at both bone and bones, but marked as "plural only" at bones.) - -sche (discuss) 20:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

put up or shut up

1. (idiomatic) To desist from saying something unless one is able to prove it; to act in a manner that makes further talk unnecessary.
2. (politics) To put oneself forward for election or cease disloyalty to the incumbent.

I don't really get how "put up or shut up" can mean "to act in a manner that makes further talk unnecessary". Wouldn't that just be the "put up" part? Or am I missing something?

Also, while I'm here, is #2 definitely distinct enough to be a separate sense, or is it just one of numerous examples of the general sense? I mean, why not a "sporting" sense, or a "business" sense, or whatever? What do you think? Mihia (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: "put up or shut up" is a reasonably common idiom in English, so much so that it has its own entry in Merriam-Webster, the Cambridge English Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary. Furthermore, you can find dozens of instances of it in high-profile publications, and there are likely innumerable uses of it dating back to what I believe is the 1870s. The two in this case aren't redundant whatsoever; it's telling someone to prove something ("put up") or stop claiming it ("shut up"). TheTechnician27 (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know that this is a common idiom, and I know what it normally means. I am not arguing with the definition "To desist from saying something unless one is able to prove it". What I am querying is the definition "to act in a manner that makes further talk unnecessary". This seems to be a definition of "put up", not "put up or shut up", unless anyone can explain otherwise. Mihia (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: Regarding usage #2, this would 100% be a subset of definition #1. It would therefore need a lot of this specific usage behind it to justify including it as a separate definition, which I'm fairly certain does not exist (I can't read one of the two attestations because it's a dead link behind a paywall, but the other one feels like it doesn't even match the stated definition it's purporting to attest to). This was added by an IP back in 2012, and I think it's safe to say that you're entirely on-point; I'm going to go ahead and remove it. TheTechnician27 (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional sense of "couplet"

Starting back in the 1950s or so, electronics manufacturers used what they called "couplets" — essentially multiple resistors, capacitors &c. sealed in a single block of ceramic. They were the precursors of the integrated circuit, I suppose. This sense of the word was common enough at the time that I think should probably be added. I'm not really sure how exactly define it though, and especially not sure what kind of source to use for it. What kind of source would be acceptable for such a technical word? Or is it too esoteric for Wiktionary? FarnhamJ (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@FarnhamJ: Nothing is too esoteric for Wiktionary as long as it meets our attestation requirements. If there are books, journals, newspapers, magazine articles, and so on that use couplet in that sense, by all means add it. Searching Google Books for electronics couplet turns up a lot that looks rather promising, although for some reason I can't access Google Books results anymore (clicking any result gives an "Error 500" page) so I can't really investigate. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Intransitive verb v. passive use of a transitive verb

I have a question about the transitivity of verbs. I would have thought that the following quote from Robert Louis Stevenson's The Black Arrow is an intransitive use of the verb sward: "It was a pillared grove, as high as a cathedral, and except for the hollies among which the lads were struggling, open and smoothly swarded." However, the OED says it is a passive use of a transitive verb. If so, how does one generally tell the difference between an intransitive verb and a transitive verb used passively? — SGconlaw (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a verb form at all. Like pillared in the same sentence, swarded is an adjective formed by adding -ed#Etymology 3 to the noun sward. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, I can see how it is an adjective. But coming back to my question, is there a way of distinguishing between an intransitive verb and a transitive verb used passively? — SGconlaw (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you give an example where intransitive verb and passive (transitive) verb could be confused? Isn't the grammatical pattern always different? Mihia (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

In some cases, Occam's razor (not positing any more kinds of verb than necessary) helps, so for example if the verb is clearly transitive in some cases, and the only cases where it might be intransitive could also be explained as passive transitives, don't posit intransitivity. But if some (non-passive) cases are clearly intransitive and some clearly transitive, that test alone won't help clarify which one an ambiguous citation is. Sometimes it's possible to determine from the semantics whether a transitive or an intransitive or a non-verbal analysis fits best.
In this case, we could also phrase the intransitive definition ("to be covered with sward") as "to have a covering of sward", and while intransitive use of sward is conceivable (^?"The fields swarded." a la "My eyes misted." and "The bread molded."), "it was [...] swarded" seems more likely to be transitive ("it was covered") or non-verbal than intransitive ("it was was covered"? "it was had a covering"?), IMO. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@-sche: in the case of sward, the OED distinguished between transitive and intransitive uses. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly any verb X in the construction "it was Xed" can only be a passive transitive verb. Intransitive verbs can't be used in that construction in English (though they can in other languages like German). —Mahāgaja · talk 20:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Which is perhaps why the OED treated the above quotation (“It [the grove] […] was […] smoothly swarded”) as a transitive use of sward? Is it safe to conclude that a construction equivalent to “it was Xed” is a transitive use of the verb X (rather than an intransitive or adjective use)? Also, if the construction is simply “it Xed”, would that mean X is an intransitive verb? Sorry, I didn’t study the transitivity of verbs in school. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

In a construction equivalent to "it was Xed", either X is a transitive verb or Xed is an adjective (I'd argue that pillared and swarded in your example above are adjectives, not past participles of transitive verbs) but definitely not an intransitive verb. If the construction is simply "it Xed" with no direct object then the verb is intransitive. (But a whole lot of verbs in English can be used either transitively or intransitively, thus eat is intransitive in "I've eaten three times today" but transitive in "I've eaten three meals today". So neither of these tests prove that a verb is only transitive or intransitive; they merely prove that a verb can be used in one way or the other.) —Mahāgaja · talk 07:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: right. Hmmm, OK, so this is tricky. I guess, then, it wouldn't actually be wrong to put quotations with an "it was Xed" construction under either a transitive verb or adjective sense. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

In specific cases there may be an ambiguity in the PoS assignment, but in practice these are somewhat rare for quality quotations, because careful writers tend to avoid ambiguities. In “covenant relationship to God was fully and completely conferred every time an infant male was circumcised”^[8] it is clearly a participle. In “he that is circumcised shall not go to Gehinnom”^[9] it is an adjective.  --Lambiam 13:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: thanks. I guess if there really is a doubt over a particular quotation, I should either not use it or ask for advice here. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Update made to an 'OLD" "Tea Room" page

An edit ("update") was made today (to the "June 2020 Tea room" page) as follows:

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2020/June&diff=prev&oldid=63747865

and I suspect that it might get little or no attention without a link "from" here.
(right?)
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I don’t doubt that ‘unstanched’ and ‘unstaunched’ are opposites to stanched and staunched but if your reference quotes Shakespeare correctly then the quote in our entry for unstaunched does indeed use unstanced instead and should be replaced with another quote. I looked up ‘unstanced’ on Google Books and Shakespeare uses ‘unstanced’ to mean ‘not staunched/stanched elsewhere in Henry VI Part III (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Shakespeare_s_Macbeth/E8M5AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=“Unstanced”&pg=PA131&printsec=frontcover). Also ‘unstanced’ seems to mean ‘resumed ones original position after taking a stance (for shooting)’ and is also used as an adjective to describe articles by journalists that don’t take a stance. We don’t have these definitions, though admittedly there aren’t enough hits on GoogleBooks alone to support them, or related senses under stance or stanced; the only verb sense we have for ‘stance’ is an oddly specific Scottish one relating to penning in livestock. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

In the First Folio edition, the word is spelled unstanched, but there are Shakespeare editions that use the spelling unstaunched.^[10]  --Lambiam 13:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

What about Henry VI Part III? Does the First Folio have ‘unstanced’, ‘unstanched’, ‘unstaunched’ or something else? Overlordnat1 (talk)

Stifle the Villaine, whoſe vnſtanched thirſt / Yorke, and yong Rutland could not ſatiſfie

 --Lambiam 09:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Great job finding that. I’ve added a link to a similar version of this in our unstanched entry and put a quote from Kipling in the unstaunched one. It seems that Samuel Johnson was the first person to misquote Shakespeare as having written ‘unstaunched’ rather than ‘unstanched’, or so a GoogleBooks search suggests, but even so we should probably remove this quote from our unstaunched entry. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I’ve now removed it. Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

behind (2)

Another one: at Collins Dictionary, they define "behind" as in "the car behind started to overtake" as a postpositive adjective. Does anyone agree/disagree with this? Mihia (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a simple preposition use to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

One could certainly argue that it is implied that the car is behind something/someone. Trouble is, the same might be said about various other cases that are generally, or traditionally, seen as adverbial -- our example of "I shall not lag behind" to give just one. Mihia (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: One possible difference I see between your two examples is that in "the car behind" it is definitely implied that the car is behind some unnamed object, whereas in "lag behind" doesn't the word behind modify (is that the right word?) the verb lag? (But I never studied linguistics so …) — SGconlaw (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that "behind" in "lag behind" can be (and I think traditionally would be) explained as modifying "lag", i.e. adverbial. (By the way, it could also be claimed that "behind" in "the car behind" modifies "car", and so is adjectival.) This is more or less the way we do things now, in my experience, e.g. we would have "lag behind" as adverbial and, of course, "lag behind the others" as prepositional. I guess this is reasonable, albeit it does create duplication of what really seem very similar senses, but allowing prepositions without objects at all, as in "the car behind", does slightly open the door to the question of whether other objectless cases -- certainly cases where an object is implied or can reasonably be supplied -- should be prepositions too, it seems to me. Mihia (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• I created a vote on issues related to this, presently at feedback stage, at Wiktionary:Votes/2021-08/Scope_of_English_prepositions. Any interested parties are encouraged to provide any feedback on the vote design at the vote's discussion page. Mihia (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

[Subsequent discussion moved to Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2021-08/Scope_of_English_prepositions#I'm_confused.]

the matter

This entry has been nominated for WOTD. It's defined as meaning "wrong"; for example, "is there something the matter with him?" means "is there something wrong with him?". Should it be regarded as a noun, though? I would have thought it is an adjective, and indeed both the etymology and usage note refer to "adjectival use". — SGconlaw (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Does it attestably and unambiguously meet the tests that discriminate between nouns and adjectives? DCDuring (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@DCDuring: and what are those? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

See WT:English adjectives. DCDuring (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it can be classified as an adjective. I think it is a noun used in a special idiomatic way. It is slightly unfortunate if it can be substitutably defined only by an adjective. Mihia (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m just trying to wrap my head around the concept of a noun that is defined exactly like an adjective. What if we define it as “the difficulty; the problem”, or change the heading to “Phrase”? — SGconlaw (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If “the matter” means “wrong”, then we can surely define situation as SARS-CoV-2, because one says things like: Due to the situation, we cannot admit more than three customers at one time. 🤡 Fay Freak (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As FayFreak implies, semantics is a particularly poor way to determine a matter of syntax such as word-class membership. DCDuring (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Anyway, unless anyone has objections I propose to change the definition to "the difficulty; the problem", and explain the connection to "wrong" in the usage note instead. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The way that the entry is presently set out, as far as I understand it, is that the "&lit" sense is supposed to represent the case where "the difficulty; the problem" is substitutable (though of course there are other "even more literal" ways in which "the matter" can be used than the present example), as contrasted with the "wrong" sense where "the difficulty; the problem" is supposed to be not substitutable, i.e. "the matter" is something more than literal SoP. If the "wrong" sense is defined as "the difficulty; the problem", this distinction would be somewhat broken. Mihia (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: I thought what sense 2 is trying to convey is uses like "The matter needs further discussion", where it really is just the + matter. If not, then I am struggling to see the difference between sense 1 and 2, which means the entry is SoP and should be nominated for deletion. It seems to me that all the usage examples under sense 1 are explainable by the substitution of "the difficulty; the problem". I also don't see any significant difference between "Is there something the matter with him?" (an example under sense 1) and "What's the matter with him?" (sense 2). Just because the matter can be substituted with the word wrong doesn't make it idiomatic to me, especially since the part of speech doesn't even match. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more, defining the matter as "the difficulty; the problem" isn't SoP, because matter doesn't mean "difficulty; problem". Thus, one could argue that making that equivalence is an idiomatic use of matter. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me, though I have not worked on this article myself, that the sense 2 example "What's the matter with him?" is deliberately chosen to illustrate a seemingly similar case of "the matter" where "the difficulty/problem", say, can nevertheless (supposedly) be substituted, i.e. we can say "What's the problem with him?", while the sense 1 examples are supposed to be not substitutable in this way, i.e. we cannot naturally say "There is nothing the problem" or "Is there something the problem with him?". Your example of "the matter needs further discussion" is the sort of thing that I meant by "even more literal" in my previous post. Mihia (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: funny, I was just thinking that "There is nothing the problem" and "Is there something the problem with him?" sound grammatical to me. So are you suggesting that we leave the entry as it is? Is it common to have nouns that are used adjectivally – is this an attributive use? If so, would it be better to add an "attributively" label? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a tough case to present. In many common circumstances the matter only refers to "the problem", ie, a matter with a negative valence. Unfortunately there is no short collocation that is always accompanied by this negative sense. In "What's the matter with him?", the negative valence sense is virtually always what is meant, but "What's the matter under discussion?" does not require the negative sense. Only the negative sense in a range of collocations possibly merits inclusion in a dictionary, but it is difficult to completely characterize the linguistic circumstances in which the negative sense prevails. A longish usage note might be needed. Usage examples don't seem useful unless they include enough context to explain why the negative sense is meant. To illustrate the usage example problem, all of the automatically generated usage example in the Collins link in our entry show the "literal" ("neutral") use of the matter. Longman's does a better job, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It may be useful if others could also comment on the perceived grammaticality/naturalness of "There is nothing the problem" and "Is there something the problem with him?". To me these are at least borderline ungrammatical, and certainly unnatural. I see no case for labelling the phrase "attributive". I think we should define it as something like "a problem / problematic issue / problematic situation", or whatever, i.e. a noun, noting on the definition line itself (since I doubt that anyone reads usage notes) that usage can depart from normal grammar, thus justifying its inclusion as idiomatic, and also mentioning, by way of explanation, that "wrong" can often be substituted to create a similar meaning, or perhaps putting this as explanation against the examples. Also we shouldn't IMO refer to "idiomatic adjectival use" because, as has been mentioned, the question then is why, if the use is adjectival, it is not listed as an adjective. I would be inclined to move or remove the present sense 2 example, "What's the matter with him?" and replace it with a "more literal" one. I think the present distinction between the examples in #1 and #2 may be a little too cute for our readers to actually notice. Anyway, if we word the idiomatic definition to say that usage CAN depart from normal grammar, then we can accommodate e.g. "What's the matter with him?" even though in this particular case it does not. Mihia (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I find them both unnatural, though not ungrammatical.

A noun can be used attributively without there being any warrant for adding an adjective L3/4 heading to its entry. To me it is more useful to consider whether the matter behaves like a noun in the idiomatic use under discussion. I don't think it accepts modification by any adjectives, except perhaps intensifiers. It can't readily be a subject of a verb or the object of a preposition. It doesn't pluralize. Calling it a phrase doesn't answer the question of what kind of phrase it is.

Fairlex idiom dictionary has an entry for be the matter. I don't think other copulative verbs can be substituted for be, except possibly seem (but even then seem to be the matter seems more natural.). DCDuring (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Then I guess it will be as well for "unnatural" to do, because if general nouns such as "problem", "issue", "difficulty" etc., are substitutable for "matter" in the supposedly idiomatic sense, producing a meaning that is at least broadly comparable, then I don't really see the basis on which we have an "idiomatic" entry for "the matter" at all, as opposed to treating it at "matter". Mihia (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

One approach to consider, if we don't want to define a noun using a different part of speech, is writing a non-gloss definition instead. - -sche (discuss) 05:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@DCDuring, Fay Freak, Mihia, -sche: re-reading the discussion, I think there may be two options to improve the entry:

1. As proposed by Mihia on 27 August, to leave the entry as a noun but to change the definition to something along the lines of “problematic issue or situation”, and to add a usage note mentioning that it is often substitutable with the adjective wrong. There should also be a better usage example for the literal sense which doesn’t overlap with the idiomatic sense.
2. Alternatively, we could just delete this entry, and add a sense to matter stating that when preceded by the it is idiomatically used to mean a problematic issue or situation. A usage note as mentioned above can also be added if you think it’s needed.

Which option do you prefer? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Option 2, with or without a redirect from the matter. DCDuring (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to #2. While "the matter" seems rather idiomatic in contexts such as "there's nothing the matter", in that other nouns are not so naturally substitutable, it still seems that the phrase is straightforwardly analysable as definite article + noun, and can be satisfactorily handled at matter. Mihia (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Resolved. OK, I have merged the entry into matter. I think sense 2 more or less covers it; I updated the definition, transferred some of the usage examples and references, and added a usage note. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw I disagree with the arguments presented here towards this entry's deletion. You even brought up yourself—"Is there something the matter with him?"—try and substitute that with "Is there something the problem with him?"—the second example doesn't work in my mind. Therefore in my mind it's at the very least a set phrase if not idiomatic, because this to me seems like a very irregular use of the the article in a sentence. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would normally say "Is there a problem with him?" for the second example, and a deviation from that is highly irregular while also seemingly ungrammatical. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: “Is there something the problem with him?” doesn’t sound awkward to me, somehow. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I think both terms are technically ungrammatical, as in I don't think they're grammatical... You'd be missing a verb in between, as in, "Is there something that is the problem?" However, while the latter sentence is grammatically correct, it doesn't make logical sense to me. "Is there something that is the problem?" tells me the speaker knows the specific problem at hand (definite article is definite as in assured), so it doesn't seem like a coherent sentence. I have heard the matter way more than I've heard just matter alone, and I've almost never heard the problem used in the way the matter is used. Evidence would probably show that the matter is used much more frequently. What I'm trying to say is that when I hear "Is there something the matter?" I parse that sentence as "Is there something wrong?" And not as "Is there something that is a specific problem that I already know about?" Because the literal interpretation I used is more like an oxymoron, I assume the matter is independently idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

officer-involved

The sense here is not as specific as the one at officer-involved shooting, though they appear to be trying to describe the same thing. Which is correct? Equinox ◑ 00:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

AFAICT, "officer-involved" is only used — at least as an idiomatic, entryworthy phrase, as opposed to a SOP / &lit — when the officer does the thing. It's usually a shooting, although some even more hilariously euphemistic phrases exist, like:

• 2019, John Pilz, Finding Shared Understanding between African Americans and the Police through Simulated Experiences, Dorrance Publishing (→ISBN), page 115:

  There has been an increase in dissatisfaction with the police from African-American communities due to many recently publicized officer-involved use of force incidents on unarmed African-Americans in the United States.

I suppose "officer-involved shooting" may predate the other phrases and so pass the jiffy test. - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

pree

This word has two slightly different definitions listed in the entry, one is for the MLE term and the other for the Jamaican Creole term, but it seems like we’re missing some senses in both of these languages and they should be defined equivalently maybe just with a note like ‘see Jamaican Creole ‘pree’’ appearing at the English definition. Also a search on genius.com reveals it’s a word used by some people outside of Jamaica and England like the Canadian rapper Drake, the Trinidadian-American Nicki Minaj and the Nigerian rapper Burna Boy; a fact that we should probably mention somewhere. Lastly we’re lacking an etymology, though I shall probably raise this issue separately at the Scriptorum. Any thoughts on this? Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

by

Adverb sense 2:

2. In the vicinity, near.

There was a shepherd close by.

The shop is hard by the High Street.

Is "by" in The shop is hard by the High Street an adverb? To me it seems like a preposition, and probably "hard" is an adverb. Anyone agree/disagree?

Secondly, any views on PoS in There was a shepherd close by? Mihia (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's a preposition in "hard by the High Street" and an adverb in "There was a shepherd close by". We have an entry for close by, which calls it a preposition "without an explicit complement". Prepositions have to have explicit complements though, so when they don't have one, they're adverbs. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the second example. Thanks also for pointing out the definition at "close by", as I have, as it happens, been trying to seek out existing examples of "intransitive preposition" definitions within Wiktionary, for the purposes of Wiktionary:Votes/2021-08/Scope_of_English_prepositions. Mihia (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

New Taipei

One of my long-term goals is trying to put a date on the time the words I'm interested in were created or entered English. I think I did that pretty well with Nanhui New City. But I literally have a quotation of New Taipei from 2007, yet in the etymology I say the word originated in 2010. Am I right? I don't have enough experience dating terms to know how you all do this. (Yes, I need to 'lurk more' as some might say.) Appreciate any guidance, please ping me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If New Taipei was officially established in 2010, it is possible that there were discussions about it for some years before then, so quotations predating 2010 are plausible. Generally, unless I find a source that clearly shows the writer has coined a term, or stating that a term was first used in a particular year, I think it is safer to give a less precise date like “2000s” or “early/mid/late 21st century”. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The 2007 quote is science fiction, so maybe it's a lucky concidence. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

In that case, it’s probably advisable to mention that fact in a footer and to enclose the quotation in square brackets. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the correct course of action is to remove it. All quotations must attest the sense under which they are placed. (It could be placed on the Citations page, if one wished, with the unattested sense, but I think that would be pointless — the sense is unlikely ever to become attested.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, since the author was probably not referring to the real-life place called “New Taipei”. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I found an instance of 'New Taipei' from 1995 as opposed to an Old Taipei-- it's unclear to me if any of that might have been connected with Taipei County/today's New Taipei (see Citations:New Taipei). I will treat 1995 and 2007 like the 19th century use of hobbit for now. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC) (revised)

• While there are sometimes citations of a name being used for a place (etc) before the official adoption or creation date — hence there are citations going back many years of (Republic of) North Macedonia and (Republic of) Northern Macedonia as names for the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, even before the official rename — if the earlier cite in this case is about a different, fictional place, then Meta is right it shouldn't be under the modern-city sense. (Compare the back-and-forth about sweet summer child.) In some cases, it's appropriate to mention in the etymology that Foobaronia was used as a name for a fictional place (or a different place) prior to its adoption as the name of the current place, to show that the idea of a place being named Foobaronia circulated for a long time before the founding of the modern planned city and that the city's founders didn't invent the name from nowhere, but in this case the idea of naming a place New Tapei after the existing Tapei seems trivial (the two uses of the name could be unconnected) and the difference in dates seems minor, so it may not be worth mentioning. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ingrian hot + pron/det

A heads up: I've just now replied - in the Tea room for November 2020 - to a post made on this subject (Ingrian derived interrogative or relative pronouns using 'hot'). yoyo (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

for to

1. (obsolete outside dialects) in order to
   • 1611, The Holy Bible, […] (King James Version), London: […] Robert Barker, […], →OCLC, Luke 7:25:

     What went ye out for to see?

2. (dialectal) for; to

   I got a car, for to drive.

   • 2004, Jackie Greene, "Honey I Been Thinking About You":

     All that I need for to be satisfied is a woman who's nothing like me.

Dunno what to make of #2. "for to" in the "woman" quotation seems to me to mean "in order to", sense #1. Does the "car" example mean "I got a car in order to drive", or does it mean something else? Also, where does the definition "for" fit in? Is this sense along the lines of "I got a car for driving" (I know "for to" can't be directly put in that particular example), i.e. again expressing purpose? Or some other sense of "for"? At the end of the day, are there really multiple senses of this phrase? Any ideas anyone? Mihia (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think senses 1 and 2 are the same and the quotations in the entry’s main page and citations page bear this out, with the possible exception of “so sweetly for to sing” and “Cause there ain’t no-one for to give you no pain” which make sense but seem harder to parse, they might be different senses. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those two. I think in both cases "for to" is primarily used to make the line scan better, but anyway it seems to me that "for to" in those cases means "to" as an ordinary infinitive marker, without the "in order to" implication. This may be what sense #2 is getting at, as far as "to" is concerned anyway. I am not sure how far "I got a car, for to drive" implies "in order to". Anyway, I have done what I can with it for now, and I'll send the "for" sense to RFV. Mihia (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)