Wiktionary:Tea room/2024/February

Palestinian National Authority

We have an entry for Palestinian Authority but not Palestinian National Authority (I have added PNA as an abbreviation of the latter, which we didn't have for years as compared to PA). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of creating a proper noun entry for it, but quite hesitant. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all OK having just the initialisms and the lexified short form. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you not create it after all? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 23:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of binduga and Floßlände

Any ideas? Vininn126 (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed one of the existing definitions of binduga to "log driving". However, I realized that it might instead refer to timber rafting. Could you make sure it's correct? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both would seem to fit. Vininn126 (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

intellego

Can someone please explain to me the idea behind inter (“between”) + legō (“to select”) = understand? Thank you. Duchuyfootball (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*[Select between] → [distinguish; tell apart] → [discern] → [perceive; understand]. All but the first are attested. Nicodene (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

metacoelom

I have feeling this has an irregular Latinoid plural Demonicallt (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect it to be the same as with coelom, which is regular. Coelom is often misspelled *coelum but it is not Latin in origin. It actually patterns like -stome which is also regular. —Soap— 20:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on the novenus page

This form does not exist as is, we should delete this page in favor of noveni (this one is clearly a copy paste of perseus dictionary on which novenus has been wrongly given the distributive entry, compare deni or octoni on the same website). The same must be said about the binus/bini relation. Please share your thoughts and I will change it accordingly. Tim Utikal (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the general practice of dictionaries, singular forms are not necessarily unknown for words of this type. I don’t have time to check this particular one right now but you can add it to RFV if you think the singular cannot be attested. Urszag (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it can be attested, wiktionary must not be confusing to its users. Either we change each distributive numeral pages to a theoretical singular or keep them in their plural, which has thus far been the norm. I have yet not find a single usage of them in the singular, be it in my readings or through a quick search I just made via Perseus (the website is partially broken which does not help...). Tim Utikal (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update after some more research. While the form 'novenus' itself appears unattested in Classical Latin, there appears to be an example of the feminine ablative singular novēnā in Statius, Silvae 1.2.4: "novena / lampade", although it has been doubted whether this should be emended to something else. Additional singular examples in Medieval Latin are cited by the DMLBS. Roby's Grammar of the Latin Language notes that "In the singular the distributives are sometimes used, chiefly by poets, e.g. centauri corpore bino, a double body; centenāque arbore fluctum verberat assurgens (Verg.), with an hundred-fold shaft, i.e. a hundred oars; novena lampade, with nine torches (a torch repeated nine times)" (page 443-444). "Binus" occurs in Ovid, Epistulae ex Ponto 4.9.64: "inque domo binus conspicietur honor." I found a paper "Los distributivos singulares en latín", by Sebastián Mariner Bigorra, that notes that dictionaries usually lemmatize these words at the plural, although some have attested singular forms. (There is more information and argument here, but it's in Spanish so it's been a slow read for me.)

Another useful paper that mentions some singular uses of the so-called 'distributives' is "The so-called Distributives in Latin", J. P. Postgate, The Classical Review 21:7 Nov. 1907, pp 200-201. Postgate 1907:200 writes that the singular of these words can have a collective sense in poets, citing Lucr. 4.448 "binaque per totas aedis geminare supellex" as an example of singular bina and "in Later Latin" Statius, Silvae 5.2.136 "septenus ... Hister" and "gurgite septeno" in Lucanus, Bellum Civile 8.445. Postgate also writes the following: "trino nundino, Quint, ii. 4. 35, seems to have been formed by a mistaken analogy from trinum nundinum (for nouem dinum), an elliptical genitive plural. The -um genitive is regular in the ' distributive'" (p. 201). Indeed, the -um genitives of these words seem to have been usual whether in poetry or prose, so I don't agree with discribing them as poetic: to take a random example, the PHI corpus has 3 matches for quaternorum vs. 19 for quaternum, and many of the latter are in prose e.g. Livy and Pliny.

Overall, I would say that these words are usually not used in the singular in Classical Latin, and we should indicate this in the definitions or usage notes, but the reason for this is not so much that the singular forms are lacking, but rather that by nature of their meaning it is rarely appropriate for these words to be singular. But given that singular forms of this type of word occur occasionally already in Classical Latin, and can be attested later, I think they deserve to be in the tables, and (even if it's a bit odd to lemmatize at a less common form) I think it is best to use the masculine nominative singular, whether it happens to be attested or not, as the headword for all of these adjectives per our usual practice. There are other words that we lemmatize at an unattested nominative singular form.--Urszag (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...this makes me realize how inconsistent we are about this kind of thing. On one hand, if these are almost always plural-only and only rarely/poetically singular, we could just continue to lemmatize the plural forms and just add "singular of..." pointers at the singular entries, and that would be consistent with what we do for e.g. binoculars, faeces, etc. OTOH, lemmatizing the singular would be consistent with various English (or Latin entries where we put plural-only senses at the singular. Well, we should try to be consistent across these few Latin number-related entries, at least, so whatever we decide, let's revise novenus and octoni et al. to use the same approach... - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do then, is it enough to start a vote? I do think lemmatizing each singular forms after what Urszag (talk • contribs) said seems the most objective. Tim Utikal (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody else voices objections to it here, I think it will be OK to proceed with moving the entries without requiring a formal vote. Aside from the entries themselves, pages that link to them and Module:number list/data/la will have to be edited, so I think it makes sense to wait a bit before moving forward. For now I will try to use novēnus as a test case since it already exists: does the presentation there seem good? I think that we should not be using the label "distributive" since based on how the automatic categories work, that seems to be intended for verbs (hence Category:Latin distributive verbs is all inaccurate right now).--Urszag (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Note heading should be added to specify distributive numerals' uses (since unknown in English) and to aknowledge for their usual plural form. Other than that it's great, though the Etymology section may still be refined. Tim Utikal (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added a 'Usage Notes' section to novenus (using general wording so that the same information could be put in a template and copied to each distributive numeral entry). How do you think the note looks? Are there any specific points that you would suggest clarifying with the etymology?--Urszag (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The note section is really well put, but it lacks their common use in combination with adverbial numerals (as in "bis deni" not "bis decem" / decies triceni...). Tell me if you find it anecdotal or if you can think of any other specific usage. As for the etymology part I just thought it a bit confusing and not that informative, is the affix related to -nus or any other remarkable one? Sorry for not putting work into it myself, I'm a bit busy right now. Tim Utikal (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've add the use with numeral adverb and a reference to Roby, who describes the uses of these forms. I'm planning to make this usage note into a usage template, add it to the other pages on distributive numerals, and move these pages to singular forms.--Urszag (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what entries using a usage templates look like, how is the link implemented? can you link me one? Thus far it's not too bulky a usage notes, it may be just fine leaving it that way. Tim Utikal (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way it works is that the usage notes now 'live at' Template:U:la:distributive_numeral, and the notes from there are copied to each page by placing the code {{U:la:distributive numeral}} in the page's Usage Notes section (as you can see by looking at the page code for e.g. binus). This means the notes can be edited in the future without having to edit each page separately. I also think these notes seem brief enough as-is, but if it is decided they are too long, an appendix could be created and the notes could instead provide a shorter summary with a link to a longer description in the appendix. I have now mostly updated the entries for 2-9; some linked pages and etymology sections in that range still need more work.--Urszag (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urszag: I see the pages have been moved, but the inflections (e.g., quadrageni) should not be redirects, as we do not allow redirects for this purpose. Also, inconsistently, some are numerals and some adjectives. J3133 (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am still clearing up the inflections. Most seem to have been marked as numerals so I will be working to make that uniform.--Urszag (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked distributive forms from 7 to 10, some were lacking inflexions or accents, labelized as adjectives and categorized through the 'adjective form' inflection. Some are sill said to be inflections of the former plural-lemmatizing system and other forms not made into proper entries because morphologically identical to other entries. So I advise keeping an eye on these, though you still might need to double-check on me. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and some few forms were also categorized as 'numeralform' instead of 'numeral form' through their inflection heading. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance. Yes, the issue with inflected forms not being made when they have preexisting pages occurs for many other words as well; it's more difficult to create such pages automatically or semi-automatically. I plan to go through the words somewhat slowly now starting from the first and working my way up.--Urszag (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tarted-up

I spotted Citations:tarted-up, and it's not hard to find more cites of it, but... what is the part of speech? Is it the attributive form of tarted up#Verb (an inflected form of tart up, compare google books:"tarting up", like dolled up is given as a verb form of doll up)? In that case, does our vote against attributive forms mean we can't have an entry? - -sche (discuss) 01:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective. I don’t know how one can even be insecure about it. Obviously dolled up does not serve an argument to proliferate lexical treatment of the like kind but someone (everyone) was just too lazy to create a full entry. Like by times we are too lazy to give proper translations to Arabic “verbal nouns” and just refer to the verbs so the reader can extrapolate the meanings. Back to English, the verb might not even exist or derive secondarily from the -ed form—so Equinox taught me about furniturized, and I suspect of caked up in one of the two senses I discerned. Fay Freak (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it actually meet the adjective tests that might distinguish it as an adjective from the past participle of tart up? I've heard it used in each of the senses of tart up. DCDuring (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-ussy again

Most of the examples given at -ussy are blends, not suffixes. Suffixes attach to stems. Why is this so hard to understand? Also where is the discussion to undelete this? Vininn126 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does петрушка also mean “puppet”?

https://dict.leo.org/russisch-deutsch/Петру́шка claims that петрушка, even uncapitalised, also means Hampelmann or Handpuppe. Is this correct? Neither we nor Russian (nor French or Spanish) Wiktionary give this sense, but we lack Петрушка, for which ru:Петрушка does give the sense of “the main figure in (the Russian equivalent of Punch and Judy)”, as well as “a childish form of Пётр (Pjotr)”. “петрушка” is also not given as a translation at puppet. PJTraill (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the capitalization part, but Petrushka is a traditional character used for children performances in different occasions. «The Hand Puppet Guy». Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day, he was probably also used for adult performances on street theaters like Punch and Judy. Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see at w:ru:Петрушка (персонаж). Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come to that, we also have w:Petrushka! So there are two jobs to be done: creating Петрушка (Petruška); searching for use of the lower-case form in this sense (which does not occur in w:ru:Петрушка (персонаж)), and adding the sense if necessary. PJTraill (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lower-case form is very uncommon, so I deleted it anyway. Tollef Salemann (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh

We don’t have any pronunciations for the obsolete past tense forms and past participles listed at laugh or for the obsolete past tense of latch with the same spelling as one of these forms (laught). Could someone who knows how they were said please enlighten us or better yet add pronunciations to the relevant entries? Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Overlordnat1: This is not an answer to your question, but I've added latch to our list of Appendix:English formerly irregular verbs. If you know other verbs like that, please let me know or add them there! P U C – 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Pronunciation at low. Leasnam (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well "laught" is pronounced the same as "laughed". It's like learned/learnt, crossed/crost etc. 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 19:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

petatearse: should the entry be the infinite form of the verb? [Spanish]

Given that on Wiktionary:About French guidelines specifically state that "Reflexive forms should be given as separate definition lines on the standard non-reflexive infinitive page, with a {{lb|fr|reflexive}} tag.", I wonder why this rule isn't explicitly mentioned on Wiktionary:About Spanish. Does the same apply to Spanish or does it depend on the case? For example, morirse is redirected to its infinitive form morir, where morir might be intransitive or reflexive. I ask this because the entry petatearse is currently the main one, and its infinitive one petatear isn't created yet, the thing is, "petatearse" is only used in the reflexive form. Thanks in advance! Saviourofthe (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out personar#Spanish, which is a similar case Vilipender (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Saviourofthe (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:table:colors/en

I think this page will need some cleanup, and I realized this when I saw "pink" and "magenta" as separate colours and "lime green" and "mint green". When was the last time you heard someone call something the latter two? I've heard "turquoise" to refer to bluish-green but more importantly English recognizes only 11-12 colours: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple/violet, pink/magenta, black, white, grey, brown and perhaps indigo (though cyan is an additive secondary colour, so I would want it to stay in the template). So the template should only display those colours, no matter how much a nerd might want to call the colour between cyan and blue "azure". Wiktionary also portrays purple as if it is equivalent to dark magenta, but that is not at all how the vast majority of English speakers or even the major dictionaries think of it as. To them, it's the same as violet. And when was pink defined as reddish-magenta? ✵ A Westman talk stalk 17:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This weird colors (like lime green and turquoise) are infact used in color-related jobs, but most of people don't use it as ground colors. Can maybe set the colors in a rainbow order with like 6-8 colors pluss black, grey and white. Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors need to be made aware of the purpose of this page, and of the underlying template {{table:colors}}. I think that might be “to display, for any given language, the colour names commonly used by non-specialists”. That could be amplified with a more exact specification of which colour names to include. A motivation could also be given: is it to make it easier to find the name of a particular colour, to provide a list for study, because it may come in useful, or perhaps because such a list is pleasing?

Most of the above is only useful to editors, but normal users might also like to know about other ways to find more colour names, in particular the category «language code»:Colors. PJTraill (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very agree on it! Tollef Salemann (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"trivia" on skibidi, Skibicki

"Trivia" section on both of these pages claims that optical character recognition systems confuse the two. Uncited and rather irrelevant. -saph 🍏 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed. Equinox ◑ 15:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather moot now, but another point is that surely any "confusion" would be dependent upon the specific OCR technology used (and probably the nature of the source text, such as the font used, etc.), rather than being inherent to all OCR systems (and all source documents). —DIV (1.145.111.128 01:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Gloss, non-gloss & mixed definitions (in English)

Looking at isoprene, I felt the existing definition was a mixture of gloss, and non-gloss in a single sentence with uniform styling (no italics). Looking for guidance:

Help:Writing_definitions#Basic_style has

There are two basic styles of definition:

In explanatory style, beginning with a capitalized first letter and ending in a period.
translation style

Most English entries follow the first style, so that their definitions should begin with a capital letter and end with a period. In other words, such definitions are formatted as if they were sentences, even if they are actually sentence fragments. In contrast, most non-English entries follow the second style, since they typically translate the non-English word to one (or a few) English terms. However, there are non-English terms defined in the first style, especially when the term has no simple or straightforward English translation, and so it must be explained fully rather than just translated. When translating a word with a single English term, you can use template {{gloss}} to disambiguate the used term.

To me this seems to be saying that in English using a non-gloss definition is more common (and doesn't need special styling), but in other languages using a gloss definition is more common and needs special styling, viz. the gloss template should be used.

Template:non-gloss_definition has

Use this template to apply the correct styling to a definition that is not a gloss.

Most definitions in the English Wiktionary are worded as glosses.

Most dictionaries use a different style for these rare definitions that are not glosses [...].

To me this seems to be saying that in English using a gloss definition is more common (and doesn't need special styling); hence in English entries using a non-gloss definition is less common and needs special styling, viz. the non-gloss template should be used.

Are these consistent or inconsistent? What is ultimately the recommended practice in the example of isoprene?

—DIV (1.145.111.128 01:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I don't use n-g for commentary that is still a sort of definition (like "blah blah; they once inhabited the X region"). I do use it where the "definition" cannot be substituted into a sentence, and rather "talks about" the word (like "Used to describe such-and-such"). Equinox ◑ 12:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.

Maybe I've been reading it too literally, as otherwise, from the help/template pages, I would have interpreted that we must either:

choose to use only gloss or non-gloss — "a tribe of 16th century warriors" or "May be used to describe a tribe of 16th century warriors." — and
- rewrite short commentaries to suit — "a tribe of 16th century warriors that once inhabited the X region" or "May be used to describe a tribe of 16th century warriors; they once inhabited the X region."; or
use a mixture of gloss with longer non-gloss comments in separate sentences (one styled, the other not), rather than being separated by semicolons — "a tribe of 16th century warriors. The tribe once inhabited the X region, until they were overrun by enemies from all surrounding territories in the 17th century.".

If your practice is commonplace, perhaps it can be mentioned (and an example included) somewhere in the help?

And, lastly, do you have any advice on whether the two resources I identified are consistent or not? If not, then ideally they should be harmonised.

—DIV (1.145.89.110 06:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

podotheca

Is it the same as a scute? Vilipender (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not trained in bird or reptile anatomy, but, as I understand it, a scute is a structure that may or may not be part of the scaly covering on an animal's foot. ~~

Main current meaning of the English word "fee" is missing?

As far as I can tell, the main current meaning of the English word "fee" is "a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services". Wiktionary gives as main meaning "an additional monetary payment charged for a service or good, especially one that is minor compared to the underlying cost", which I didn't even know existed, and then goes on with technical meanings in the Anglo-Saxon customary judicial system followed by historical and obsolete meanings. Imerologul (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 7 ("Money paid or bestowed; payment; emolument") seems to be the everyday sense, but is marked as obsolete! Equinox ◑ 04:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've RfVed the definition in question and added two others that encompass most modern usage. The two new definitions effectively split old definition 7, which probably could be deleted. DCDuring (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

po polsku

The polsku entry includes only an adjective sense, which is marked archaic. The polski entry has the noun section, but the declension table does not include polsku, despite it being the form listed in all the usexes. Can a Polish speaker add the missing info? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Sheedy: The entry should be converted to an adverb to use this


===Adverb===
po polsku (not comparable)
Only used in po polsku

Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev: So should it not be listed in the usexes at polski then? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Sheedy: I've edited the page but then reverted. Unlike the Russian ру́сски (rússki), which is only used in по-ру́сски (po-rússki), the Polish etymology may be a little different and there could be two PoS - 1) adjective form, the current entry and 2) a portion of an adverb only used in combinations, e.g. po polsku. @Vininn126. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anatoli T. That would be more correct. Vininn126 (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vininn126: Done.

@Andrew Sheedy: Pls check as well. I think if it was decided not to add archaic forms to the inflection tables, then it’s fine as is. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev, Vininn126:, thank you for your help. I moved the usexes that were at polski to po polsku. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vininn126. My edits on polsku have been reverted twice by Gugugagasraniewbanie, then by SujkaNiewydymka. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My take is - the form polsku is an archaic adjective form but it's a perfectly normal part when used inside this adverb. That's how it can be done. @SujkaNiewydymka reverted my edit with insults, so I hid the revision summary. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev Eh, we can have it like this. Vininn126 (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev, I have added po polsku in a "See also" section in that entry. Hopefully that will be satisfactory to those who reverted you. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymes:English

In the General American rhymes table it says "pep /ɛ/ from /ɛ/" I think this should be changed to "pep /ɛ/" since the additional "from /ɛ/" is unnecessary. 2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:6CD9:69F6:F9CA:3E5D 19:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities of cwm and khoum

So I want to add in the homophones of cwm: khoum, but I am unsure if an almost near-perfect homophone is even allowed on there. Because the beginning sounds are almost the same (see MW). So am I allowed to put khoum onto cwm's homophone section? Heyandwhoa (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heyandwhoa: what is different about the beginning sounds? They both start with /k/ (and phonetically, [kʰ]), do they not? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Sheedy Look at Merriam-Webster's audios for both words, they're slightly different. Heyandwhoa (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Sheedy In British English cwm is /kʊm/, in my experience (and the OED agrees), whereas I'd interpret khoum as /kuːm/. I don't think there's any difference in aspiration at the start, though. Theknightwho (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood what you meant by "the beginning sounds". The vowels are sometimes different, but it depends on the pronunciation, as Theknightwho pointed out. So the best solution is for you to list them as homophones, but with the qualifier "(some pronunciations)". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

next door (adjective)

We currently have an adjective sense with the example sentence: Try the place next door. I don't think this counts as an adjective. It's an adverbial attribute, same as "the bed in my room", "the weather today", "the restaurants around here". Or would anyone considers these adjectives in English grammar? I do think that "next door" can be adjective, but only in phrases like "my next-door neighbour" (vs. *"the around-here restaurants). 92.218.236.121 23:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with the adverb interpretation. But next door#Noun, like almost any English noun, can be used attributively, carrying the same meaning. We voted not to have adjective PoS sections that essentially duplicated a term's noun section. But see WT:ADJ for some tests that would support including an adjective where usage met certain conditions. I don't think next door warrants an adjective section. DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible edit request

Is Appendix:Glossary#clitic accurate in saying English 'em is a clitic version of them, and always attaches to the preceding word? i rarely if ever see 'em attached to another word: i usually see a space or hyphen in between, as in shoot-'em-up or read 'em and weep. If 'em is a clitic, maybe both those pages should link to each other, and Appendix:Glossary#clitic could rephrase its description of how a clitic affixes to other words? If 'em is not a clitic, Appendix:Glossary#clitic should use a different example. Thanks.

...Would Wiktionary benefit from all the words listed in Appendix:Glossary having their own pages link to Appendix:Glossary, perhaps in a See also hatnote or a Further reading section? For example, Appendix:Glossary#clitic links to clitic, but not vice versa, clitic does not link to Appendix:Glossary#clitic. (clitic does link to Wikipedia:clitic, though...) Appendix:Glossary#clitic also has a link to verb, but it looks like a link to verb when it's actually a link to Appendix:Glossary#verb.

Is the Glossary actually redundant? What does Appendix:Glossary#verb say or need to say that verb does not? Does Wiktionary's Glossary have, for example, special instructions for how to use those terms specifically on Wiktionary? i guess if nothing else, in some cases a term might have multiple meanings and the Glossary could clarify which are relevant to Wiktionary (I'd is a word or phrase shortened in speech, not an act of incurring debt, or a strong and often painful shortening of the uterine muscles prior to or during childbirth... but i checked a few randomly chosen contractions without finding one that links to Appendix:Glossary#contraction or contraction. Some don't even mention contractions!)

i'm not thrilled about the idea of deleting all the hard work that's gone into making the Glossary, but if all it does is make it necessary to check if an error or omission here also needs correcting over there...?

--173.67.42.107 09:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to words in Appendix Glossary, we generally use them in exactly one sense whereas in the wild they may have more than one (as you say) or be controversial. Also our sense may not be attestable. I'd like to think that the glossary might be usable to standardize our use of the terms included, though I doubt that happens often. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out; I have changed the example to 'll. - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also thinking about what the glossary should be for. My understanding is that it lists all not-entirely-obvious terms we use, explains how we use them in maybe slightly more basic terms than the entry definitions. It's a reference for both reading and writing Wiktionary entries. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

biota and Biota

The second English definition given on the biota page is A coniferous tree, Oriental arborvitae (Platycladus orientalis) (syn. Biota orientalis). (Bold marks a typo i fixed.) i intend to hide this definition and link my edit summary here to explain why.

From what i can tell, Biota is a genus, and Wikipedia says The scientific name (or the scientific epithet) of a genus is also called the generic name; in modern style guides and science, it is always capitalised. Thus, this Wiktionary entry belongs on the non-existent capitalized Biota page, not the lower case biota page.

The definition includes three links, all to sites other than Wiktionary. i feel like Wiktionary should make it easier for readers to tell without clicking if links go to other sites.

The first link is to Wikipedia, which redirects from a vernacular ("common") name for the species to the scientific name of the genus, so that's a little misleading.

The other two links go to Wikispecies, but the link that actually says Biota linked to a non-existent page that i created as a redirect to the second link (the main synonym).

i'm not sure i'm reading Wikipedia and Wikispecies correctly, but i think Biota is an outdated synonym for Platycladus?

G2G --173.67.42.107 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's the taxonomic name, which is capitalized, and the English name, which isn't. It's quite common for vernacular names to be based on the taxonomic ones, so you can say "the azaleas in my yard are starting to bloom." They also don't have to be botanically accurate: try telling the people at Sequoia National Park that it's really "Sequoiadendron National Park". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created [[Biota]], with the occasionally used, generally understood, but never widely accepted definition as a taxonomic empire and the now disused definition as synonym of genus Platycladus. DCDuring (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glyph origin of 床

This is missing. Duchuyfootball (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Duchuyfootball Slightly slow response on my part but check it out now. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work. Duchuyfootball (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural appropriation

The entry for appropriation doesn't mention "cultural appropriation" (heavily cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation). I have done minor tweaks to Wiktionary before but I don't know how this kind of qualified noun is handled. Would someone advise? (or just do it and then I can see for future reference how it is done?). JMF (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: yes, it does appear in the entry. It is a form of appropriation, so it is listed as a hyponym of appropriation. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for wasting your time, I should have noticed that. But it's an ill wind etc: I have learned a new word: hyponym! --JMF (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: no worries! — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

promogulate

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#promogulate.

Obsolete pronunciation of leap year

In the entry leap year the following pronunciations, marked obsolete, are included: /ˈlɛp ˌjɪɹ/, /ˈlɛp ˌjiːɹ/. They are referenced to Otto Jespersen's A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (1909), but as I cannot view the entire work I cannot tell if the pronunciation indicated refers to modern English (perhaps a dialectal pronunciation?) or even Middle English. Should we retain these pronunciations in the entry? If so, should they remain labelled "obsolete" or should some other label be used? I have to say this is the first time I’ve come across an entry that features such an obsolete pronunciation transcription. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should remain, provided at least they postcede the Great Vowel Shift, for which time datings are complicated. If you don’t know the timeframe then you can’t label much better. Fay Freak (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re to your update. I have found it good to know in route. And that’s only one I remember specifically. Fay Freak (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: I think route is distinguishable because both the /ɹaʊt/ and /ɹuːt/ pronunciations are still used (and according to the entry /ɹaʊt/ was still used in the 19th century). However, I don't think anyone has pronounced leap as /lɛp/ for, I'm guessing, centuries. Thus, my questions are these:

Is it possible to establish satisfactorily if the pronunciation was ever used in modern English, or was it only used in Middle English or earlier? If the latter, we should move it into a Middle English, etc., entry.
If it is plausible that it was used in modern English, do we want to make it a practice to add IPA transcriptions for obsolete pronunciations of all words—for example indicating how they were pronounced in Shakespeare's time? We can establish this to some extent, as I am aware David Crystal has compiled a dictionary on this. (As far as possible, the period when the pronunciation was in use should then be stated as well.)

— Sgconlaw (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgconlaw: If somebody wants to do this, which is a motivation not easily formed nor spotted, he will likely have a plan by himself, so no need to establish any layout just yet. Fay Freak (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a modern English pronunciation, not a Middle English pronunciation. Jespersen writes "E 1787 has also short e in [...] leapyear" (§4.36), where E 1787 = Elphinston Propriety Ascertained and "In the 18thc. leap was often /lep/, probably on the analogy of leaped, leapt [lept]; now [liˑp]. The Irish still say "to lep a horse" (§8.41). Unfortunately I don't see a reference to where Elphinston 1787 gives this pronunciation, and Elphinston uses a respelling system so it's hard to search for it.--Urszag (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urszag: ah, thanks! I would then suggest we indicate in the entry that this pronunciation was used at least into the 18th century. Also, perhaps it should be moved to leap. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this talk page ?

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeuteronomy#Turkish_translation Flāvidus (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think the correct translation of Deuteronomy in Turkish is? — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian: Page move from сім'я to сімʼя

using ʼ (U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE). Do we want this? —Fish bowl (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could do what we do for French? We use ' in entry titles, but everything is displayed as ʼ. Here's an example. P U C – 11:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish bowl, @PUC: No, we don't want to move. I think @Theknightwho is already doing the apostrophes like that (as with French) for Russian. @Benwing2. Ref: Module_talk:ru-translit#curly_apostrophe. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how one can even reckon it the same way as an apostrophe, curly or not. The function is that of a modifier letter, more like palochka, hence by Unicode guidelines modifier letter apostrophe is recommended, while curly or ASCII apostrophes do not behave like letters, splitting a word into two such that the text selection in your browser works suboptimally. Fay Freak (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, I think we should make it use this character in the headword at least. It's hard to search if we really do use it in titles, though. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 23:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why "hard to search"? —DIV (1.145.19.119 13:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I would rather us leave it as-is. Benwing2 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Leave it as-is. Voltaigne (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it makes more sense in Russian than Ukrainian, because it creates a distinction in the transliteration between ь (ʹ) and ’. Theknightwho (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

have something/anything to say about it

...as in "Not if I have anything to say about it!" (= I will try to prevent it), or "The boss will have something to say about that" (= s/he will disapprove). This seems more than SoP. What should the headword be? Equinox ◑ 11:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

have to say, with hard-redirect of have to say about. We also have have a say. Fay Freak (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "something/anything" is necessary. For example, "I have to say..." (= I must say; I feel it necessary to remark) is something quite different. Equinox ◑ 12:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is, I don’t reckon this clumsy part a part of the page title though, not making this comparison. Should also be hard redirect then, assuming other people like you are intuitively anankastic about it. The same goes with German etwas zu sagen haben, colloquially shortened was zu sagen haben and with other objects viel zu sagen haben (“to have to say much”), nichts zu sagen haben (“to have no say”), wenig zu sagen haben (“to have little say”) (and nominalized das Sagen haben, while the previous translations in English are in your view nouns already), clearly from usage such as Ich habe dies zu sagen … (“I have this to say about it”). I cannot easily put into Russian, there is a wild variety of translations, maybe @Atitarev will be decided about the best equation. име́ть сказа́ть (imétʹ skazátʹ, literally “to have to say”) is only used in the last literal sense “I have to say this”. Studies have shown that translators struggle being acquainted with or having access to resources enough to make optimal use of idiom and collocation collections, @PUC. Fay Freak (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fay Freak: Not idiomatic, I think. име́ть сказа́ть (imétʹ skazátʹ) is not necessary the most common way, specifically using име́ть (imétʹ, “to have”) for that purpose

у меня́ есть что сказа́ть (u menjá jestʹ što skazátʹ) - I have something to say
мне не́чего сказа́ть (mne néčevo skazátʹ) - I have nothing to say.

I don't think any of Reverso translations are entry worth.

have a say can be translated as something like име́ть пра́во го́лоса (imétʹ právo gólosa) Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry mate, all I got out of that paragraph was "I really want to use the word anankastic". Equinox ◑ 22:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Иметь сказать" is only used in "я имею вам сказать" LOL. We also have it in Norwegian as "ha noko å seia" or "ha noe å si". Should definitely have an entry on the English expression, because it is not so obvious as a SOP would be. Out of my experience, not all people use this phrase in their languages, not even in a European language like in Swedish. Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the answer to your specific question of what the headword should be comes from considering which words can be dropped (or exchanged?) without affecting the core meaning.

have something to say about it

~ have something to say about that

~ have something to say about this

~ have something to say about the lateness of your arrival

I cannot think, off the top of my head, of an alternative for have (besides had), and it can't be dropped.

As you mentioned, something is required.

What's wrong with have something to say about it as the headword, perhaps with redirects from ... this and ... that? I would assume there's some WT policy or practice for preferring one of those for the main entry, just as one is preferred over he or she or I or you in various phrases.

...Or is there's something to say about it close enough in meaning? Maybe not. Getting closer with there'll be something to say about it!? So that would tend to favour something to say about it as the headword.

Analogously for have anything to say about it (perhaps not anything to say about it).

...Goodness me, now I'm wondering whether to drop it as well: have something to say about / something to say about and have anything to say about???

—DIV (1.145.19.119 13:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding whether to include it (or similar) at the end or not, FWIW roger that and copy that exist, while whip it was created and then deleted back in 2007. I'm sure there are some closer parallels that some clever souls can come up with. —DIV (1.145.19.119 13:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

This is a generic problem with families of related common expressions. How should we be attempting to address considerations discussed in pragmatics or discourse analysis in a lexicon? Do we really have to lexicalize all forms of constructions like these because we can't write good definitions, labels, usage examples, and usage notes of the constituent words?

In this case, I think the meanings of (almost?) all the expressions are recoverable from have#Verb, [[say (or say#Noun), and something/not+anything, ie, SoP. We could have hard redirects of these SoP expressions to the appropriate sense of say#Verb where we could have a few representative usage examples. This works best where there is a unique sense of say involved. Otherwise we may be creating the illusion that each of these for which we have an entry is a set-phrase idiom. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to complicate things, there are "have a say", "have a say in", "have one's say", "have something to say to" and similar expressions with a semantic range from speaking or responding to expressing ones opinion to having ones opinion contribute to a decision to making a decision. Some of the meanings in this whole group of expressions:

First there's simply a response, whether expressing an opinion or not: "what do you have to say about the allegations?", "what do you have to say to her"
Then there's just expressing an opinion and having it heard: "let them have their say"
Then there's having an opinion on something: "let's see if they have anything to say about it"
An opinion that one needs to be concerned about: "they will have something to say about your coming in late"
Having one's opinion considered in the making of a decision: "all stakeholders will have a say in the outcome"
Then there's "have the final say"

I could also bring in expressions using "word", but that's all I have to say for now. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well actually

There's lots of bullshit on that page. Starting with the statement that it's a nounDemonicallt (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Demonicallt The quotations support it being a noun. Please don't start w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT threads. Theknightwho (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most threads are "I don't like it" threads, I just use more swear words and have a surprisingly poor command of English, for a lexi-dude Denazz (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

croche deer term

Defn given is obsolete: A little bud or knob at the top of a deer's antler. What's this called in modern English? Some suggest crown or nub or peduncle, but I'm not sure... Demonicallt (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

навальный

What's the connection between senses 1 and 2? Might the second be actually related to French naval? P U C – 13:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not from French. Both meanings derive from вал, which has 2 meanings. The original meaning is "billow, roller" (a kind of wind), and the meaning of gross output probably derives from that, because gross output envisages production as proceeding as a kind of billow. 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

restive

I've always thought this was a strange word. Why does it mean restless? Shouldn't it be unrestive, if so? How did this word come to have this meaning? 2A00:23C7:1D84:FE01:F65:D78F:9DE3:1B82 19:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does seem like the word ought to mean its antonym. Merriam-Webster's "Did You Know" section draws a line of logic from its etymological origin (same as the word rest), its original meaning of "sluggish" or "inactive" (more in line with the definition of "rest"), its application to horses who refused to do as they were commanded (you can imagine a horse being commanded to go, instead being inactive), and then an eventual connotation with unruliness.

It does seem counter-intuitive but this sort of thing just happens as people use words and their meanings shift, I reckon.

The etymology doesn't really lend itself to this information. Perhaps some sort of attestation of the evolution of the word could be found and included in the entry? Ethanspradberry (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and edited the page: restive

I'm a new editor, so if anyone more experienced wanted to double-check me, I'd appreciate it! Ethanspradberry (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(s)

i just added (s)#English and suddenly i'm wondering if it should actually be -(s) (like -s).

--173.67.42.107 21:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to -(s). J3133 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedic information at horsepower#Usage_notes?

Encyclopaedic information at horsepower#Usage_notes? Delete/alter/move/retain? Can it go under etymology??? —DIV (1.145.19.119 12:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Definitely better as moved to a more appropriate place; done. As for refusing to let Wiktionary contain it at all, I wouldn't force that, but someone might. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's definitely better in the etymology section. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, coming back to this the Etymology section feels like a better fit. —DIV (1.145.127.239 01:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

crow

Our definition (sense 1) doesn't distinguish between crows and ravens. In my experience, they are pretty consistently distinguished, but I wasn't sure whether to modify the definition or label it somehow and add an additional sense. Is there anywhere where crow can refer to ravens? Is it an older/archaic usage? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "Is there anywhere where crow can refer to ravens?": Yes — in broad usage, which is to say, in natural language whenever it's not trying too hard (which it's recidivist about). That's exactly why the lede opener of the WP article on crows says "more broadly a synonym for all of Corvus" and why the lede opener of the WP article on ravens says "There is no consistent distinction between crows and ravens." Various other major dictionaries at various senses s.v. crow and s.v. raven support the assertion of the breadth for the broad senses. Natural language is sloppy and polysemic. True that it can be forced into varying degrees of precision when narrower senses are used; ambiguity often reigns anyway, as the intention about choice of sense isn't always clear unless the chooser belabors it. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wilderness years

I think that "wilderness years," in the sense of a period of diminished fame or influence between high points, is a common enough idiom to merit inclusion, but I've never created a page here and wanted to get a bit of input first. I've seen it used in a decent number of places, notably in reference to the political careers of Richard Nixon and Winston Churchill, and, perhaps less notably but quite consistently, the period between the TV runs of Doctor Who. My impression is that this fits the criteria for inclusion of idioms, and it's included in a couple of dictionaries I was able to find easily online, but again, I'd like to get at least one other person's opinion before moving forward with it. Thanks! Ambisinistral (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, we already have as a figurative sense of wilderness "a situation of disfavour or lack of recognition; (specifically, politics) of a politician, political party, etc.: a situation of being out of office" (sense 3.3). Thus, wilderness years seems to be sum-of-parts, being merely wilderness + years (the years which someone spends in the figurative "wilderness"). — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, that makes sense! I think I glossed over that entry. My bad, and thanks! Ambisinistral (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

peru

This is an entry about the computer name for a specific color. It's under a Translingual header, but otherwise it's formated as an English noun. I'm not sure whether to make a Translingual entry out of it (How do we do it with other color names? Is it really a noun?), or English. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not human language. It's similar to a variable or class name in a program. Basically an enum member! X11 color names even states, "In some applications multipart names are written with spaces, in others joined together, often in camel case." Of course Peru is usually capitalised as a country name. Equinox ◑ 11:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it feels like something that could be a part of natural languages, as in "He was wearing a faded peru shirt advocating for some old hacker to become President, blue jeans stained with coffee, and worn-out sneakers that were last cool in the 1970s." Then again, we would need evidence... CitationsFreak (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox, CitationsFreak: I've sent it to RFVN. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Then again, we would need evidence" and not creating the RFV is very uncool. Some day Uncle Chuck will have a heart attack. Equinox ◑ 04:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

metabolism versus metabolisation

I associate metabolism with the organism that is digesting something ("She has a high metabolism.") and metabolisation/metabolization with the thing being digested ("Metabolisation of low-GI foods is slow."). In any case the current definitions don't seem clear to me, when considered together.

metabolism: (physiology) The chemical processes that occur within a living organism in order to maintain life.
metabolization: The process of metabolism.

So metabolisation is the process of chemical processes?!
—DIV (1.145.127.239 01:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I took a stab at improving metabolization and metabolism. I'm sure there's room for further improvement if anyone else wants to try. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better now than it was. —DIV (1.145.127.239) 1.145.127.239 05:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the thrust of the efforts. The differentiation is hard to state succinctly off the top of one's head, but it has to do with the degree of cognitive emphasis on patient state versus agent state: the food versus the eater. A mention of metabolism often focuses cognitively on the state of being of the metabolizer, whereas a mention of metabolization often focuses cognitively on the catabolization of the food. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Jakarta Malay"

We have 6 terms in CAT:Jakarta Malay created by User:Surat Layang and others. AFAIK there is no such thing, since the Malay language in Jakarta goes by the name "Indonesian" and we have a separate L2 for this. Can someone who knows Indonesian help clean up these entries? Some of the probably need to be moved to the Indonesian header but sometimes there's already an Indonesian header as well as a Malay header. Benwing2 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

abang mantu — One sense only. "Further reading" covers this definition, although in the reference it's not marked as "Jakarta" usage (rather implying general Malaysian usage). Additionally cites Kamus Dewan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 2021, →ISBN, page 2.
abu-abu — "Further reading" covers Et2 only (the one in this "Jakarta" category), although in the reference it's not marked as "Jakarta" usage (rather implying general Malaysian usage). Et1 (noun & adjective) match the Indonesian entry, and are marked as "Indonesia". Is "Indonesia Malay" more acceptable than "Jakarta Malay" as a label?
anteng — "Further reading" indicates Java/Javanese, and gives slightly different definitions (contented; quiet).
emperit — One sense only. Cites Wilkinson, Richard James. An Abridged Malay-English Dictionary. Macmillan. 1965.
lukut — "Further reading" covers Senses 1 & 2 only. There is no entry for listed "descendent" lukut#Indonesian.
pirit — "Further reading" covers Et1 only.

If I had to guess, I'd be thinking that the above six words may be dated (at least in the marked senses), or the references used may be out-of-date (when "Malay" was perhaps more commonly used to describe the language(s) spoken in Indonesia), or both.

—DIV (1.145.127.239 05:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the detailed investigation! Do you mind going ahead and cleaning these up? Not knowing Indonesian I'm not quite sure how to do that. Benwing2 (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sufficiently fluent to be conclusive... —DIV (1.145.127.239 12:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Middle Irish declension

Does anyone know of resources describing in detail declension in Middle Irish? Thanks -saph 🍏 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Compromisation a Standard English Word?

I can’t find this word in any of these.

Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com

Cambridge Dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org

Collins Dictionary https://www.collinsdictionary.com

Nor does it come up in Online Etymology Dictionary https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=compromisation

So, do you agree that this word should be removed from Wikipedia's Wiktionary? E Birdy (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's got 5 citations, which is 2 more than is required. Please see WT:CFI. What other dictionaries have doesn't determine whether we include or exclude things: conversely, we don't include a number of words that do crop-up in some traditional dictionaries, because we can't find any evidence that anyone has actually used them.

We're also not "Wikipedia's Wiktionary". We're just Wiktionary, thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. OP, one thing to realize is that any descriptively valid word, even a rare one, belongs in Wiktionary as long as there are at least a handful of attestations for it that meet the criteria for inclusion. Another thing to realize is that even among words with many more attestations, there are many that other major dictionaries fail to enter (to date). There is many a word that has hundreds or even thousands of published attestations, plus orthodox morphology and regular spelling, and yet is missing from most major dictionaries — even words without any usage prescription against them (let alone the ones that do have that). Therefore, a canvassing of other dictionaries, by itself, doesn't explain enough. The reasons for their spotty coverage are, depending on one's mood, interesting, depressing, commentworthy, unremarkable, or otherwise. As for any prescriptive usage advice, such as "you oughtn't use the noun compromisation because you ought to use the noun compromise instead," the correct epistemic framing at Wiktionary is to (yes) enter the headword, definition, and citations (attesting quotations) and then add a short usage note that explains the phenomenon from a neutral point of view, such as, "The noun compromise is far more common than compromisation, and many English speakers might object that the former is preferable to the latter; compare also orient versus orientate or development versus developmentation." In fact, if I don't hear any credible objections here shortly, then I'll add such a note at compromisation soon. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, in the course of working on Words of the Day, I have just come across chronostasis and galamander which aren’t in the main dictionaries but which appear to be fairly well attested. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be damned. Thanks for sharing those. I've had the stopped-clock illusion myself and never realized that it was a well-known phenomenon with an established name. In retrospect it is not surprising; I knew it was obviously some sort of psychological illusion, but I never thought to google the phenomenon when I experienced it. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could stand to label it "nonstandard" or something, though. (I suppose the usage note is adequate.) - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both compromisation and compromization appear to meet WT:CFI independently, so the real question to me is how to understand this phenonmenon. @E Birdy's core issue remains: it is not in the authoritative dictionaries, and may not be standard. I will say I was struck by the apparent useage in medical studies. The word evokes George Carlin's commentary on the shift from single syllable or short words to less understandable multi-syllable terms. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily agree that a "nonstandard" label is appropriate and desirable. Surprised I didn't think of that earlier. Thanks for the tip. I will go add the label. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing tie bar on Bengali affricate sounds

Hi, there is an inconsistency for "the tie bar" for the affricate sound in Bengali Rarh pronunciation. The correction transcription of the word অকার্য is /ɔkaɾd͡ʒo/. It's not allowing me to update the pronunciation. Any suggestion how I can contribute? Arundhatisgupta (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

etaoinshrdlu

to me, you missed the whole raison d'etre of etaoinshrdlu.

it is a seat of the pants thumbnail of the letter frequencies for english.. whence it ended up ordering linotype keys, i guess. but it is an important resource for people playing steganography et al. or maybe you are trying to keep that as a secret.. i wanted the rest of the letters beyond my memory, and you had that.

thank you. 74.220.44.15 17:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tweaked at etaoin shrdlu#Etymology. Now mentions the whys behind the string. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

castle doctrine

Does this come from the proverb a(n English)man's home is his castle? P U C – 22:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; most specifically, growing up as an AmE speaker, the version that one hears more often in AmE is a man's home is his castle. WP agrees on the connection, per w:Castle_doctrine#History. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₃reǵtós

Surely this can't be attributed to Proto-Indo-European. If this really did exist at the Proto-Indo-European level, then shouldn't the expected form be **h₃r̥ǵtós? Same with every other violation of suffix ablaut that can simply be attributed to independent developments. -saph 🍏 03:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add derived terms

Hi! Can someone please add the following Derived terms to these protected pages that I can't edit?

X: 45,X|hepatitis X|X-ALD
Jew: Jew City|Jew-Tongo|Jew-ish|patrilineal Jew|self-hating Jew
Hebrew: Hebrew character|Neo-Hebrew|Hebrew calendar
gay: gay district|gay enclave|gay ghetto|gay neighborhood|gay neighbourhood|gay quarter|gay village

If you're interested in helping to link entries, Wiktionary:Todo/compounds not linked to from components is a decent place to start Denazz (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long pole in the tent

Do we have an entry for this expression? It's meant to mean "bottleneck", something that takes the longest to do or which generates the most hassle. I couldn't find an existing entry, but maybe it exists. I have a quote also for it. 185.69.144.233 01:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

detrita as plural of detritus

We list detrita as an acceptable plural of detritus, even though detritus is usually uncountable. What, then, makes this word distinctively countable and thus plural? It seems like they may be both uncountable to me, like material and matter. —Soap— 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that none of the cites at Citations:detritus pair the word with a plural verb. —Soap— 15:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some results from this Google Books search using are, were, have and this one using these, those. many show instances. DCDuring (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I couldnt get a single one of those links to load .... even the ones that say "Read free of charge" .... but I'll assume the cites must be in there. If you weren't American i'd just assume it's a copyright issue where I'm getting your URL's to load but not what they allow you to access ... but now Im confused. Anyway thanks. —Soap— 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although many from the "detrita are/were/have" collocations were spurious, usually because detrita was the object of a preposition, not the subject of the verb, some seemed real AFAICT. The other search generated more certainty from the snippets. DCDuring (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several other occurrences were specific epithets, as in Ocneria detrita. --Lambiam 17:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalogue of Life has 50+ accepted species that use forms of detritus as specific epithet. DCDuring (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To a Latinist this only makes sense as the plural of the nominalized neuter adjective dētrītum, supposedly meaning “a piece of detritus” or “a detritus deposit”. Indeed, the term detritum can be attested in English texts: [1], [2], [3]. So one might surmise that the English plural detrita is the Latinate plural of detritum, just like bacteria is a (or even the) plural of bacterium and spectra is a plural of spectrum. --Lambiam 17:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing definition of plodder related to "soap plodder"

What does the English word plodder mean in a "soap plodder"? An appropriate definition couldn't be found in the wiktionary page. Could someone please help make an edit on the defintion of this page? (I'm a newcomer in wiktionary. Please feel free to inform me if this is not supposed to be a good place to discuss this kind of trivial issue here. Thanks!) AnnHarryArb (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could find by searching around, it seems to be a large, expensive machine used in industrial soapmaking. I couldnt find any evidence of the term for similar occupations like candymaking or die casting, which share a lot in common with soapmaking, nor would I expect someone who just makes soap as a hobby to be able to afford one of these machines at home, as the prices run well into the tens of thousands of dollars. As for giving it a definition, I wish I could help more, but while it's easy to find definitions that use technical jargon, and it seems that plodder may be a synonym for extruder, that doesn't get me any closer to writing a definition that someone unfamiliar with the industry would be able to understand. If I had to write something, I'd say that a plodder is

A large machine used in industrial-grade soapmaking.

It's possible that the term may have come about as a variation of plotter, because one manufacturer I found calls them plotters, but I think it's more likely that the two terms are simply confused. I hope this helps at least a little bit. —Soap— 19:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added based on what I found in Google Books. The verb is plod. Equinox ◑ 19:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not limited to soap, but also margarine and other items, usually vegetable oil products. Seems to usually involve a screw or helix rotating in a cylinder with tight clearance between the screw/helix and the cylinder interior so that the material is forcibly extruded, often with low gas and liquid content. A plodder may be combined/integrated with other devices to accomplish mixing, material separation, etc. A plodder seems to always include a screw in a cylinder. DCDuring (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be a use of a plodder (screw inside cylinder forcing material through a die) in a tubing manufacture patent. I'm not confident I understood the drawing and wording of the patent. DCDuring (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

punk

The Etymology is in poor shape. It has a long history, first created in 2011, touched up once (diff), reverted and extended a year later (diff), reverted again while keeping the amendment (diff), reverted repeatedly by the original editor (diff) until @-sche stepped in, split the two etymologies and added yet another claim to it (diff), which stood for five years, not counting reverts and vandalism, until a new IP reverted said claim on insufficient grounds in 2019 (diff).

The -sche's edit was sourced by {{R:Dictionary.com}} (which was a redirect to another TLD back then) which is currently not supporting the claim but the Internet Archive proves that it had said so ("C16: via Polari from Spanish pu(n)ta prostitute, pu(n)to male prostitute"[4]). Greens Dictionary of Slang {{R:GDoS}} repeats the claim though not unanimously. The take away from this and OED is that citations of fire wood tinder spunk funk punk date later and cannot explain the former sense of puta mardre gay cat piker county trash punker.

Speaking of, punquetto is sometimes adduced (Green's, OED²), and I thought rebracketing of -(qu)-ette is indicative of confusion with -cat, perhaps rebracketing -y, -iȝ, -ich < -iġ, groovy cat, since cat is "Probably partly also a borrowing from French" (OED online), viz. chat. "cat; pussy" would at least explain cat "prostitute" (a century prior to "genitals"). I am just not knowledgable of evidence to that effect and this is not an RvE.

Hence I suggest to create (Polari) punto or refer back to Spanish puto. This isn't giving undue weight because we clearly state in accord with the references that the origin is ultimately uncertain and contaminated. It seems to be assumed the n is simply eyedialect for a nasalized back vowel /ũ/, while k for t may be due to t-glo'alization. This is not clearly said. For example, see also punt and thus punter, a swindler, gang affiliate or prostitutes client, which might represent an intermediate form in the development to punked (which has its own Usage Note here). Hurtmeplenty (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moët et Chandon

/ˌmoʊət eɪ ʃɑːnˈdɔːn/ —French [moe e ʃɑ̃dɔ̃]. Similarly to Adidas, etc. JMGN (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Send to RFV as the term would need to comply with WT:BRAND before it can be created. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Moët is attestable as a generic term for “fancy champagne”, but I doubt the full term is. Theknightwho (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the /t/ is pronounced, even just in the name Moët. I know I've heard it pronounced in English, and the Wikipedia article suggests it's pronounced in French too. The French Wikipedia doesnt say this directly, but does say that the name Moët is a homophone of Mouette ... which means either the o is irregular too, or (more likely) that they're using the term "homophone" loosely. —Soap— 17:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

deep dive, deep-dive

These two verbs need deep dove or deep-dove as an alternate simple past, but not as past participle. I can't get it to work. Equinox ◑ 13:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i found code at nosedive that worked. It requires the use of a bare 4 as the final parameter, which is supposedly equivalent to past_ptc2, but when I tried using the full form (figuring the code would be easier to read that way) it just gave the deep dived link twice. So for now we may need to leave the parameters the way they are. —Soap— 18:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox, Soap: I've found that {{en-verb|deep dive<,,:dove,dived>}} also works. Would this be a better solution? --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've since changed it to {{en-verb|deep dive<,,:dove,+>}}. --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Cant. Crew" in this etymology?

See nig-nog ety 1: "From Cant. Crew nigmenog, a very silly fellow." My guess would be the Cambridge University rowing team (Cantabrigian) but I am not sure. Equinox ◑ 21:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the page is still the same as it was, the source (itself taken from Douglas Harper's Etymology Dictionary) used by the originating editor just used the lowercase word cant, like thieves' cant. They were editing in good faith, but I think it's time to a second look at the etymologies of both senses, as even that editor wasnt too confident about the second one. I doubt the Urban Dictionary contributor would really know such a precise list of areas where the word is used anyway. I can at least say I've never heard it out loud and that I've always assumed it was (UK, Australia) but that is just based on hearsay. —Soap— 23:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Canting crew”, I believe—an old-fashioned way of referring to people who speak in cant. See A New Dictionary of the Terms Ancient and Modern of the Canting Crew (c. 1698). Cant. Crew might even refer to that specific work. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be it: it must be naming that work as the source. (The capitalisation was telling.) I will change it. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term does indeed appear: Nigmenog, a very ſilly fellow.^[5] --Lambiam 17:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]