Wiktionary:Tea room/2024/September

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← August 2024 · September 2024 · October 2024 → · (current)

---

refill

Is the first sense "a filling after the first" actually distinct from the other senses? If so, how would you use the word in this sense? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps senses 2-4 could be treated as subsenses of sense 1. DCDuring (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a distinction between the "an act of refilling" (He did a very sloppy refill.) and "material used to refill" (The refills soon were spilling on the floor.). DCDuring (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried to regroup some of the senses, although it may need more work. Einstein2 (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That looks good to me, whatever the potential for further improvement. At some point only live examples (cites) will help with definitions. We don't have the resources to do all that ought be done in that regard. If we can't, then recourse to other references is probably adequate, but that's not always worth the effort, given limited time and contributors. DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I flipped the order, as the "material" definition is certainly more common, based on what other dictionaries choose to include and my own experience. DCDuring (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. What about the translation section? I never know what's the right thing to do after rewriting a sense, because now the translations might be off. What's the right procedure? Move all the one I can't judge myself to {{t-check}}? In this case the Bulgarian, Russian, and Spanish translation seem suspect to me. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd assume the translations for the definition you had a problem with would be the only ones worth trying to involve speakers of the various languages. I'm not even sure that the new definition is a mere rewording of the old one. DCDuring (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I added a subsense for fuel. In each of these refill can also be taken to mean “act of refilling”, but I think usually “that which is being refilled” is what is really denoted. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The same might be said for a refill of each variety of refillable pen or pencil. Does any other English dictionary have a separate definition for each of those? Some dictionaries do have a sense for the "prescription refill" sense, probably in part because it has a life of its own, being used attributively and also to refer metonymically to the acts of prescriber and consumer, as well as pharmacist. DCDuring (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not that I know. I'm still for splitting into a number of common types of refill because of the translations. A number of languages have words that only apply to a subset of refills. This is comparable to the "translation hubs" we have for English terms that are SOP. Is there a good reason we shouldn't be doing this? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Because metonymy is a very common phenomenon that would warrant scores of attestable definitions, making the English entries increasingly hard to read. One alternative is for the closest hypernymic English definition in the entry to include multiple hyponymic definitions for those not covered by subsenses. DCDuring (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You mean refill is a metonym for cup of coffee, because it having been refilled is one aspect of the cup of coffee? I have difficulty imagining this would lead to problems, because only common senses would be easily attested.

What would your alternative look like? Isn't that what subsenses are for? Where does this leave translation? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Eg, coffee, wine, tea, water, champagne, drink, lipstick, pneumothorax, gas, air, soda, beer, ink, pen, ballpoint, cartridge, propane, LP, LN. As I said, my alternative is that translations that were language-specific specializations (hyponyms) of a sense would appear (with the restrictive qualification) among that language's translations of the sense (hypernym). Not just attestability but idiomaticity in English is what CFI requires. When, as, and if there are a sufficient number of languages that "need" a subsense, they could be added. DCDuring (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"Good judgment" in adding senses would be a slender reed to lean on, just as it has been for derived and related terms, etc.. DCDuring (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wrong IPA for Chinese erhua syllable containing "in"

For example, 橡皮筋兒 gives the IPA t͡ɕinə̯ɻ for 筋兒, where it should be the same as jir t͡ɕiə̯ɻ. Mteechan (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the data is being pulled from Module:zh/data/cmn-pron where 筋 is given as jīn (unless erhua is handled by some other module?). Do other Wiktionary entries with characters that end in -n in isolation but drop the -n when exhibiting erhua also have this issue? - -sche (discuss) 23:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

In Standard Mandarin, the correct erhua form for all syllables ending in "in" is the same as that of "i". I believe the source code that generates IPA for erhua form forgets to remove the final [n] for syllables ending with "in". This also apply for "ün" as I tested just now. Mteechan (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mteechan This is fixed - and you were correct about what was happening: the conversion "[iy]n?" → "%1ə̯ɻ" should have been "([iy])n?" → "%1ə̯ɻ", so the "n" wasn't being dropped for -inr and -ünr finals, as you spotted. Theknightwho (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I just found a new issue. The IPA for erhua form of "zi/ci/si/zhi/chi/shi/ri" is also incorrect. It should be /Cə̯ɻ/ where C is the initial, but the module simply adds a /ɻ/ to the non-erhua IPA. Mteechan (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

parablast

Defined as A portion of the mesoblast (of peripheral origin) of the developing embryo, whose cells are involved in the formation of the first blood and blood vessels. . This terms is archaic/obsolete. What's the modern-day name for it? I'd say something to do with the w:ectoderm, and ChatGPT offers "Extraembryonic Mesoderm". Any ideas? Denazz (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

quartern

Based on the quotations provided, the second sense given here seems to define quartern loaf, not "quartern". Should this term be split off, or is there a different adjective sense ("weighing about four pounds")? Or is the definition correct and just not supported by the quotes? Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Proctor#Adjective

I can't see that it's an adjective, more like a noun modifier. We could move it to a new entry for Proctor test; there is a Wikipedia article for Proctor compaction test. DonnanZ (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

About the usage notes on Portuguese se é que você me entende

The usage notes say that "the English equivalent, if you know what I mean, is sometimes used instead". Who uses it? In which country/region? I've never seen people using this English expression casually or frequently in Portuguese as to be regarded as part of the vernacular, as someone who lives in São Paulo, Brazil. What are your views on this subject? OweOwnAwe (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that note is a [citation needed] moment. I haven't heard or seen any Brazilian use the English idiom. Actually, we borrow simple and compound English words but not idioms. Davi6596 (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

same thought as above, never heard the English idiom in Portuguese. Juwan (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The influence of the English language and the general knowledge of it in modern generations, aided by the fact that we use subtitles rather than dubbing in Portugal, as opposed to Spain, for instance (I don't know about Brazil), makes it that some common English expressions make their way into the spoken language. For instance, I've heard many Portuguese people use the expression whatever, and I even heard once someone say by the way, which I found really annoying since, as opposed to whatever, we already have a portuguese expression that means exactly the same (já agora). I, however, never heard anyone say "if you know what I mean" in portuguese, and if it happens it must be a very rare usage. So I think we can remove it, if everyone agrees.
PS: It's also missclassified as "interjection" instead of "phrase". Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

in Brazil, almost all films both for children and for adults are dubbed, this results in a way more monolingual culture. however, social media is a way that Brazilians engage with English as television was to so many countries and so more recent coinages and Internet terms are more likely to be borrowed or calqued. Juwan (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't even think about social media, which mainly influences the younger generations who are thus more exposed to english even if a country has a tradition of dubbing instead of subtitles. We also dub childrens' content in Portugal, and there was some ocasional dubbing of some TV shows in the nineties; I still remember (barely) of watching "Knight Rider" and "The A-Team" dubbed in brazilian! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There, I corrected it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert my edit. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

uitzien

We have a Dutch lemma uitzien that defines the term as “to look, to seem, to appear”. I think this is wrong. The proper lemma for this sense is the intransitive verb eruitzien, a uniquely doubly separable verb that may give rise to a phrase like er goed uitzien (to look good). Users may encounter such a phrase and search under uitzien; I think the entry should refer them to the lemma eruitzien. To complicate the matter, there is the idiom uitzien naar (to look forward to). What is a good way of handling the situation? @Lingo Bingo Dingo, Mnemosientje, Rua.  --Lambiam 07:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe there are three ways in which the verb uitzien is used:

1. eruitzien: ik zie er goed uit.
2. ernaar uitzien (dat): het ziet ernaar uit dat het zo gaat regenen.
3. uitzien naar: ik zie uit naar onze kennismaking.

I'm not sure whether these all deserve their own lemma, which we could link to using {{only used in}} (this is what I did with vandoor and vantussen). uitzien naar could be lemmatized at uitzien using {{+obj}}. My current solution can be seen at User:Stujul/sandbox#uitzien

Stujul (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

what the fuck

... is going on with this entry? Specifically interjection sense 1. This, that and the other (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• what the fuck do you think? Sherlocks1050 (talk • contribs)'s summer project was clearly to expand it. Phacromallus (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Anyway, there are so many fucking examples, we could move them to their own project. I suggest WTFionary. Phacromallus (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Many shortened form expressions included that you think we should move to their own project to expand it? doesn't seem fucked up to add all of the short form expressions. Does have to add all of the examples or does not? Sherlocks1050 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem lies in it being SOP, what + the fuck. You can just remove the latter in many of the examples, e.g. What the fuck is this for?, What the fuck do I know?. All of the synonyms are also SOP; what the is aposiopesis + pragmatics. We don’t creat how the fuck, how the hell, who the fuck, who the hell etc. It is also good to know that this page is from 2005 when everyone was much less experienced. Fay Freak (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Usage of what the fuck and what the hell is used a formed expressions now if I remove What the fuck is going on? and what the fuck are you doing? what the fuck is that? ETC.

Recently there’s isn't to add more examples then. Sherlocks1050 (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The list there is really a list of the top umpteen principal collocations, which certainly has its uses and certainly is interesting in its own right, but unfortunately Wiktionary doesn't want that many of them cluttering up either the sense/def or even the {{collocation}} items beneath it. A good suggestion IMO would be to put the top three beneath the sense/def element and then put all the rest on the what the fuck/Citations page. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would we put them on the Citations page without citations? DCDuring (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

True. See the edit that I just made at the entry. It comments out the rest of them for now. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I moved the usexes to the Phrase section as I think interjection senses are intended to cover uses where What the fuck? is used on its own. Einstein2 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there to add more examples as is used an apotheosis. Such as, what the fuck is that? What the fuck is this? What the fuck are you? What the fuck happened here? What the fuck did you do? What the fuck is all this? What the fuck do you think you're doing? What the fuck is it? What the fuck was that? What the fuck is with you? What the fuck was this? What the fuck is all that? ETC. Sherlocks1050 (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The pronunciation of aprimorate and aprimoration

Tho /əˈpɹɪməɹeɪt/ and /əˌpɹɪməˈɹeɪʃən/ are good predictions, dictionaries should show pronunciations based on usage, and I haven't found any videos where those words are pronounced. Also, since native speakers don't use them, knowing how to pronounce them is pointless.
So, @Theknightwho, why did you add those transcriptions, and what evidence are they based on? --Davi6596 (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

He agreed with deleting the pronunciations. Davi6596 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

floruit

This entry is missing the most important sense - the sense used in biographies to indicate the approximate life of a person whose date of birth or death is not known (for example, Sympson the Joiner is only known from the 1660s diaries of Samuel Pepys and there are no other sources about him, so his Wikipedia article starts "Sympson the Joiner (floruit 1660s) was a Master-Joiner at the Deptford Dockyard"). But what part of speech is that - is it an adjective? A defective verb that only exists in the past participle? A preposition? Something else? Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: Just like "lived", "born", and "died" in the same context, I'd call that a verb. Yes, a defective verb because it's past-only, but it's not indeclinable: the plural form floruerunt also occurs, although it's much rarer than the singular. 0DF (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The complication is that in that context, "lived", "born", and "died" are past participles (or adjectives), not finite verbs. (English happens to use the ending "-ed" for both functions for the majority of verbs, but "born" is unambiguously a past participle form, not a simple past form.) In Latin, floruit is a finite verb. I think that the use in English isn't necessarily clearly integrated to English grammar rules.--Urszag (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Semantically, though, these are events, not states or descriptions. I would call them short for sentences with verbs: he was born [on the date/in the year] xxxx, married [on the date/in the year] yyyy, and died [on the date/in the year] zzzz. Floruit would best be translated as "was alive [on the date(s)/in the year(s)]". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the term as used in English occurs exclusively(?) followed by a noun phrase indicating a time period, grammatically it behaves like a preposition, notwithstanding its etymology, translations, and coordinate terms. It fails the predicate-use test as well as other adjective tests. I don't disagree with Chuck Entz and Urszag's comments. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, preposition is the POS I was leaning most towards, but I don't really like the floodgate it opens (as you say, the coordinate terms surely aren't prepositions). Do we have any similar verb entries that only exist in past participle? Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

فم

This entry lists three dual forms on the headword line, and AFAICT three different dual forms in the declension table (differing in -ān vs -ayn/-āni). Which are correct? (@Fenakhay.) - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: In pausa, final short vowels are not pronounced. I've corrected the entry. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 14:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

dismemberment

dismemberment is a good case in point of definitional ambiguity.

Dismemberment always involves a patient, though not necessarily explicitly.

To me dismemberment seems to usually refer to an event (usually instantaneous, but sometimes durative ('during dismemberment')), more or less in line with our first definition. Does the stative condition/state sense of dismemberment actually occur? One can find numerous uses of state of dismemberment (result of having been dismembered), which suggests that dismemberment is in such usage an event suffered by a patient and that dismemberment alone needs to be supplemented by state of to convey the state/condition sense unambiguously. In more figurative uses ("removal from membership": 'dismemberment of the USSR/SEATO'), our definition 3, the process seems more likely to extend over a duration.

One of our definitions of dismemberment, "The state or condition of being dismembered" seems ambiguous and/or incomplete. "Being dismembered" can be read as be + dismembered#Adjective (perfective) OR the progressive and imperfective, in which the state or condition occurs only while being dismembered, not the most common lexical aspect of dismemberment. Would "The state or condition of having been dismembered" be better, covering the common uses better?

Most dictionaries only have dismemberment as an undefined run-in derivative of dismember. Those that have one or more definitions leave some ambiguity. For us, wording that finessed the ambiguities would be desirable. Such wording eludes me at present. Does anyone have ideas? DCDuring (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Arabic biliteral words

Arabic has some words which are biliteral or even uniliteral (according to Karin Ryding, Arabic: A Linguistic Introduction, 2014, page 61; Michael Carter, Arab Linguistics, 1981, page 65; Mary Bateson, Arabic Language Handbook, 1967, page 36), for example فم / فو "mouth" (Proto-Semitic *pay-), يَد "hand" (*yad-), دم "blood" (*dam-), ابن "son" (*bin-), أخ "brother" (*ʾaḫ-). Where can I find a comprehensive list of such words? (Do we have a category for them, and if not, should we make one?) - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult because in many cases triliteral roots have been derived from biliteral nouns - and this is a very old process that probably began in Proto-Semitic times, if not Afro-Asiatic times. For example dam ("blood") and ibn ("son"), which you mentioned, are original biliterals. Nevertheless, both of them belong to triliteral roots in Arabic: d-m-y and b-n-y as in the verbs دَمِيَ (damiya, “to bleed”), تَبَنَّى (tabannā, “to adopt”). Triliteral roots are derived by geminating the second consonant or by adding a third consonant (typically a semivowel as in the aforementioned examples). Deciding which triliteral roots are derived from original biliteral roots is difficult even for semiticists, precisely because it's such an old process. 92.218.236.20 22:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe to explain why this is relevant, take the noun ثِقة (ṯiqa, “trustworthiness”). It appears to have but two consonants, but belongs to the root w-ṯ-q. Now is the w original in this root or not? At least at face value there's no way of telling. 92.218.236.20 22:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation of the difficulty! What if I just want a list of all Arabic words (say, nouns) which are biliteral now, whether they were biliteral in Proto-Semitic or not, excluding cases—if any—where the drop from a 3+ consonant root to a 2-consonant noun is due to some systematic, productive or predictable process? How large a portion of the nouns in Arabic have two consonants? - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I think one should say "nominals that have but two consonants and only short vowels", because a long vowel would already be interpreted as an underlying semivowel. You won't have any verbs at all and particles can't be counted. You could additionally discount nouns of the form CiCa with an underlying initial w-. While I couldn't really say that these are "systematic and productive", there are a few of them (e.g. ṯiqa, ṣila, ḥida, jiha). -- Now if this our set, the number of words that are common in Modern Standard Arabic would be low. Off the top of my head I could only add أَب (ʔab, “father”), حَم (ḥam, “father-in-law”), and كُرة (kura, “ball”), although I'm sure some others will be found. 92.218.236.20 13:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, you may find it interesting to note how Arabic dialects continue to get rid of these words. For example, dam ("blood") becomes damm (with gemination), kura ("ball") becomes kūra or kōra (with lengthening), words may be replaced with diminutives or lost entirely. As a result some dialects may not have words fitting our above definition at all. 92.218.236.20 14:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Currency names and symbols

there are several currency names and currency symbols that seem to be missing, e.g. Ca$, Mex$, S$. currently US$ and A$ are stated to be "informal" (I ask, can't they be used formally when distinguishing currencies?). apart from currency signs on {{currency symbols}}. for adding a large number of these, I also request a new template similar to {{ISO 4217}} for defining and categorising these symbols. Juwan (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

the currency signs that I plan to add are mostly on the Wikipedia article for Currency symbol. Juwan (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Juwan Hmm, are those symbols really in use? I live in Canada where it's often necessary to distinguish Canadian dollars from American, and I see the ISO 4217 codes often ("$4.13 CAD" or "USD$4.13"), but not the ones you mentioned. If I'm reading Wikipedia right it doesn't give references for "CA$" or "US$". Either way if they consistently use any particular ISO standard (whether its 4217 or 3166-1 alpha-2), this makes the symbols SoP IMO. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@ExcarnateSojourner those symbols may be used less reguarly than the ISO 4217 codes, however they are still used! the references [1-3] and note [a] on Wikipedia are editorial guidelines cited for that.

regarding whether these are SOP, I don't necessarily think so, as "CA" is not a word in English but a translingual one and refers to a very specific thing, not any dollar in Canada. Juwan (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Juwan Nice, I see "Can$" is recommended by official sources and in use. But I think "Can$", "CA$", and "US$" are SoP. My understanding is that if a term is translingual that means it is a term in all (or at least many) languages, so if "CA" is a translingual term, then it is an English term. "CA" (translingual) means Canada, and "$" (translingual) means dollar, so "CA$" (translingual) means the dollar of Canada in all languages. It seems arbitrary to me to say "CA$" would have to mean "a dollar in Canada" as opposed to "the dollar of Canada". — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 20:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

this is also not to mention that this is only part of the missing symbols issue, there are many symbols that are composed of normal letters that deserve to be included, such as Be, RM, VT, etc. Juwan (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Juwan I'm not sure which currency Be refers to as I don't see it in the Wikipedia list. It looks like we already have a (translingual) entry for RM, but I would support the creation of a sense for VT (Vanuatu vatu). — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 22:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  I probably meant to type Br, but typo! Juwan (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree informal is not quite the right word. A$ is common enough but would only be use on an Australian website and likely not on a currency exchange where it would be too ambiguous. Perhaps instead of "(informal)" it should be "1. (Australia) Australian dollar". Pengo (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

the new question I have is how should all these be implemented and defined? in another discussion below at #Translingual symbols and emoji, I am searching for a "common practice" to help harmonise between multiple definitions and entries. Juwan (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

вькопысь (Russian/Hebrew/Lithuanian)

There are two Hebrew books ("Shivhey haBesht" and "Sefer Pri haOretz"), and I found cover photos of their old editions from Tzarist Russia, both with stamps saying вькопысь and сьдозволенiа/сьдозволенiе виленской цензуры ("approved by Vilna (Vilnius) censorship", written with misspelling). The one on Shivhey haBesht has also בקאפוסט, which probably means that the book is from the town of Kopys or has something to do with the Kopust dynasty (but the book itself is not written by them). What is вькопысь? Is it an approval stamp made by some illiterate person? Are these books approved at all or are they stamps fake like for the Lithuanian books from this period? Tollef Salemann (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"вькопысь" and "בקאפוסט" are obviously the same thing in two different scripts. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

In which language? "сьдозволенiа" and "вькопысь" look like a foreigner tried to write with Cyrillic. Why? It is serious books, so what is the deal with these weird stamps? Tzar Peter in 1690-s has sponsored Latin written books in Russian language because of printing in cyrillic was problematic back then, but these books are from some newer timesn and the stamps are Cyrillic. Tollef Salemann (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Dispute resolution request

or whatever, I'm not going to be one of those crazy pushy IPs that keeps screaming. But please look at this once. At WT:REE User:Pigsonthewing is requesting the word Thyone (or possibly lower-case thyone?) as English. I have reverted this saying it's Translingual (we do already have the Translingual taxonomic entry). He refuses to accept this and has kindly provided a number of citations; the problem is that these citations are all (to me) clearly using the taxonomic term and not some generic English word. Would appreciate some third-party input because edit wars, blah blah, etc. love you. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7165:32DB:8256:403C 16:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like The genus name has been become an actual word to me, due the the evidence POTW mentioned at REE (such as the use of the phrase 'the Thyones'). It's certainly a rare word but, given that we have many requested entries that have sat around for years without being removed from REE (either after creation or a rejection of the request to create them), I see no need to rush the decision here. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

narrow

At 16:16, 16:39, 19:25 this man from Northern Ireland seems to say narrow and Gary with the start vowel. Is this common? Am I mishearing? At 16:09 he says large with the same vowel, which I expect there, but w:Hiberno-English suggests it should be the other way around and the vowel of large should be fronted. Buildingquestion (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The ‘a’ becoming ‘ah’ phenomenon in NI accents is something ‘thaht’ I definitely ‘hahv’ heard quite often. I suspect it comes from the Doric Scots pronunciation that can be heard in places in Aberdeenshire like Fraserburgh and Peterhead. The way that ‘I’ and ‘time’ become ‘Ay’ and ‘tame’ doesn’t sound very Doric though, more standard Scottish - Doric would simply be ‘I’ and ‘time’ or even occasionally ‘oy’ and ‘toym’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

spisovatel (Czech)

We currently list the definition of spisovatel as "writer", but there is also spisovatelka meaning "female writer". Would it be acceptable to call a woman a "spisovatel"? If the answer is no, would you use "spisovatel" for a nonbinary writer, or is there a gender neutral form as well? (Hoping to hear from a native Czech speaker.) Thank you. Nosferattus (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nosferattus I am not a Czech speaker, but a speaker of another gendered language, so the specifics may be wrong. however in general, in gendered Indo-European languages, the masculine is used as the "default" for men and people whose gender is unknown, and the feminine for women only.

non-binary and gender-inclusive language is very complicated and heavily depends on each language, but this open-read paper may help you if you are interested in learning about strategies that Czech people use to talk about these issues. Juwan (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@JnpoJuwan My main question is, would it be considered incorrect to refer to a woman as "spisovatel"? For example, if the Czech National Authority Database listed Toni Morrison's profession as "spisovatel", would that be an error or acceptable (per its use as the "default")? Your answer leads me to think it might be considered an error, but I'm not sure as your answer doesn't address the question directly. If it would be considered incorrect, how should spisovatel be modified to reflect this? Should the definition be changed to "male writer or writer of unknown gender" or would it be more appropriate to add a usage note, and do we have a boilerplate usage note to address this common situation? Nosferattus (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nosferattus whether it is incorrect to call a woman by that name, it depends. in databases (including Wikidata for example), it is common to have the male form as default because it is extra hassle to specify. but this is a niche case, in normal language, it is very weird to call a woman that. take the example that in a database a woman may be called an "actor", but not in an article, where "actress" is preferred.

regarding usage notes or boilerplate, I don't think that Wiktionary has that, and that's not necessarily an issue as the headword already especifies that spisovatelka is the feminine of spisovatel and if you already know about the language's grammar which distinguished masculine and feminine. Juwan (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me step in as someone who deals with Slavic regularly.

In Slavic languages, the masculine word is sometimes used "neutrally", i.e. for any person. If one wishes to emphasize that this person was female, they may use the female equivalent. It is worth it to note that grammatical gender is not the same as syntactic gender. Vininn126 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: You should learn about markedness in languages. It’s not “male writer or writer of unknown gender” but unspecified gender. It just does not say which gender it is. Grammatical gender has no implication for natural gender. Romans and humans called noun classes like that for memorization purposes in the school systems of yore, you could also call them a, b, c, or i., ii., iii., but you see this is brute for someone who is not an academic by heart but a school pupil.

This is why linguists don’t take “gender-inclusive language” serious. I have after all witnessed the conversations of cutting-edge linguists in university. With some background in general theory, rather than just teaching language as an exercise in imitation, wherewith you apparently can get through the system and have success in society in general due to its undeclared reliance on mirror neurons, you realize it is easy to fall victim to etymological fallacy. Like one lecturer was a bit piqued when a student answered “from the mother” to the question whence one’s mother tongue is typically acquired, being a single father, though the term itself is okay.

By not comparing languages across time or space, people fall victim to reverse etymological fallacy – interestingly this term exists already a few terms on the internet, I thought I invented it, but I mean an overgeneralization of practical mnemonics up to the point of identity politics. The argumentation structures of its proponents are arbitrary comparatively, but you need to be multilingual in your varied consumption of content to realize this, which most people aren’t. You have a selection bias but on Wiktionary, for your benefit, so I can clear up the confusion:

While German theorists prescribe gender stars and gender gaps or writing out both gendered forms (e.g. Schülerinnen und Schüler, then abbreviated SuS), Russian feminists in the last thirty years (before that these postmaterial ideas did not influence the West either) find it discriminatory that female gender is specified. Comparing до́кторша (dóktorša) being pejorative as opposed to до́ктор (dóktor). Just use the male form, they stipulate. As opposed to the German pseudofeminists demanding that women are mitgenannt, nicht nur mitgemeint (“named as well, not only meant as well”). It’s fashionable nonsense. There you move outside the realm of what is correct, unless you unironically seek how to be politically correct, in your question what would be considered incorrect, which would sanewash the incorrect (an upcoming concept for neutrality taken as far as to normalize radical and deranged ideas): some people always may consider incorrect what is correct, you see about language people have different frames of reference and hence expectations about what has to be marked, even without a coherent concept of markedness. Anyhow we have explained you both, the linguistic and the political issues, and I have untangled them, understanding both. Now when speaking another language you can defend yourself against the accusation of being an immigrant eating the pets of the people who live in it, I mean discriminating against genders. Being assured by a fact-check. Fay Freak (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

countable

There's lots of squiggly lines on the pronunciation of this. My phonetics skills don't process. Is it correct? Denazz (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"These" ? Do you mean the IPA symbols with squiggles? DCDuring (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeh, IPA squiggles Phacromallus (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

the entry has narrow transcription, it indicates how the word is pronounced beyond the simple building blocks of the phonemes. so, for the word countable, it is saying that the first syllable is pronounced nasalised, that /aʊ/ is a diphthong with the glide on the second phoneme and the final syllable has a syllabic consonant /l/. Juwan (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

flushometer

The Wiktionary definition is completely different from the Wikipedia article. I suggest using the first sentence of the article: "a metal water-diverter that uses an inline handle to flush tankless toilets or urinals." Dikshunaree (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Translingual symbols and emoji

(pinging @LunaEatsTuna following discussion on Discord) while editing, I have noticed that a lot of the symbols (especially emojis) don't have a proper syntax to speak of. I have edited some to try to bring cohesion but editing alone is not the best here. what is the best way to notate that a symbol has a particular meaning but not literally means that word.

1. A symbol representing/indicating ...
2. An emoji representing/indicating ...
3. Represents/indicates ...
4. Represents/indicates ...

for the terms used, I tend to go with "represents" when it means a physical or concrete thing in the world and indicate when it is a more abstract signal of commmunication (it represnts a person, it indicates danger). between these options, I would try to tend to lean between 3 and 2, choosing the second one in when referring specifically about the emoji's use on the internet versus, say, a symbol on a map. Juwan (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

tale (en)

It seems to me that etymologies 1 and 2 given for the English entry tale are exactly the same, save that they contain entries that are different parts of speech, and that both parts of speech ought to be listed under a single etymology.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

How are they the same, if one is a noun and the other is a verb ? Do you consider them the same because they originate from the same PIE root ? Leasnam (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of entries here on Wiktionary that have different parts of speech listed under the same etymology. This is why, when an entry has multiple etymologies, the etymology has a level-3 header, while the parts of speech are given level-4 headers. This is encoded into the entry layout here on Wiktionary.

This is the case on tale, where etymology #3 should be etymology #2, with its single noun/alternative form of PoS and definition under it, and—as explained in the OP—etymologies #1 & #2, which are the same in origin, meaning, and detail, should be combined into a single etymology #1, with the noun and verb PoS and definitions listed under that one single etymology, with the etymology headers being level-3, and the PoS headers being level-4.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

When the different parts of speech originate in the same language period, then they belong under the same etymology heading. If not, then they should be split out. We have hundreds if not thousands of such cases that still need to be broken out. English tale is a perfect example of how other entries should look. Leasnam (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The language "periods" given for tale are identical. The (notional) reason previous editors put the different PoS under different etymologies seems to be that they consider the first etymology, given as a noun in all its ancestral forms, as different from the verb, purely because it is a different PoS because the verb etymology is written as a series of (hypothetical, imaginary) verbal forms, even though the progression from the same PIE root is identical.

However, if it were in fact the case that different PoS merited wholly separate etymologies, why would WT:MOS show that different parts of speech can belong under the same etymology heading? By these editors' logic, different parts of speech should always have separate etymologies.

Now, I predict that you will come back arguing that it is precisely because the two parts of speech can each be traced back with full etymologies each maintaining its own PoS throughout (except for the identical roots). However, there are thousands of well-edited entries on here that do not follow this logic, even though similarly full "separate" etymologies could be fabricated for each. I'd invite you to take a look, for example, at the entry for tear, which has two etymologies, each with two parts of speech, a noun and a verb, even though surely, by the logic of tale's previous editors, "separate" etymologies could be constructed for each of them. There was no doubt both a verb and a noun form of each etymology in each of the ancestral languages listed (ME, OE, PGmc). As someone who contributes a lot to Hebrew entries here on English Wikipedia, I can also tell you that pretty much all Hebrew entries with different parts of speech from the same Proto-Semitic root are always listed under the same etymology.

If your argument then is that those Hebrew entries and their like share the same etymology because no more specific information is available, compared to tale, with its stages of PoS forms given for each PoS, then you have just admitted a problem in the policy for etymologies. The mere availability of more information shouldn’t change universal rules for entry layouts across the entire site. The rules need to be either that all different PoS always have different etymologies, or we group different PoS under the same etymology if they clearly derive from the same etymological and semantic sources, and differ only in their respective parts of speech. And in my view, with the well-edited, major entry tear as one example, again out of literally thousands, to support it, along with the prescribed rules for entry layout at WT:MOS, it seems clear to me that the latter should be the policy—different parts of speech with an obviously identical etymology other differing only in terms of part of speech should be grouped under the same etymology.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

front hole

Why is it "euphemistic"? PUC – 18:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I interpreted it as less direct/blunt, and apparently some trans men and/or some people who are referring to trans men consider it a more acceptable term, which puts it on two of the three axes along which something can be a euphemism ("less offensive, blunt or vulgar"); OTOH I realize some other uses might be more crass/vulgar. No objection to dropping the label if you think it's better without it. whatever we do here, back hole should probably be handled the same way. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the term until today, when I encountered it here: "On-demand PrEP is only suitable for anal sex and doesn't provide adequate levels of protection for vaginal or front hole sex, or injecting drug use. For vaginal or front hole sex, or injecting drug use, daily PrEP or periodic PrEP are recommended instead." It does seem like it's intended as a more neutral / trans-friendly / trans-mindful replacement for vagina, but I wouldn't call it euphemistic. On the other hand I wouldn't call it vulgar either, though I can see why it could be perceived as blunt. To me it sounds very "medical". I'll let others decide. PUC – 22:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Softball

Hi,

Is "softball" an adjective in "softball questions" or "softball interview"? If it is,an adjective section should be added to softball. 2402:9D80:22A:3960:58CD:3BFF:FE6D:26A8 06:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In English any noun can be used attributively to modify another noun, eg, "questions" and "interview". DCDuring (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

co#English

Not enjoying the "Multiple parts of speech" header. Denazz (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

autogynephilia

as the page is currently extended protected, I have created a subpage for proposed edits, including updated etyomology, pronunciation, definition, quotations and translations. please discuss and review these for the entry Juwan (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The entry could use three or more cites of use, not mention. Definitions and redefinitions, which are mentions, may also be useful. You can add them to Citations:autogynephilia now. DCDuring (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done: I've made most of your suggested changes. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

pinecone jam

Pinecone syrup is mugolio. In eastern Europe (maybe elsewhere?) they also make pinecone jam. Does this also have a specific name, or is it just pinecone varenye/jam? - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

suicide

May I suggest that some of the "special" pages, such as this, contain a useful direction element? For instance, in this case a 'Pedia link to "List of suicide crisis lines" List by country? -- It seems to be almost standard practice on most on-line platforms to be of quick-help to people in need. Thanks in advance for any interest or input in the idea. -- ALGRIF talk 09:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

turkish pronunciation on denge page has letter ɲ that's not in turkish?

/deɲɟe/

ɲ isn't in turkish??? Zbutie3.14 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

By assimilation to the following /ɟ/ I would imagine that [ɲ] may probably be heard in this word at least in some speakers. But we needn't trouble ourselves with that, because it definitely isn't phonemic. So I've replaced it with /n/. 92.218.236.20 12:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

yokelspringa?

yokelspringa appears to be a nonce word coined today by w:Rick Wilson (political consultant) in the USA (Google currently has 3 hits, but they all reflect [1]), so it doesn't meet CFI, and I don't intend to add it.

But I'm curious -- what does it mean? I can guess the first half as yokel, though I didn't realise that word was used in the USA, but springa beats me -- it doesn't seem to relate to any of the few languages I recognise the forms of, and we only have it in some North Germanic languages, where it has meanings which seem irrelevant, except that blowing up might be vaguely apt -- unless perhaps it's a misprint for spring and he's referencing political movements which were called the xxx spring. I don't know his style, so don't know if he might make that allusion.

Does anyone have a better notion? --Enginear 00:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would suspect it's a nonce blend of "yokel" and "rumspringa", a coming-of-age ceremony in Amish communities. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ardurra vs. Ardura

I work for a company named Ardurra -- we share the definition of Ardurra to be ARDURRA: DILIGENT, RESPONSIBLE (Basque), SUPERIOR (Gaelic) in our online resources. I attended a career fair yesterday and surmise that students will Google "ardurra definition" -- in a conversation with a coworker this morning, we were curious what an Internet search would produce for a definition for Ardurra and found your site as listing the spelling Ardura (Borrowed from Spanish ardura (“anguish, anxiety, discomfort”).) We would appreciate the entry to be updated to include the spelling "Ardurra" with its respective definitions in Gaelic and Basque to follow. How would we proceed with this request, please?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

"Ardurra is a rapidly growing company of experts, engineers, and design professionals committed to delivering quality services and practical solutions." Ardurratmarkee (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If the word "ardurra" can be attested as meaning those things, then it can go into our dictionary. See WT:CFI for more, and take special notice of "attestation".

(For the record, we list ardura as also meaning "care, attention" in Basque. Maybe that's what you're referring to?) CitationsFreak (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Grammatical classification of Pannonian Rusyn "нєт"

So I just made the entry нє (nje), and closely related we have the word нєт (njet, “there is not”) which parallels Russian нет (net) in usage. Problem is, I'm not sure that West Slavic languages (which Pannonian Rusyn is) use predicatives. So for now I've listed it as a particle. Is that accurate? Or could I list нєт (njet) as a predicative? Because it doesn't derive from a verb, and so I can't quite call it a verb like Ukrainian нема́ (nemá). Insaneguy1083 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're not sure about things like predicates, then stay away. I really recommend getting familiar with a single language and focusing on it. And to especially stay away from more grammatical words until you're more familiar. Not knowing the grammar is concerning. Vininn126 (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've studied enough Russian at university to know the basic concept of what a predicate is - I'm just not sure of its classification with regards to specifically Pannonian Rusyn. In this instance, it's being used like how a predicate would be used in East Slavic, yet in theory, predicates aren't used in West Slavic languages.

In general, Pannonian Rusyn is somewhat of an edge case in Slavic classification anyways; a good example would be the conjugation of буц (buc). In the present, the copula is often dropped, like in East Slavic (and unlike Slovak); but the present tense forms do exist, except they are used in the simple past, like in Slovak.

Here, I'm just wondering if нєт (njet) is another such edge case, where another usually East Slavic grammatical feature has been incorporated into Pannonian Rusyn grammar. From all the example sentences I found, it behaves almost identically to Russian нет (net), where it's used to essentially indicate the opposite of єст (jest, “there is”) (есть (jestʹ) in Russian), i.e. the lack of something, with the missing "thing" then conjugated in the genitive form. For example, шведка нєт (švedka njet, “there is no witness”), where шведка (švedka) is the genitive form of шведок (švedok). But again, unlike Belarusian няма́ (njamá), Serbo-Croatian nema, Ukrainian нема́ (nemá), it's not formed from a verb, so it can't be referred to as such.

@Thadh: you're a native speaker of Russian, what say you in this instance? Or is there perhaps an academic paper already going into the specifics of this? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying you don't know what it is. I mean you don't know how it works with regard to the language you're working. Vininn126 (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

econometrics

I pronounce the initial vowel matching economics. 174.89.12.36 06:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, are you suggesting you say the first vowel as iː? I personally say economics as /ˌiːkəˈnɒmɪks/ but I say economy as /ɪˈkɒ.nə.mi/ and if I said econometrics, which I don't think I ever have, I would model it on my pronunciation of economy not economics and so say /ɪˌkɒn.əˈmɛt.ɹɪks/. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I say [i] when stressed and [ə] when unstressed. OED and Merriam-Webster agree with me. For BrE, OED gives [ᵻ] not [ɪ].

I don't know what region [ɪ] is from. The audio in economy and economics is mostly [i] with only 1 [ɛ] and never [ɪ]. Perhaps economy should be edited because OED also gives [ᵻ]. Even if we leave the RP alone, we should make the GenAm conform to these dictionaries.

Edit Merriam-Webster doesn't seem to use IPA. I say it exactly like OED's stressed AmE pronunciation. 174.89.12.36 08:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Strange WingerBot edits

WingerBot has just altered some English definitions of Dutch words so that the sentences start with a lowercase 'a' rather than an uppercase 'A', flouting the rule that sentences should start with a capital letter. For example at beat, the definition reads: "a beat, a rhythmic pattern, notably in music" but at the English section of the same page it says: "A stroke, a blow." (this sentence also finishes with a full stop unlike the other one too). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The difference between English and other languages is prescribed at Wiktionary:Style_guide#Definitions.--Urszag (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that does clear some things up. I would’ve thought both of these are technically glosses rather than full sentences according to what it says at your link though. After all, we don’t write full sentences such as: ‘The word ‘beat’ refers to a stroke or a blow’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

hit (n)

Hit n. currently does not show the somewhat slangy sense of "interview, appearance, call-in" as in "Robinson canceled his various campaign events yesterday, and did a bunch of media hits where he denied everything" from electoral-vote.com today. I think this sense has become fairly common in at least political journalism and media criticism, so perhaps it could be added? (OED hasn't revised this lemma yet and they don't have the sense either, which makes me think it's more recent than 1990.) 207.180.169.36 21:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

tee-tow-town (betee, fortee)

Found on the list of irregular English verbs: tee—(3sg)tees—(p)tow—(pp)town and its derivations betee, fortee. Up til now there exists no entry for this word. Ronaldo sewie (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

tee and tow aren't irregular and don't appear at Category:English irregular verbs and town is not the past participle of tow. Betee and fortee don't exist and betee only appears as a red link at the Old English entry beteon and twice elsewhere as a red link (it seems to be the Aukan word for better). What list of irregular English words are you referring to? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

this here Ronaldo sewie (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

they just got edited out. Ronaldo sewie (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

By me, yes. Was just about to post here with the relevant diff link. This, that and the other (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It's quite plausible that if these verbs had survived into Modern English, they would be conjugated like this. But we deleted them on the grounds that they vanished before 1500: Talk:tee Talk:betee. The old entry did display these irregular past forms. This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

burst open

Burst open (also, bust open). This verb is on Cambridge online dictionary but missing here. Ronaldo sewie (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)