Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions. |
Requests for verification/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question. |
Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script. |
Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries. |
Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries. |
Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates. |
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions. |
Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests. |
Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script. |
Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries. |
Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries. |
Requests for deletion/Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries. |
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}} |
All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5 |
This page is for entries in any language other than (a) English; (b) Chinese/Japanese/Korean; (c) Latin+Romance; (d) reconstructed languages.
- For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.
- For CJK-language entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK.
- For Italic (Latin or Romance) entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Italic.
- For reconstructed-language entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction.
Scope of this request page:
- In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
- Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”
Templates:
{{rfv}}
{{rfv-sense}}
{{archive-top|rfv}}
+{{archive-bottom}}
Shortcut:
See also:
- Criteria for inclusion
- Format for citations
- Standard entry layout
- A list of searchable external archives, useful for finding durably-archived media to quote.
Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.
Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}}
or {{rfv-sense}}
to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).
Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:
- Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
- Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)
In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.
Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:
- Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
- Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
October 2019
For everything spelled with a macron (e.g. Dēiwas/Dēiws, piēncts) as it looks like reconstruction, neo-Old Prussian. See also: User talk:Beobach972#Old Prussian. --Trothmuse (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've wondered about our Old Prussian coverage as well, but I'm not sure anyone active here knows enough about the language and its corpus to dare to speak up about it or to be able to answer this rfv satisfactorily. I really am not sure what is to be done; if I had the leisure time right now to research this all on my own I would, but I don't. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe they are. I know that Old Prussian has long vowels, furthermore the Elbing vocabulary, the one online, provides, I think, a reconstruction of words phonetically. The examples above are strange given the other Baltic languages don't have a ē in Lithuanian diẽvas and Latvian dìevs. From what I know, Old Prussian had no phonological development that caused stressed vowels to lengthen, only the opposite, that unstressed long vowels were reduced to simple vowels. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
RFV for the following:
- azzaran: EGPV "See Assaran", see assaran
- ballo: EGPV "Stirne Batto"
- dags: see EGPV in dagis
- irma: EGPV "Arm Irmo", TLP "irmo, Arm, Oberarm", see irmo
- kams: EGPV "Bene Bitte" & "Hu͡mele Camus", TLP "camus, Hummel, [..] Voc. 788."
- naguttis: EGPV "Nagel Nagutis", TLP "nagutis, Nagel am Finger"
- pazzuls: EGPV "Nacke Passoles", TLP "pa-ssoles, (pl.?), Nacken"
- salts: "(manuscript forms:) salta" sounds like "salts" is a non-manuscript form, i.e. a reconstruction. TLP "salta, kalt", WBdSG "kalt Salta"
- sirablas: EGPV "Silber Siraplis" - only attested as acc. sirablan, cp. TLP?
- skals: EGPV "Kinne Scalus", TLP "scalus, Kinn"
- sunnis: EGPV "Hunt Sunis", TLP "sunis, Hund", WBdSG "Hundt Songos"
- swerreps: EPGV "Keynhe͡gest Sweriapis", TLP "sweriapis (keynhengest) Voc. 431. ist nunmehr wohl hinreichend klar gelegt als Zuchthengst, Beschäler; es ist das Masc., welches den Femininis poln. [..], böhm. swerzepice, Stute, entspricht; [...] niederrhein. kîen, beschälen [...]"
- August, Daggis, Rags: not in EGPV, TLP, WBdSG.
EGPV = Elbing German-Prussian Vocabulary (by G. H. F. Nesselmann, online with reconstructions); TLP = Thesaurus linguae prussicae (etc.) by G. H. F. Nesselmann; WBdSG = Wörterbuch des Simon Grunau.
BTW RFC for undan and unds, see the comment in unds and in the source of wundan. TLP "wundan, Wasser, Voc. 59., wunda, Gr., vgl. und-s" and "und-s, nom., undan, acc. undas, gen. sg., undans, acc. pl., Wasser; Ench. [..]; wundan, Voc., wunda, Gr. s. dd."
--Trothmuse (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Trothmuse: Most of the RFV pressed forthward don't match with the given phonetic reconstruction, so I would say delete. I cound't access the TLP so I can't check those; I have my doubts about WBdSG since it gives a diferent picture from EGPV, two examples are TLP Old Prussian maiʃta (“town”) and EGPV Old Prussian mēstan (“town”), and TLP Old Prussian kayme (“village”) and EGPV (Caymis) Old Prussian *kaimis (“village”).
- If salts isn't attested then it should be deleted; yet an adjective ending with "-a" isn't normal, if the word occurs in a text then it could be the nominative feminine singular, if not then it's either a noun, a adjective given in the feminine nominative or something I'm not quite seeing.
- I guess the real intetion of "masculine singular" was "singular nominative". The EGPV (v)undan maybe be because of the different forms attested in different sources, so we have Old Prussian wunda (“water”) in TLP, while the Enchiridion has Old Prussian unds (“water”).
- One major thing, that I forget to mention, is that Old Prussian, in the Enchiridion, had stress vowels marked by a macron. Therefore if Old Prussian Dēiwas/Dēiws are from the Enchiridion then it's possible that the correct form is Old Prussian Déiwas/Déiws, as in diphthongs the macron served to represented the stressed vowel instead of a real long vowel. Another rule, altough not entirely agreed upon, is that vowels after conants are themselves stressed. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- EGPV has wundan (Wasser), caymis (Dorf), mestan (Stat). (v)undan, mēstan are not in EGPV but reconstructions (by V. Mažiulis, added in that online version of EPGV).
- Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.) quotes Grunau too (and adds some remarks in brackets and sometimes mentions Hartknoch's forms), but has another text than the WBdSG. Nesselmann's Grunau has Dewus (Goth), Maysta (Stadt), Cayme (Dorff), Wunda (wassere), Songos (hundt) and not Dewes, Maiʃta [= Maiſta, Maista], kayme, Songos, Wunda as in the WBdSG (or Devus, Maiſta, Caymo, Sangor, Wunda as in Hartknoch's). Nesselmann's TLP (here at another source) has "deywis Voc. 1., dewus Gr." and no Dewes/dewes (or Devus/devus). [2] mentions the existence of at least two manuscript versions of Grunau's ("Göttinger Handschrift", "Königsberger Handschrift") - the Göttinger version probably being unknown to Nesselmann.
- Enchiridion (original, Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.), Die drei catechismen in altpreussischer Sprache (etc.), Trautmann's Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler (etc.)) has tilde in original Fraktur, macron in Antiqua editions. In it, it is (ignoring long s): Deiws/Deiwas (Deiwan, Deiwans) without diacritic, piēncts (other numerals are: pirmois, antars, tīrts, kettwirts, uschts,septmas, asmus, newīnts, dessīmts). That makes the original RFV for all terms with macron obsolete, as for example piēncts is properly attested.
- Also RFV for the following terms with macron:
- --Trothmuse (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Right, I normally use the reconstruction by V. Mažiulis instead of the original wording.
- Sorry I mistaken the TLP with WBdSG, in my comment above where it say "TLP" I meant "WBdSG". In any case, from what I can tell they share similar roots, but not the endings, which IMO can be verified by checking them with the other Baltic languages.
- If that’s the case then they should be deleted.
- I haven't been able to verify all of them but for now I haven't found Mārts; kams is probably a reconstruction of "camus". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
RFV-resolved for most of the above. Still TBD: I have to add the actual Enchiridion quotes to unds and undan, but they do exist. I want to make a template for that. Also, the various forms of "deiwas"/"deiws" with the macrons aren't attested. However, ignoring capitalization and the macrons, all of those forms are attested. However it's quite a mess at present, with different definitions on the entries instead of using {{alt form}}
, and with lots of weird labels like "archaic" and "regional". (What does "archaic" mean exactly? The language is extinct!) 70.172.194.25 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
November 2019
Classical Nahuatl country-name neologisms
In actual Classical texts, the names for these countries are simply loaned from Spanish: Francia, Inglatera and Alemania. --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
References.--Marrovi (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- García Escamilla, Enrique (1994); Historia de México narrada en náhuatl y español. [3], Mexico City.
- That proves nothing. Anything written by a modern author is a simulation of Classical Nahuatl, not the real thing. In the 19th century, someone wrote a story in Proto-Indo-European, just to show that it could be done- but that's not attestation according to our standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Narrada en nahuatl y español" - but by time (1990s/2000s), it can't be Classical Nahuatl, but must be some other Nahuatl (and may it be some kind of Neo-Classical Nahuatl).
- (That someone was August Schleicher and the text was a Fabel.) --Trothmuse (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Marrovi Can you confirm that you understand the problem with this source? That it is Wiktionary policy not to use "revivalist" modern texts in long-extinct languages as attestations for that language? Unless you do, it might be better not to work on Classical Nahuatl at all. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- This case is complicated, Classical Nahuatl is taught at many universisties and schools in Mexico, most like to be it a New-Classical Nahuatl mixing with life Nahuatl languages as Central Nahuatl or Morelos Nahuatl language, There's literature in Classical Nahuatl written in the XX century as the case of Enrique García Escamilla or Miguel-León Portilla. However, I understand that this case causes them problems with certain codes allowed here.--Marrovi (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Commenting to cross-link a related discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/December#Nahuatl_(nah):_convert_etymology-only_or_delete?. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- If these terms meet the attestation requirements (momentarily disregarding the date of the attestations), then the question is whether to view modern use of this language as more similar to Latin (where we include sufficiently-attested modern terms) or Gothic (where we exclude even attested neologisms). Marrovi's comment suggests we should take a Latin approach. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- The reality of Nahautl seems to be that the 1.4 million speakers of Nahuan languages, as divergent as they might be, do try to work online and in literature as speakers of Nahuatl, not many different dialects (wisely in my opinion); see the Nahuatl Wikipedia for example. I think we should recognize this, and not act as if writing in a common lect of a group of tiny related languages is the same as writing in long-extinct languages like Gothic or PIE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- The majority of the editors of the Nahuatl Wikipedia do not seem to be native speakers and I'm not sure if their writing would even be intelligible to native speakers. --Lvovmauro (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- The reality of Nahautl seems to be that the 1.4 million speakers of Nahuan languages, as divergent as they might be, do try to work online and in literature as speakers of Nahuatl, not many different dialects (wisely in my opinion); see the Nahuatl Wikipedia for example. I think we should recognize this, and not act as if writing in a common lect of a group of tiny related languages is the same as writing in long-extinct languages like Gothic or PIE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- If these terms meet the attestation requirements (momentarily disregarding the date of the attestations), then the question is whether to view modern use of this language as more similar to Latin (where we include sufficiently-attested modern terms) or Gothic (where we exclude even attested neologisms). Marrovi's comment suggests we should take a Latin approach. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
December 2019
@Leasnam, Lambiam, Urszag, Hundwine User:Stardsen created these entries several years ago. andwyrdan definitely means "to answer", but I can find no dictionary that verifies the meaning "to present". The derivation from andweard makes total sense semantically and phonetically, but just doesn't seem to exist. Benwing2 (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I found this [[4]] where the gloss for andweardiende says presentans (praesentans) and here [[5]] where andweardian is glossed as vorbringen/respondeo (click anywhere on line 1 to expand), and this [[6]], so that would suggest that andweardian (also andwyrdian) has the meaning of "render, offer up, proffer". I couldn't find anything tying andweardian to andwyrdan or andwirdan, which mean "to answer" Leasnam (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, andweardian definitely means "present". However, your third source (Clark Hall et al.) should not be interpreted to mean that andwyrdian means "present". What it says is (+andweardian also = andwyrdian); the + means "only when prefixed with ġe-" (+/- means "with or without a ġe- prefix"), so this notation means "ġeandweardian can also mean the same as andwyrdian" (namely "to answer"). Benwing2 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't andwyrdian (i.e. andwyrdian) different to andwyrdan though ? Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, andweardian definitely means "present". However, your third source (Clark Hall et al.) should not be interpreted to mean that andwyrdian means "present". What it says is (+andweardian also = andwyrdian); the + means "only when prefixed with ġe-" (+/- means "with or without a ġe- prefix"), so this notation means "ġeandweardian can also mean the same as andwyrdian" (namely "to answer"). Benwing2 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
January 2020
Arabic. --37.124.137.40 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hans Wehr has:
- مكواة mikwāh and مكوى makwan pl. مكاو makāwin flatiron; hot iron (for cauterizing), cautery (med.) | مكواة الشعر m. aš-šaʿr curling iron
- 70.172.194.25 19:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- RFV failed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
February 2020
Arabic. Rfv-sense: to make cross —95.185.32.82 09:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- The definition is ambiguous: "cross" is probably a verb here, in which case it would be better as "to cause to cross". That's at least halfway plausible as the literal counterpart to this etymology's figurative senses. I sincerely doubt it's an adjective, which would mean "to cause to be annoyed; to annoy". Chuck Entz (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- That’s what Lane, Edward William (1863) “عبر”, in Arabic-English Lexicon[7], London: Williams & Norgate, page 1937a writes about this sense: عبّرهُ بِالمَآءِ, (Lh, K,) inf. n. تَعْبِيرٌ; (TA;) and بِهِ المَآءَ ↓ عَبَرَ, (Lh, K,) and النَّهْرَ; (TA;) He made him to cross, go across, or pass over, or he conveyed him across, the water, (Lh, K, TA,) and the river. (TA.). Yes, a ditransitive verb is meant. Fay Freak (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, this عَبَّرَ (ʕabbara) is “to get across” in the literal meaning and in the figurative meaning (but only the latter is notorious nowadays and perhaps already in the 7th century). I do not see in what distinct sense “to interpret” is meant here which the IP added. In the example quote for the base stem it is not much different, it is just “to express to make something known with the other party”, and interpretation is always part of the process of expressing something. Probably one should change the definitions of both verbs to “to get across”, because that’s what it basically is, adding that it is normally or by now only used in the figurative sense of expressing or interpreting (to be safe in case somebody ever comes across a literal use so he might be incited by it to add his quote; now there is no hope for us to find the literal meaning by systematic search because occurrences of عبر in any form are most likely to be the base stem and the very common sense of expressing and the very common preposition “across”) Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
March 2020
Dutch protologism. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is attested here and also in the subtitle of an article about Heleen van Royen (so NSFW) here. Perhaps someone could check Usenet? Should at least be tagged as rare if it passes.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)- It's mentioned here. I don't see anything on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Also used as a title here, but whether that should qualify as a use is rather arguable. As an aside, it turns out that it was also the title of a column about car photos in the 70s.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a "dictionary-only" word. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- And is that really one word? This looks like a long descriptive phrase with all the whitespace deleted. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Don't forget that this is a polysynthetic language. It's not a long phrase, it's a compound of compounds, with affixes filling the role of particles instead of separately. Here's a page showing the morphology and related words. You can even hear it pronounced. Given Ojibwe's LDL status, that might even suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz, my comment was actually inspired by my study of a different highly agglutinating polysynthetic language, Navajo, where we find things like chidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí (“tank”, as in an armored fighting vehicle) -- a long descriptive phrase, literally parsing out to "the thing that's a car that crawls about and has a cannon and people sit on it". So when I see super long words like the one above, and then I see it broken down, I find myself wondering if this is really just a typography problem where someone decided to remove the whitespace. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- The key question is whether the University of Minnesota's webpage counts as durably archived (I'm on the fence here). Secondarily, they spell it with a bunch of hyphens separating morphemes, so if we do keep it, we probably ought to move it to match their spelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note that the UMN website has a shorter word, lacking the badagwiingweshigani component (see also badagwiingweshin) in the entry taken here from the Anishinaabemowin website. --Lambiam 11:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Don't forget that this is a polysynthetic language. It's not a long phrase, it's a compound of compounds, with affixes filling the role of particles instead of separately. Here's a page showing the morphology and related words. You can even hear it pronounced. Given Ojibwe's LDL status, that might even suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
They may be putting the hyphens in solely as an aid to the reader, the way Russian dictionaries put accents on that aren't used in normal writing. There are other examples of this such as biinji-gizhaabikizigan, though I cant say for sure that hyphens are never used in ordinary writing in Ojibwe either. —Soap— 13:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Okay I see native speakers using hyphens, but it still could be that one dictionary is using them to show the morpheme boundaries as an aid to the reader when they would not be used in ordinary writing. —Soap— 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the very long delay, but I forgot about this. user:CJLippert replied to me on Wikipedia and the answer is here. —Soap— 23:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
So to sum up, the current spelling we have for this word is fine. Some linguistic dictionaries will add hyphens, which would make the word miini-baashkiminasigani-biitoosijigani-badagwiingweshigani-bakwezhigan, a policy which we seem to follow at least some of the time. But it is still definitely a single word and should not be written with spaces. Is it a dictionary-only word? I think not, because it's quite easy to find this word being used online on sites that aren't dictionaries. I would say that nearly all people using this word are specifically choosing it because of how long it is, but that hasn't stopped us from including other very long words. (Also, we never said this was the longest word in Ojibwe, since after all the part that means blueberry is just miini ... a blackberry pie would be a few syllables longer.)
- I note, as said above, that this word also seems to be in circulation without the fourth morpheme, producing the slightly shorter miini-baashkiminasigani-biitoosijigani-bakwezhigan. —Soap— 01:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @-sche, who knows more about this language than we do. A lot depends on the context: if it's not accompanied with the normal morphology associated with similar words in similar contexts, it might be more like a mention or an example sentence than an actual use. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Am I correct in understanding that the remaining question is only whether the term should be spelled with or without hyphens, since its existence as a word (with no spaces, despite the length) is demonstrated by the Ojibwe People's Dictionary? Unfortunately, I don't speak much Ojibwe at all and haven't read enough literature in it to have a sense of whether this would most often be written with or without hyphens. Online, I find various mentions of the hyphenated word, vs only a few unhyphenated examples (often low-quality or embedded in Russian); based on that and the Ojibwe People's Dictionary, it seems it should be moved to the form with hyphens. As to why it's not spelled with spaces... as Chuck said in an early comment, some languages prefer strings like this, parsed as words (with or without hyphens: e.g. Nuxalk has some rather long strings with no spaces or hyphens, nor even vowels or syllable breaks), where other languages (like Navajo) might prefer to use several separate words parsed as forming a long descriptive term. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- @-sche: This isn't in the Ojibwe People's Dictionary. Rather, a form with fewer components is: miini-baashkiminasigani-biitoosijigani-bakwezhigan, which I've just created. AFAICT, we generally hyphenate Ojibwe compounds, as does OPD. Compare akiiwe-wiigiwaam, aabita-niibino-giizis, gichi-manidoo-giizis, etc. I can't comment as to whether the hyphens are used in actual texts written in the language, because almost all hits I've found while searching for the preceding three terms on Google are mentions embedded in other language (usually English) text. Exceptions include this tribal constitution and this journal article, both of which use the hyphens.
- As an LDL, one source suffices for Ojibwe. However, WT:CFI still says that "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". Wiktionary:About Ojibwe is silent on that (as it is about hyphenation), but based on actual practice, OPD would undoubtedly be in that list. Would the current source pass muster? IDK. There may be others. Almost all the Google hits are just sites about long words, though.
- Btw, I strongly suspect that the more normal word for blueberry pie would be miini-biitoosijigan, but ironically that isn't in OPD and barely registers on Google. OPD does have miskomini-biitoosijigan (raspberry pie), though. 70.172.194.25 09:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Am I correct in understanding that the remaining question is only whether the term should be spelled with or without hyphens, since its existence as a word (with no spaces, despite the length) is demonstrated by the Ojibwe People's Dictionary? Unfortunately, I don't speak much Ojibwe at all and haven't read enough literature in it to have a sense of whether this would most often be written with or without hyphens. Online, I find various mentions of the hyphenated word, vs only a few unhyphenated examples (often low-quality or embedded in Russian); based on that and the Ojibwe People's Dictionary, it seems it should be moved to the form with hyphens. As to why it's not spelled with spaces... as Chuck said in an early comment, some languages prefer strings like this, parsed as words (with or without hyphens: e.g. Nuxalk has some rather long strings with no spaces or hyphens, nor even vowels or syllable breaks), where other languages (like Navajo) might prefer to use several separate words parsed as forming a long descriptive term. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @-sche, who knows more about this language than we do. A lot depends on the context: if it's not accompanied with the normal morphology associated with similar words in similar contexts, it might be more like a mention or an example sentence than an actual use. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
April 2020
Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Untagged by @Mnemosientje here. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- There's no doubt that Azerbaijani works will include references to foreigners (real or fictional) named Tom. E.g. here, talking about Tom Sawyer, here, apparently talking about Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw, or here, talking about a zoologist affiliated with Oxford University. But I'm not sure about the definition "A transliteration of the English male given name Tom." How can it be a transliteration if the starting and ending points are in the same script and identical? Are we just using "transliteration" to emphasize that it's not used natively? 70.172.194.25 04:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
German. Probably only used in terms like KBC-Waffen / ABC-Waffen, in which at best there is a pseudo-prefix KBC- / ABC-. --Bakunla (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cited ABC, will look for KBC later. Used in a variety of hyphenated compounds. It's clearly a common initialism, and being a "pseudo-prefix" isn't really an argument to delete it, since by definition it implies it is really some other POS, presumably that of its constituents (i.e. adjective in this case). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- ABC isn't cited yet, only some examples for terms like ABC-Krieg and ABC-Vollschutz were provided. It's comparable to terms with Langzeit- (Langzeit doesn't exists). Maybe compare with:
- wissen.de which has it as Langzeit... It says: "in Zus." = in compounds, which is true like: Langzeitversuch = lang + Zeit + Versuch.
- de:Langzeit- calls it a bound lexeme ("gebundenes Lexem") which they distinguish from affixes and also from "affixoids" (like de:tod- which they call prefixoid ("Präfixoid")). In en.wiktionary however bound lexems and affixoids are simply given as affixes.
- duden.de while having some terms with Langzeit- has nothing like Langzeit, Langzeit-, Langzeit... but it lacks some affixes, affixoids or bound lexemes. (tod- is an example which they have and they call it prefix.)
- --2003:DE:372E:DA74:2560:4D6F:A0D6:B2F5 15:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- "In en.wiktionary however bound lexems and affixoids are simply given as affixes"—not really, Wiktionary has things like
{{only used in}}
precisely for bound lexemes and generally those entries are not formatted as affixes. As for Langzeit-, in all but one of the existing entries in Langzeit- the term is straightforwardly broken down to lang + Zeit, the "affixoid" category with one entry you linked is not the standard practice. If we're following de.wikt, de:ABC has its own entry and is simply noted as "meist in Wortverbindungen gebräuchlich", which is comparable to the standard practice to en.wikt. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)- If de.wt's "meist in Wortverbindungen gebräuchlich" (meist = mostly, not only) is factually correct, then it deserves an entry at ABC. Question is, is it correct? --2003:DE:372E:DAD0:B169:E28F:1253:8DB8 21:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- "In en.wiktionary however bound lexems and affixoids are simply given as affixes"—not really, Wiktionary has things like
Old English wesan (“to feast, consume”)
This is listed in the descendants of *wesaną, but it's not listed in Bosworth-Toller. Köbler does have it, but with a question mark. It also lists the derived forwesan without a question mark, while BT is missing that too. —Rua (mew) 11:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Rua: I've chased why this wesan (“to feast”) is in some dictionaries. It's only used once—maybe—in Old English (and possibly again in Middle English? I haven't gone after that one yet), but it's fairly doubtful. I've added the info at the entry. —caoimhinoc (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Greek for León, Spain. According to Wikipedia it's Λεόν. Ultimateria (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- That article on the Greek Wikipedia gives Λεώνη as the “Hellenization” of León and Llión. --Lambiam 08:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Sarri.greek, could you please take a look at this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes @Metaknowledge, it is as Lambiam explains. Many cities have both variants: phonetic unadapted simplified spelling and -usually older style:- adapted with declension. But The female's name is only Λεώνη, not Λεόν, @Ultimateria. ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ | 07:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sarri.greek: In this edit summary, you stated a willingness to add quotations. When you have the free time, it would be nice if you could do that, so we can close this RfV. (You can even just send me links to Google Books or similar and I'll do the rest, if desired.) 70.172.194.25 08:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Happy New Year. No need for quotation. A google search for "Λεώνη" "Ισπανία" (Spain) gives numerous examples with snippets and titles for given name and placename (of no other interest). I verify that both definitions exist. ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ I 11:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Sarri.greek: In this edit summary, you stated a willingness to add quotations. When you have the free time, it would be nice if you could do that, so we can close this RfV. (You can even just send me links to Google Books or similar and I'll do the rest, if desired.) 70.172.194.25 08:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes @Metaknowledge, it is as Lambiam explains. Many cities have both variants: phonetic unadapted simplified spelling and -usually older style:- adapted with declension. But The female's name is only Λεώνη, not Λεόν, @Ultimateria. ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ | 07:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
Thai. This seems to be a morpheme, not a word. I'm not sure how to clean up the entry, or whether it should remain when fixed. According to the (Thai) Royal Institute Dictionary (RID), the independent word is อุตส่าห์ (note the tone mark and cancellation mark), yielding the unbound pronunciation shown, while อุตสาห is a trisyllabic prefix, notated อุตสาห- in the RID. (The Thai of the RID does use hyphens.) The RID also reports a trisyllabic stand-alone form, อุตสาหะ. Before one spelling reform, if the word existed (evidence?), the trisyllabic unbound form would have been spelt the same as the challenged lemma. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- You will find lots of อุตสาหกรรม (อุตสาห + กรรม) in search results, and some rare compounds like อุตสาหการ (อุตสาห + การ). In Wiktionary, every form of a word can have its own page, that is, we can have อุตสาห, อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ, อุษาหะ, อุสสาหะ, and อุสส่าห์. --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The compounds you cited are evidence for อุตสาห-, are they not? I'm not sure how to link all these forms. Linked they should be. Is the etymology of อุตสาหกรรม
{{compound|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}
,{{compound|th|อุตสาหะ|กรรม}}
,{{compound|th|อุตส่าห์|กรรม}}
,{{compound|th|อุตสาห-|กรรม}}
or even{{compound|th|อุตสาห-|-กรรม}}
? Or{{prefix|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}
? And why doesn't the latter link to a form with a hyphen? Amusingly, อุตสาหกรรม gets broken between lines with a hyphen (at the morpheme join) in the 1999 edition of the RID.--RichardW57 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The compounds you cited are evidence for อุตสาห-, are they not? I'm not sure how to link all these forms. Linked they should be. Is the etymology of อุตสาหกรรม
If อุตสาห is now only the combining form (the disyllabic nonocombining form has vanished since I raised this RfV), why is its part of speech 'adjective' as opposed to 'prefix'? --RichardW57 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I added
{{compound|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}
. Thai lemmas here do not have hyphen for prefix/suffix because they have same meaning of its full word so prefix/suffix will be written on the same page, unless they are spelled different. And Thai lemmas can always attach to another word even they are not prefix/suffix (a noun can modify another noun, etc), like Chinese and other languages in the SEA region. In case of อุตสาห, the dictionary said:
- I added
อุตสาห-, อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ น. ความบากบั่น, ความพยายาม, ความขยัน, ความอดทน, ใช้ว่า อุษาหะ อุสสาหะ หรือ อุสส่าห์ ก็มี. ก. บากบั่น, พยายาม, ขยัน, อดทน.
and
อุสส่าห์, อุสสาหะ น. อุตสาหะ. ก. อุตส่าห์.
- that means the entry อุตสาห should be noun (น.), since morpheme cannot be verb (ก.). อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ, อุสส่าห์, อุสสาหะ, and unmentioned อุษาหะ are full words. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, it means the preceding combining form is written in words as "อุตสาห", while as a whole word it is อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) or อุตสาหะ (ùt-sǎa-hà). The rest means that the word forms are both nouns and verbs, and that there are yet other spellings in use. Taking the RID as a whole, it's not clear to me what the status of อุษาหะ is; unlike the other forms, it has no entry of its own in the RID. Note there is no entry อุตสาห in the RID; the entry is อุตสาห-. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- There are two main modes of noun compounding in Thai. Indic words are combined in the order (modifier, head), and the first element usually sprouts a linking vowel and the restoration in speech of the silent final vowels, and often clarification of the phonation of a final stop. There may also be spelling changes. This the old Indo-European order, still seen in English compounds like coalmine. The native order is (head, modifier), and it is often not clear whether this is syntax or word derivation. The first element may be modified, e.g. by the vowel shortening, but this is not visible in writing. There are then a few anomalous compounds, like ผลไม้ (pǒn-lá-máai, “fruit”), with native ordering but still a link vowel. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note that in this case that the noun and its compounding form are written differently. I believe there is no big problem with giving the etymology of the compound as
{{compound|th|อุตสาหะ|กรรม}}
; what is uncertain is whether it is a compound of the 2- or 3-syllable form. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note that in this case that the noun and its compounding form are written differently. I believe there is no big problem with giving the etymology of the compound as
- I notice that Octahedron80 has sneakily changed the part of speech to 'noun'. With that change, the entry is clearly a candidate for deletion, as there is no noun อุตสาห (utasāha) in correctly spelt modern Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have originally created it as a noun, since the PoS distinction in a language such as Thai is blurred, especially for compound words. I was guided by its meaning and my Thai is below average.
- It's was reasonable to change it to noun. The term is present in Sanook dictionary. There are so many derivations. Please keep the word. อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) should be the alt or the main spelling, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's not a word in modern Thai! The Sanook dictionary is a compilation of other dictionaries. Which one are you citing? The headword from the RID looks corrupt, but perhaps it's from so old a version that the hyphen wasn't there. A 1950's book teaching Thai laments that the spelling นม represented both of what are now written as นมะ (námá, “homage”) and นม (nom, “milk)”). --RichardW57 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here's the link. What are you suggesting? I don't think it's very typical to have Thai entries with hyphens. Another solution, like having a component as SoP may be required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm stating that as a copy of a recent RID dictionary, the headwords in the Sanook dictionary are corrupt. I have one other big Thai dictionary, and that also shows combining forms with a hyphen. It seems that the correct way forward is to:
- Mark this entry as a 'noun form', the combining form of อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) and อุตสาหะ (ùt-sǎa-hà). (I have jocularly referred to Thai as having a genitive case.) --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Use first of these forms as the central lemma, referencing compounds to it. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- On those two pages, say, in the usage notes, how compounds are formed and handled. Display this entry with a hyphen, which is the expectation of readers who have used a good Thai dictionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- A longer term solution is to change
{{prefix}}
so that it expects Thai prefixes to have hyphens, and rename this entry to the hyphenated form, as seen in good dictionaries. Special handling will be needed if we can find evidence of the use of the challenged word's form as a noun. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC) - Michell's 1892 dictionary has อุสสาห, but curiously indicates a disyllabic pronunciation. If that had been entered as a noun, it would be right to keep it as an obsolete spelling. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm stating that as a copy of a recent RID dictionary, the headwords in the Sanook dictionary are corrupt. I have one other big Thai dictionary, and that also shows combining forms with a hyphen. It seems that the correct way forward is to:
- Here's the link. What are you suggesting? I don't think it's very typical to have Thai entries with hyphens. Another solution, like having a component as SoP may be required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's not a word in modern Thai! The Sanook dictionary is a compilation of other dictionaries. Which one are you citing? The headword from the RID looks corrupt, but perhaps it's from so old a version that the hyphen wasn't there. A 1950's book teaching Thai laments that the spelling นม represented both of what are now written as นมะ (námá, “homage”) and นม (nom, “milk)”). --RichardW57 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I notice that Octahedron80 has sneakily changed the part of speech to 'noun'. With that change, the entry is clearly a candidate for deletion, as there is no noun อุตสาห (utasāha) in correctly spelt modern Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hundreds of words are in the same case like this. For example แพทย/แพทย์, อินทร/อินทร์, ศาสตร/ศาสตร์, ธุร/ธุระ, etc, if you want to look into it. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. They need to be dealt with. I intend to create a template for noting the existence of a combining form. I think I'll call it
{{th-combining}}
. Its expansion may need rework, as head-initial and head-final compounding are different, but I couldn't think of a snappy way of saying that to non-linguists. For แพทย์ (pɛ̂ɛt, “physician”), แพทย์หญิง (pɛ̂ɛt-yǐng, “female doctor”) versus แพทยศาสตร์ (pɛ̂ɛt-tá-yá-sàat, “medicine (the disicipline)”) exemplifies the difference. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
German "Suffixes"
- -beck, -büren/-bühren, -broich in place-names: Instead of being formed with the suffix, rather the place-names are borrowed, e.g. German Lübeck from Low German or Middle Low German.
- -vitz/-witz in surnames: Rather from place-names, e.g. Horowitz from the German place Horowitz, influenced by Slavic.
--Marontyan (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Russian. Rfv-sense "(vulgar, offensive) promiscuous slut". Originally added by an IP (with the wrong template) with the reasoning: "Reliable source needed for that use of the word" in diff. — surjection ⟨??
⟩ 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- There are lot of senses in this word. But of course it also has the sexual connotations associated with dogs, actually more than the English bitch which often refers to the pesky behaviour of dogs (→ bitchy), so translation is not one to one. Maybe all those senses you find for как суку in pornographic sites on the web are examples for this gloss. Fay Freak (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would say not necessarily promiscuous, but a slut in some quasi-positive sense, more like a sexually attractive sophisticated woman. --GareginRA (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
July 2020
New Saxon Spellings
See the search results. The Wikipedia article was deleted. --B-Fahrer (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
August 2020
Ukrainian. @Atitarev This has no hits outside of Wiktionary, and the grammar of галичан віллів seems questionable; галичан is genitive plural, which doesn't fit, and віллів cannot be found in any dictionary. Benwing2 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Entry created by User:Kevlar67, apparently from hearsay, used by some narrow community in Canada. I don't understand the grammar and most of the vocab in the phrase. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Atitarev, Benwing2 "Hearsay" is one way of saying it. It's actually "oral history research" done by professional museum researchers. http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/heritagevillage/dictionary.php#B see the quote: "Bukovýnets sýpav vódu a halychán výlliv — a Bukovynian and a Galician both pour water, but each calls it by another name." I just transliterated it into Cyrillic. (though perhaps it should be виллів) Kevlar67 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kevlar67 So what we have here is an obsolete Canadian dialect of Ukrainian, taken from a website of questionable provenance, with no source identified for the words, written in a non-scientific transcription, then back-transliterated into Cyrillic (sometimes with errors) and identified as "Ukrainian" often with no indication that it's obsolete dialect. This doesn't bode well, to say the least. I feel uncomfortable about accepting these terms at all into this dictionary; I think it does no favors to the quality of the dictionary to include them. Furthermore, do you understand the grammar of this sentence? I don't: the word for Galician is галича́нин (галича́н is genitive plural, which makes no sense here) and ви́ллів looks like a genitive plural but I don't know of what word; it can't be found in the dictionary. I suspect this phrase is garbled by whoever did the research. Benwing2 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Obsolete is a bit strong; it's in decline, sure, but so are thousands of languages and dialects around the world. The research was done the [[w:Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village]|Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, an agency of the Government of Alberta, by professional researchers including Klymasz] Robert Klymasz the preeminent Ukrainian-Canadian folklorist and expert on the local dialect. The link I provided is a summary comprised of the glossaries of several published works of oral history research, most notably Robert B. Klymasz, Sviéto: Celebrating Ukrainian-Canadian ritual in East Central Alberta through the Generations, Edmonton, 1992. Notice that the title is even in dialect, the standard being Sviato. Yes, indeed the phrase it should be given context labels. I have no issue with that, in fact I can do it now. Kevlar67 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- About the transcription: it is a modified version of the Library of Congress system that the research staff at the Ukrainian Village adopted for their first published report in 1976, Ukrainian Vernacular Architecture in Alberta by John Lehr, when access to word processors that could make diacritical marks in Canada was limited. Further, the materials were meant to be read by non-linguists, mainly museum employees, historians, folklorists, etc. I don't see this as an issue in any way. Works about the dialect were also published in Cyrillic, notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Rudnyckyj Jaroslav Rudnyckyj's multi-volume Ukrainian-Canadian Folklore and Dermatological Texts (Winnipeg, 1956, 1958, and 1962-63). Kevlar67 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kevlar67: The phrase has no value and should be deleted. It was poorly transliterated (the page just uses phonetic Anglicisation, not any specific standard) and poorly translated or rather described. Now I understand what it meant:
- At play is a variation of two verbs with similar meaning:
- си́пати/насипа́ти (наси́пати)/висипа́ти (ви́сипати) vs ли́ти/налива́ти (нали́ти)/вилива́ти (ви́лити)
- "sýpav" refers to си́пав (from си́пати-impf) and "výlliv" is ви́лив (from ви́лити-pf, to pour out).
- There is a mix-up in East Slavic languages, not unique to Ukrainian about си́пати (to pour friable/solid objects, such as sand, sugar, salt, etc) and ли́ти (to pour (liquid). Using си́пати (*sỳpati) is normally considered incorrect in standard Ukrainian, ли́ти (*liti) should be used for liquids. This incorrect usage is ascribed to a Galician speaker and it's supposed to be funny in how one person from Bukovina pours water in, the other from Galicia pours it out but they just use different verbs to describe their action.
- The sentence uses inconsistent aspects - the first part is imperfective and the second is perfective.
- It's grammatically incorrect. It can be rewritten as "букови́нець си́пав во́ду, а галича́нин вилива́в" (imperfective) or "букови́нець naси́пав во́ду, а галича́нин ви́лив" (perfective). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of no value to whom? Yes, I understand it is humourous, that was the point all along. It is equivalent to the English saying: Britain and American are two countries divided by a common language. Rather than give an word-for-word translation, I think the point of the sentence is best compared to this popular English joke. This was how Galicians and Bukovinians felt about each other when they settled together in Canada: similar enough to understand each other but different enough to get confused. Again, this is recorded exactly as spoken from oral history interviews, using the Library of Congress system so if the grammar doesn't match standardized conventions, this is not an error, it is verity. In any event, I will be adding more examples of Ukrainian-Canadian usage as part of my work to document and publicize this endangered dialect. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kevlar67: Are you even sure that "виллів" is correct? Why is "l" doubled and it's an "і", not "и"? It's not Ukrainian by any measure. What is this word? Are you sure that the author did a good job by transliterating into an Anglicised version of Ukrainian? Why different verbs aspects are used? It doesn't make sense. How well did the interviewees speak Ukrainian? Diaspora Ukrainian differs from modern standard Ukrainian but in different ways. Such examples only give false impressions. By not providing the links to lemmas or providing the literal translations (on top of the explanation), you're doing a disservice to users. Adding some labels (Canada, dated) is a good start but your spellings suggest that Ukrainians in 1920's in Canada didn't know how to pronounce or spell. Your source actually provides stresses, which you failed to insert. The RFV will take its course and the entry will be deleted (by any user who knows the rules here) because there are no citations provided. A single mention in this dictionary is not a enough. There are zero uses and one mention. On top of that, we don't record non-idiomatic phrases. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe this should be put into an appendix, along with any other such Canadian Ukrainian idioms that have a similar level of attestation, if there are any. 70.172.194.25 03:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kevlar67: Are you even sure that "виллів" is correct? Why is "l" doubled and it's an "і", not "и"? It's not Ukrainian by any measure. What is this word? Are you sure that the author did a good job by transliterating into an Anglicised version of Ukrainian? Why different verbs aspects are used? It doesn't make sense. How well did the interviewees speak Ukrainian? Diaspora Ukrainian differs from modern standard Ukrainian but in different ways. Such examples only give false impressions. By not providing the links to lemmas or providing the literal translations (on top of the explanation), you're doing a disservice to users. Adding some labels (Canada, dated) is a good start but your spellings suggest that Ukrainians in 1920's in Canada didn't know how to pronounce or spell. Your source actually provides stresses, which you failed to insert. The RFV will take its course and the entry will be deleted (by any user who knows the rules here) because there are no citations provided. A single mention in this dictionary is not a enough. There are zero uses and one mention. On top of that, we don't record non-idiomatic phrases. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of no value to whom? Yes, I understand it is humourous, that was the point all along. It is equivalent to the English saying: Britain and American are two countries divided by a common language. Rather than give an word-for-word translation, I think the point of the sentence is best compared to this popular English joke. This was how Galicians and Bukovinians felt about each other when they settled together in Canada: similar enough to understand each other but different enough to get confused. Again, this is recorded exactly as spoken from oral history interviews, using the Library of Congress system so if the grammar doesn't match standardized conventions, this is not an error, it is verity. In any event, I will be adding more examples of Ukrainian-Canadian usage as part of my work to document and publicize this endangered dialect. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kevlar67 So what we have here is an obsolete Canadian dialect of Ukrainian, taken from a website of questionable provenance, with no source identified for the words, written in a non-scientific transcription, then back-transliterated into Cyrillic (sometimes with errors) and identified as "Ukrainian" often with no indication that it's obsolete dialect. This doesn't bode well, to say the least. I feel uncomfortable about accepting these terms at all into this dictionary; I think it does no favors to the quality of the dictionary to include them. Furthermore, do you understand the grammar of this sentence? I don't: the word for Galician is галича́нин (галича́н is genitive plural, which makes no sense here) and ви́ллів looks like a genitive plural but I don't know of what word; it can't be found in the dictionary. I suspect this phrase is garbled by whoever did the research. Benwing2 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Atitarev, Benwing2 "Hearsay" is one way of saying it. It's actually "oral history research" done by professional museum researchers. http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/heritagevillage/dictionary.php#B see the quote: "Bukovýnets sýpav vódu a halychán výlliv — a Bukovynian and a Galician both pour water, but each calls it by another name." I just transliterated it into Cyrillic. (though perhaps it should be виллів) Kevlar67 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Ojibwe. Gichi- is one of the ways to say right (not left). It is not clear whether it should be considered a preverb (see here) or an initial (initials are written without a hyphen), as in gichinik, or whether it can be analyzed as a separate lemma at all. SteveGat (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I can't find evidence of "gichi-" being used as a preverb in Ojibwe for directional right. Proto-Algonquian *keʔčineϴki is reconstructed for "right arm/hand", cf. Cree kihcinisk, and that is composed of *keʔči- (the same as gichi-) + *-neθki. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that gichi- on its own is productive in meaning "right" in Ojibwe, either as a preverb or initial, outside of the inherited word gichinik. I'd want to see more evidence for that, that I just can't find. But I'll ping User:-sche in case they want to have a look. 70.172.194.25 10:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
September 2020
Indonesian. Only found 2 times in regular books (not dictionary or glossary) in Google Books (other used as person name). First book used "rain" sense. Second book is not clear. Rex Aurorum (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The word is listed with the given meanings in the KBBI, the official dictionary of the Indonesian language. While Indonesian is not an LDL and this is a mention, not a use, it is a strong indication that the term exists. --Lambiam 22:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- LDL? Many foreign words forced listed in KBBI to enrich KBBI (to encourage people to use these words) while ignoring attestation in Indonesian. See Wiktionary:About Indonesian#Detailed consideration —Rex Aurorum (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- If I understand what is written there, such entries of foreign words are labelled with a code indicating which language they are from, like Jw for Javanese. The entry for abulhayat has no such label. --Lambiam 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, but not all loaned words required a etymology (language label) according their policy. According a KBBI Daring editor: language labels are not required for common words. Almost all words which used language label is part of 'forced borrowing' what i said in earlier comment. So, it's not weird for KBBI do such partice. —Rex Aurorum (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- If I understand what is written there, such entries of foreign words are labelled with a code indicating which language they are from, like Jw for Javanese. The entry for abulhayat has no such label. --Lambiam 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- LDL? Many foreign words forced listed in KBBI to enrich KBBI (to encourage people to use these words) while ignoring attestation in Indonesian. See Wiktionary:About Indonesian#Detailed consideration —Rex Aurorum (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
denk (Afrikaans)
Afrikaans. Rfv-sense of "thought", all I find are old-fashioned verb forms or parts of compounds. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Lingo Bingo Dingo: "maar hy hat het iets in hom gehad wat buite die denk van ons volk gereik het" "maar vir die denk moet ons onderskei - en altyd onthou dat dit ons is wat die onderskeiding gemaak het.". I suppose the translation "thinking" may be better, but there is definitely a noun in this form. Thadh (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Thadh These are basically substantivised infinitives, like Dutch het denken. So yes, the translation is "thinking". I don't think they are lemmatised separately. @Metaknowledge?
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Thadh These are basically substantivised infinitives, like Dutch het denken. So yes, the translation is "thinking". I don't think they are lemmatised separately. @Metaknowledge?
November 2020
Arabic. Rfv-sense: narrator --188.54.114.229 06:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Added by @Benwing2 eight years ago diff - is it possible you added it to the wrong entry? This, that and the other (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other It's probably more the case that Steingass is totally unreliable as a dictionary source; User:Fay Freak can confirm. Benwing2 (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Benwing2 I confess my total ignorance of Arabic, and perhaps I should wait for Fay Freak to reply, but is it possible you made a typo for قاص (qāṣ) or similar, substituting an "m" in place of the "q"? This is what I find when I search Steingass for "narrator" [8]. The semantics of a term that means both "foot soldier" and "narrator" seem unbelievable. This, that and the other (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other It's probably more the case that Steingass is totally unreliable as a dictionary source; User:Fay Freak can confirm. Benwing2 (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Thai. Is หน้าม้า really used to refer the Hindu god? Does someone have example? If so, can Krishna be called หน้าช้าง too? --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
dada (Dutch)
Childish for "bye-bye; away". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Seems to be Flemish: Het Vlaams woordenboek (sense 2); schrijvenonline.org; Agreed, not the best sources, but still mentions. Better one: Het Dialectenboek (page 193) Thadh (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
daven (Dutch)
Base form for the frequentative daveren, but I am not convinced that this is attested in Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- 1881
1820 1629 1618I guess this is technically Dutch. Thadh (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)- @Thadh 1618 is draaft, 1629 is ſlaaft (next to draaft), 1820 is laaft and 1881 is correct, but also a bit mentionny and an example sentence. (It is used to illustrate the mentioned verb daven.)
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)- Oh, you're right. Reading this writing is extremely difficult :O Thadh (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Thadh Yes, many scanned texts before 1850 are of very poor quality, so there are many scannos and other problems. Long s is rather common in Dutch before 1830.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Thadh Yes, many scanned texts before 1850 are of very poor quality, so there are many scannos and other problems. Long s is rather common in Dutch before 1830.
- Oh, you're right. Reading this writing is extremely difficult :O Thadh (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Thadh 1618 is draaft, 1629 is ſlaaft (next to draaft), 1820 is laaft and 1881 is correct, but also a bit mentionny and an example sentence. (It is used to illustrate the mentioned verb daven.)
Dutch, area form of Den Haag. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Archaic Dutch: [9] [10] Haags Dutch: [11] [12] ([13]) [14] Thadh (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
December 2020
German. Tagged by Malpadam on 8 October 2019, not listed. J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I added one use with that spelling. There are more in Google books. I have a hard time reading those old German fonts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- If by "those old German fonts" you mean Fraktur we have to be careful, because "ſz" in Fraktur is actually "ß". So at [15], for example, the search engine finds "Eszwaren" but the scan shows it's actually Eßwaren. But [16] is an unambiguous example of "Eszwaren" in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- The one I added was in a legible font, not Fraktur. I found more[17][18], but maybe this is only a rare misspelling under the influence of reading ſz as sz. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- In older texts I wouldn't call it a misspelling. There was a time when sz, ss, and ß were sort of competing ways of rendering ſz in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Modern Philology (inside the entry) is English and [19] is Dutch. That aren't good examples for German spellings. --Schläsinger X (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- The proceedings are mainly in Dutch, but the context around Eszwaren obviously isn't Dutch.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- The proceedings are mainly in Dutch, but the context around Eszwaren obviously isn't Dutch.
- The one I added was in a legible font, not Fraktur. I found more[17][18], but maybe this is only a rare misspelling under the influence of reading ſz as sz. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- If by "those old German fonts" you mean Fraktur we have to be careful, because "ſz" in Fraktur is actually "ß". So at [15], for example, the search engine finds "Eszwaren" but the scan shows it's actually Eßwaren. But [16] is an unambiguous example of "Eszwaren" in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
According to a complaint of a native Mon speaker (Special:PermaLink/61255799/#Mon_Vocabulary_problem_explanation_(ကွေန်ၚါ်တြုံ); File:You stop hurt my language.jpg), these two spelling variants for ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ (“boy”) are non-existent. I googled these two and failed to obtain favorable results though some of their components (ကောန် (kon) / ကွေန် (“child”), တြုံ (truˀ, “male”)) are attested. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- For ကွေန်ၚါ် , go to [20] to look for "ကွေန် ၚါ် ". (That site uses space between compound).
- For ကောန်ညာ် , here is my evidence พจนานุกรมไทย-มอญ สำเนียงมอญลพบุรี(p122lost).pdf (2007) look at page 70. It is intentionally spelled like that.
- တြုံ is a word that can be added any noun expressing male.
- About its author, จำปี ซื่อสัตย์, I don't know if he is still alive. He must be 90 years old now.
- Anyway, you should copy my another dictionary too พจนานุกรมมอญ-ไทย.pdf (1984).
- And if you can open sqlite database, also take this too Mon-Thai Dictionary.sqlite. I extracted from this mobile app.
- --Octahedron80 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80 Thank you for your explanation. I have difficulty understanding Thai, so it would be harder without you. OK, some combinations of the components are indeed attested. Then, is there any source that shows each of the spellings from beginning to end? Even some parts of them are attested, it would be another matter whether these two combinations are documented as they are. The variants listed at the current version of ကောန်ၚာ် (kon ṅāk) are of course OK, but when it comes to the forms seen at ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ, things are quite uncertain. Your attitudes gives the impression that you could create an entry *徒葩 as a spelling variant for Japanese 徒花 (adabana, “a flower that blooms but never bears fruit”) since both 葩 (quite uncommon) and 花 (quite common) are read as hana and have the sense “flower, blossom” in common, therefore they are always freely interchangeable—no, no, actually it is not! We cannot do such a horrific deed without complete evidence —otherwise, what we do will be perfect invention! --Eryk Kij (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @エリック・キィ About the whole word "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ", I was not the one who created it at first, I renamed to another form and, after 咽頭べさ was mad, then I reverted back. (I cannot rename same page twice so I edited it instead.) I can only verify ကောန်ၚာ် and တြုံ solely. You may ask him about "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is some evidence either. (It should be documented somewhere / or it is just SOP?) I could remove alternative forms of "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is no evidence, even their parts have.--Octahedron80 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- By the way, 咽頭べさ mistakenly put some unknown texts into IPA template in many words; I assume he does not know IPA. I must follow his track to cleanup this mess. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80 I agree with you on this point. I asked him about this topic (it seems something other than IPA, then what is it?) before, but he has made no reply so far...--Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- By the way, 咽頭べさ mistakenly put some unknown texts into IPA template in many words; I assume he does not know IPA. I must follow his track to cleanup this mess. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- A few observations: First, the self-assessment by this editor as "en-2" is rather generous. Figuring out how much they understand our policies is likely to be a challenge, and explaining anything doubly so.
- Second, it's easier to take the word of a native speaker as to the existence of something in their language than its non-existence. Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.
- Also, in an environment where their language is actively discouraged, one would expect a certain prescriptivism that sees variation from what they're battling to defend as an attack (that environment would increase isolation between speakers, as well, which reinforces my second point).
- Of course, I have no direct knowledge, so I could be completely off base. I would rather bend over backward and walk on eggshells than risk piling on with those around them who don't want to hear their language. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80, Chuck Entz Please don't worry, I have no doubt about the existence of the term ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ itself, since I am able to find its records through Google Search. What he (yes he, judging from the audio records) and I regard as a problem is which combination is allowed to spell and which is not. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz >Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.
- Of course, I understand this point. That's why I have made this edit. Mon language has numerous dialects but no official standard variety is seen while something similar to it exists (Bauer 1982: xvii; Jenny 2005: 30; Jenny 2015: 555). Thus, even if a certain word itself is attested in a material in terms of pronunciation and spelling, there is NO guarantee that we can apply it directly to other dialects. --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Jeju terms for modern concepts
As categorized by UNESCO and as discussed in Wikipedia, fluent speakers of the actual Jeju language were all born in the 1940s or earlier. The following terms relating to modern concepts are not likely to be found in traditional Jeju, which was spoken solely by impoverished peasants. As what is now spoken in Jeju Island—an indubitably Korean dialect—is not what we mean by Jeju in Wiktionary, I believe these entries should all be deleted unless someone can provide an actual early attestation (preferably from the very first academic studies of the dialect, in the 1960s). The Digital Museum for Endangered Languages and Cultures or the NIKL dictionaries ported at Urimalsaem is not necessarily reliable in this regard, since they do not really make this distinction.
Making the distinction between traditional, soon-to-be-extinct Jeju and Category:Jeju Korean is crucial for maintaining some integrity in Category:Jeju lemmas. The most credible dictionary of Jeju, 개정증보제주어사전, does not bother with these modernisms and I believe we should follow their lead. — This unsigned comment was added by Karaeng Matoaya (talk • contribs) at 19:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC).
- To anyone who's going through these, please do not delete them for now, as I'm finding cites and am planning on making a complete update soon, but have been behind recently. Thanks! AG202 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I know that your opinions have changed a lot since this comment and that we've been able to find a TON of material made in Jeju, so I don't fault you at all for making them at the time. Since the start of the revitalization efforts, there have been more materials being made in native Jeju by Jeju natives (and not in 제주 사투리) and more lexicons being made, so I don't necessarily agree with saying that everything must be from pre-1960, as even if the only Jeju speakers were born in the 1940s or earlier (there are younger Jeju natives but they're more rare), they'd still be able to make up new terms for things that have come into play since then. However, I have deleted the senses that I am completely unable to find and don't think that I will find, per the RFV guidelines. Additionally, the cites that I have found have been written by-and-large in native Jeju and not Jeju-tinged Korean, by or the with consultation of native Jeju speakers and have been published either by the Jeju Preservation Society, the Jeju Provincial Government, or in related Jeju studies. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Wasei kango for "society", not a traditional word. I think it should be deleted entirely because the actual form in modern Jeju speech is likely to be 사훼 (sahwe) (due to the loss of /ɔ/), which is pronounced identically to Standard Korean 사회 (sahoe). The word ᄉᆞ훼 (sawhwe) represents an intermediary stage between "true" Jeju and the modern Jeju-tinged Korean, and I do not think we should categorize this stage as Jeju.
- FYI, the historical Korean reading for 社 was 샤, not ᄉᆞ. So it cannot start with ᄉᆞ in Jeju. --172.58.16.111 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
RFV-failed and I've moved the sense to 사훼 (sahwe). However, I have added the other ᄉᆞ훼(司會) (sawhwe, “moderator”), as that is cited in 개정 증보 제주어 사전. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
How many bicycles existed in Jeju before South Korean industrialization? This form is a dialectal pronunciation of 自行車, a term which was definitely used in many mainland dialects in 1945, so it could well be a post-1940s introduction into the island. Should be changed to 자영거 (jayeonggeo) under the Korean header with {{lb|ko|Jeju}}
.
- On the other hand, the historical Korean reading for 自 was ᄌᆞ. So it can start with ᄌᆞ in Jeju. --172.58.16.111 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Cited. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
This word is not attested in Korean in the "tourist" sense before the 1910s, and is a Japanese import. How many tourists were in Jeju before South Korean industrialization?
Cited. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
"Memorial hall" in the modern sense. Also likely to be a modernism.
RFV-failed. Was only able to find it in one source, and it doesn't seem like an actual usage, but just in a name. AG202 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
"Refrigerator". Refrigerators were not common in South Korea until the 1970s.
English loan meaning "brand" (as in a perfume brand, etc.). Highly unlikely to be found in traditional Jeju.
"Camera".
"Biosphere" in the modern scientific sense.
RFV-failed. Was only able to find it in the name of something, not an actual usage. AG202 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
"Electric fan". Electric fans were not common in South Korea until the 1980s.
"Demon, Devil". Has Christian connotations to me as a native speaker of Korean, and not found in 제주도무속자료사전 or other sources on Jeju religion; the very concept is alien to Jeju religious practice. Likely a late Christian introduction; the date is unknown, but Christianity was very marginal in Jeju until the 1950s and is still not particularly important there. If it fails RFV, should be changed to the Korean header with {{lb|ko|Jeju}}
.
A modern historiographical term that could not have existed before the 1950s.
"Main character; protagonist" in the modern literary sense, probably from Japanese.
"Television". Did not exist in Korea before the 1950s.
"Wind power plant".
Dutch. These seem unattestable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how chemical CFI works, but compounds with decyl: N,N'-bis(10-(p- methoxyfenoxy)-decyl)-p-diaminobenzeen, di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat decyl-trimethylammonium, plain decyl: [21]. Thadh (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is a systematic name but has Dutch spelling of components, benzeen instead of benzene, etc. A paper from 2009 talks about chemistry translation: doi:10.1021/ci800243w. I think di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat appearing in a Dutch paper can be used to support decyl, octyl, and ftalaat (= phthalate, I assume). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Dutch, many scannos on BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- It may be archaic or obsolete: [22], [23], [24]. --Lambiam 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is certainly an obsolete spelling, but I agree they are all valid uses. If this spelling isn't attested, it can be moved to that spelling.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)- If we were to find the full version of this book [25] we might be able to have a cite for this spelling. Thadh (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- That is certainly an obsolete spelling, but I agree they are all valid uses. If this spelling isn't attested, it can be moved to that spelling.
schalk (Dutch)
RFV-sense of "(Outdated) A knave, servant.". Not in the WNT, etymological dictionaries suggest this didn't outlast Middle Dutch. The definition is unclear, too. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's listed here [[26]], and I can find uses in Google Books [[27]] (search "een schalk" "nederlands"). Leasnam (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- But the first link doesn't give "servant" for modern Dutch.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)- Clearly archaic, but in early modern Dutch it seemed to have been used in at least some religious texts, in phrases such as "Heer, ik ben uw schalk" (Lord, I am thy servant) and in compounds such as Godschalk (God's servant = priest) [28] Morgengave (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, that's certainly a valid use. But I'm curious where those 19th-century writers got it from. The Vorstermann-, Deux-Aes- and Statenvertaling all use "knecht" [29] [30] [31] and it seems "schalk" was very pejorative in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. So my guess is that is was from an eighteenth-century (maybe late seventeenth-century) Psalm translation that had been published separately.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)- The book Antiquitates Germanicæ linked to above is an 18th-century text; possibly later writers, who do not quote more than this single phrase, copied it from that text. It has somewhat the nature of a mention; in particular, how can we be sure that the unidentified (rhyming?) translation of the Book of Psalms was Dutch and not Middle Dutch? If the term schalk came from a Middle Dutch psalter it was not the 1360 translation, which has O Heere, ic ben dijn knech, ic ben cnecht, dijnre dierne sone.[32], and also not the 1483 psalter linked to from Middelnederlandse psalters, which has O heꝛe want ic dijn knecht bin Ick bin dijn knecht eñ ſone dijnre diernen.[33] --Lambiam 19:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, that's certainly a valid use. But I'm curious where those 19th-century writers got it from. The Vorstermann-, Deux-Aes- and Statenvertaling all use "knecht" [29] [30] [31] and it seems "schalk" was very pejorative in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. So my guess is that is was from an eighteenth-century (maybe late seventeenth-century) Psalm translation that had been published separately.
- Clearly archaic, but in early modern Dutch it seemed to have been used in at least some religious texts, in phrases such as "Heer, ik ben uw schalk" (Lord, I am thy servant) and in compounds such as Godschalk (God's servant = priest) [28] Morgengave (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- But the first link doesn't give "servant" for modern Dutch.
- Without exception each use of schalck(en) in this Bible concordance from 1645 has a sense of depravity, extending to priests (Want beyde Propheten ende Priesters zijn ſchalken). I find it hard to imagine a contemporaneous sense of pious submission. Interestingly, the word is also used as an adjective (Exempelen eeniger ſchalke menſchen). --Lambiam 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I also noticed the adjective, it seems quite common from the 16th up to the 19th century. I have personally never seen or heard the adjective schalk before this month, but the more clearly marked adjective schalks is still a very current word. However, it does seem like the meaning of schalk (adj.) was rather more negative.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I also noticed the adjective, it seems quite common from the 16th up to the 19th century. I have personally never seen or heard the adjective schalk before this month, but the more clearly marked adjective schalks is still a very current word. However, it does seem like the meaning of schalk (adj.) was rather more negative.
- Without exception each use of schalck(en) in this Bible concordance from 1645 has a sense of depravity, extending to priests (Want beyde Propheten ende Priesters zijn ſchalken). I find it hard to imagine a contemporaneous sense of pious submission. Interestingly, the word is also used as an adjective (Exempelen eeniger ſchalke menſchen). --Lambiam 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Persian. I can't find this term in any reputable dictionary. --{{victar|talk}}
22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Victar: [34] --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Victar: Repeating the call. Do you still insist on the verifications? I won't be able to add citations in Persian, I am afraid, need native speakers. I have found the term in another dictionary English-Persian Persian-English (it requires registration and this dictionary can be borrowed for an hour). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ZxxZxxZ, Dijan, Qehath Anyone? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Victar: Repeating the call. Do you still insist on the verifications? I won't be able to add citations in Persian, I am afraid, need native speakers. I have found the term in another dictionary English-Persian Persian-English (it requires registration and this dictionary can be borrowed for an hour). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I found it only in Amid dictionary. It's a relatively smaller Persian dictioary containing words found in the late Persian literature. The Amid dictionary of the Vajehyab website has cited a couplet (I guess it is based on the revised edition of the Amid Dictionary). --Z 07:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Imme f
German. Sense: a swarm of bees. --幽霊四 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- 幽霊四: If you just looked into the darn standard references instead of the Duden which covers only the last century you wouldn’t need to request. Especially impudent if the sense is explicitly labelled obsolete. Here a selection of attestation-based dictionaries: FNHDWB, DRW, Grimm. Etc.. With varying spellings of course, but we wouldn’t want to have the word under Yme etc. either and as a rule we unify, if you didn’t know. Case closed, newb without user page? Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Grimm: It's "imme, m.". Different gender (and also different capitalisation). Also Grimme covers more than New High German.
- DRW:
- Examples have "ein immen", "ain imp", "ein unverfolgter impen", "ein imme", so often have other forms and where the gender is revealed without any doubts [i.e. in "ein unverfolgter impen"], it's masculine.
- Meaning: "Bienenstock und -schwarm" (bee-hive and bee-swarm), that's different from the entry. (Is it even both bee-hive and bee-swarm (a single sense) or either bee-hive or bee-swarm (two senses, though sometimes/often hard to distinguish?)
- DRW's quotes are incorrect as can be seen by the 1709 Mutach quote for Impen at Talk:Imme#Citations. ("Normalization" in a quote makes the quote incorrect - a correct quote keeps spelling including capitalisation of the original work. In case of Impen also the page-number is wrong: It's 41 and not 40.)
- "I Bienenstock und -schwarm" with "den hochflugk der impen lassen wir" looks like it could be wrong too: It could be a feminine singular genitive der impen of imp/impe/impen = "swarm of bees", but also a plural genitive with the second sense "bee".
- DRW also includes OHG, MHG and MLG, so many quotes are insufficient for German.
- FWB (= Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch, this is the abbreviation used there and not "FNHDWB"):
- Sense "1. Bienenschwarm, Bienenstock" with "sehet an die immen, die machen das honig aus der edelsten manna aller blumen" looks like it could be wrong too: it's immen pl. = bees, so rather an example for sense "2. Biene".
- "Etc.":
- Adelung doesn't have this sense. "Im Friesischen Ihme, in andern gegenden Ympe, wo es auch einen Bienenstock bedeutet" refers to Frisian (East Frisian Low German or Frisian Frisian?).
- BMZ and Lexer are for Middle High German.
- ElsWB, PfWB are for dialects which aren't part of German in Wiktionary.
- -幽霊四 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC) & 幽霊四 (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because of the grammar of the Early New High German texts, in many cases it is not clear which gender the quotes have – you do not seem to understand the grammar, “ein imme” can also be feminine back then; especially in Bavarian areas also “ein immen” –; in addition to what FNHDWB says that in many attestations it is not clear if a swarm of bees or bees as individuals are meant. However I see from some quotes there clearly that the meaning of an individual bee has also been masculine. So a solution is to change to masculine and have a feminine POS as alternative form because the feminine is only a modern perversion of some poets and it does not matter whether it has recently been used more often as feminine since it is not often at all; or give m in the head and then f immediately after. In any case the way you requested here is to be reprehended since someone dealing with it and not knowing where to search German could have, because of nobody answering, just deleted the sense while at most a gender switch would have been appropriate. And no, capitalisation is irrelevant, New High German nouns get added capitalized even if they died out before capitalisation of nouns was a thing, and those liberal writers who do not follow the capitalization rules in modern times are treated as if they have written their texts capitalized regularly, because otherwise it’s confusing. Fay Freak (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the rule that says we unify? I was under the impression it was a contentious thing, done on a language-by-language basis. And WT:About German says "Wiktionary includes all attested spellings", so as a rule, we don't unify German. Perhaps instead of harassing the "newb without a user page" you should check what the rules actually are?
- Just verify the damn thing, Fay Freak. The general rules say that we need cites for any words, not cribbing from dictionaries. We can quibble about stuff after we have a suitable number of citations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: Can you point me to the rule that says we do not unify and have to find every sense in every spelling in every gender three times? No, because it’s not true. The word is not “spelling”, hence unifying. I have proven it also on various places, as for example by the fact that one can attest from audio, or texts written scriptio continua, etc., e.g. above under Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#baußen, also on Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#Huang-ch'i I noted that “we cannot derive from the mere entry layout practice that for alternative spelling pages entries are cloned the requirement that each such sense or even only part of speech needs three citations”. The fact that one needs to argue for certain interpretations of the law does not speak against the stance of him who argues.
- I have shown attestations above; the dictionaries give quotes. Can you demonstrate me a rule that we need cites typed off into the page and that referring to dictionaries quoting the senses or spellings, e.g. even other Wiktionaries, wouldn’t suffice? The fact that we constantly have too little personnel and are underpaid suggests otherwise, as well as the fact that blind quotes of quotes given in other sources are avoided in science.
- You don’t seriously suggest we should have this word under Ymme or Yme or perhaps ymme or yme because of not being quoted in the modern spelling and the particular gender and particular sense? Because “we operate under the tyranny of entry titles”?
- I have presented multiple ways of representing the word. You speak of harrassing but it is perfectly legimitate to point out that his request was unclear in concerning the particular gender so it could have lead to excessive deletion of a known sense, and a fact that one is negatively disposed towards users who do not state their language levels on their user pages, and I do not forgo to notify particularly newbs of uncomfortable truths, because they in particular have to get to know things. If “newb” is an offensive then one shall forgive me because I am not responsible for every neutral word’s meaning being ousted by connotations to an extent that we cannot communicate without a nimb of aggression. Language hasn’t been made for the internet. Fay Freak (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Again, WT:About German says "Wiktionary includes all attested spellings". You shouldn't say "as a rule we unify, if you didn’t know" to a newb, if there are established users who would argue against it. There's a difference between arguing for a position, and informing someone that a position is the rule.
- Nice change in standards of evidence, if you make a claim, you don't have to provide evidence. If I make a claim, I have to demonstrate an exact rule. Have I been wasting my time on RFV when I could have just responded by "check out Google Books"? When I added cites to Uno, people disagreed that some of those cites were appropriate cites: see the archived discussion on Talk:Uno. It would have been a lot harder to have that discussion had I and other people not copied the text into the article. In this case, the user has disagreed with your cites; it would be much easier to work with if the cites were here where we could read them, instead of just handwaves at dictionaries.
- Yes, I seriously suggest we should have this word under the spellings it's used under. As you quote a vote, you know that this is not an uncontentious issue at Wiktionary--Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Removing_Old_English_entries_with_wynns closed 9-4--and the vote you quote is very limited, as wynn can be replaced one for one with w in all cases in Old English. We shouldn't have to map from a spelling used in real life to some arbitrary spelling invented by a dictionary writer, us or someone else.
- You don't distinguish "uncomfortable truths" from "Fay Freak's opinions", and this is not the first time I've seen you do this. Here's an uncomfortable truth; you'd be running a chance of getting blocked on some other English Wikis, and acting like it's other people's fault and "Language hasn’t been made for the internet." is absurd when many other people manage to follow these rules and newb says "(Internet slang, sometimes derogatory)", so yes, it's made for the Internet, and it's always had that negative meaning. And while "newb" may be somewhat problematic, the fact you're asserting Fay Freak's opinions as "uncomfortable truths" that they obviously should have known (despite the fact you can't cite any place on the Wiki where they could have learned those "truths") is much more problematic. As is saying "the way you requested here is to be reprehended", which condemns the person instead of focusing on the action, say, "an RFV on a word could cause it to be incorrectly deleted." Which is itself garbage; if someone feels a word needs RFV, they should feel free to RFV it. There are points someone RFVing a bunch of words that are going to be kept could be a problem, but I'd say that's never the case for words that might get deleted; nominating words for RFV should get cites added, making them clearly attested words, and in many cases get definitions refined and separated out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes I have added a few cites, though it is advisable that a native speaker looks it over.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Dutch, two senses: "(chiefly Belgium) A place name" and "(chiefly Belgium) A surname with the prefix van". The second sense exists at Vandievoet or Van Dievoet because that is how Flemish names work, the first sense does not seem attestable in use; although there are mentions of a hamlet in Ukkel (Uccle). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Morgengave What is your view on this?
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)- @Lingo Bingo Dingo I don't know the place myself, but Dievoort seems to be a place near Breda: [35]. The place in Ukkel is indeed called Dievoet, not Dietvoort. Morgengave (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Dutch. This could in theory be related to drek, but it is absent from many dialect dictionaries and I cannot find it used (results are scannos for drinken, drukken, etc.). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Morgengave, Rua, Alexis Jazz Do you think this lemma might be something or does it seem ephemeral?
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)- @Lingo Bingo Dingo Never heard of this, and it's not in the (amateur) Vlaams woordenboek, which is with its ~34000 entries quite elaborate. So I suppose if it exists (does it?), it's likely part of a Dutch-Dutch or Suriname-Dutch dialect, or slang (which could explain its non-attestation)? It's a pity that the entry creator is anonymous. Morgengave (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Morgengave All right, that seems to rule out Belgian Dutch. It might be from dialectal usage in the Netherlands or a borrowing from Westlauwers Frisian or Low Saxon, but I did not find it in the eWND. Surinamese Dutch seems very implausible to me because of the vowel change that cannot be explained as a borrowing to Sranantongo and back. That said, I'm willing to wait this one out until libraries reopen.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Morgengave All right, that seems to rule out Belgian Dutch. It might be from dialectal usage in the Netherlands or a borrowing from Westlauwers Frisian or Low Saxon, but I did not find it in the eWND. Surinamese Dutch seems very implausible to me because of the vowel change that cannot be explained as a borrowing to Sranantongo and back. That said, I'm willing to wait this one out until libraries reopen.
- @Lingo Bingo Dingo Never heard of this, and it's not in the (amateur) Vlaams woordenboek, which is with its ~34000 entries quite elaborate. So I suppose if it exists (does it?), it's likely part of a Dutch-Dutch or Suriname-Dutch dialect, or slang (which could explain its non-attestation)? It's a pity that the entry creator is anonymous. Morgengave (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Lingo Bingo Dingo Sounds familiar, but I think that's a false memory. Did some searches, all came up dry. Maybe something highly local that doesn't appear in any written text. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
Old Saxon. This may be a reconstructed form in the wrong namespace. Also spelled enkel. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- This seems to be two distinct senses.__Gamren (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I can't find this attested for Old Saxon. The "ankle" sense should be moved to *enkil. I have no clue where the "hip" sense comes from... Leasnam (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
Translingual. Looks English, cp. angiosperm, sperm, -s. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Depending on the outcome, possibly to add: magnoliids, monocots, core eudicots (also cp. core), superasterids, asterids, superrosids, rosids, fabids, malvids. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Clades are tricky, because many of them don't have an accepted conventional taxonomic name. The taxonomists working on them give them an informal English name, and other taxonomists use them like the conventional Latin-based taxonomic names- which we treat as Translingual(language code mul) because they're used in a great many languages without being a part of the languages. These English-based names for plants are technically invalid according to the taxonomic code, but they're definitely used in taxonomic contexts.
- This particular one is odd because the clade has a normal taxonomic name, Angiospermae, and there's nothing about the formation of that name that precludes it from being validly given any rank above superfamily. It doesn't seem necessary to use an English-based name in non-English usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- And yet it is so used. DCDuring (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- IMO, none of these are Translingual. They were all created by DCDuring, who has no training in relevant fields and seems opposed to the distinction betwen taxonomic and common names used by workers in the actual field. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Is angiosperms (and are the others) used in multiple languages?
google books:"angiosperms" "das" (with German das n (“the”)), google books:"angiosperms" "le" (with French le m (“the”)) and similar searches (with other articles, with forms of translations of be, excluding the) brought up:- French "les Angiospermes"
- German "Angiospermen (angiosperms): Bedecktsamer; Pflanzen, deren ..." which is only a mentioning of the English
- My search wasn't exhaustive, but I didn't see any non-English usage. --幽霊四 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- If it is then it still does not mean it is translingual. In other languages there is still in principle a distinction between the native language and Translingual even if the terms look the same 100% (which they don’t, due to capitalization). Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Is angiosperms (and are the others) used in multiple languages?
- Just move to English. It is formally clear here what is translingual and what English. Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's English. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. That might be appropriate in RfM or RfD. There is attestation in scholarly journals for the terms being used in a manner indistinguishable from the Latinate taxonomic names. There is more abundant attestation for Angiosperms. DCDuring (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed that this shouldn't be a vote. It's how it's used that should determine what language header it goes under, not a prescriptive standard. Our Translingual section should be just as descriptive as the rest of the dictionary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Re "There is more abundant attestation for Angiosperms": Is there? Google Books is not case sensitive, so searching for angiosperms and Angiosperms brings up the same results. As I searched, I didn't see more for the capitalised variant. --幽霊四 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I found abundant attestation for Angiosperm in use parallel to Latinate taxa at Google Scholar. I searched for "clade Angiosperms". DCDuring (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- “manner indistinguishable from the Latinate taxonomic names”. Cannot nachvollziehen such reasoning. It’s not only the manner, i.e. the context in which it is used which indicates which language something is. This is the same irrational approach that declares long Latin or Greek bonmots “Danish”. The Verkehrsanschauung is unambiguous about which language it is (and one can hardly with more quotes show that something is more translingual or more English; “eudicots” will not look less English because there are quotes in some other language that has the same pluralization practice, so it is true it is more RfM matter and not RfV matter – though even better, somebody who is able to sharply distinguish can just move/transform such entries for he can rationally defend it). Fay Freak (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- The only use in a work not in English is a section of an unpublished Czech thesis which quotes from the English language product of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group adding a few Czech words in. Elsewhere in the thesis the word is treated as Czech, for example "angiospermní: krytosemenné rostliny, jednoděloţné a dvouděloţné" (angiosperms, plants with hidden seeds...). This supports a borrowing or parallel formation, not a multilingual word. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's very hard to find usage, because of the huge number of false positives due to English titles in their cited references. It's also true that there are taxonomists who don't view APG clade names as valid for taxonomic use and therefore don't use them translingually. Also, this term seems to be much less common than those for which there is no validly published conventional alternative. I was able to find a few that I would argue show translingual usage. I could probably find a few more, if necessary. Most of these are in tables rather than in running text, but I would contend that such is how taxonomic names are often used. Here (on page 10 of the pdf) is one of several where the APG names are contrasted with the standard classifications, but they are both treated as the same sort of thing. This pdf has it at the beginning, while this pdf follows a common Chinese practice of a mixture of translingual and English glosses in parentheses throughout the text, but has a table on the 5th page (numbered 524) where the clade names are in a context that has everything else in either taxonomic Latin or Chinese.
- As for whether these are durably archived: the taxonomic codes, until fairly recently, explicitly required what basically amounts to durable archiving for anything taxonomic to be validly published. As far as I know, it's still very much the practice, with some online journals going so far as to print a limited number of hard copies that are placed in selected libraries to satisfy such requirements. As far as I know, theses for academic credit are all archived with the educational institution, and government publications are archived as well. I can't guarantee that all of these specific articles are durably archived, but there's a high probability that they are. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Here (on page 10 of the pdf)" - page 19 of the PDF, page 3 of the actual work, where it begins with Según APG IV (“According to APG [Angiosperm Phylogeny Group] IV”) and which also has core eudicots? That looks like a mentioning of APG – English? In the bibliography sections, it mentions Catálogo de las Angiospermas y Gimnospermas del Perú.
- "This pdf":
- It doesn't look durably archived.
- It's mentioning English wikipedia, FAO with APG in URL. It could copy English stuff. "United Emirats arabes unis (Arab Emirates) (Arabe, Arabic)" also looks strange regarding the language.
- This is not a vote. That might be appropriate in RfM or RfD. There is attestation in scholarly journals for the terms being used in a manner indistinguishable from the Latinate taxonomic names. There is more abundant attestation for Angiosperms. DCDuring (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Translingual. Looks English, see also -s, also as there are non-English translations. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- 幽霊四: If it “looks English” then spare us such requests and move to English. Nothing would get lost. Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's an English plural noun. The taxonomic clade is Eudicots. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would add a request for Translingual Eudicots as well, with the same reasoning.
- [36] has "der Eudicots" (gen. pl., gender not revealed) and "die core eudicots" (pl., same; with italics), but it's just one source, not sufficent.
- [37] has "Der Name Eudicotyledonae (engl. eudicots)", giving two reasons why it doesn't look translingual: 1. It's English. 2. There's an alternative.
- [38] has it in French, but with quotation marks and also "higher hamamelids" (with quotation marks as well) which is even more English.
- [39] has "Les Eudicotylédones (Eudicots)", "des Eudicots", "Les Rosidées". Could also be regular French (-s), or not?
- --幽霊四 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- It intuitively doesn't feel like a translingual taxonomic name, since it's not Latin. But maybe there are exceptions. I don't know enough to say for sure. @Chuck Entz and @DCDuring, experts on taxonomy. 70.172.194.25 08:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert, but in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It's tricky, because it isn't part of the standard Latin-based Linnaean nomenclature. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group uses English in the names for their taxonomic entities rather than Latin, and they're more interested in the tree structure than in assigning standard names for every rank- but they're describing things that don't have a name otherwise. I would call the result a parallel, unofficial naming system, but it's used in multiple languages, which makes it translingual. It's not the system for taxonomic nomenclature, but it has its role. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- It functions just the way the officially (ICZN, ICTV, LPSN, etc) sanctioned taxa do, as lamiids, rosids, eurosids, and a score or more of other APG clade names. It is neither here nor there, but I "feel" it to be a formal taxonomic name, as much as, say, the names of species of viruses (eg, Human alphaherpesvirus 1, which looks like a normal English NP, with an English adjective preceding the head). DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- It intuitively doesn't feel like a translingual taxonomic name, since it's not Latin. But maybe there are exceptions. I don't know enough to say for sure. @Chuck Entz and @DCDuring, experts on taxonomy. 70.172.194.25 08:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would add a request for Translingual Eudicots as well, with the same reasoning.
Indonesian. Sent from RFD. — surjection ⟨??
⟩ 10:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#kakilima beratap (2). I am not sure about the orthographies of various terms, but Indonesian kaki lima, literally “five foot”, short for ”five-foot way”, can by itself mean the walkway under an arcade, usually housing shops. It is to be expected then that such an arcade is called a kaki-lima beratap. At least one dictionary lists the term;[40] and the term is used here. The issue seems to be more whether this is not a good old SOP. (Aside: we also have an entry kaki-lima, whose status seems dubious to me, just like “the shop on the corner” may often be a convenience store, but does not necessarily mean that.) --Lambiam 22:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thai. Sent from RFD. — surjection ⟨??
⟩ 10:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- The nominator's original concern at RFD was:
- The term for octahedron is ทรงแปดหน้า coined by the Royal Institute. No one use รูปแปดด้าน other than machine mistranslation. รูปแปดด้าน may also means แปดเหลี่ยม (octagon) that no usage either. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I find a use in a 1999 book, but we need two more, as Thai is a WDL. This, that and the other (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Translingual. Created by suzukaze-c; RFV suggested by @This, that and the other. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- 3 cites from Google Books, in English contexts:
- Jack Bowen, If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers
Fish symbol with "Ixoye" in the middle:
- Michael Theisen, Exploring Catholicism
sacred letters, words, and symbols such as IHS, IXOYE, INRI, ✝, JESUS, ΑΩ
- Thomas Nelson Publishers, The Safe Sites Internet Yellow Pages
Home to The IXOYE Page and Doulos Ministries. Specializing in everything from evangelism to homeschooling and prophecy
- (https://web.archive.org/web/20021130051023/http://home1.gte.net/ixoye/)
- Jack Bowen, If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers
- —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- The last cite is part of a proper name, so I don't think we can admit that. The other two look like mentions, so ordinarily I'd reject them, but I do note that the PoS is "Symbol". Maybe this shifts the goalposts as far as the use-mention distinction is concerned... This, that and the other (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Seem to have Passed, AFAICT. DCDuring (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Misprint for ΙΧΘΥΣ, Greek for "fish" but also acronym of Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σωτηρ, meaning "Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour". The first Christians used this, or even sometimes just a stylized fish shape, as a sign of recognition which would escape the notice of their Roman persecutors. IXOYE should be ΙΧΘΥΣ in all three numbered links above. See w:Ichthys for details. — Tonymec (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tonymec: At Wiktionary we are interested in how language is used in the real world, not how it "should" be used. I don't think anyone would disagree with you that IXOYE is "wrong" on some level, but if it is in use we ought to include it. This, that and the other (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Three more from Google Scholar, confirmed not scannos:
- Pathways off the streets: Homeless people and their use of resources Wright, Bradley R. Entner. The University of Wisconsin - Madison. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1996
the parishioners of St. Andrews Church and Faith Community Bible Church. IXOYE.
- Oracle (Sep 21, 1973), and many more instances from the same series
IXOYE (pronounced ICHTHUS)
- Esther Lim, Portland State University, Nine Months
Next to “UCSB Dad” was a fish symbol with the letters “IXOYE” in the middle—the classic acronym for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.”
- Pathways off the streets: Homeless people and their use of resources Wright, Bradley R. Entner. The University of Wisconsin - Madison. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1996
- —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is OK to be honest. I don't think it's too different from the standard Catholic use of IHS to mean Jesus, where the "H" is really Greek eta. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- RFV passed, AFAICT. DCDuring (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
A Translingual Symbol sense 5
Is the letter "A" used alone (in any language, since this is Translingual) to refer to a paper size system? I would make a claim that uses like "the A paper size system" do not support the inclusion of this term. Please argue with me on this though! This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Attributively at least: A paper sizes. Fay Freak (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Still a strange thing to include in such a place in a dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
A Translingual Symbol sense 6
- An academic grade lower than A+ but greater than A-.
I dispute that this is used translingually, even if the definition were to be worded more generally. I contend that letter grades are only or largely confined in the Anglosphere. This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Some (if not many) Dutch primary schools use letter grades (E-D-C-B-A) interchangeably with digits (1-10). Cito also uses these. Thadh (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think few primary schools actually use those as the actual marks rather than as a mere secondary encoding of onvoldoende, voldoende, goed, etc. In any case, its marginal use by Dutch schools seems not much of an argument for its translingual status.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think few primary schools actually use those as the actual marks rather than as a mere secondary encoding of onvoldoende, voldoende, goed, etc. In any case, its marginal use by Dutch schools seems not much of an argument for its translingual status.
- It is kind of likely that in some Pacific islands and African colonies this system has been taken over, without school education taking place in English. Fay Freak (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Lingo Bingo Dingo This is something I've noticed actually. Is "Translingual" supposed to be a catch-all for a lot of languages or all languages? Because I've seen it heavily lean Western European, especially with punctuation marks, while many other languages would not use them as such. It's truly confusing to me. AG202 (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AG202 I've always treated it as "a lot of languages" - "all languages" would be a literally impossible bar to pass. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Komi-Zyrian. Seems to be dialectal Permyak rather than Zyrian (compare also Коми-Ёдз кыл). Thadh (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not in this corpus of Komi-Zyrian. The term may exist in Komi-Yazva, though I don't know whether we classify that as part of
kpv
. The user who added this has since been blocked for edits with questionable sourcing. 70.172.194.25 03:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Turkish. Literally "hunter fly", defined as referring to the predatory fly family Asilidae but the few uses I can find are not so limited. A couple related uses refer to a species of Promachus, which is in that family. Another refers to Coenosia attenuata, sometimes called "hunter fly" in English. A third group of hits refers to family Chamaemyiidae, species of which are predatory as larvae. So I don't think there is any more than a sum of parts here. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Turkish. Literally "owl fly". The definition is inconsistent, assigning the supposed insect to two distinct orders (Neuroptera and Diptera). I was unable to verify either meaning. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Vox Sciurorum: People are saying this on the internet, example 1 and example 2, with pictures and descriptions leaving now doubt about the identification. The uses postdate the 2009 creation of the Wiktionary entry though, and there is a possibility people on the internet coined it after the English. On the other hand I do not believe the original editor had a need to make up names for all flies and he had to take the names from somewhere, though his name be literally Sinek. A Turkish Wikipedia article on the animal, a frequent source of such coinages, never existed. Is it possible that entomology works a badly indexed? In particular I am skeptical about Google Books providing even a sketch of the Near East’s zoology. By now it is proven Google systematically skews the portrayal of science in favour of the American hegemon.
- A question has always to be posited: What else is it called? We have learned that even the caperberry in Finnish struggles with the CFI. And we are repulsed by an untrue statement in a translation table that there is no name at all in so bulky a language, for so unexotic an organism. Fay Freak (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: I have no problem holding Turkish to lesser standards than English. (By precedent, if not rule, as nominator I can withdraw the RFV if I am satisfied and nobody objects.) I am not counting durable citations on my fingers, but looking for sufficient evidence of use. For some other derivatives of sinek I found that evidence. For the ones I nominated, I did not. There are many species that in ordinary English are simply "bugs". And there are people trying to prescribe names contrary to common use. Somebody who lives in Turkey and has taken an entomology course there will have much better insight than I could get reading literature from 8,000 km away. (Perhaps I will look up some entomologists and email them about common names.) The dominance of English and German in entomological literature gives those languages an advantage in popularizing vocabulary, whatever Google's prejudices may be. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- I’m a bit unclear as to what the issue of relative standards is. Compare English sandfly, used for various fly species in different families. There is no lack of mentions that establish the several identifications with taxonomic groups, but in uses the specific identification is generally impossible to establish. Even if someone files a durably archived report of having been bitten by a sandfly in New Zealand, how can we be sure it was not a biting midge, with the reporter being a visiting Australian? Do we truly hold English common names for critters to the high standards of CFI? --Lambiam 14:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- This definitely a problem (to figure out which sense of a word is meant, in many cases), compare klaviform, which has been RFC-tagged as needing to have separate definitions matching claviform, but ... good luck figuring out which of the meanings is meant from any particular use! - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, it was always conceit to require that not only occurrences convey meaning, but they also convey all of the meaning and prove it alone. The nature of a use is that it does not convey meaning. Paradox, paradox, but evident; uses at large presuppose meanings having already been conveyed, though it occur that they add to them by their impressions. People employ the metric system without outlining what a metre or a gramme is. The more exact you want to be the more you have to look around. Paradox in discerning language, a holistic scheme!
- Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Conveying meaning is only superficially an essential distinction and inherently irrational, it is a private language of analytic philosophers and you play a language game pretending that you conform, instead of owning it is fashionable nonsense. Fay Freak (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- I’m a bit unclear as to what the issue of relative standards is. Compare English sandfly, used for various fly species in different families. There is no lack of mentions that establish the several identifications with taxonomic groups, but in uses the specific identification is generally impossible to establish. Even if someone files a durably archived report of having been bitten by a sandfly in New Zealand, how can we be sure it was not a biting midge, with the reporter being a visiting Australian? Do we truly hold English common names for critters to the high standards of CFI? --Lambiam 14:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: I have no problem holding Turkish to lesser standards than English. (By precedent, if not rule, as nominator I can withdraw the RFV if I am satisfied and nobody objects.) I am not counting durable citations on my fingers, but looking for sufficient evidence of use. For some other derivatives of sinek I found that evidence. For the ones I nominated, I did not. There are many species that in ordinary English are simply "bugs". And there are people trying to prescribe names contrary to common use. Somebody who lives in Turkey and has taken an entomology course there will have much better insight than I could get reading literature from 8,000 km away. (Perhaps I will look up some entomologists and email them about common names.) The dominance of English and German in entomological literature gives those languages an advantage in popularizing vocabulary, whatever Google's prejudices may be. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Turkish. Rfv-sense stable fly. Might also be spelled karasinek. The house fly sense is well attested. The stable fly is generally similar in appearance (except it bites) so you could easily have one word meaning both. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- In English the designation black fly is used for various flies in the genus Simulium. Likewise, in Turkish the term kara sinek may be used for them, like here and here (as a search key) for the genus, and here for S. erythrocephalum. After all, they are flies, and they are black. The same cannot be said of the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans). Both are blood suckers, and they are often mentioned together as being biting flies, so I wonder if there has been some generic confusion. --Lambiam 00:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- The name is used in English for the whole family Simuliidae. Simulium is the most common genus. When I looked I didn't have the sense that kara sinek in this sense was citable or common. It was used, but not often. It may meet CFI or be in regular use by entomologists. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Stomoxys calcitrans is rather black in this photograph, though, so this may simply occur in a description as a SOP. --Lambiam 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would not be surprised to learn that Turkish kara sinek is used like English house fly, by ordinary people to refer to large flies found around the house and in formal writing to refer to Musca domestica. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Of course. Rather in general, in informal contexts people commonly use terms that do not respect recognized taxonomical categories. I’ve heard bit (“louse”) used to mean “flea”, and fare (“mouse“) for “rat”. The use is even looser for fish names and botanical names, which I think is the case for many other languages too. The use in written texts generally has a better correspondence, though, between the intended sense and that of taxonomists. --Lambiam 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would not be surprised to learn that Turkish kara sinek is used like English house fly, by ordinary people to refer to large flies found around the house and in formal writing to refer to Musca domestica. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian entries by Lumbardhia
See Talk:štaljba, Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#štaljba. — surjection ⟨??
⟩ 13:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Surjection:
- bàrzilo is already said in the first volume of
{{R:sh:RJA}}
to occur only in Vuk Karadžić’s dictionary, it is an occasional formation along with barzeša, barzica, barzulijca, and should be deleted. I have added the better-used base adjectives to bardhë which should suffice. - brdoka as well as bardoka have allegedly been used in Kosovo, but it is too specific to be found.
- kàluša is used here and there defined: Kaluša redovno ima veću pegu i na telu, najčešće na grudima, na trbuhu, na sapima u blizini korena repa, tamne noge do kolena i skočnog zgloba ili su noge poprskane pegama kao i kod ostalih domaćih pramenki. The bibliographic information and digitization status of these works is insufficient for me to format quotes.
- lakora I do not find at all.
- kȃrpa are hard to search but are attested, given quotes in Речник српскохрватског књижевног и народног језика, in the ends, where it is continued in better known Macedonian карпа (karpa) and Bulgarian карпа (karpa). The etymology is more doubtful than its existence.
- strȕga has many attestations, e.g. quoted in
{{R:sh:RSHKJ|page=37a|volume=6}}
. - diza, dročka, hira are too hard, specific cheese manufacturing terms it seems, with much homonymy, so one can’t try too much. tȇša I see related by mentions in Vanja Stanišić’s book Serbo-Albanian language relations page 106 as a rather recent word but used by Albanians only in few places, so it is not worth it.
- drȅteza only in works discussing Albanian words in Serbo-Croatian, and again from Vuk Karadžić.
- šȍtka was the normal word for duck in some spots of Serbia, a whole isogloss but rural enough to escape the purview of the written language, however surely attested; I have added one quote from a Croatian who wrote a lot and probably picked it up there.
- frȗs is mostly known from Vuk Karadžić’s dictionary, where it is given as Montenegrin – from a time when Montenegro was a bunch of mountain shepherds barely anybody of whom could read and write; however you find фрус in brackets after добрац (“measles”), which looks like some Serbian doctors knew that it is called so in Montenegro. With the advancement of medicine, a lot of disease names have vanished, as is a common experience if you deal with them in any language. Evidently, the word must be labelled “obsolete”.
- So, after four hours for this list, I am positive about the nature of šȍtka, kàluša, kȃrpa, frȗs, strȕga, the rest falls through the sieve for this decade. Fay Freak (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here, on the other hand, I repeat my opinion of one year ago: I don’t think Lumbardhia made anything up, or intended to do so—while Surjection’s general suspicion of agents of the Albanian cause introducing fakes seems to be true, as there must be the liars somewhere and Albanians are known as deranged due to their recent history—, but these words are all traceable to dialectological literature, and to the extent I have outlined that one day one year ago the words are found in literature. Fay Freak (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
March 2021
Rfv-sense: Dutch, "An East Indian weight for silver and gold." I can't find evidence for an Indian customary weight with a name anything like this. The etymology claims it's "From Sanskrit वल्ले (valle), called after the resilient seeds of Abrus precatorius." However, I can't find any such Sanskrit word; also, the unit of weight named after Abrus precatorius is the ratti (Ratti), apparently also called w:nl:Ratti in Dutch. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I added a quote, earliest reference mentioned in http://wnt.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M073176&lemmodern=val&domein=0&conc=true (seems to be source of etymology). The notes to the English language edition of the cited work mention that "at present" in Gujarat 1 val = 3 rati : 16 val = 1 gadiana : 2 gadiana = 1 tola https://books.google.com/books?id=w1rbCmQOs4YC&lpg=PA329&ots=LoiWGCdwGi&dq=%22pecha%22%20paisa%20india&hl=nl&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false --Appolodorus1 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Arabic. --37.42.165.198 18:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: Arabic Wikisource has a work by Ibn Khalawayh called "Kitāb laysa fī kalām al-ʻArab", s:ar:ليس في كلام العرب, and a naive search brought it up. Can you check whether this word is used there in the right sense? If not, do you know where else to find attestation for this? 70.172.194.25 05:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it is given an example of maṣdar with a quote also found in Lisān al-ʕarab the further context of which I see not. Too bad we only know it as a kind of a copypasta. Fay Freak (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- While Modern Standard Arabic is a well-documented language and therefore subject to stricter attestation rules, according to my understanding Classical Arabic is exempt. So, under the more lenient standards, this could probably pass, but that would require someone to actually add the quote from Ibn Manzur and/or Ibn Khalawayh to the entry, and maybe to label the term as classical/archaic/rare if applicable. 70.172.194.25 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it is given an example of maṣdar with a quote also found in Lisān al-ʕarab the further context of which I see not. Too bad we only know it as a kind of a copypasta. Fay Freak (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
abaissement, abaissere (Norwegian)
- Moved from RFD.Gamren (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think these are actual words used in Norwegian, there are no hits for either one in the Bokmål Dictionary nor the Norwegian Academy dictionary, also nothing on Wikipedia or the Norwegian Lexicon. Google searches didn't give me anything for a Norwegian use of these words, only French. Supevan (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- It mostly seems to occur in the phrase abaissement du niveau mental.__Gamren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Rfv-sense: bark in Baoule. Mentioned in this article https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/50/E5346.full.pdf as origin of the Sranan Tongo word with the same meaning but not very specific.--Appolodorus1 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Arabic. — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 07:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Arabic. — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 08:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Arabic. — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 08:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Fenakhay [41], Steingass and Hava have this, and Lane apparently cites "صَخَمَتْهُ الشَّمْسُ" (the sun burnt him) to al-Qamus al-Muhit. 70.172.194.25 07:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Arabic. Rfv-sense: (countable, Islam) a narrative attributed to an Islamic religious figure (typically Prophet Muhammad), a tradition; a hadith --188.49.46.246 12:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
Dutch. Another unattested diminutive. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- This one is attestable, but only in a few tweets, which are not durably archived. 70.172.194.25 05:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
And another one. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can confirm that this seems unattestable, even online. 70.172.194.25 05:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
And another one. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can confirm that this seems unattestable, even online. 70.172.194.25 05:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi LBD, as there's no Wiktionary policy on regular diminutives in Dutch (should we always include them as they help users form the diminutive, or should we only include them if they have three durable attestations?). I would honestly not pursue a verification & deletion campaign. I don't see any value in this at all, and it may siphon time away from real things to improve. Morgengave (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- WT:CFI -> 3 cites. Diminutives aren't even inflected forms, but derived terms. Also, for dubious inflected forms there could be RFVs as well, e.g. for plurals when the term is (thought to be) singular only, uncountable. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:371c:3d29:91e2:2f43:c6bd:d627 (talk) at 15:19, 3 April 2021.
- The point is that any Dutch user at any time can apply such a regular diminutive - usage would be considered correct and unremarkable. These are not dubious grammatically - there are just so many nouns in Dutch that not for every noun, you can find durable attestations of their regular diminutives. This also means that at any moment in time such an unattested diminutive can "appear" in newspapers and books, making these deletions likely temporary anyway. This is not the case for uncountable words - a plural here would just sound wrong. I won't oppose the verification-to-deletion process of these diminutives btw; I just find it a waste of time. Morgengave (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Morgengave What I like about the English Wiktionary is that it is a very empirical dictionary. Removing entries for unattested diminutives would make our Dutch coverage more empirical and prevent shitty mirror sites from spreading misinformation. Moreover, the view that unattested diminutives qualify for inclusion is not uncontroversial outside the Dutch-language editor base, though I do not presume to know what the majority view is. I can agree to displaying unattested diminutives, but woudl rather not agree to linking to them.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)- I respect that pov. I never create unattested diminutives myself, and generally (following our chat) even follow your way of working of not even displaying unattested diminutives in new lemmas (so that no red link appears). But deleting existing entries just seems pointless. These diminutives are not wrong in any shape or form. Morgengave (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo, why aren’t diminutives inflected forms? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thai. I believe this, if attested at all, is a misreading of ฃึ้น. The tone mark mai tho, which this word should have, was originally carved as a simple cross, a shape subsequently adopted for mai chattawa. RichardW57 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- ฃึ้น can be found online in Thai digital library https://vajirayana.org/ but not ฃึ๋น. Thriftypapaya (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Dutch. Unattested, seemingly erroneous diminutive of a superseded spelling. The Woordenlijst gives entrecoteje as the accepted spelling and although that one is also a rare beast, it may actually be durably citable. Anyway, that would suggest that the diminutive of the superseded spelling is entrecôteje. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't it entrecootje? Durable attestations: [42], [43], [44] Morgengave (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Morgengave That is not on the Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal, so it is probably superseded, but I certainly do not mind its inclusion if it is durably attested.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)- @Lingo Bingo Dingo Well, the attestations seem durably archived - and recent (2016, 2021) so likely only "superseded" in the eyes of linguists. Using a Google Search, that spelling also seems more frequent than "entrecotetje" which sounds a bit awkward and stilted. I can't imagine a native speaker (at least in Belgium) seriously use it in speech. It does raise an interesting point, which the Woordenlijst may not cover, namely that dimunitives that lead to a "-tetje"-ending (if a schwa) do rarely occur and are (in Belgium) often shortened in a regular way to a "-tje"-ending (at least this seems to be the case in Belgium). Besides entrecootje, I am immediately thinking of gedeeltje (from gedeelte), gemeentje (from gemeente), brochetje (from brochette; this diminutive recognized by the VRT: [45]), camionnetje (from camionette; the stress differs and hence not pronounced the same as camionnetje, the diminutive of camion), and groentje (from groente). Morgengave (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Morgengave "Superseded" and "unofficial" (perhaps more appropriate here) only makes a claim about the official status of a form, it does not suggest that it is out of use. I should also clarify that entrecotetje is not the official spelling either; the prescribed form is entrecoteje, which looks awkward but whose pronunciation is equivalent to entrecootje... or so I presume. I agree that sequences with <tetje> containing two schwas are awkward to pronounce.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Morgengave "Superseded" and "unofficial" (perhaps more appropriate here) only makes a claim about the official status of a form, it does not suggest that it is out of use. I should also clarify that entrecotetje is not the official spelling either; the prescribed form is entrecoteje, which looks awkward but whose pronunciation is equivalent to entrecootje... or so I presume. I agree that sequences with <tetje> containing two schwas are awkward to pronounce.
- @Lingo Bingo Dingo Well, the attestations seem durably archived - and recent (2016, 2021) so likely only "superseded" in the eyes of linguists. Using a Google Search, that spelling also seems more frequent than "entrecotetje" which sounds a bit awkward and stilted. I can't imagine a native speaker (at least in Belgium) seriously use it in speech. It does raise an interesting point, which the Woordenlijst may not cover, namely that dimunitives that lead to a "-tetje"-ending (if a schwa) do rarely occur and are (in Belgium) often shortened in a regular way to a "-tje"-ending (at least this seems to be the case in Belgium). Besides entrecootje, I am immediately thinking of gedeeltje (from gedeelte), gemeentje (from gemeente), brochetje (from brochette; this diminutive recognized by the VRT: [45]), camionnetje (from camionette; the stress differs and hence not pronounced the same as camionnetje, the diminutive of camion), and groentje (from groente). Morgengave (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Morgengave That is not on the Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal, so it is probably superseded, but I certainly do not mind its inclusion if it is durably attested.
Arabic. Rfv-sense: "(collective) the typically sweet- or (less commonly) sour-tasting produce of plants, fruit, fruitage" --5.245.69.225 02:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Searching on Google appears to yield many results of modern-style writings (that is, ones that might be dismissed as solecisms). There are, nevertheless, a few medieval-style results like this one that seem to capture the meaning of "fleshy plant products". Modern Standard Arabic occurrences though are far more frequent in this sense. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Roger.M.Williams: Fix your link! I abstain from this issue, dealing with so microscopic a sense distinction. If you see such senses then it is perhaps you who could … ehm add at least one clear quotation. If it’s from the web maybe an occurrence by an image makes it clear. Fay Freak (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Dutch. Both are rather rare, but the latter might be citable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Lingo Bingo Dingo Are these sources okay? [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] If so, could you please add the two best citations of those so we can close this? I didn't find anything for the feminine. 70.172.194.25 22:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Pali. I can't find the sense 'stale' in my Pali dictionaries - does the sense exist?. RichardW57 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
Pali. I have grave doubts about the spelling of this word. I am unable to find any Pali examples by googling (the hits I have seem to be Burmese, not Pali) and, for what its worth, the Burmese Wiktionary entry at my:သိက္ခာ implies that it is written with round AA, not tall AA. (However, the Burmese Wiktionary entry has been loaded by bots.) Unless they are near homographs, the Burmese word also appears with round AA and with asat instead of stacking, i.e. as သိက်ခါ.
@Apisite's edit of sikkhā from https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=sikkh%C4%81&oldid=58147529 to https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=sikkh%C4%81&oldid=61036914 on 4 November 2020 asserts that the spelling of the Pali word has tall AA, not round AA.
Can anyone, e.g. @Hintha, verify the spelling pattern for Pali, i.e. that that stack is followed by round AA rather than tall AA in Pali.RichardW57 (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Correction: Verify that tall AA is used rather than round AA. RichardW57 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I've now found a durable source for သိက္ခာ (sikkhā), which confirms my suspicions. RichardW57 (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Further reason to distrust the Burmese dictionary data held at sealang.net for the shape of AA in <kkhā>. I just looked up ဥပေက္ခာ (u.pekhka) and got ဥပေက္ခါ, which now exists on Wiktionary only as a redirect; @Chan Sung-Min moved the form with tall AA to round AA. (Unfortunately no reason was given for the move, though one easily guess why it was done.) --RichardW57 (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Dutch, RFV of the senses "A tilted angle or strip.", "A blink, instant.", "big, strong, firm; redoubted.", "smart, clever, crafty.", "fine, good." All are present in the WNT but there is only one quotation containing a use for "big, strong, firm; redoubted". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some citations for two senses. -- Curious (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
German. Tagged by 2003:DE:3724:7F29:7877:20A0:1DE0:122E on 26 April, not listed:
- “also not in de.wt, Duden, DWDS, Adelung”
J3133 (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Only noticing now. This IP is annoying. Shall he search
"Spitzel" Hund
, also"Spitzl" Hund
, restricting for example to pre-1920, and add the quotes himself. This is of obvious, clearly widespread use in the Austrian and Austro-Hungarian Empire, as one could guess from the ending, which is the reason why the descendants also have this meaning, but not included in Duden and Adelung because of their recentist and bundedeutsch bias. Fay Freak (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are a few results of dogs called Spitzel (e.g. [52], [53]; with "Ein Spitzel"; [54], having plural "die Spitzeln").
- However, it's also an issue of gender which for the dog sense is still unattesed. This contradiction is obvious:
- Entry: "German ... Spitzel m ... diminutive of Spitz".
- wp: "In der deutschen Standardsprache sind Diminutive stets sächlich" = "In the German standard language diminutives are always neuter" or "In Standard High German diminutives are always neuter".
- -el has different suffixes/meanings: diminutive or appurtenance. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3728:BF93:7011:4B0B:BFD3:D166 (talk) at 17:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC).
- From my Sprachgefühl, one has just taken over the gender from Hund (the same mental process by which English loanwords in German acquire gender). There is also influence from the tool suffix -el, since the dog is a tool. However you do find the neuter: »das Mirzel ist eifersüchtig auf das Spitzel ihres Mannes«. But after all, it is the same word. It has not changed gender while acquiring the meaning of a spy but rather before (than after, which would mean you can find the meaning of a spy as neuter). (The Slavic descendants do not help since they are m by Illič-Svityč's law.) Fay Freak (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Plautdietsch Content resembles Rikj; examples beginn with a capital; High German more fitting cognate is Reich with a capital; Plautdietsch has regular substantive capitalisation (at least sometimes, maybe not always) --> looks like Rikj is more correct. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371E:8003:54B9:4ED1:87D6:D9E3 (talk) at 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC).
- Not sure what you're talking about. There is no Plautdietsch entry at Rijk or even rijk. Does Plautdietsch even use the ⟨ij⟩ digraph? —Mahāgaja · talk 22:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- rikj is there; Rijk for Rikj above was a typo and is fixed. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371E:8003:54B9:4ED1:87D6:D9E3 (talk) at 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC).
Norwegian Bokmål. Does anyone actually use this word in writing? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think these are two examples: [55], [56]. BTW, I don’t see how this demonstrates a difficulty with the understandability of Danish; to me it seems an issue of lack of knowledge of the specialized vocabulary for hardware items. If I was working as a newbie clerk in an English hardware store, and a customer asked for something I’d never heard of, such as a spiglet, I too might not understand they were using a made-up term. — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 09:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC).
Dutch, "a peatland repurposed as a pasture", uncommon indeed. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mnemosientje, Morgengave, Thadh, 030BeterHe, Lambiam Do you have any insights on this?
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)- This is said to come from etten (WNT, also in MNW) + veen; see entry etveen in De Zaansche volkstaal. --Lambiam 20:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
German. "Consumer exchange". Seems to be a dictionary-only word copied from a book about "Nazi German". The talk page of the adder, User Talk:Cryptic C62, has more context. It may be necessary to go through all their contributions.__Gamren (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Google Books:
- [57] without nazi-context
- [58] with nazi-context, only a mentioning, once also with a * (what ever that's supposed to denote) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC).
- The first is not accessible to me, a problem with using Google Books. The asterisk probably means "please refer to the entry on Abnehmertausch".__Gamren (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1st is: Jörg Becker, Reinhard Schütte, Handelsinformationssysteme: Domänenorientierte Einführung in die Wirtschaftsinformatik, 2nd ed., 2004, and has: "Sofern der TIA [= Teilintelligenter Agent] beispielsweise nicht eigenständig durch Umgehung eines Staus die Belieferung von Abnehmern sicherstellen kann, verhandelt er mit anderen TIA über einen möglichen Abnehmertausch, um die Belieferungstermine nicht zu gefährden." — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 19:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC).
- I bet that the line of which only the tops of the letters are visible in the second of these two mentions says: “tomers *Absatzkreis”. The Nazi sense was a compulsory assignment of restricted sales regions (Absatzkreise) to suppliers in order to minimize travel distances and thereby the use of fuel, of which there was a shortage. I can’t seem to find uses, though. --Lambiam 19:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- The first is not accessible to me, a problem with using Google Books. The asterisk probably means "please refer to the entry on Abnehmertausch".__Gamren (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- An additional mention: Il lessico della violenza nella Germania nazista: "Abnehmertausch (m) scambio degli utenti. Pae. 6." --2003:DE:3732:612:CD9C:1A19:B224:917C 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
German. "to shoot down with antiaircraft fire". Also the gerund.__Gamren (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- ab- + Flak + -en, at least a possible formation.
- Google Books: — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC).
The Pali entry for a noun with the meaning 'young' seems to be based on nothing more than a misreading of the entry for *yuvāna in Turner's dictionary giving 'young' as the meaning of Pali yuvāna, which is recorded only as an adjective in Childers' dictionary, according with the main meaning of the English word. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Dutch, very rare. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Isn’t this simply bloed- (“very”) + ergerlijk? We do list bloedgeil, bloedheet and bloedmooi. The Dutch Wiktionary also has bloedarm (sense [2]), bloednerveus and bloedserieus. How productive is this prefix? Contributors in online forums can be seen complaining that they get bloedziek from something they don’t like. I think I have heard bloedje- as a prefix with the same sense, but that may have been idiolectic. --Lambiam 08:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the analysis, but that doesn't stop bloedergerlijk from hardly being non-durably attested. It's not terribly productive, but the ones you mentioned are all ones that I have heard and I bet they are quite common. I don't recall any words prefixed with bloedje-.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the analysis, but that doesn't stop bloedergerlijk from hardly being non-durably attested. It's not terribly productive, but the ones you mentioned are all ones that I have heard and I bet they are quite common. I don't recall any words prefixed with bloedje-.
June 2021
Dutch. Rfv-sense of "Something extremely grave." Ad hoc figurative usage is generally not included, rather we wait until it is lexicalised. Can any evidence of lexicalisation be found? On another note, should we include the interjection? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is an unlisted sense of a positive intensifier in the compounds moordkerel,[59][60] moordwijf [61][62] and moordgriet.[63] --Lambiam 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam I am sceptical that it can be attested as a separate word. Perhaps it could be a prefix, though that is best discussed elsewhere.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam I am sceptical that it can be attested as a separate word. Perhaps it could be a prefix, though that is best discussed elsewhere.
Arabic. Rfv-sense: “orderer, purchaser, customer, client” --5.245.161.80 23:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Dutch, "synonym" and "synonymous", seem like puristic coinages with extremely low currency. The overwhelming majority of hits are scannos due to a page having multiple columns. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's indeed a puristic neologism. It's easy to find online usage, but as with many neologisms, finding durable attestations is a bit trickier. These seem durable: [64], [65], [66] Morgengave (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- They're all extremely mentionlike, but I would allow all of them as uses.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- They're all extremely mentionlike, but I would allow all of them as uses.
Dutch. Another round of unattested SI units. It looks as if only exameter might be citable and even that is going to be borderline. If all fail, perhaps exa- should be deleted as well. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Bulgaria (Central Nahuatl)
Added today by an IP. Is this really attested in Central Nahuatl? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- And what about the other additions by the same, like for example Rusia? --2003:DE:3732:612:CD9C:1A19:B224:917C 16:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Dutch, RFV-sense of "resistance, opposition, defense". Is this citable outside in het geweer komen? The WNT does not have a separate sense "resistance, etc." ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Earlier the lemma had a sense “(absolute use only: het geweer) A defensive attitude or position”, which I removed in December 2020 by this edit. --Lambiam 00:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Old High German: “to fight” (untagged sense: “to condemn”), tagged by Holodwig21, who created the entry, on 6 December 2019, not listed: “Koebler isn't sure”. J3133 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Old High German: “female genitalia”. Tagged by 88.64.225.1 on 26 June 2021, not listed:
- “It's possible, but the form would obviously be irregular in High German. As of now it is not given in the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. The source is not scientific and it doesn't strictly say that the word is High German. It only says that it was found by a contributor to the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch, which doesn't rule out that the gloss may be Old Saxon or Low Franconian.”
J3133 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the word is given as an example of a German word and attestation in an Old Dutch work is particularly unlikely, so the real problems are the apparently irregular form and the fact that this is a rather unusual source.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Source has:
- "Zahlreiche deutsche Wörter aus dem achten bis zehnten Jahrhundert sind nur als Anmerkungen und Übersetzungshilfen am Rand oder zwischen den Zeilen lateinischer Texte überliefert. Tausende dieser sogenannten Glossen wurden erst in letzter Zeit entdeckt und untersucht. Zu ihnen gehört „cunta“, eine vulgäre Bezeichnung für das weibliche Sexualorgan, die als Übersetzung von „pudenda“ am Rand einer kirchengeschichtlichen Handschrift des neunten Jahrhunderts auftauchte."
- It's only saying "German", and doesn't clarify whether it's "High German" or "High and Low German". And if it's the latter, it's open whether Low German would be "Old Saxon" or "Low Franconian and Old Saxon". Also as it's only a gloss: If there are no other glosses near to it with clear Low or High German features, who knows what language the gloss is in? --16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
July 2021
Dutch, one definition is a Verbo proctologism. The word seems super rare in any case and this kind of spelling is superseded, so maybe the black tie has to be thrown out with the butt toy. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. Some concerns (numbered by link): 1: not sure if it's archived, 2: I think we treat West Flemish separately from Dutch, 3: I'm not sure what language this is, could be archaic Dutch or West Flemish, 4: Baasroods, a dialect that should be treated as Dutch. The rest are solid attestations for sense 2. There was another thesis by Leiden University called "Birds through a ceiling of alabast : genderproblematiek in de romans van Hugo Claus" (one of his books apparently used this term), but the spam filter didn't let me give the google link. Seems to be a chiefly Belgian term. Thadh (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Thadh Okay, those are valid cites for definition 2, though it is at least somewhat awkward that this is only attested in what would be a superseded spelling. That probably deserves a usage note.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Thadh Okay, those are valid cites for definition 2, though it is at least somewhat awkward that this is only attested in what would be a superseded spelling. That probably deserves a usage note.
kaap (Dutch)
RFV-sense of "the bird species European herring gull, Larus argentatus". Dialectal and no attestations in the WNT. If kept, it should probably be an alternative form of kobbe. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Dutch. Typically written as two words, it turned out harder to cite than I thought it would be. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- [75], [76], [77], [78], [79] (some of these might not be durably archived) Thadh (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Indonesian. RFV-sense, tagged by Rex Aurorum, for "sieve", "adroit", "deft", "nimble", "a wraparound cloth (usually worn by women)", "to cover (something or someone)", "to weave". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Saterland Frisian. Rfv-sense: "yearling (cattle)". Maybe a mistranslation of some third language? Couldn't find any evidence for this; SW doesn't give it, neither does any book at Google Books. Thadh (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Since the other meaning is "head of cattle; beef", this could easily be explained as a misreading.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Scottish Gaelic. Per a comment on the talk page. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- 2003, Colin Mark, The Gaelic-English Dictionary: "apragod, -oid, -an nm [noun masculine] apricot"
- As it isn't a WT:WDL (maybe 'member
{{LDL}}
), this could be sufficient for attesting. (It's also older than the WT entry, hence not stupiditly copied from bere.) - Additionally:
- 1883, John Cameron, Gaelic names of plants (Scottish and Irish): "P. [Prunus] armeniaca—Apricot. Gaelic: apricoc. Welsh: bricyllen."
- 1825, R. A. Armstrong, A Gaelic dictionary, in two parts: "Apricot, s. [substantive?] Seorsa meas." [= kind of fruit?]
- 1780, William Shaw, A Galic and English Dictionary. Containing All the Words in the Scotch and Irish Dialects of the Celtic, that ...: "Crann-apricoc. Apricot-tree." & "Apricot. Seorsa meas, ubhal apricoit." [= kind of fruit, apricot apple?]
- There seem to be several spellings around: both Am Faclair Beag and LearnGaelic.scot give both apracot and apricoc, while Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia (which doesn't count as durably archived, I know) gives both abragod and apragot. Three paper dictionaries on my bookshelf all give only apracot. Overall, it looks like most modern dictionaries prefer the spelling apracot, so I'd suggest making that the primary entry and making apragod an
{{alt form of}}
. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Old French. TLFI only mentions epilence for Old French. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging @Widsith who added it in 2008. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Did I!? Not sure where I got it from, but I can see that the OED(2) does cite "Old French epilepsie" as the immediate source of the English word. Ƿidsiþ 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
net (Dutch)
RFV-sense of "television network"; I only know this in either the specific sense "television channel" and the general sense "network", especially used for the Internet. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Rfv-sense Net meaning tv network in not in my VanDale Nederlands Als Tweede Taal (NT2) dictionary.
BUT in both the Netherlands and Belgium there are nationwide tv channels so tv networks are not necessary and do not really exist.
However the American sense of a tv network is sort of applicable to these nationwide channels. — This unsigned comment was added by 72.83.123.223 (talk) at 01:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC).
Dutch. Chiefly in dictionaries, but mentions also dominate in other contexts. A sense akin to "farmhand operating a plough" may be attestable, but this probably isn't. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Dutch, RFV-sense of "The arachnid harvestman". Certainly not easy to cite on BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
organisme (Dutch)
RFV-sense of "a purposeful organisation". Cites of the type found in the WNT seem inadequate to establish a distinct sense, they are just metaphors, because those body metaphors are old as dirt. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to be a actual form in any Mapudungun spelling system (the actual form is probably SoP). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Afrikaans. Rfv-sense
- https://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/models/botter/botter.html Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that the word exists in Dutch (which is, curiously enough, missing as L2). The RfV is, however, specifically for Afrikaans. --Lambiam 22:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- If it can't be attested in Afrikaans, then changing the L2 to Dutch would be preferable to deleting it. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I’ve added a Dutch section. --Lambiam 16:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- If it can't be attested in Afrikaans, then changing the L2 to Dutch would be preferable to deleting it. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that the word exists in Dutch (which is, curiously enough, missing as L2). The RfV is, however, specifically for Afrikaans. --Lambiam 22:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
August 2021
Dutch. Tagged by User:Lingo Bingo Dingo, but not listed — surjection ⟨??
⟩ 08:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- DWB 2 mentions: "mnl. nnl. erbieden". (BTW: Luxemburgish, Ripuarian MHG.) --19:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- WNT has two citations of the verbal noun erbieding from 1642, marking the verb as verouderd (“obsolete”). --Lambiam 08:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was probably curious whether this could be cited as Dutch or as Dutch Low Saxon/Low German, the latter of which corresponds to the local lects in the eastern Netherlands. The er- prefix is also very rare and unproductive in actual Dutch.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Pali. This challenge applies only to the Pali 'timber' word.
It looks as though the entry
- kattha : [adv.] where? || kaṭṭha (pp. of kasati), plouhged; tilled. (nt.) timber; a piece of wood.
in A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera's Concise Pali-English Dictionary (or at least, an on-line version) has been misinterpreted as saying the unretroflexed word has the 'timber' meaning. Note that Lao-script Pali ກັດຖະ (kattha) is not evidence for this spelling; it comes from a writing system that lacks the retroflex consonants. Alerting @Hk5183. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Dutch, really quite rare. One clear attestation of the plural, the other occurrences are rather mentionlike. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Norwegian Bokmål. A word of dubious existence, not listed in any major dictionary, and I was unable to find much about it on Google. Supevan (talk) Supevan (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've added one. There's another one that talks about an ampoule full of "soft fecal matter" (bløde fekalia).__Gamren (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Albanian: Not seeing much useful Wubble You (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Albanian: unicorn Wubble You (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Etimo, FierakuiVërtet, Bolt Escargot, Lumbardhia: Can you find anything for this, or for the two sections immediately below? 70.172.194.25 22:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Albanian: a plant. Not seeing much, apart from Buzëmadhe, a village Wubble You (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Albanian Wubble You (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
German: “(Namibia) girl”. Tagged by 2003:DE:3720:3780:D8DA:FD3B:20F3:E3CD on 29 August, not listed: “(entry gives "female Störchin", and a girl is always female.)” J3133 (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't even know where to start researching Namibian German. I briefly checked a German-language newspaper but they only mentioned the animal (+ semi-paywalled). – Jberkel 21:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- a) Mentionings can be found in dictionaries, like:
- But for German (de) as WDL that's not good enough.
- (Maybe Südwesterdeutsch, also Südwester Deutsch, should be a separate language so that it would be enough? Else possibly most terms in Category:Namibian German would fail an RFV?)
- b) It somewhat also relates to a more general issue with "female ..." in the head of some entries: When a masculine term also refers to things or animal breeds (Japaner (“Japanese car”), Holländer (“Hollander beater”), Bohrer (“drill”), Afghane (“certain dog; type of hashish”)), the "female ..." part makes no sense, is incorrect, confusing (is it Japanerin (“Japanese car owned/driven by a female”)?). Here the question arises if it is Storch (“girl”), Störchin (“girl”), or Storch/Störchin (“girl”)?
- --2003:DE:3720:3733:F84C:4C4E:8FDB:64C9 09:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This is Round 2 relating to History assassination fraud problemတလိုင်း တႆးလႅင်.
I am challenging the meaning 'Tai Laing'; the previous discussion established the meaning as 'Mon', but we are now facing an edit war over the meaning. It's conceivable that the word has had both meanings, but I see no evidence of the meaning 'Tai Laing' being used in Burmese. Moreover, 'Tai Laing' shows every appearance of being an autonym, though I don't know how seriously we should take the claim that they are a branch of the Tai Daeng of Vietnam. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see that the previous discussion established that; the only evidence pasted directly into the thread (by someone who didn't sign their post) was Judson's Burmese-English Dictionary, which has "တလိုင်း, n. a Peguan Talaing, [..]" (a dictionary being enough for a LDL). I've tagged the "Mon" sense with RFV, too, so both senses are now tagged: let there be citations/references added to the entry for whichever one(s) are attested (I added the reference for the Tai Laing sense). - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep 'Mon'. Actually, you added the well-nigh clinching reference for the 'Mon' sense! I can't see which bit of Talaing you didn't understand. I've used the Judson template to link to a later edition of the dictionary. I'm not sure whether to add a mention to complete the definition of Talaing. — This unsigned comment was added by RichardW57 (talk • contribs) at 07:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC).
- It may be worth noting that the Talaing live south of Shan State while the Tai Laing live north of Shan State, in Kachin and points west. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Re "I can't see which bit of Talaing you didn't understand": well, as I don't like to time travel, at the time I commented I c0uldn't see any part of that entry that you created several hours after my comment, but I realize now the Tai Laing and Talaing are distinct. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RichardW57,Did you know that Ta Laingတလိုင်း is a hate speech invented by the extremist Dog Burmese people? the fact that you are trying to express the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း, coined by the extremist Dog Burmese people, is a human animal that encourages extremism, if you are trying to express the Ta Laingတလိုင်း term coined by extremist Burmese people, it means that you are also trying to attack the Mon people. I did not believe that you would become an educated animal, if you are a real human being, you will never ruin someone else's history. The fact that you are now fabricating the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း as Mon just shows that you are an extremist terrorist, do you have strong evidence that the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is Mon? when the Mon people object that the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is not Mon, you are trying to be Mon is an extremist act, have you received a vote from Mon people to describe the term Ta Laing as Mon? Ta Laingတလိုင်း is an objection because is not Mon. Do not show propaganda books published by extremist Dog Burmese people as evidence of Ta Laing terminology, there are many Ta Laingတလိုင်း related propaganda books published by extremist Dog Burmese people. Those who believe in the propaganda Ta Laing book released by extremist Burmese people are ignorant animals, you should collect votes from Mon people to describe the term Ta Laing as Mon, now you are accusing Ta Laingတလိုင်း of being Mon, this is very rude, if you are a real polite person, you should describe Mon as Mon, you are very rude when you now describe Ta Laingတလိုင်း as Mon.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- The issue of this term being offensive and another term being preferred seems like something to resolve by adding the label "(offensive)" or "(now offensive)"; also, we should expand the etymology to note the folk etymological interpretation which has led to it being considered offensive. But apparently the sense does exist (in the past) after all. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised if the term still existed as a way for Burmans to bait Mons. According to WP it still exists in a technical sense for poetry. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- The issue of this term being offensive and another term being preferred seems like something to resolve by adding the label "(offensive)" or "(now offensive)"; also, we should expand the etymology to note the folk etymological interpretation which has led to it being considered offensive. But apparently the sense does exist (in the past) after all. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RichardW57,Did you know that Ta Laingတလိုင်း is a hate speech invented by the extremist Dog Burmese people? the fact that you are trying to express the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း, coined by the extremist Dog Burmese people, is a human animal that encourages extremism, if you are trying to express the Ta Laingတလိုင်း term coined by extremist Burmese people, it means that you are also trying to attack the Mon people. I did not believe that you would become an educated animal, if you are a real human being, you will never ruin someone else's history. The fact that you are now fabricating the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း as Mon just shows that you are an extremist terrorist, do you have strong evidence that the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is Mon? when the Mon people object that the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is not Mon, you are trying to be Mon is an extremist act, have you received a vote from Mon people to describe the term Ta Laing as Mon? Ta Laingတလိုင်း is an objection because is not Mon. Do not show propaganda books published by extremist Dog Burmese people as evidence of Ta Laing terminology, there are many Ta Laingတလိုင်း related propaganda books published by extremist Dog Burmese people. Those who believe in the propaganda Ta Laing book released by extremist Burmese people are ignorant animals, you should collect votes from Mon people to describe the term Ta Laing as Mon, now you are accusing Ta Laingတလိုင်း of being Mon, this is very rude, if you are a real polite person, you should describe Mon as Mon, you are very rude when you now describe Ta Laingတလိုင်း as Mon.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Shans, not just Tai Laing
Dr Intobesa has given a different account in User_talk:RichardW57#Stop trying to lie တလိုင်း. I think we've been misled because of the development of the Burmese digraph "ui". It seems that the Shans and the Mons became allies in a revolt in 1740 and consequently came to share an appellation. If this story is correct (I've verified none of it as yet), then we can even merge the two 'etymologies'. We still need verification for the initial and linking senses of the word under the new explanation, and the 'synonyms' for Etymology 2 need to be checked. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RichardW57, Tai Laing is the spelling of ထႆးလႅင်, there are two types of spelling of Shan people. The Shan people use the spelling of the Shan language vocabulary used in English in two different spelling words, ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆးယႂ်ႇ or ၽႃႇသႃႇထႆးယႂ်ႇ, the spelling of the word ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး was used by the Shan people to mean the whole Shan language. The Burmese people call Thai and Shan is ရှမ်းShan, but in the literature they are divided into Shan, Thai. The Mon people call Thai, Shan, Laos is Siemသေံ, but in the literature they are divided into သေံSiem, သေံဇၞော်Siem Hanok, သေံလဴSiem Lav, see definition below.
- (သေံSiem) definition=Thai
- (သေံဇၞော်Siem Hanok) definition=Shan/ the spelling word Siem Hanok is the same as the Thai spelling ไทยใหญ่Thai Yai.
- (သေံလဴSiem Lav) definition=Laos
The word Tai Laing is probably the pronunciation of ထႆးလႅင်, so it could be Ta Laingတလိုင်း, see also the following explanation for words with the same spelling pronunciation in English, Shan, Thai, Burmese.
- (Shan=ထႆး) (English=Thai) (Thai=ไทย) definition=The (ထႆးThaiไทย) spelling shown here is the same for all pronunciations.
- (Shan=လႅင်) (English=Laing) (Burmese=လိုင်း/example=Ta Laingတလိုင်း) definition=The (လႅင်Laingလိုင်း) spelling shown here is the same for all pronunciations, Shan people can use two spellings ထႆး or တႆး. example=Shan languages can be said to use this ထႆးလႅင် or တႆးလႅင် term, consider the current spelling usage of Shan people in Burma and Shan people in Thailand.
- Shan=(ၽႃႇသႃႇထႆးယႂ်ႇ) English=(Thai Yai language) Thai=(ภาษาไทยใหญ่) definition=(Shan language) explanation=These are the spelling words used by the Shan people in Thailand.
- Shan=(ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆးယႂ်ႇ) English=(Tai Yai language) Thai=(ภาษาไทใหญ่) definition=(Shan language) explanation=These are the spelling words used by the Shan people in Burma. I am a qualified writer in literature, learn the vocabulary spelling that I have explained in detail, I would also like to warn you to avoid accusations that hurt a certain ethnic group on Wiktionary. The Wiktionary is a dictionary website, so only dictionary terms are appropriate, it is totally inappropriate to write accusations that hurt an ethnic group on Wiktionary, thanks.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- And you should be aware of the Shan word တႆးလူင် (I hope I've spelt it right) used for the main Shan group. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding it in Thai or Shan script. The literal Thai transliteration would be ไทยหลวง; the form I encounter in English is 'Tai Long' and I can even find a section of the Tai-Lōng Tipiṭaka. — This unsigned comment was added by RichardW57 (talk • contribs) at 20:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC).
- @RichardW57, The term Tai Laing has nothing to do with the term တႆးလူင် and ไทยหลวง, the correct pronunciation of the word ไทยหลวง is Thai Luang. Similarly, the correct pronunciation of the word တႆးလူင် is Tai Luang, the definitions of တႆးလူင်Tai Luang and ไทยหลวงThai Luang are different, check out the following definitions of တႆးလူင်Tai Luang and ไทยหลวงThai Luang.
- (Thai=ไทยหลวง pronunciation=Thai Luang) (Burmese=ထိုင်းတော်ဝင် pronunciation=Thai Taw Win) (English=Thai royal) (other spelling words=Thai=ราชวงศ์ไทย/Burmese=ထိုင်းတော်ဝင်မိသားစု/English=Thai royal family) (definition=The term ไทยหลวงThai Luang and Rachngs Thaiราชวงศ์ไทย means members of the royal family of the King of Thailand.)
- (Shan=တႆးလူင် pronunciation=Tai Luang) (Burmese=ရှမ်းစော်ဘွား pronunciation=Shan Saw Bwar) (English=Shan royal) (another spelling word in Burmese language=Shan Nang Dwinရှမ်းနန်းတွင်း or ရှမ်းနန်းတွင်းသူShan Nang Dwin Thu) (definition=The term တႆးလူင်Tai Luang refers to the ancient Shan King Family.
The words တႆးလူင်Tai Luang and ไทยหลวงThai Luang have similar pronunciations but different meanings, let me give you another example, only ထႆးလူင် should be used for ไทยหลวงThai Luang spelling, I hope you understand what I have just explained.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's a discussion of the naming of Tai groups at [82]. As I would hope you know, Shan တႆး (tái), Thai ไทย (tai) and ไท (tai), English Thai, Tai and pinyin Dai are all essentially the same word, but to varying degrees specialised to designate specific groups of speakers. In some Tai dialects (I can confirm it for Northern Thai, i.e. the dialect of Lanna), the cognate of Thai หลวง (lǔuang, “high”) has replaced the cognate of Thai ใหญ่ (yài, “big”) as the usual word for 'big'. As the article says on p27 from journal, northern Shans "เรียก พวกตนเองว่า ไทใหญ่ (Tai Yai) หรือ ไทโหลง (Tai Long) โหลงเป็นคําเดียวกับคําว่าหลวง" (call themselves 'Tai Yai' or 'Tai Long'. 'Long' (โหลง is the word corresponding to the [Thai] word หลวง.)
- It would seem that Thais use ไทโหลง because of the royal meaning of ไทหลวง.
- One can also find the Shans' 'Tai Long' autonym spelt ไตโหลง or ไต๊โหลง in Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- What is the "Tai Longတႆးလုင်" you referred to on my user page? --RichardW57 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RichardW57, တႆးလုင်Tai Long is the term တႆးလူင်Tai Luang, the Tai Longတႆးလုင် is a spelling word used by the Khamti people, The တႆးလူင်Tai Luang is a spelling word used by the Shan people.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
Lithuanian. It is in LKZ etc., but I haven't been able to find any citations for actual usage yet, just the Latvian cognate. 70.175.192.217 17:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Aren’t there two quotes in LKZ? They are from the 19th century notably, and back in the day the current Lithuanian orthography was not invented, one rather wrote it like Polish or German, additionally writing Lithuanian in Latin was altogether forbidden in the Russian Empire, so one should seek different spellings. Where are those corpora? Even for Latvian I do not find Cyrillic spellings. Fay Freak (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does have two citations on LKŽ, but they don't even give the specific text as far as I can tell, just the author (although the texts certainly are still archived, somewhere). Is that enough to support its inclusion? I'm not trying to be overly deletionist, I'm just not sure this is a word that's really used. Maybe it should be marked as rare/archaic. As far as the Cyrillic forms, I guess it would be "атпакал", which seems to yield Cyrillicizations of Latvian on Google (but I didn't look hard). I'm not aware of any specific corpus for Lithuanian of that era (one might still exist). All I know are these ones listed by Vytauto Didžiojo Universitetas. 70.175.192.217 01:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- WT:CFI + WT:WDL require three quotes for Lithuanian. --Myrelia (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does have two citations on LKŽ, but they don't even give the specific text as far as I can tell, just the author (although the texts certainly are still archived, somewhere). Is that enough to support its inclusion? I'm not trying to be overly deletionist, I'm just not sure this is a word that's really used. Maybe it should be marked as rare/archaic. As far as the Cyrillic forms, I guess it would be "атпакал", which seems to yield Cyrillicizations of Latvian on Google (but I didn't look hard). I'm not aware of any specific corpus for Lithuanian of that era (one might still exist). All I know are these ones listed by Vytauto Didžiojo Universitetas. 70.175.192.217 01:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Iberian. Existence questioned by User:Arqueolingüística (diff) — surjection ⟨??
⟩ 17:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Horchatamivida as the entry creator — surjection ⟨
??
⟩ 17:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC) - Also note the other Iberian-critcial removals by the same user: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arqueoling%C3%BC%C3%ADstica --Fytcha (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- A brief search found that people do believe there was a word beles (allophone meles) in Iberian. But "the community of editors" (WT:CFI) for the language should decide what references to use. Apparently Hugo Schuchardt had something to say in addition to the links on the Wikipedia page. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- According with Jürgen Untermann, this is a Kurzname known from the Turma Salluitana. He discusses (p. 597-307, Spanish) his use as a component of Vollnamen. According with Luís Silgo, Schuchardt proposed the relation of Aquitanian Belex and Iberian beleś with Basque belatx (currently spelled belatz "falcon"), and he points that the relation with beltz (“black”) is possible but unsure as a proper name. Vriullop (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- The question is if it's actually directly attested anywhere, such as in an inscription. If there's good reason to believe it existed, but it isn't actually attested in a text, it needs to be moved to Reconstruction: space. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- According with Jürgen Untermann, this is a Kurzname known from the Turma Salluitana. He discusses (p. 597-307, Spanish) his use as a component of Vollnamen. According with Luís Silgo, Schuchardt proposed the relation of Aquitanian Belex and Iberian beleś with Basque belatx (currently spelled belatz "falcon"), and he points that the relation with beltz (“black”) is possible but unsure as a proper name. Vriullop (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Lithuanian. Etymology 2. LKŽ provides the definition, but no usage examples or citations. 70.175.192.217 19:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Dutch. I respectfully request verification of Etymology 2, sense 2, “to preview”, which is not found in any of my NL–EN dictionaries. (For sense 1, the object of the transitive verb appears to pertain invariably to documents, especially official ones.) --Lambiam 22:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Etymology 2 is Dutch-Dutch and non-existent in Belgian-Dutch. In any case, I couldn't find any sources supporting sense 2 (only sense 1). Morgengave (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
German. Several results at Google Books for Maylander either were foreign (English) or had in fact Mayländer (or pedantic Maylaͤnder) in it, usually as a common noun. --Myrelia (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
German. Never heard this one. As far as I know, promovieren is strictly related to a doctorate degree, but the linked sense is clearly more general/broad. Duden, pons, DWDS and de.wikt also don't make any mention of this sense. In case this RFV fails, also remove the translation in promote. --Fytcha (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- The transitive use occurs in the traditional formula conferring the degree, as seen here: „Auf Grund der von Sr. kaiserlichen und apostolisch königlichen Majestät der kön. ung. Tierärztlichen Hochschule allergnädigst gewährten Ermächtigung promoviere ich Sie im Namen des Professorenkörpers dieser Hochschule zum Doktor der veterinärmedizinischen Wissenschaften.“ [83] Here is a more recent, less formal use: ‚Schließen Sie Ihr Studium ab. Dann promoviere ich Sie.‘ [84] --Lambiam 15:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- In both quotes, the verb is used in its third sense: to confer a doctorate. Fytcha (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which was, I guess, the intended meaning of sense 1, the only transitive sense listed before you added this third sense. This supposition of mine is supported by the label (education). However, in the second use I cited, it is not fully clear that the promotion is to an academic degree. --Lambiam 09:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oh you're right, it is a possibility that this was the intended meaning of sense 1 by the previous editor. To me they are so semantically different (the English explanations, that is) that I didn't think this was what was intended but I can see the connection now.
- The context makes it clear that the second use you've cited is also about an academic degree:
- Was hat Sie dazu bewogen, die Professorinnen-Laufbahn einzuschlagen? - Die Initialzündung dazu hat ein Professor gegeben. Der hat mir noch während des Studiums gesagt: ‚Schließen Sie Ihr Studium ab. Dann promoviere ich Sie.‘ ― What has motivated you to opt for the career path as a professor? - The first impetus was given to me by a professor. Still in my studies he told me: 'Finish your studies. Then I am going to promovieren you.' Fytcha (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- But a professor does not have the power to confer a degree by themselves. The intention may have been, “I’ll be happy to be your PhD adviser”, presumably including an offer of a paid position as doctoral student. Used as such it would be – IMO – an abuse of terminology. --Lambiam 09:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which was, I guess, the intended meaning of sense 1, the only transitive sense listed before you added this third sense. This supposition of mine is supported by the label (education). However, in the second use I cited, it is not fully clear that the promotion is to an academic degree. --Lambiam 09:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- In both quotes, the verb is used in its third sense: to confer a doctorate. Fytcha (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously this was used in the 16–18th centuries just like in Latin, from which the doctorate senses are only particular applications. If you only look at de.Wiktionary, there are three old quotes. Maybe regard less what you have heard and more what was heard in former centuries? I find this usage very natural, however the gloss is wrong, I don’t know what they mean with “promote”, one shouldn’t gloss with just one word or anyone thinks of it what he wants to think of it, it’s actually no meaning at all but an “etymological equivalent”. Fay Freak (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- The sense that I have submitted to RfV is not labeled as (dated) or something comparable, neither is the translation provided in promote that I've made mention of. I find it absurd that you suggest me to regard more what was heard in former centuries when the discussion circles around the modern form of the language. Moreover, I don't think there was anything on my part to explain your gruff tone towards me. Fytcha (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Fytcha: You are right, as I said it is badly glossed and labelled, but editors often do not know if something is really not used now and only whether it has been used at all, so you should expect obsolete senses not labelled obsolete, but really, it is kind of easy pickings to conclude that back in the day – in the Baroque style Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft fought against – people just used any sense of the Latin word and then the doctorate sense developed, not just borrowed from Latin discourse. Fay Freak (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- The sense that I have submitted to RfV is not labeled as (dated) or something comparable, neither is the translation provided in promote that I've made mention of. I find it absurd that you suggest me to regard more what was heard in former centuries when the discussion circles around the modern form of the language. Moreover, I don't think there was anything on my part to explain your gruff tone towards me. Fytcha (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- BTW: The examples at de:promovieren are misquoted.
- de.wp: "ein subsidium oder hilff [...] zulassen" – source: "ein ſubſidium oder hilff [...] zůlaſſen" – the Latinate term is set in another front and in zů- there's an small o above the u.
- de.wp: "Bruderschaffe S. Jofephs" – source: "Bruderſchafft S. Joſephs" or simplified "Bruderschafft S. Josephs" – with Bruderschafft (cp. Bruderschaft) and Joseph.
- --Myrelia (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- BTW why don’t you correct the typos, as it is a wiki? You have looked into the scans, so do it. Antiqua in Fraktur though is of course hard to mimick, and no grounds to exclude words, as many words which we needs include, or all wälsch words, were written this way.
- Do not forget to search promoviren for quotes, guys, as this is how the ending used to be written before 1900. Fay Freak (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Sudovian. 'Pogańske gwary z Narewu' has Sudovian duo = Polish dwa. Not sure where 'dvai' came from. It's included in some webpages though, e.g. [85]. Is that enough? 70.175.192.217 16:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Feminine? (like Lithuanian du vs dvi) Thadh (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's absolutely possible that this form could exist, especially considering Old Prussian dwai, but I'm not sure where it could possibly be attested. Sudovian is mostly known through one iffy second-hand glossary (Narew) that omits this word and through reconstructions based on toponymy (I'd love to know the source for this, if one exists). The source I linked above that has "dvai" also has "astônei" for eight, which is a lot closer to what you'd expect based on other Baltic forms than the Narew form aktiʃ (which looks more like acht, or some funky sound changes and/or transcription errors occurred). 70.175.192.217 06:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- I just realized that this could also be somewhere in the works of Hieronimus Meletius. I'm not sure if they're digitized at all, but maybe some source mentions it second hand at least. 70.175.192.217 06:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Various Prussian terms
In Prussian, there is *skārstis (attested form: starstis), which means 'tin', and alwis, which means 'lead'. I'm not convinced there's any attestation of a word like *ālaws with the meaning 'tin'. 70.175.192.217 00:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I guess, Vytautniks added constructed Neo-Prussian. Compare with: User talk:Beobach972#Old Prussian. --Myrelia (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Huh, actually, there is a word "elwas" - Zinnerz (tin ore) mentioned in the page I cited above. But that's still not ālaws. 70.175.192.217 01:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see it. --Myrelia (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's here: [86], tr. "In addition to Pr. alwis, Pr. elwas "Zinnerz" is known". There's still a significant difference between elwas and ālaws though (the vowel 'a' is not between the 'l' and 'w'). 70.175.192.217 01:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's: "pr. elwas „Zinnerz“ (Ziesemer PW I 103)". Ziesemer's work is a Prussian (Germanic; not Old Prussian) dictionary, and at least parts of it were released earlier than 1975 (in Lieferungen). Questions: Is elwas really Old Prussian? Is it attested or reconstructed? If attested: Where? Nesselmann doesn't (seem to?) have it. --Myrelia (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's here: [86], tr. "In addition to Pr. alwis, Pr. elwas "Zinnerz" is known". There's still a significant difference between elwas and ālaws though (the vowel 'a' is not between the 'l' and 'w'). 70.175.192.217 01:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see it. --Myrelia (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Huh, actually, there is a word "elwas" - Zinnerz (tin ore) mentioned in the page I cited above. But that's still not ālaws. 70.175.192.217 01:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Prussian. Nesselmann's Thesaurus linguae prussicae has: "smûni, Person, Ench. 62: niaina endirisna steison smûni, kein Ansehen der Person, wo smûni wohl Drckf. für smûnin, Accusativform hinter dem Gen. des Pronomens steison, ist [...]". --Myrelia (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Mažiulis also has smūni, no mention of a form with a Z other than normalized/reconstructed forms. 70.175.192.217 02:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Normalized ≠ reconstructed. You just quoted the word. But the page should continue to be and bear
{{normalized}}
, perhaps soft-redirecting to the manuscript form, so people find something in the dictionary when searching either. Fay Freak (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)- Except there's no unique normalization of Old Prussian. Every author has their own system and orthography (e.g., the related word smoy has various normalized forms: "zmōi", "zmōi̯", "zmūi" ([87]). abasus has variously "abazs", "abazzus" ([88]). And so on.
- The fact remains that there is no form of this word starting with 'z' that ever appeared in a manuscript. Should every normalized form that any linguist has written be considered valid? To be honest, I personally wouldn't mind listing normalized forms somehow, or reconstructions even (in the case where e.g. the nominative is not attested), as long as it was handled in a clear and consistent manner, but the current situation is a real mess. 70.175.192.217 23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Normalized ≠ reconstructed. You just quoted the word. But the page should continue to be and bear
Prussian. Nesselmann has only "druwi f., druwis m. nom. (Kat. I. dröffs), druwien, acc. (Kat. II. druwin als nom. gebraucht), der Glaube. Ench. [...]". --Myrelia (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need both capitalizations of the word anyway, it's the same word. I think we should move drūwis to druwis, and delete this (unless there's a good reason to consider the capitalizations separate words). 70.175.192.217 01:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Deletion would be fine for me as well. I thought that RfV is easier and would more likely result in deletion: no discussion needed, just a bit time as it's not attested with macron. --Myrelia (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Prussian. Because:
- IMHO it's somewhat dubious that this attested in Old Prussian - most Old Prussian literature is Christian, and reports about the Old Prussian were for example in Latin (Johannes Maeletius/Meletius/Maletius).
- Rainer Eckert, Zum Analytismus in den baltischen Sprachen, p. 399, in: 2004, Eurolinguistische Arbeiten: Die europäischen Sprachen auf dem Wege zum analytischen Sprachtyp. Herausgegeben von Uwe Hinrichs unter Mitarbeit von Uwe Büttner, Wiesbaden, p. 399ff.:
- ... Präfix ucka- ... Occopirmus 'Saturnus' (1530 Agenda Ecclesiastica) bzw. Occopirnus 'deus coeli et terrae' (Maletius) = *Ukapirmas 'der Allererste' ...
--Myrelia (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Prussian. It's abasus, assaran, alwis, suge, aglo, bucus, dangus, dagis, gelso, genno, rikis, scalus, sunis, smoy (Elbing Vocabulary, Nesselmann's Thesaurus linguae prussicae).
- With z instead of s (abazzus, azzaran, gelza vs. abasus, assaran, gelso) it looks like (re-)construction.
- Macrons, albeit present in one Old Prussian source, are questionable.
- Vytautniks and Beobach972 (cp. User talk:Beobach972#Old Prussian) seem to have added reconstructed Old Prussian or constructed Neo-Prussian. Similar in diff which gives as source: Vytautas Mažiulis, cp. Old Prussian language#Revitalization.
--Myrelia (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Myrelia You've tagged some of these for speedy deletion. You should remove those templates while this RFV discussion is open. Ultimateria (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Have I? I don't think so.
{{d}}
should only be there for some bad redirects (WT:Redirections#Unacceptable uses). --Myrelia (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)- @Myrelia: My mistake, I didn't realize there was an older discussion on this page linking to Old Prussian entries. I've taken care of those redirects. Ultimateria (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Have I? I don't think so.
Prussian. Because:
- Elbing Vocabulary has "Bene Bitte", "Hu͡mele Camus", cp. camus -- by shape this looks like an alteration of camus, like reconstructed Old Prussian or constructed Neo-Prussian.
- not in Nesselmann
--Myrelia (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. 70.172.194.25 19:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. Rfv-sense: "provision". I wonder if that definition ever exists.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Esperanto; is the proper noun (“Google”) used uncapitalized? J3133 (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- That section should probably be reduced to something like:
- with the etymology: From the verb gugli (“to google”), from Guglo (“Google”). Perhaps someone saw it translated as "google" and didn't realize the distinction. — 69.120.66.131 21:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The given sources are Latin or Greek and have bricumum, βρικίνη (with variants), briginus, none of them has briginos. Thus it's *briginos, reconstructed from Latin/Greek "deformations". Compare how it's also Vandalic eils with alternative form *heils. --Myrelia (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is not *briginos, this is briginos. Scholars use to not put a star in front of this term, you are just abusing the terms “reconstructed” and “attested”.
- The given sources being Latin or Greek does not hinder anything, since languages can be attested from mentions. It is no difference whether I put the Latin or Greek texts as collapsible “quotes” or mere ”citations” in a reference section, but the former is more customary for ancient works; yourself you just put Latin quotes in Vandalic entries and German in Old Prussian and the like.
- The exact form is also attested, in the third quote. briginos, written briginus because the author identified the Gaulish ending with the Latin ending, but this does not make it Latin, the quote literally says it is Gaulish. And it is well known that sometimes an exact lemma form is not attested but only “a deformation”, also known as inflection.
- Therefore, this RFV is dismissed.
- It is also dismissed as abusive and futile since we know well that these are all quotes that exist for this word. All quotes are given. Fay Freak (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Quotes are given, but again: none has briginos. Attested are only briginus etc. (By the quote, βρικίνη however could rather be a Greek than a Gaulish term.) Compare with Vandalic eils vs. *heils, and e.g. Old Prussian wolistian (attested) vs. *āzistin (M. Klussis' (re-)construction), *vɔ̄zistʹan (V. Mažiulis' (re-)construction). --Myrelia (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- No conclusion is made from your comparisons.
- The templates rely on the -os ending.
- The third quote has briginos, as it has briginus. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why this antic anyway of moving to the reconstruction space if it is attested? Something mindboggling for you: The word is attested, but none of its forms are. But the forms of a word do not need to be attested all. None need to be. I have attested the term. This is as much as the CFI require. Fay Freak (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wort – Text – Sprache und Kultur has "Gall. *briginos/briginom war mithin schlicht die 'kräftige (i. S. v. sehr wirksame) Pflanze'", with star and two reconstructed forms, and here scholars too use a star. Mithridate / Mithridates (1555) has "Cf. [source], s.v. bricumos, briginos ? «armoise»", with a question mark.
- And BTW: I haven't put any Latin quote in a Vandalic entry. Also not in Old Prussian (Elbing Vocabulary which I cited is in Middle High German and Old Prussian). --Myrelia (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- You are just citing friends who are also unsure how to use the star. Simultaneously you refer to one source which lacks the star, so you see that it is not necessary, only your personal preference. Under some convention the star would be put after the term. On the other hand, often people do not even exactly know how a term is attested, therefore they star forms just to be cautious, without having sighted the loci. But this then does not even tell us whether the term or form is attested, in their view.
- Still you dodge the fact that the CFI do not require particular forms nor spellings to be attested, only terms.
- The term linked in the title is attested, quoted. The form is too, we can well claim. Fay Freak (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- “Attested”, not in the Latin quotation, but in the English translation supplied by you. Is your strike-through of the heading, as if the issue has been resolved other than by a shouting match, not somewhat out-of-process? --Lambiam 19:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: How pedantic do you want to be? It is attested in the Latin quotation. Lemma-forms aren’t even attested always, what if it is e.g. in the plural or genitive? The lemma form would not be a reconstruction. From this derives the rule that we can disregard the inflectional part. And in the genitive the ending in Latin and Gaulish is the same, isn’t it too arbitrary to assume that then there is no “deformation”? But it is still not Latin in any case, whichever form is chosen, there is no evidence for it being Latin but for it being Gaulish. It literally says, “the Gauls call it briginos”, exactly this form, and not “the Gauls when speaking Latin”, the most natural interpretation in this glossary. If a Latin reader in antiquity reads “the Gauls call it briginus it is implied that the ending there is a wee bit different, as quotation practice was not like today. For antiquity standards this is how one has to abstract from the details, the intended meaning of the text. The text behind the text. It says that. Textual witnesses aren’t in that good a state either. Have you looked how the Punic in Poenulus is attested? It’s a forest of gibberish through which you have to look through to see the trees, it may be even up to the point of a small inexactness the author himself smuggled into the first text(s). A variant reading is not a reconstruction. And it would be an exaggeration to speak of a conjecture, emendation or reconstruction here. That man has no sense of proportion.
- The request was out of process from the beginning since all attestations were given, something else is requested … Fay Freak (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- “Attested”, not in the Latin quotation, but in the English translation supplied by you. Is your strike-through of the heading, as if the issue has been resolved other than by a shouting match, not somewhat out-of-process? --Lambiam 19:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Quotes are given, but again: none has briginos. Attested are only briginus etc. (By the quote, βρικίνη however could rather be a Greek than a Gaulish term.) Compare with Vandalic eils vs. *heils, and e.g. Old Prussian wolistian (attested) vs. *āzistin (M. Klussis' (re-)construction), *vɔ̄zistʹan (V. Mažiulis' (re-)construction). --Myrelia (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Move to reconstruction namespace. FWIW, kids throwing a tantrum can be ignored in our discussions. Akletos (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- It is a simple test to decide whether a word goes to the mainspace or reconstructed space: Is it attested? This word is, it has (even three) quotes for it, so it is situated in the mainspace. Only kids that blow their tops when they don’t get everything they want try to bend the rules and make representations when they face some edge that diverts them from furnishing their dollhouse. Fay Freak (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Tagalog. Hi, RFV for Gng, since as far as I know, the correct form of this is Gng., with a period, since this is an abbreviation. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021
This is given as an Assamese word in the Ahom script. A literal translation of the word would be [i]oṃrīta[/i]. As we do not list Ahom as a script of Assamese, I believe such an entry needs to connect to an attestation. Unsurprisingly, Google finds nothing but clones of Wiktionary - it takes time for text to appear in Unicode. As @Msasag added the spelling, I hope he can oblige us with such a connection. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- “As we do not list Ahom as a script of Assamese” → non sequitur. We do not list all every scripts in which a language has been written. If I assess that Ahom script was used for Assamese – which on first glance makes much sense but we also have Middle Assamese, so perhaps it does not apply to the present chronolect – I may just add it, and your argument vanishes utterly into thin air. (And then, as you yourself seem to acknowledge, by Pali experience, we don’t always seek an attestation for a word in every script, but I say this as others do not realize this situation.)
- But no less we want to know from Msasag how or from where he gets these spellings, to assess the situation. Fay Freak (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Afrikaans. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- presumably one word. Sadly, Afrikaans is an HDL and this quote isn't sufficient for an entry. Also, doesn't really help this RFV... Thadh (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Vandalic. I doubt this is attested in Vandalic language, and instead it's a Latinisation of a Vandalic name found in Latin sources, with -um being the Latin accusative ending (Hydatius/Idatius: Chronicon). It's similar to how there are Vandalic *Gaisarīx (unattested/reconstructed), Latin Gaisericus/Geisericus (attested in Latin, and inflected in the Latin way), English Gaiseric (attested in English). --Myrelia (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Vandalic. Similar. Source is Latin, and has (for example?):
- Epithalamium Fridi [title]
- ...: liceat Frido seruire marito, ...
--Myrelia (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Vandalic. Similar. Source is Latin, and has (in: II, 15) Heldicae, Heldicam. --Myrelia (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Scottish Gaelic. Rfv-sense: "plural of soillse"; Both Mark (2003) and LearnGaelic argue that soillse is invariable. Thadh (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Old Saxon. I can only find mentions of Old Saxon regera, which is an alt-form listed on this page, and none for the entry headform. Nearest I can find conclusively is OHG reigara. Leasnam (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
December 2021
Arabic. Rfv-sense "the prophet Muhammad". This is part of the exegetical interpretation, but does anyone actually refer to Muhammad by this name? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- For some background, see Ta-Ha. The name is not included in the many names of the prophet Muhammed. --Lambiam 18:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Dutch. Rfv-sense, removed in diff. (Notifying Rua, Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Azertus, Alexis Jazz, DrJos): —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 07:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- [89], [90], [91], [92] all meaning Dutch. See also the name "Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk". Thadh (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Svartava, no idea. @Rua: any comment as you added it? [93] and [94]. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Here's some more, including one in which it refers to Afrikaans: [95], [96], [97], [98]. This seems obvious enough. —Rua (mew) 19:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thadh, Alexis Jazz, Rua, can anyone add the citations in the entry under the sense "(obsolete) Any continental West Germanic language that is neither High German nor Frisian, thus including Dutch as well as Low German"? —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 13:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Here's some more, including one in which it refers to Afrikaans: [95], [96], [97], [98]. This seems obvious enough. —Rua (mew) 19:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Vietnamese. Rfv-sense "(slang) the police". Tagged by Special:Contributions/2405:4800:529f:7c5b:9d30:7682:67c5:4ba but not listed (diff). Compare also the ongoing RFD: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#anh_hai --Fytcha (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Is this really an Ancient Greek suffix? 1. re: The definition of the term "suffix": It's not attached to the stem (or another analysable morphological entity), but the outcome of regular sound change involving the closing consonant + a suffix -jō (or of a surface filter operating for a longer period of time; I don't know if this would make any difference). 2. re: Its productivity in Ancient Greek: Can it be shown that there are words formed with -σσω in Ancient Greek rather than in one of its pre-stages? There are candidates for this in the "Derived terms" section (e.g. φαρμάσσω, ἱμάσσω). --Akletos (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think this not a suffix, just like -ssus in Latin fissus is not a suffix but the result of a phonological process at play in fi(n)d- + -tus. If this is deleted, the same fate should befall -ζω (-zō), -λλω (-llō), -πτω (-ptō) and -ττω (-ttō). --Lambiam 10:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam @Erutuon Perhaps the content of these entries can at least in part be transferred to Category:Ancient Greek verbs with a progressive iota or yod marker (and the cat. be renamed?). Akletos (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Indonesian. Moved to RFV from an RFD: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#bomba --Fytcha (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also copying over the rationale of the original poster:
The word is almost never used in Indonesian. ind_mixed_2013 corpus from Leipzig did "attest" the word but keep in mind that the corpus is mixed with Malay, but if it's not a Malay word then the word is a proper noun or not widespread enough.
News corpora didn't show anything.
Mahali syarifuddin (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Arabic. Basion --2A02:9B0:4058:6BC1:340C:D9E7:B447:F669 13:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if it is an Old Tupi term or a Nheengatu one. --TongcyDai (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- The use of circumflex on vowels is an Old Tupi feature, developed by Antônio Lemos Barbosa (much after Old Tupi became extinct) and used by Eduardo de Almeida Navarro on his grammar book. So, it’s certainly not a Nheengatu term. Pindorama is also not attested on Tupi literature; we don’t know how Tupi people called the land they lived in, just as we don’t know how they called their own language, even though some people coinned the term abá nhe’enga inspired by Guarani avañe’ê. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:A0F0:57F0:E533:C63F 14:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Passive participles, nominal passive participles and adverbial passive participles of videbli
Esperanto. If the verb is intransitive, these forms should not exist. --TongcyDai (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, these forms are incorrect and meaningless. Mutichou (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Albanian. IP marked it for speedy (Br00pVain). —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 06:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Lumbardhia, Bolt Escargot, Etimo any thoughts? Thadh (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- according to the online lexicons: http://m.fjalori.shkenca.org/, https://fjale.al/brinar, and https://fjalorthi.com/brinar, brinar is an accepted word for a cuckold in the albanian lexicography. seems to be derived from the word bri (brinë in Gheg), a euphemism for a woman donning "horns" for her husband. Lumbardhia (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Does not meet criteria for inclusion: is a numeric consisting of two words more than 100. --Jarash (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Jarash: Should be sent to WT:RFDN. Fytcha (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- There're also six thousand, nine thousand, níu þúsund - they show the correct spelling (with space or not?) and the formation (9 * 1000, not 90 * 100). --05:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think maybe the inclusion criteria for numbers are a bit too restrictive. I'm pretty sure we used to make exceptions for numbers above 100 that were sufficiently "interesting". Obviously that is in the eye of the beholder but 10,000 seems it should qualify. Cf. Russian де́сять ты́сяч (désjatʹ týsjač), which also exists (and given the complexity of Russian numbers, should arguably exist to help users correctly decline the number and its complement, if any). BTW English ten thousand qualifies regardless as it is a translation hub. Benwing2 (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- There're also six thousand, nine thousand, níu þúsund - they show the correct spelling (with space or not?) and the formation (9 * 1000, not 90 * 100). --05:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
Moved from RFD. Reason for deletion: English term of the already existent Tagalog "ladya" and "raha". --Fytcha (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Following some mild edit warring in astronaut, I've went ahead and created this article so I can RFV it. Pinging @İtidal, MhmtÖ, 123snake45. --Fytcha (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I just realized this should probably have been uçurucu. So just a
{{misspelling of}}
? On the same note, what about fezagir? That one has also been the target of edit warring. --Fytcha (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)- Turkish has both a suffix -ci and a variant -ici. The latter is attached to the stem of causative verbs (anlatıcı, canlandırıcı, çökertici, parlatıcı, sağaltıcı, uyuşturucu), and tends to form words that are primarily adjectives, so the neologism uçurcu is IMO more plausible than uçurucu. The suffix -ci is usually attached to a noun, though, and although the participle uçur can grammatically be used as a noun, it is not in actual use as such. (Compare the words çıkarcı and dönerci, in which the first component is a participle that has an independent existence as a noun.) As to fezagir, one of the ambitions of President Erdoğan is to send a Turk into space to kick off the Turkish National Space Program, and wouldn’t it be nice if they then could refer to this space voyager with an ur-Turkic term, instead of one with (blech) Greek roots. At the end of a lengthy speech, in which he revealed that astronomy and trigonometry had been invented by Turks, Erdoğan said: “Since a compatriot of ours will enter space, it is now necessary to find a Turkish counterpart for the words ‘astronaut’ or ‘cosmonaut’. From here, I call on our linguists and say, come, let us find a Turkish name for Turkish space travelers. Let our 83 million citizens too participate with their original ideas in this quest.”[99] This led to many suggestions, such as semanot, göknot, gökoğul, gökbey, evrenot, gökalp and cacabey.[100] Serdar Hüseyin Yıldırım, the administrator of the Turkish Space Agency, proposed the term fezagir.[101] That is, as far as I see, the status of fezagir on sources we accept for attestation: mentions as a proposal for a neologism. --Lambiam 17:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- when i saw the "uçurcu" i thought it was an ungrammatical form of uçurucu, neither of them used for astronaut nor meaningful so i undid the edit. Then i learned that the translation dictionary of Pamukkale University does have the words "uçur" and "uçurcu". I dont know how does "uçur" means "universe, space" (aorist of uçmak which is intransitive of "to fly" is uçar "he/she/it does fly, something that flies") or where did they found the word but both of the words doesnt exist in the offical dictionary.
- As for fezagir, Lambiam wrote how it came up, they probably took the word from Uzbek and proposed but nobody uses it as much as i know. MhmtÖ (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- How do we label Turkish words proposed as replacements for foreign borrowings, used three times per CFI, but not in common use? I don't like nonstandard here because some of the words were proposed by a government committee to create and possibly enforce a language standard. I would not be surprised to find some newspapers did use the government's proposals; at least one newspaper published periodic lists of coinages saying they would henceforth use them to replace Ottoman words. Yet most of those words did not enter common use. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Tagged as speedy here by User:Optional. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Old English (“prefix used at the beginning of numerals from 70 to 120 / hundseofonta ― decade seventh”); tagged by Glésan on 15 March, not listed: “Can the second sense be verified? What is the source of hundseofonta?”. J3133 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
German; tagged by LinguisticMystic today, not listed: “Are you sure that it is a legit German word? I couldn't find it in any reference books.” J3133 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- After a fairly involved search the only thing I could turn up was a mention in this journal, but it's glossing the same quotation from Steiner ("Das Kind wird dann zum Rixen, ein österreichischer Ausdruck für einen langaufgeschossenen, mageren Menschen"). Otherwise it's just scan errors for Nixe, or Rixen as a surname (or brand derived from a surname). If it was still in use in Austria I'd expect to see some evidence of it online. Inclined to say RFV-failed but might be good to get an opinion from a native German-speaker: @Jberkel, Fytcha? (Actually I see this was also discussed under rixig below, and it doesn't seem like there's been any movement since. The rixig citation is also from the same source by Steiner.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Skunkassociation: Are you familiar with this term? I have first hand experience with the disparity between widespread spoken use and attestation (cf. #häsch_du_morn_scho_öppis_vor) but if it is used neither in print nor in speech, deletion appears to be the only pathway. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, I'm not familiar with this term. It's probably obsolete. It might be worth a try to search for spelling variations, e.g. Rigse, Rigsn, Richse, Richsn, etc., or changing i to e. -- Addendum: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/search?query=all%3Arixen&startPage=10 Skunkassociation (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Skunkassociation: Are you familiar with this term? I have first hand experience with the disparity between widespread spoken use and attestation (cf. #häsch_du_morn_scho_öppis_vor) but if it is used neither in print nor in speech, deletion appears to be the only pathway. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
German; tagged by LinguisticMystic today, not listed. J3133 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Hamaryns as the creator.
- (Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): I'm not finding anything at all. Anyone want to have a go at it before I close it as failed? Pretty funny that they have both been FWotD; Category:Words of the day that were later deleted. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is a Österreichisches Wörterbuch, but it is behind a paywall. – Jberkel 10:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is a Duden-measure dictionary, apart from it not containing quotations, why would one expect anything interesting there? They are marketing scams from which there is nothing good to expect, all the regard they have they get for regulatory capture. Very naïve to expect that all words that exist one can also find at least mentioned somewhere. Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd expect Austrian-specific terms to be in there, for a start. But maybe I'm hopelessly naïve. – Jberkel 11:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not everything labelled “Austria” is “General Austrian”. There is a lot that has only been fashionable for a certain time and only in the capital, Vienna being the capital of one of the greatest Empires, or even in territories lost to Austria. And of course they slight the recent monarchic past to focus on more progressive vocabulary. Fay Freak (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd expect Austrian-specific terms to be in there, for a start. But maybe I'm hopelessly naïve. – Jberkel 11:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is a Duden-measure dictionary, apart from it not containing quotations, why would one expect anything interesting there? They are marketing scams from which there is nothing good to expect, all the regard they have they get for regulatory capture. Very naïve to expect that all words that exist one can also find at least mentioned somewhere. Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is a Czech-Slovak corpus including Austro-Hungarian parliamentary debates, which is so deep in the deep web that search engines fail to show words from its texts, such as honigeln = Honig ums Maul schmieren 1902-07-21 also employed by Robert Musil, as a reader found. Search engines are fibbing, but I don’t know how. Do you find where the full text search for the database is, @Fytcha, finding results even for normal German words? Fay Freak (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: That page can potentially be crawled and then indexed offline, but I'm not finding anything online to search it. FYI the reason why you can't search it isn't because search engines are fibbing but rather because the site admin explicitly disallowed it: robots.txt (last line:
Disallow: /eknih
). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)- Is the reason to do so not that they have an own full-text search which I just failed to fathom behind all the tools on the site? I mean why does one exclude if the purpose of the website is to make texts accessible? Too bad I am not a search engine spammer using “bad bots” infamous to ignore robots.txt (Majestic-12?) to best find language material. Fay Freak (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: That page can potentially be crawled and then indexed offline, but I'm not finding anything online to search it. FYI the reason why you can't search it isn't because search engines are fibbing but rather because the site admin explicitly disallowed it: robots.txt (last line:
- Rixe and rixig each have one citation, but German is a WDL so they need 3. If they get deleted, don't forget to move the cites to Citation: namespace first, please! —Mahāgaja · talk 11:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Probably was not only used by Steiner though, but the internet is slanted, as in the example above, so it has the three uses in permanently recorded three independent instances, which we don’t find. Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: Perhaps it can be converted to Bavarian if we are reasonably sure that the German term is a borrowing from Bavarian. The quote is of course undoubtedly German but the term has to have come from somewhere; to give a comparable case, Bünzli is obviously borrowed from Alemannic for morphological reasons but even if the Alemannic one cannot be cited, it should be created and retained as long as we can cite it in German. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is a Österreichisches Wörterbuch, but it is behind a paywall. – Jberkel 10:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Northern Kurdish: bird - nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Northern Kurdish: nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Try looking for inflected forms like senemî. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- This appears, in Arabic script with French transliteration, on page 270 of the 1879 Dictionnaire kurde-français[102]: "صنم, sanám, idole". Per LDL rules the Northern Kurdish editing community should decide which sources are acceptable. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Northern Kurdish: nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Northern Kurdish: nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Central Kurdish: nothing at ku.wikipedia or anything that isn't auto-translation site Br00pVain (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Page 441 of the 1879 Dictionnaire kurde-français[103] has "هردایم her-dàim, toujors". This is likely a more northern dialect, the dictionary being prepared largely in eastern Anatolia. A modern Northern Kurdish dictionary has her dem. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Might be archaic but I would like to see evidence that it's not made up. --Optional (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Removed out of process (diff). @Msasag as the editor who added that (diff). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@TagaSanPedroAko The English entry of this exists because it has a figurative meaning, while I think in Tagalog it's just the literal meaning, which makes this entry SOP. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser I can't answer this straightforward, but it's hard to tell if an loan translation of an English term is SOP. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @TagaSanPedroAko: It's pretty simple. If the only definition of "isang daang porsyento" is "one hundred percent", then that's SOP. If you look at the entry one hundred percent, it's referring to the figurative meanings of the term. And also, it's not a loan translation. It's just Tagalog. We didn't need English to enter the Philippines for us to get "isang daang porsyento". We got "porsyento" or "porsiyento" from Spanish. And 100% or "cien porciento" is just "isang daang porsiyento" in Tagalog, similar to if we replace "isang daan" with any other number. If we need "isang daang porsyento" as an entry to know that that's 100% in Tagalog, then we also need "limampung porsiyento", "sampung porsiyento", and "limang porsiyento". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser I'll be find with that, but have you found any attestation that follows the English's figurative sense? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @TagaSanPedroAko: Technically, I see some, but all of them are translations of English books into Tagalog, where probably the translator just translated word-for-word, giving us this scenario of "isang daang porsiyento" being used with the same figurative meaning as the English phrase. But I can't find any independent usage from that. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser I'll be find with that, but have you found any attestation that follows the English's figurative sense? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @TagaSanPedroAko: It's pretty simple. If the only definition of "isang daang porsyento" is "one hundred percent", then that's SOP. If you look at the entry one hundred percent, it's referring to the figurative meanings of the term. And also, it's not a loan translation. It's just Tagalog. We didn't need English to enter the Philippines for us to get "isang daang porsyento". We got "porsyento" or "porsiyento" from Spanish. And 100% or "cien porciento" is just "isang daang porsiyento" in Tagalog, similar to if we replace "isang daan" with any other number. If we need "isang daang porsyento" as an entry to know that that's 100% in Tagalog, then we also need "limampung porsiyento", "sampung porsiyento", and "limang porsiyento". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Malay. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Malay. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't find this word on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade, or ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Added here by User:Drago. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Moved over from RFD (diff by User:Llusiduonbach): Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#fflwyr — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@TagaSanPedroAko Looking for attestation of this definition. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser I'll be fine removing sense in question, but how would you translate this sentence: "Maputi ka pa di ka tulad ng mga kaklase mong iskul-bukol." Is iskul-bukol here slow learner, or a student who doesn't place importance on academic performance (I don't know what term can express that)? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @TagaSanPedroAko: Maybe the general definition of the term "iskul-bukol" is someone who doesn't care about academic performance and generally a slow learner? Because the term alludes to the TV show, so it must be characteristics of what the show is about. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser I can agree to that, but I'm not a batang 90s nor one who watched it. Again, any idea about translating the sentence I provided? I can say iskul-bukol often connotes having more time hanging out with friends, focusing on sports, playing games, engaging in romantic relationships, getting involved in vice, etc.. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @TagaSanPedroAko: Maybe the general definition of the term "iskul-bukol" is someone who doesn't care about academic performance and generally a slow learner? Because the term alludes to the TV show, so it must be characteristics of what the show is about. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I only know the word ĉipa, which means "cheap". I have never seen this word. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Tagged by Special:Diff/93.234.196.139 but not listed. @Fay Freak as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 04:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha: IP is a notorious barrator, normal readers do not request verification of terms included with quote. I could not see other occurrences in the beginning, which only made it more believable that this term was used in German New Guinea, in addition to being added in contrast to the usual meaning of the slur kartoffeldeutsch and the Danish Kartoffeldeutscher. Potato German is not found anywhere either for Unserdeutsch, but note the obsolete spelling of the nightshade “potatoe–german” in the article, evidently copied from some archival record.
- Wiktionary’s “look into Google Books” method to decide about ATTESTEDness is already demonstrated squarely fictitious, you can’t even find the official name of North Macedonia or corresponding demonym in Macedonian there, so it did not ring any alarm, rather this was my reasoning. Fay Freak (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Solved, moved it to Unserdeutsch, so LDL criteria apply. See, now we can have it anyway. It’s an interesting entry for our readers even without one being decided about a particular language it would be. Fay Freak (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- In the interview [106] the term Kartoffeldeutsch is used only as literal translation of potatoe German for the German speaking recipients of the broadcast, comparable to our |lit= parameter in certain templates. That shouldn't even count as a mention. As long as there aren't other citations this should be deleted. Akletos (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, so you think the actual term is Potato German (normalized) and it should be deleted as German but moved to English? But how come it is in English if it is in research about Unserdeutsch? Seemingly because Kartoffeldeutsch is used only as a literal translation of potatoe-German but that itself is already a translation of Unserdeutsch Kartoffeldeutsch (owing to speakers having moved to Australia). So even though you be right about it being used only as a literal translation comparable to our
{{lit}}
this is twice-translated and the mention of an Unserdeutsch word (as it is all part of that research grant about Unserdeutsch, a language but discovered in the 1970s). So it should be converted to Unserdeutsch. Fay Freak (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)- The chain of transmission of this term and the temporal distance is very long: (A broadcaster reports that) a researcher says that in an interview an Unserdeutsch speaker told them that decades ago a nun had said... Nobody should base any assumptions on such shaky evidence without further corroborating data. Akletos (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, so you think the actual term is Potato German (normalized) and it should be deleted as German but moved to English? But how come it is in English if it is in research about Unserdeutsch? Seemingly because Kartoffeldeutsch is used only as a literal translation of potatoe-German but that itself is already a translation of Unserdeutsch Kartoffeldeutsch (owing to speakers having moved to Australia). So even though you be right about it being used only as a literal translation comparable to our
Romani. This word is not listed on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, ROMLEX, or Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade. --YukaSylvie (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Romani. I can only find the form dindalel on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla (page 65a) and the Gurbet and Kalderaš dictionaries on ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense: (Internet) feminism. Not found on Emojipedia nor dictionary.com. They seem to agree on a K-Pop sense though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is real. Started around 2018 when purple was declared the official colour of International Women's Day. It's used by feminists of all stripes. Not to be confused with "💜🤍💚", which has emerged in the last year among gender-critical feminists, based on the colours used by the Women's Social and Political Union (a historical UK suffrage group). Anyway, this can be cited off Twitter, if that counts. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- The entry was deleted out of process. I recreated it with three Twitter quotes for the feminism sense (and added a BTS sense). Einstein2 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mayon V Hey I'm tagging you as you were the one who added this entry into Wiktionary. This is a request for verification according to Wiktionary's entry inclusion criteria. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Cebuano and Tagalog. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
February 2022
Middle English craven appears to only mean "to ask, demand, crave"; the ME form for "defeated" is apparently cravant. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Most of the entry could be taken are referring to Proteaceae a long-established plant family. Almost all Google Books hits are for Protoeaceæ (ie, ae ligature). If we are to have an entry we need citations. I've spent time looking, but haven't exhausted BHL or similar sources. So far each alleged hit for Protoacea turns out to have the ligature on close inspection. DCDuring (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed a specious reference to the 1911 Century Dictionary (“Proteacea”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC.). The entry there is for Proteaceæ, analyzed as Protea + -aceæ. --Lambiam 11:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have emended the entry based on my readings of material at BHL. Although I have not added citations they are available as snippets from the BHL link provided. Is this good enough? DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Romani. Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade, and ROMLEX only list variants of morthǐ as the Armenian loanword for "skin". --YukaSylvie (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Romani. I can only find the form skorca for "bark (of a tree)" on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla and the Kalderaš dictionary on ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This particular form doesn't actually appear to have existed in Middle English, as Old English wealcian was conflated with wealcan from very early in the Middle English period. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
vrót, a listed alternative form of Old Norse rót
Can we get a reference for this? I was unable to find it listed in any Old Norse dictionary.RubixLang (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Romani. I can only find the form noros on the Ursari dictionary of ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. Lytkin and Kuznecov give адззыны instead. Pinging @Rajkiandris. Thadh (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- My knowledge of Komi-Permyak is zero, but I note that "аддзыны" gets five times as many Google hits as "адззыны". --Hekaheka (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and that is not very surprising considering Komi-Zyrian has about three times as many speakers (writers?) as Komi-Permyak. I have looked through quite a few results, and concluded that those are indeed Komi-Zyrian, not Komi-Permyak. Thadh (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Romani. I can't find some form of this word on https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/ by Ralph Turner, Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade, or on ROMLEX. --YukaSylvie (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Romani. I can't find this word on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade, ROMLEX, or a Google Books search. --YukaSylvie (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Cebuano.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Samboangan_1734.jpg/220px-Samboangan_1734.jpg)
Tausug.
Both marked as speedy here by User:Obsidian Soul with the rationale: "See Wikipedia entry on Zamboanga. jambangan is folk etymology." @Carl_Francis, DCDuring, Apisite as the editors of that page. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- All I know is that the spelling is used as specific epithet for a single species of gecko found in the area of Zamboanga. DCDuring (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha Both of the entries are unsourced. I have sourced the Wikipedia entry on w:en:Zamboanga City extensively, including this paper which actually identifies the etymology of "Samboangan". Both of those entries are folk etymology which date back to the 1960s (apparently believed enough as to include the herpetologists who named the gecko in 2008). Still doesn't make it true though. The old name is Samboangan. Not Jambangan. Tausug isn't even relevant. Carl Francis is clearly a Cebuano-speaker (like I am). Zamboanga was a Subanen/Sama-Bajau settlement, not Tausug.
- I don't understand why a speedy on an unsourced entry is this difficult on Wiktionary. Even when I provide sources.--Obsidian Soul (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Obsidian Soul: That's because Wiktionary is based on usage, not authoritative references. Whether the etymology is right or wrong has no bearing on whether the word in question actually existed. On the other hand, even an ironclad, fully-referenced etymology based on the word wouldn't save the entry if the word wasn't actually attested- it would go in the Reconstruction namespace.
- If it can't be shown that the word is attested, and an incorrect etymology is the only evidence that the word existed, then the entry will be deleted. Pinging @Austronesier, who would know more about the sources available. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz And where is the attestation for "Jambangan"? Here are some of the numerous attestations of "Samboangan" in contemporary Spanish, British, German, and French colonial-era records. I can give you more.
- Jambangan is a word in Malay (apparently "water jar", "pot", or "vase" from what I can tell). But it is not the old name of Zamboanga like these entries claim.--Obsidian Soul (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The etymology jambangan > Zamboanga is obviously rubbish; it is naively based on the Z-spelling of the initial consonant, and doesn't work for a couple of reasons. But I won't elaborate on it here, since this is a Rfv, which does not hinge on a bad (but popular) etymology. (It would only be relevant in a translingual entry Cyrtodactylus jambangan).
- The Tausug entry looks good, see this entry in the online version of the Tausug-English Dictionary: Kabtangan Iban Maana. Tausug has borrowed heavily from Malay, and I assume that this borrowing precedes the emergence of the folk etymology of Zamboanga. I have no idea if any Cebuano speaker has jambangan in their native or nativized lexicon, but I doubt it. But if it is attested in Cebuano usage, we just need to clarify the (wrong, but influential) etymology, and not to delete the entry (NB: if). –Austronesier (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- PS: Malay jambangan means "flower-pot", "flower-stand", "a moveable flower-bed", "receptacle for growing plants" (per Wilkinson's Malay-English Dictionary). –Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
German. Rfv-sense: odometer — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:242C:2020:97A9:DCCE 13:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- One will find quotes relating to occupations in Persia and farther east; noting the references I added. This will be about the same level as “Arabic” سِپَاه سَالَار (sipāh sālār). وَٱلكَرَّانِيَّ، وَهُوَ الْكَاتِبُ / وَٱلتُجَّارَ وَٱلرُؤَسَاءَ / وَٱلتِنْدِيلَ وَهُوَ مُقَدَّمُ ٱلْرُجَّالِ / وَسِپَاه سَالَارَ (wal-karrāniyya, wahuwa l-kātibu / wat-tujjāra war-ruʔasāʔa / wat-tindīla wahuwa muqaddamu l-rujjāli / wasipāh sālāra) in the quote at كَرَّانِيّ (karrāniyy). Fay Freak (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense:
- a superscript t
This is a phonetic symbol for a pre-stopped consonant, not a superscript- different Unicode block. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- The Unicode block does not determine intended use. Unicode's data file does. Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
So, what are we looking for here? It would be easy to find Tweets or other Web resources using this character as a superscript t, but our policy toward online sources is that a discussion is required to admit them. If I find a digitized copy of an offline document (e.g., book or journal article) with a superscript t in it, that only shows that superscript t exists, not that this particular Unicode character is used to represent it. Usenet has some: example (if I find two more like that, is that sufficient?). 70.172.194.25 06:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense:
- a superscript d (Can we verify(+) this sense?)
Another pre-stopped consonant. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unicode note that U+1D48 is intended for use as superscript here. Theknightwho (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- All I see is <super> followed by the code for another character. What data in a data file means is dependent on the file structure. What does being in that field mean? Show me the file structure. Saying that this is a superscript form of "d" is not the same as saying that it's intended for use as a superscript. As for what letters in that block are, see page 296 of this pdf, where it says:
Most of the characters in the first of the two adjacent blocks comprising the phonetic extensions are used in the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet (UPA; also called Finno-Ugric Transcription, FUT), a highly specialized system that has been used by Uralicists globally for more than 100 years.
- Or better yet: w:Modifier letter. The purpose of these characters is to modify the phonetic value of a neighboring phonetic symbol/letter in a phonetic transcription. They coincidentally have the form of superscripts, but they aren't intended to be used as superscripts except in an extremely specific context.
- I'm not saying they can't be used to represent superscripts in documents where you're only interested in the appearance, but they aren't the same thing. An entry with a Roman C in a Russian word instead of Cyrillic С may be visually identical to the all-Cyrillic spelling, but it's completely wrong for an online dictionary. Whenever we find something like that, we either move it to the correct spelling or delete it on the spot- no RFD necessary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note Table 14 in section 5.7.3 of Unicode's Character Database here:
This refers to decomposition mapping, which (in simple terms) is referring to where one or more characters are equivalent to another one, perhaps with some kind of modification.<super>
Superscript form - Where you say "All I see is <super> followed by the code for another character", you can quite easily check that that other character is, in each case, the ordinary Latin character in question that it is a superscript version of:
1D48
( ᵈ ) is the equivalent to<super> 0064
, and U+0064 is d.1D57
( ᵗ ) is the equivalent to<super> 0074
, and U+0074 is t. Compare this to, say,00C2
Â, which has0041 0302
(A + ◌̂) in the same field. The fact that these were added due to their use in IPA does not change the fact that they are recognised as being superscript forms. It's even repeated on the character chart for this Unicode block here. The reason that equivalents haven't been added to the superscript block is because letters were only added to that block in order to fill the gaps: it only contains ⁱ and ⁿ. There is no alternative option, here. - Even aside from that, trying to draw a semantic difference is as unhelpful as saying that we can't recognise different uses of characters like # or / because they're intended for some other use. Fundamentally, it's prescriptivist, but even on your own terms the evidence is right there.
- Theknightwho (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- After reading up on this, I see you have a point. Both rfvs- withdrawn. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks. For what it's worth, these characters are picked up correctly by text search - this equivalence issue is something that has also come up on Wikisource, where certain equivalences get implemented (e.g. s and ſ) and others do not (e.g. ligatures like ffi or st), which creates usability issues. Theknightwho (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- After reading up on this, I see you have a point. Both rfvs- withdrawn. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note Table 14 in section 5.7.3 of Unicode's Character Database here:
- I'm not saying they can't be used to represent superscripts in documents where you're only interested in the appearance, but they aren't the same thing. An entry with a Roman C in a Russian word instead of Cyrillic С may be visually identical to the all-Cyrillic spelling, but it's completely wrong for an online dictionary. Whenever we find something like that, we either move it to the correct spelling or delete it on the spot- no RFD necessary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- These dedicated-codepoint superscript characters do not appear to be functionally equivalent to the ASCII equivalents when searching within a page.
- Over at 2ⁿᵈ, for instance, if I press CTRL+F in my browser and search for
n
(lower-case ASCII "N"), I see no hits upon the "n" in the headword. Likewise if I try searching for "d" (lower-case ASCII "D"). - If I try searching this page for "t" (lower-case ASCII "T"), I cannot find any hits for the superscript-"t" in the heading of the preceding thread at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#_t. If I try searching this page for "d" (lower-case ASCII "D"), I do find the "d" in the heading for this thread. Although this appears in the wikitext as dedicated-codepoint superscript character ᵈ, an inspection of the rendered source in the browser shows that this is replaced somewhere (by the MediaWiki server? by the browser?) with
<sup> d </sup>
(lower-case ASCII "D" with superscript tags). - I also see that font support for the dedicated-codepoint superscript characters is inconsistent: the "n" and "d" at 2ⁿᵈ appear in markedly different sizes, and the "i" in maᵗⁱᵉ has a thinner line weight and a higher baseline than either the "t" or "e".
- These dedicated-codepoint superscript characters entail various usability problems. I do not think we should use them widely without further examination of the issues and, ideally, better browser and font support. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- That appears to be an issue with your browser with most of those, as I'm unable to replicate these issues in Chrome, and unless you want to start removing all entries for which you don't have proper font support, I don't think that there is likely to be a consistent solution here. Fundamentally, we should go by what the Unicode standard says, and not the idiosyncrasies of outdated browsers.
- The only one that isn't is the issue of the glyphs being different sizes due to MediaWiki not handling certain codepoints properly, and it is something that should be relatively straightforward to solve. In the meantime, it is not a huge issue, and is ultimately because of the underlying font having a problem. By rights, it shouldn't really matter whether the HTML is one or the other, as the font should be handling both the same. Theknightwho (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be privileging a single browser. If something isn't reasonably well supported by the top three or six browsers on desktop OSes (Win, Mac, Linux) and on smartphone OSes, we should not be depending on it for core functions or principal-namespace display. DCDuring (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's complying with the Unicode standard, not privileging a single browser. There are quite a few scripts that have considerably worse support, and we aren't talking about moving pages using those to nonstandard page names either.
- It's a bit frustrating that the argument has now been entirely flipped from saying that these weren't compatible with the Unicode standard, to now saying that the Unicode standard isn't important when deciding on the page name. There's a serious inconsistency in approaches there, and even though the arguments have been put forward by different people, it suggests a lack of consensus as to what the policy should be.
- This is made worse by the fact that the logical conclusion of this argument is that we would also need to move the IPA definition for ᵈ to d as well, which is completely absurd. Theknightwho (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be privileging a single browser. If something isn't reasonably well supported by the top three or six browsers on desktop OSes (Win, Mac, Linux) and on smartphone OSes, we should not be depending on it for core functions or principal-namespace display. DCDuring (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The only one that isn't is the issue of the glyphs being different sizes due to MediaWiki not handling certain codepoints properly, and it is something that should be relatively straightforward to solve. In the meantime, it is not a huge issue, and is ultimately because of the underlying font having a problem. By rights, it shouldn't really matter whether the HTML is one or the other, as the font should be handling both the same. Theknightwho (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:3107:D5CB:1C9:14FD 09:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Good find. I have found no mention of it. Created by @Hakeem.gadi who is Libyan, so at best it is a regional term there. Fay Freak (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:3107:D5CB:1C9:14FD 11:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I have not found use, though it is included in some dictionaries, and it is an Ottoman variant spelling, and I think رَطِب (raṭib) serves as the irregular active participle of the mentioned verbs. Fay Freak (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. Same as аддзыны above. Thadh (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hebrew.
The headword כוץ is different from the word used in the example, קוץ. Which is which? Sartma (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hebrew קוץ means "thorn or thistle", which is makes it semantically more plausible. From the discussion of the word on their talk page, it's apparently slang- so they might not have known its proper written form. That said, if everyone spells it כוץ, that's how we should spell it. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
German Kramm "junk"
(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak, Fytcha): Having a hard time verifying; lots of Google hits but they all appear to refer to the surname "Kramm". Benwing2 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Probably a mistake for Kram (which always had a long vowel). Fay Freak (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2, Fay Freak: Rare misspelling of Kram? Can attest it in the compound Krammmarkt at least: [107], [108], [109] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Side note: Any relation to English cram? The etym there points back to "Proto-Germanic *krammōną, a secondary verb derived from *krimmaną (“to stuff”), from Proto-Indo-European *ger- (“to assemble; collect; gather”)". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Egyptian Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:BCCB:401E:A322:AB3D 09:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Egyptian Arabic. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:BCCB:401E:A322:AB3D 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
March 2022
Rusyn. It probably exists, but I doubt it's verifiable. Thadh (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Turkish. The spaced spelling kirli kartopu exists. That is a translation of dirty snowball, which I do not consider a word meaning comet but an adjective and a noun describing a comet. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- The term was used in that spelling in a question on the Turkish version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. The question was, “Of which of the following is this a synonym?”, with a choice between A: the Moon, B: Venus, C: a comet, D: the Pole star.[110] Many uses found online are quoting this quiz question, as seen here or here, in articles that otherwise use the spelling kirli kartopu. This calque of dirty snowball does (in some contexts) mean “comet”, just like the English original.[111][112][113] The Turkish Language Association considers the spelling kirlikartopu the correct spelling[114] and lists it like that in its authoritative dictionary, but the spelling kirli kartopu is quite common. --Lambiam 22:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems it is a typo.--159.146.45.126 20:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, it isn’t. You can look for this word in the official dictionary of Turkish, published by Turkish Language Association. I added the link as a reference in the page of the word.
Rarotongan. @MinecraftGod12345 as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha It is article-worthy. I am making heaps of new entries about geography in Cook Islands Māori by finding them in an online dictionary. MinecraftGod12345 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- An interesting case. First, the language: We call the language "Rarotongan", while Wikipedia calls it Cook Islands Māori and says calling the language "Rarotongan" is controversial, as Rarotongan is supposed to be one of three dialects of the Cook Islands Māori language. WT:LT doesn't mention these languages, so it may have never been discussed by Wiktionarians.
- This dictionary labels Verengiteni as "Mangaia(n)", which is apparently a sub-dialect of Rarotongan. Another site gives "Poneke" as the name for Wellington, which would be from Maori Pōneke.
- To verify these names, we just need to find a single use or mention in a durably archived text. The name of Wellington (at least) should be easily cited from any Cook Islands Māori news source, but I can't find any written news in this language. RNZ produces Cook Islands Māori radio news programs, and SBS previously did, but these would not be durably archived. This, that and the other (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
We discussed this before, the word "suglamuman" itself is not used anywhere, not found in publications, misspelling of "suglaguman" only online, the wrong spelling only found in online wordlists. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't occur in anything durably archived, though it can be found online. The online occurrences are not particularly numerous.
I'm inclined to call this RFV-failed under the rare misspellings clause. 70.172.194.25 07:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC) - I just checked the "correct" spelling and it doesn't have any Google-indexed hits in durably archived sources either. There is a reference, " Maugnaying Talasalitaang Pang-agham Ingles-Pilipino", but it looks like it would be a dictionary and therefore a mention not a use. In fact, this misspelling has more Google hits! How sure are we that this is a misspelling? Should either form be kept? @Mar vin kaiser. 70.172.194.25 17:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: It's a popular misspelling. Maybe it can be tracked because of its greater usage. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser: I can't find either form attested in durably archived sources to which I have access (Google Books/Scholar/Groups, Internet Archive, Issuu). Do you even know of any books that use the proper form suglaguman? Maybe school textbooks that aren't indexed by Google? Regardless, based on what's easily available to me (Google), I would say that as long as suglaguman is kept, suglamuman should be too; the erroneous form has more hits than the normative spelling. So basically there are two options:
- Call this RfV-failed, send suglaguman to RfV too, and that will probably also end up as RfV-failed (unless real textbooks, etc. turn up).
- Cite both using Twitter/Reddit and hold a two-week discussion (per WT:CFI) to see if people think the online sourcing is sufficient.
- How should we proceed? 70.172.194.25 06:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: By the way, are you using a registered account? Or is your account name really just numbers? Anyway, the thing is, this falls under a special category in Tagalog lemmas that is currently has hundreds of entries called the "Maugnayin" words. These are neologisms, coinages, done in the 1960's, but not in use today, but many people, though not mainstream, still use them from time to time, especially in saying that this particular coinage is the Tagalog word for this scientific term. Also, if you're referring to attestations in online forums, there was a vote for that some time back, result as far as I understand it is to allow social media attestations for now. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mar vin kaiser: I can't find either form attested in durably archived sources to which I have access (Google Books/Scholar/Groups, Internet Archive, Issuu). Do you even know of any books that use the proper form suglaguman? Maybe school textbooks that aren't indexed by Google? Regardless, based on what's easily available to me (Google), I would say that as long as suglaguman is kept, suglamuman should be too; the erroneous form has more hits than the normative spelling. So basically there are two options:
- @70.172.194.25: It's a popular misspelling. Maybe it can be tracked because of its greater usage. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. Couldn't find anything. Thadh (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've no modern written sources at hand, but found rather with ӧ: кӧдзув (ködźuv) (ködźuv, ke̮ďźi̮v etc.) in most major Komi dialect sources. In case that was not simply your point? --Tropylium (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it wasn't, because my dictionary gave only the Russian loanword звезда. Actually, is кӧдзув verifiable? It returns only seven results on google, two of which are Wikipedia, one Russian text mentioning it as a type of embroidment (?), two being a Bible translation, but I'm not sure if it's published, this discussion, and some restaurant menu that I cannot open because my antivirus doesn't let me. Thadh (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Alemannic German.
No results at Google and Google Books and not in Google Groups / Usenet.
Possibly too add: hän Sii morn scho öppis vor, goots dr besser, goots Ine besser, sind Sii ghüroote ([115]/[116] gives: sind Sii ghüratä). --Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Sasha Gray Wolf: That's a bit ridiculous, don't you think? It is obviously correct and the parts are easily attested: häsch du morn scho öppis vor. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a verification request for the parts but for the phrase as a whole (I'm not a fan of protologisms if they aren't marked as such). One could also translate may the Force be with you, hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette or other phrases but that doesn't mean the translation is used/attested. --Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- lol @ protologism. The last link in my previous reply proves that "scho öppis vorha" is used in this way and all other words are separately attested; slight variations of the complete phrase are also found on the internet. Exactly the same argument is true for sind Sii ghüroote, see e.g. isch ghüroote. RFVing a phrase that is obviously and patently correct, that is found (with slight variations) on the internet, and whose constituents are attested is just a complete barrator move. @Widsith, Chuck Entz — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a verification request for the parts but for the phrase as a whole (I'm not a fan of protologisms if they aren't marked as such). One could also translate may the Force be with you, hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette or other phrases but that doesn't mean the translation is used/attested. --Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- IMO this is simply a SOP. The response could be, jo, ich hä scho öppis vor morn. One could then equally ask un häsch du ibermorn scho öppis vor?. We also do not have entries for as-tu quelque chose à faire demain or yarın yapacak bir şeyin var mı. So send to rfd. --Lambiam 11:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam:
Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, what is your name is clearly a summation of its parts.
— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Phrasebook entries are supported in the criteria of inclusion by a passage dedicated to them in the section "Idiomaticity"; they may not meet the requirement of idiomacity other than for the dedicated passage.
- The
{{rfv}}
tag was placed below the{{phrasebook}}
label, which is why I did not spot that label when I clicked the section title. --Lambiam 07:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- The
- If this is "very common" it should be findable in exactly the form presented. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not if the language is generally unwritten. Thadh (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- And also has an unsettled orthography, varying by region, when written (e.g. moorn next to morn). --Lambiam 07:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not if the language is generally unwritten. Thadh (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam:
- I don't really have a great interest in Phrasebook entries. Since I was tagged I can only comment that I have certainly heard the phrase used and it's clearly correct and useful for learners, but I am neutral on its inclusion as I have never quite understood what the attestation/SOP requirements are for phrases of this kind. Ƿidsiþ 08:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, logically at the very least WT:CFI (one use or mention for a LDL) must be fulfilled. Otherwise people could translate phrases into any other language. Then we could get (my English isn't) the yellow from the egg (“(my English isn't) the best”) (cp. [117], [118]). Or may the Force be with you translated into all kinds of other languages (extinct languages like Gothic, conlangs like Esperanto, living LDLs). And then the situation with phrases would be like with Navajo animal terms (cp. A, B, C, D) or Scots (E, F).
- What can be found: "hesch öppis bsungers vor für morn" ([119]), "hesch du no öppis fertig z'mache" ([120]). --Sasha Gray Wolf (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- There's a difference between adhering to the letter and the spirit of the law. Of course we should be wary of nonsensical literal translations such as the ones you've mentioned, but this isn't a concern here as this phrase is clearly idiomatic and in widespread use (not only confirmed by two speakers but also by analogy as "Ich ha dänn scho öppis vor." is attested). The fact that you've moved another patently correct article bisch du ghüroote to a slightly different spelling bisch du ghüüroote (diff) while ignoring the fact that the variant in question (ghüroote) is also widely attested, is pretty strong evidence that idiomaticity and barring protologisms isn't your concern with this ordeal at all. Anyway, I have more productive things to do than squabbling over my native language and wading through the combinatorial jungle just to find that one attested altform among the thousands of correct possibilities. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I propose that we close this under the clear widespread use clause. There might be some variation of this phrase that is attested letter by letter but I'm not going to bother searching for it (even just öppis has many synonyms, all of which have multiple alt-forms). My above comment from 14 March 2022 explains it pretty well. This phrase is legitimate. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Multiple Basque given names
This RFV affects Xoangotei, Xoantako, Xopeiza, Xorut, Xoro, Xoroko and Xuntako. All of them have a source (which I don't have access to), but they don't seem to be in use (not even mentioned) anywhere. The closest thing to an attestation I've found is this use of "Xoroko" as a nickname (an affectionate form of zoroko (“fool”)). The author of the book given as a source is a serious scholar so I suspect most of these supposed given names might actually be nicknames.--Santi2222 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
OCS дѧти
Identical to the verb дѣти (děti) except with a nasal vowel. A rare variant or just a mistake? — 69.120.66.131 00:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looking into it, I'm not even sure дѣти (děti) is attested with all of the meanings listed there. дѣꙗти (dějati) appears to be the more common form, and дѣти (děti) is mostly just attested in the reflexive phrase дѣти сѧ (děti sę). — 69.120.66.131 00:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Ladino. I could find sources describing a Ladino word "aver" meaning "air", which I added as references to the page. There is also "avel" meaning mourning ([121], [122], [123]). I could not find any sources describing a word "avel" meaning "air".
If deleted, should be moved to aver as the content is good other than the title. If kept, it must be a secondary form and the main entry should be at aver; unless, of course, it is actually a separate word and not just a variant. 70.172.194.25 02:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Ladino. karuvim is in the source I added. keruvim (in the form keruƀim) is in DHJE, but only with the meaning "cherubs", and I did not find any other spelling variant that could be this word. (Note that in Hebrew כְּרוּב and קָרוֹב have different initial consonants, in addition to the subtle niqqud change.) If deleted, should just be moved to karuvim. 70.172.194.25 01:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ladino. Same story as the previous two; a word like it definitely exists, but I can't find this particular form. In this case, mabul is the seemingly right form. 70.172.194.25 02:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly an expert on Hebrew, but when I seen a double vowel in a language that has glottal stops, it makes me think one might be present, as in "ma'abe". Another consideration is that מ־ is a very common prefix with a number of functions, so you would want to check words starting with aleph or ayin as well. That said, I didn't see anything obvious along those lines, so you might already tried that and not bothered to mention it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. It feels like it would be from the root ע־ב־ה or something. Well, the ending is unclear because it could be clipped. Anyway, here's a neat site that lets you search for words belonging to roots with multiple possible characters in each slot, allowing for some guesswork: [124]. I'm not seeing anything, but I might not be looking in the right places (well, if I include yodh, I can find the mabul one, but I assume we're looking for other possible etymons). Special:PrefixIndex/Mem-Ayin-Beth and Special:PrefixIndex/Mem-Aleph-Beth don't show anything promising either. 70.172.194.25 05:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Someone back in August removed everything except the etymology from this entry for no obvious reason. 70.172.194.25 07:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Moved from RFD. Earlier discussion: WT:RFDN#αρbε̰ρ. Thadh (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I found άρbε̱ρ in these Beiträge zu einem albanesisch-deutschen Lexikon [Contributions toward an Albanian–German lexicon] and I found the Greek Ἄρβερ on pages 84 and 88 of Nikolaos Georgiou Nikokles' 1855 De Albanensium sive Schkipitar origine et prosapia · Περὶ τῆς αὐτοχθονίας τῶν Ἀλβανῶν ἤτοι Σκιπιτάρ [On the ancestral source of the Albanians or Shkypetars]. Do they help at all? Fruitless Forest (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Astova, Erutuon, Fytcha, IMIPER, Lambiam, MelancholicLinguist, Prosfilaes, Rua, SemperBlotto, SKA-KSI, Thadh, as editors of αρbε̰ρ and/or as contributors to the deletion discussion, I thought you might have an interest in this. @Sarri.greek, do Άρβερ (Ἄρβερ), αυτοχθονία (αὐτοχθονίας), and Σκιπιτάρ warrant entries, in your opinion? Fruitless Forest (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fruitless Forest about Άρβερ Σκιπιτάρ = if there is a PoS 'Transliterations' for nongreek words, similar to Romanizations, probably they could be created with your ref. I am not sure how such unadapted and rare occurrences are handled at en.wiktionary. On the other hand, αυτοχθονία is a normal noun (Standard Modern Greek), spellt with αὐτο- in old polytonic spelling, the word since 1815. (cf αυτόχθων (aftóchthon).
- @Thadh, SKA-KSI I think αρbε̰ρ, αρbε̰ρισ̈τ, αρbε̰ρίσ̈τ should be deleted & replaced for the following reason: These 'greek' scripts with added latin characters & diacritics mimicking phonetics were created by lexigographers of past centuries and, alas, by the Dialect Dictionary of the Academy of Athens (which ended ingloriously somewhere at letter delta). As far as I know, they have been abandoned for some decades. I understand that the contemporary practice is to lemmatise the closest usual greek script + I.P.A. accompanying it. Here these scripts, could be mentioned (with {lang}, no link) at the main corresponding Albanian.dialect lemma, with their IPA as described in the dictionary from where they were retrieved. They would be αρμπερ (don't know where the accent was), αρμπερίστ (I cannot see the difference of the two) at arbërisht etc. Source and IPA are very crucial for the presentation of dialects, precisely because a script did not exist.
- The wikipedia article'Arvanitika' has a list of characters for these script, probably reproduced in more wikis and sites. I tried to find scanned pages of the correspondance referred at @en.wikt via third sources, (I doubt that the particular writers used umlauts and nongreek diacritics when writing arvanitika), but i could not find a scan. If so, the phrase in some lemmata 'script used by Arvanites', ...more likely: 'script proposed by X dictionary'. I cannot be sure; I would need to read the introduction of the source-dictionary. All other similar scripts I have encountered, are constructed by lexicographers, never used by native speakers (who for most dialects, were illiterate).
- But I am not the right person to verify all this. Whether their lemmatization is justified or not would need verification by a professional expert. @Dr Moshe -sorry to trouble you, Sir, just for the legitimacy of lemmatizing-.
- Thadh, please note, that all the templates: Template:list:Greek script letters/aat, Template:list:Greek script letters/acy & Template:list:Greek script letters/tsd were created by anonymi, probably by copying such proposed scripts, with no reference whatsoever. All lemmata with such scripts could be deleted as well as the templates, if the above paragraphs are accepted as correct. Perhaps this issue could be discussed in general in a different page? Thank you ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ I 22:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Ligurian. Moved from RFD. Previous discussion: WT:RFDN#tumata Thadh (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Mandobo Atas. Moved from RFD. Previous discussion: WT:RFDN#kyembiyan. Note that the reference ([125]) only provides the IPA transcription. Thadh (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Mongolian. Not in any Mongolian dictionary I can access. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
[126]. Mongolian is an LDL, so I guess this is satisfactory. Thadh (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)- Never mind, upon further inspection this doesn't seem to be a real book Thadh (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- This does seem to be in (at least informal) use, but as a borrowing from English. Russian borrowings don't change ⟨е⟩ to ⟨э⟩. @Thadh Are you sure? I'm getting the expected result when I do an ISBN search. Theknightwho (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Ladino. Rfv-sense: "blessing". 70.172.194.25 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Middle English. I've been unable find this particular form of seym (“fat, grease”) in any source; I suspect this is because it's actually unattested. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Coptic. Ⲉⲑⲱⲙ/ⲁⲑⲱⲙ are reconstructions. Ⲟⲛⲟⲩⲣⲓⲥ is a transliteration of a Greek rendering of an Egyptian god’s name. ⲧⲟⲩⲏⲣⲉ/ⲑⲟⲩⲏⲣⲓ are etymologically correct forms, but never used in the sense of the goddess Tawaret in Coptic texts. Ⲅⲉⲃ just looks like the Egyptological pronunciation of gb written in Coptic letters.Rhemmiel (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- ⲑⲟⲩⲏⲣⲓ is attested by Coptic Dictionary Online. It is important to remember that Jean-François Champollion spoke Coptic and he was the one that reconstructed the ancient Egyptian language, and it is likely that ⲉⲑⲱⲙ, ⲁⲑⲱⲙ, ⲅⲉⲃ, and ϩⲛⲟⲩⲙ are the translation of Atum, Geb, and Khnum in Coptic. Ⲁⲡⲟⲗⲗⲟⲇⲱⲣⲟⲥ (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
Old English dīeġan is missing from both the Dictionary of Old English and Bosworth-Toller; this appears to be because it is entirely unattested; as smeortan, the OED has a note to this effect. Now as was done with that verb, we could relocate it to Reconstruction:Old English/diegan in the very likely event that cites do not end up emerging. However, I question whether the reconstruction of such a verb is necessary; the obvious justification for doing so is the existence of Middle English deyen, but that could be easily be from Old Norse deyja. This is the standard etymology given by the dictionaries, and I see no reason be at variance with them. With Middle English deyen taken out of the way, we are thus left without any justification for the reconstructing *dīeġan. It may be worth using {{no entry}}
at diegan, though, as it appears to be frequently brung up in online discussions of Old English (only some of which note its tenuosity). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Hazarasp: In B&T there is a redirect from dīeġan to dīġan, which is found here [[127]]. There is some uncertainty whether dēog means "died" or "dyed". It's translated both ways, depending... Leasnam (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Neither of those explanations are satisfactory to me; instead, I prefer to take dēog as the past tense of a verb *dēagan (“to hide”) (< Proto-Germanic *dauganą; c.f. Old High German tougan (“hidden”)). The DOE supports this hypothesis preliminarily, but remains noncommital, but I believe the poetic context means that it is the only hypothesis that rings true to me: interpreting dēaðfǣge dēog as "doomed to death, he dyed" makes little sense, while "doomed to death, he died" is conceptually repetitive doggerel (it is also not clear that the past tense of a putative *dīegan would result in dēog). Moreover, despite Bammersberg's statement that dēog has "no generally accepted interpretation", the "hid" hypothesis seems to be usual in the recent literature (e.g. in A Guide to Old English, Beowulf and the Hunt, Blogging Beowulf: Fit XIII, Lines 837-924, Eldum Unnyt: Treasure Spaces in Beowulf, and The conceptualisation of emotions in Old English: dream 'joy' as LIFE, PRIVILEGE and HEAVEN in Anglo-Saxon prose and poetry). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Old English. Possibly just vandalism (the same editor who moved and possibly also created the page also did this), so feel free to speedy and delete this discussion without archiving. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 22:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just delete this nonsense; the digraph ⟨dg⟩ is later than Old English, which had ⟨ċġ⟩ or ⟨ġġ⟩. The page was initially created as midgetel, which does not make sense as a verb, but almost immediately moved, a few hours before the editor created the now deleted midgetellan. The creator may have wanted to taunt someone called El by labelling them a midget. --Lambiam 10:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am the creator on another IP address that does not allow responses. I don’t know why you assume it is a digraph; it is pronounced (IPA) /dj/. 168.216.10.225 18:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Lambiam, I don't know why you think it's a digraph. It represents the sounds (IPA) /dj/. "Midget" is pure coincidence, also I did all edits on this one except for the rfv tag. Also, if anyone can find a quotation, please add it... I see it in many dictionaries bot no bibliographies. 74.33.92.101 19:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Surjection @Lambiam the spelling in glossaries is midġetellan, apparently mid- + ġe- + tellan. I wouldn't know where to find a formal cite to pass the RFV, but there must be one out there. This, that and the other (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- A conjugated form of midgetellan occurs in the article ang:Peru on the Old English Wikipedia, but I guess that even for an LDL that does not count. Bosworth–Toller online also has a sense “to include (in a class)” for just getellan. --Lambiam 07:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Navajo. 70.172.194.25 05:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Bavarian. Tagged for speedy deletion by @Spanier with the reason "non-existent form". That sounds like the kind of judgment that should be made here, after due consideration.
I would note that this entry was created in 2010, but has only been edited by bots since then- so it could very well be an error. Even if it is, though, we should move it to the correct spelling rather than deleting it. As far as I can tell, this is the only Bavarian entry for this characteristic Bavarian food item. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
German. Seems like a protologism, as fair as i saw no example at the linked DWDS, only one example at google books. --學者三 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- The term occurs in the heading of an official German regulation published in the Bundesgesetzblatt 2021 Vol. I nr. 62, page 4077,[128] as short (!) for Besondere Gebührenverordnung des Bundesministeriums der Finanzen zur Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht. This should be considered a proper noun, the (nick)name of a specific entity. Since the regulation provides for a convenient abbreviation of the short name, FinDAGebV (see used here), I guess we won't be seeing many uses of the term. --Lambiam 11:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Confirmed in so far it occurs in neither Beck Online nor Juris. However this is a hot word since the regulation is in effect since 01.10.2021. On the other hand it must have been applied somewhere and thus the FinDAGebV must be on record at some authorities somewhere, as if there are laws someone follows them, in Germany. A written abbreviation is enough since the short name Finanzdienstleistungsaufsichtsgebührenverordnung is how the abbreviation FinDAGebV is pronounced. Chinese pronunciations themselves aren’t supposed to occur in writing either yet pinyin gets entries. Fay Freak (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
WT:BRAND. Binarystep (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Tagalog. “Borrowed from English Helen. a female given name from English”. Tagged by 122.2.99.81 (“Not a Tagalog name Should be Elena”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Cebuano. “From English Barbie, the name of a fashion doll. a female given name from English”. Tagged by 122.2.99.81, not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Bislama. Also RFV'ing yumitripela, yumipela and mipela. These all seem like Tok Pisin to me rather than Bislama, where I couldn't find any evidence of an alternative -pela to the widely used -fala, neither in Crowley's grammar nor in the Bislama spelling dictionary, nor generally online. Pinging @Hippietrail, Metaknowledge as creators of the pronoun entries and the suffix entry respectively. Thadh (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe it was just a mistake. The entries were created a very long time ago, and perhaps the sources we had at the time were also wrong. I assume loaning is unlikely, right? The languages are spoken near each other, but both on islands. —Soap— 18:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I could not find evidence of this word anywhere in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, only in other Aramaic languages.— This unsigned comment was added by Shuraya (talk • contribs) at 01:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC).
May 2022
Impossible to web-search.
- Imagine German, Ety 2 genitive "poo-poo" was automatically created by templates. I sincerely doubt that it can be attested, because the genitive is rare in colloquially speech and even more so in children that have not yet acquired the morphology, and even more so in writing.
- Surely /ˌaˈʔa(s)/ should not be spelled Aa(s), what's usually /a:/. Who takes the time to create literally children shit entries and then doesn´t source their shit? The Further Reading only concerns Ety 1. 141.20.6.200 12:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- How else would it be spelled? —Soap— 21:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Soap: Is that a rhetorical question!? Standard German orthography does not recognize a glottal stop. Nonstandard spelling may be arbitrary, eg. I-Aah for the sound of the donkey and I think IA as well.
- Pinging User:PseudoSkull who added this and may be able to confirm that it was or wasn't created "automatically". ApisAzuli (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ApisAzuli I didn't add anything to this entry according to the page history, nor do I recall doing anything with it. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh shoot, right, thanks for the heads up. It was User:SemperBlotto (who has apparently the same voice of reason in my head). ApisAzuli (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've no idea. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ApisAzuli I didn't add anything to this entry according to the page history, nor do I recall doing anything with it. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ApisAzuli DWDS gives the genitive singular as Aa. Theknightwho (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- the Duden says: genitive singular Aa or Aas ([129]) --Scripturus (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Middle English. Chaucer supposedly used this to mean "an Armenian". It seems likely he was just talking about ermine. (What need would he have had to specifically refer to Armenians in any case, I wonder?) This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- The term occurs as a proper noun (“king Ermin”) in the metrical romance Sir Beves of Hamtoun.[130] Ermin is king of Armenia. I have not found where Chaucer uses the term. --Lambiam 13:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here you go. In the form Ermyn. Vahag (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam, @Vahagn Petrosyan Thanks, I should have looked here first. Are you both okay with the entry being moved to Ermyn? I know Webster had the habit of modernising spellings, but I don't understand why MED lemmatises it as "Ermin" when this form doesn't seem to be attested. Am I missing something? This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about Middle English and how it should be normalized. Vahag (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Lambiam, @Vahagn Petrosyan Thanks, I should have looked here first. Are you both okay with the entry being moved to Ermyn? I know Webster had the habit of modernising spellings, but I don't understand why MED lemmatises it as "Ermin" when this form doesn't seem to be attested. Am I missing something? This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Nepali.
As only cited as a 'translation', presumably of guava, let's see some evidence that it is a real Nepali word rather than a dictionary or Wikipedian's invention. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@103.36.18.252 Make an account btw if you wanna edit. This word needs to satisfy the criteria of Wiktionary of word inclusion. Try to find published articles that use this word. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Lithuanian. Should be patriotizmas. If this form is attested it's probably a rare misspelling. 98.170.164.88 00:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Yamphu. This is given under a Yakkha header but with a Yamphu language code and reference. The given reference [131] has two Yamphu words for "bird": सोङा (soṅā) and सोङ्वा (soṅwā), but not साङ्वा (sāṅwā). So is this actually Yakkha, or a Yamphu typo, or a dialectal variant, or ...? @Hk5183 This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The third possibility is that this was supposed to go at Yamphu सोङ्वा (soṅwā), but the contributor was distracted by the similarity of the spelling (सो vs सा) into adding it to the wrong entry. Looking at their edit history, it was halfway into over an hour of creating nothing but Yamphu entries (the Yakka page creation was 9 days eatlier). By the way, @This, that and the other: you seem to have your language codes switched. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have fixed the codes here. The two codes couldn't be any closer... This, that and the other (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense: "Heterosexual". Plausible, but I'd like to see citations. For what it's worth, Emojipedia calls it the "Bisexual Sign". 98.170.164.88 07:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. No citations have been added in six months and the three pre-existing citations mean three different things, two of them opposite to each other. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The Unicode standard does mention it: [132] (not sure it counts as a use technically). Would still be good to have quotations of use, I think, as we generally require them for emojis. 98.170.164.88 07:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unicode annotation for both. Both also in e.g. D.R. McElroy (2020) Signs & Symbols of the World: Over 1,001 Visual Signs Explained. The only question would be which of several Unicode rings corresponds to the intended meaning, but that's where the Unicode annotation comes in. Plausible some might use it for bisexuality, since there is no Unicode character for that, but sure you didn't confuse it with ⚥, which is botanical bisexuality? Also, these are not emojis. kwami (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The white circle displays as an emoji for me, the interlocking gender signs do not. I guess Emojipedia has entries for some symbols that aren't technically emojis. And I am certain they are referring to this character and not another with their "Bisexual Sign" label: [133]. Twitter has results for both meanings, apparently a slim majority of "bi". 98.170.164.88 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- With some hopefully better refs, we could definitely add the bi meaning to ⚥, then.
- The white circle displays as an emoji for me too, and badly, but then whichever font my browser is choosing for these things is screwy. There are a number of symbols, such as the signs of the zodiac, which are not inherently emojis but have emoji alts. This is one of them. kwami (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The white circle displays as an emoji for me, the interlocking gender signs do not. I guess Emojipedia has entries for some symbols that aren't technically emojis. And I am certain they are referring to this character and not another with their "Bisexual Sign" label: [133]. Twitter has results for both meanings, apparently a slim majority of "bi". 98.170.164.88 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's a whole previous 2016 discussion at Talk:⚤. "Bisexuality" apparently refers to a botanical meaning in this context, not an LGBT meaning. AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Bisexual" in the botanical context (hermaphroditic "perfect" flowers or plants) are represented by ⚥. Unicode only has "heterosexuality" for this character. If we only have Emojipedia as a ref, I'm afraid this fails. I'll rv. myself and remove it, pending someone finding a RS. kwami (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I found something similar in Nixon & Düsterhöft (2017) Sex in the Digital Age, p. 150, where they say,
- "Another common symbol used within bisexual spaces are the interlocking male and female gender symbols. These symbols are taken from the astrological symbols for Mars and venus and intertwined to signify men attracted to men, men and women attracted to each other, and women attracted to women. This symbol is frequently shown in black, but is also commonly shown in pink, blue and purple."
- There is no illustration, but the wording suggests they mean the quadruple symbol
rather than ⚤. kwami (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Alt symbol for 'sun', but not sure ever used in astron, astrol. or alchem. kwami (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Stricnina For the word tandayag, I can't find the adjective sense you put in any dictionary or source. Could you source it? Thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Gaulish: Is there any evidence that this existed as a distinct word? It appears to be the same as the element -briga, which is said in sources such as Matasović 2009:77 to be only attested as part of compound toponyms. So, this should be moved to Reconstruction:Gaulish/briga. — 69.120.66.131 22:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Btw, see this discussion for some related info, such as Latin toponyms with this "suffix" that were borrowed from Celtic, some of which should probably be listed in the event that a reconstruction page is created. Note that these are -brīga in Latin, with long ī, unlike the short i currently transcribed at brigā (which might just have been a baseless assumption on the part of the entry creator). — 69.120.66.131 22:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Amharic. There is ዐሥራ፡አንድ and ዐሥራንድ, but I can't find any evidence of this exact spelling. Thadh (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This form doesn't appear to exist in Middle English, which only knows the form wrengðe (the word is a Early Middle English hapax). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's difficult to know if you're referring to the use of th in the spelling, or the lack of final e (or both). The nominative form, which would be used as the Wiktionary headword, could potentially be wrengð*, *wrengþ, *wrength, wrengðe, *wrengþe, or *wrengthe. Leasnam (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- If the nominative originally lacked final -e (which is by no means certain), there's a good chance that it would've been levelled in from the oblique cases by the thirteenth century, making it formally identical to them. As a result, there's no justification for having a seperate entry (and if we did decide to create one, it should be located at wrengð, as assuming that a scribe who uses <ð> in one place would use it elsewhere is the most parsimonious option). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've no qualms about an entry as wrengð, but we should leave wrength as a redirect. It's used with that spelling in references and other listings, and it's useful as a first-stop shop for individuals trying to locate it (i.e. looking it up and not realising that th = ð, or others not knowing where to find ð on their keyboard). How do we handle interchangeable bookstaves currently for Middle English ? like u~v, y~ȝ, w~ȝ, gh~ȝ, etc. I always change a fricative 'u' to v in all my edits automatically, and use 'u' solely as a vowel. In English headwords, we do not use ſ for s, but show s only; and in Old English we abandoned using ƿ for w, although ƿ is really more correct. Doing this for Middle English would be a departure from that logic, but if consensus dictates, then I have no problem with it. Also, we do show non-attested spellings for transliterations, like liufs for 𐌻𐌹𐌿𐍆𐍃. wrength could be argued to be a "transliteration" of sorts for wrengð. Leasnam (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't think we should create a entry at wrengð (in fact, I'm saying we shouldn't, as the nominative might've got the final vowel levelled in). As for creating a entry at wrength, my main qualm with that idea is that we currently lack any policies for handling such modernised forms; I believe there was some discussion about creating a template
{{modernised form of}}
, but I'm too unwell to go around digging it up. By the way, I wouldn't say there's a urgent need for a Middle English wrength, given that we have a ModE wrength that has a nice link to wrengðe in the etymology. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)- In the absence of policy we have consensus. I agree, there's no need for a Middle English wrength (now removed), the modern form suffices. As to the modernised spelling, I have created wrengthe. Leasnam (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't think we should create a entry at wrengð (in fact, I'm saying we shouldn't, as the nominative might've got the final vowel levelled in). As for creating a entry at wrength, my main qualm with that idea is that we currently lack any policies for handling such modernised forms; I believe there was some discussion about creating a template
- I've no qualms about an entry as wrengð, but we should leave wrength as a redirect. It's used with that spelling in references and other listings, and it's useful as a first-stop shop for individuals trying to locate it (i.e. looking it up and not realising that th = ð, or others not knowing where to find ð on their keyboard). How do we handle interchangeable bookstaves currently for Middle English ? like u~v, y~ȝ, w~ȝ, gh~ȝ, etc. I always change a fricative 'u' to v in all my edits automatically, and use 'u' solely as a vowel. In English headwords, we do not use ſ for s, but show s only; and in Old English we abandoned using ƿ for w, although ƿ is really more correct. Doing this for Middle English would be a departure from that logic, but if consensus dictates, then I have no problem with it. Also, we do show non-attested spellings for transliterations, like liufs for 𐌻𐌹𐌿𐍆𐍃. wrength could be argued to be a "transliteration" of sorts for wrengð. Leasnam (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- If the nominative originally lacked final -e (which is by no means certain), there's a good chance that it would've been levelled in from the oblique cases by the thirteenth century, making it formally identical to them. As a result, there's no justification for having a seperate entry (and if we did decide to create one, it should be located at wrengð, as assuming that a scribe who uses <ð> in one place would use it elsewhere is the most parsimonious option). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
German. 19 results on Google and 0 on Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @-sche: I assure no cap it is extremely common in speech, in certain circles to understand, but suppressed due to taboo, however also understood when e.g. people talk about certain incidences to journalists. (It naturally has become rarer though since the Scholz government, if it is not just my impression because of my digital detox.)
- But have you searched the plural? Apparently not. The singular is rare since the talk usually goes about collectives (hence even the singular is found collectively in the instances on the web), perhaps it should be moved and I believe this a misunderstanding. Fay Freak (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well this is problematic since the usual way to talk about one is einer von Merkels Fachkräften but this is hardly a bearable pagetitle. Fay Freak (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I see a few hits for the plural (btw both book hits and many web hits are just the plural, not einer von ~). As far as the POS, would it work to move this to Merkels Fachkräften (pl.), and view einer von Merkels Fachkräften as [einer] [von] [[Merkels Fachkräften]]? To compare another entry I just saw, in both "I'm hanging with the boys" and "I'm hanging with one of the boys", the entry can be "the boys" without needing *"one of the boys" or *"the boy"/"boy", which mean other things. But whether this idiomatically, lexically means what the entry says is also very questionable, compare e.g. Putins "Befreier", Putin's "liberators", are these idiomatic two-word phrases to be defined as "Russian soldier invading Ukraine" or is it better to view them as sarcastically using and quoting the specified person's word? - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good analogy, if the boys is valid then Merkels Fachkräfte should be the entry page, although you see a few times there is a singular, I don’t know whether this should teach us anything. I of course leaned upon towards it being lexicalized. It was odd to observe how e.g. electric Jew, German Elektrojude, also was just a sarcastic figure and then because one repeated after another with some regularity it was a set term. It is the same criterion by which one decides whether something has passed from one language into another: As long as people dont take over the term she-bagging from their consumed German content into German it is not German but English and the German quotes stay ranged under English since you can arbitrarily borrow anything from a foreign language into your speech if you can rely upon people sharing the same language background, for instance when programmers talk to each other, and three people perpetrating an innovation independently from their language community does not make a word. Fay Freak (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Since Merkels is a definite determiner, Merkels Fachkraft should refer to one specific instance (compare Halley's Comet – one cannot say *“a Halley’s Comet”) or be an uncountable noun phrase, like A. Vogels Echinaforce. In cases where a count noun has an eponym component, the German solution is the join them into one word, like Bunsenbrenner, possible hyphenated, as in Bessemer-Verfahren, or to adjectivalize the name, as in Merkelsche Hauptgleichung. So uses of a singular Merkels Fachkraft are not to be expected. --Lambiam 19:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why is the word "Eurasian" in the definition? Turkey and the Middle East (excluding N. Africa) are in Eurasia, and I would have guessed that xenophobes were against immigration from those places. 98.170.164.88 20:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
June 2022
Tagalog. Remove this and all Japanese surnames listed in Tagalog Kanamayanan (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kanamayanan FYI, this is a page for requesting citations, not a page for requesting deletions. Theknightwho (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. The currency symbol for the cryptocurrency Ether. I'm seeing plenty of mentions on Google, but not really any actual use in anything durably archived. Theknightwho (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
General term قرد is used instead. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC).
South Levantine Arabic. Unattested in the dialect. — This unsigned comment was added by AdrianAbdulBaha (talk • contribs) at 13:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC).
Moksha. Rfv-sense, multiple senses: "(in compounds) community, group, corps"; "(taxonomy) kingdom"; "(mathematics, set theory) field". These look like they were copied from the Finnish cognate, kunta, right down to using the same compound examples. To be fair, there are exactly two non-durably-archived internet hits for "ломанькундья" other than the Wiktionary entry itself, but they are in Russian apparently mentioning the word. Nothing for "кевгундья". 70.172.194.25 07:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is a word used only by language purists. this book seems to state that the term isn't used at all currently (a Russian borrowing is used instead), and I couldn't find any durable cites for the derived terms either. The etymology that was given in the entry until I removed it just now isn't helping the credibility of the page's contents either. Thadh (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Old English. From RFDN:
Old English. The Bosworth-Toller affirms that the actual word is sinnihte, a neuter ja-stem. The genitive singular in -es and the fact that its never attested in its endingless form (very common even for oblique cases of niht) point to this conclusion. Hundwine (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, send to WT:RFVN. --Astova (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
This, that and the other (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is not an alternative form. This is the nominative form, and sinnihte is the oblique singular. Leasnam (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Moksha. There doesn't really seem to be any evidence for this being a word in Moksha - the quote could equally well be talking about the practice rather than the word itself (and is apparently just one out of many theories regarding its origin). (Note that if the quote is indeed talking about the practice, then the existing quote on the page is a mention, which would not count.) — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- In any case I believe it should be lower-case. Thadh (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Does anyone know how to track down "Moksha journal, 1973, Issue 6, pp. 71-72"? (E.g. the original name of the journal would be useful information for improving verifiability, even if it's behind a paywall.) 70.172.194.25 05:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Cebuano. If anything the expression is probably walay lugod-lugod, but I can't even find this. This, that and the other (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Bulan Jatidiri#Malay as a translation of Pride Month
RFV-t. 0 hits on Google Books, Google Scholar and Google Groups. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense:
- (alt-right) a dogwhistle for white supremacy.
The hand gesture this represents was promoted as a white supremacist symbol by a massive 4-chan hoax, but has arguably been adopted by at least some actual white supremacists.
This entry, however, is for the Unicode character. Has this been involved in the above?
As a side note: would it be better to describe the hand gesture in the entry as an "alleged" dogwhistle? And, given that this has been sold very hard to the mainstream, as well, does this qualify as a true dogwhistle? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have absolutely seen this used first-hand numerous times as a dogwhistle, and it's also important to note that the real hoax was the pretence that it was always just a joke and never a real dogwhistle. The whole point of that was to prevent people from being taken seriously when they pointed it out (i.e. an elaborate version of the "I was joking" defence).
- In any event, it would be good to get this cited. I'll have a look shortly. Theknightwho (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This did start out as a 4chan false-flag campaign intended to paint their ideological opponents as perpetually-offended types. But they've functionally made fetch happen. The OK sign is now listed as a hate symbol by the ADL, although the entry notes there are still many benign usages. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Turkish courts believe the circular hand gesture – somewhat unavoidable when hastily buttoning your jacket – implies any bystanders are made out to be gay.[134] --Lambiam 14:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz @WordyAndNerdy I have provided 8 cites from Twitter plus three references, including the original 4chan thread and a particularly good article by SPLC which explains usage. I've made sure that all of them are archived at the Internet Archive and so on. Hoping that this can be a good test of the new policy. Theknightwho (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Those seem fit for purpose. Thanks for taking the time to dig them up. I'd suggest removing the links from the quotations though per WT:QUOTE. When I cited the crab emoji, I suggested that, of all the social-media platforms, Twitter would be the most valuable addition to our toolbox. It's widely-used, freely viewable for almost everyone, and has advanced and easy-to-use search functionality. Plus it's currently the largest platform I know of that indexes emojis. I cited the crab emoji almost two years ago. The nomination is still open. I can't imagine a better illustration of how Wiktionary's systemic aversion to change is impeding our ability to document language. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The SPLC and ADL and various other websites say that the specific reason for this symbol is that in addition to looking like the letters "OK" (supposedly), it also looks like the letters "WP" for white power (the spread fingers looking like W and the circle being the loop of the P, with either the index finger or wrist serving as the stem of the P), which would be good to mention in the entry. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
CFI-mandated discussion
Ends January 11, 2023, 23:59 (UTC)- Ends January 27, 2023, 23:59 (UTC)
- Under discussion: the "alt-right" sense under 👌#rfv-sense-notice-mul-
- Citations: on the entry itself
These citations aren't durably archived, so we technically need to have a discussion lasting two weeks to decide whether they are sufficient attestation. Anyone care to comment? 70.172.194.25 22:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would not cite this from a single web site, from a dozen or a hundred of the millions or billions of tweets. It's barely above the reliability of quoting something you heard on the subway. (Citing 4chan is like quoting fragments of overheard conversation.) Are there any reputable journal articles by socioligists or linguists on this? Not columns in Slate or lists of things SPLC disapproves of. A reviewed paper by somebody who took a data dump and did the research to find out this is a phenomenon, taking care to distinguish the real life hand gesture from the emoji. Otherwise it is OK if we only document the OK symbol as meaning OK. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we have to call this RFV-failed. One comment saying current sourcing is insufficient, none saying it's sufficient. The discussion was advertised on WT:BP, and the explicitly set two week time period is up, so that's that for now. If anyone wants to improve the sourcing in the ways proposed by Vox we can reconsider this someday. 70.172.194.25 20:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't actually realise this discussion was happening. Can we reopen it? Because I don't think the above critique is particularly fair: 4chan was not the only source provided, and there are numerous other tweets of a very similar nature to be found very easily. Asking for evidence that one knows doesn't exist (and which goes well beyond that which we provide for most terms) does not justify dismissing the evidence provided. In particular, dismissing the SPLC as "disapproving" of it is completely unjustified and, quite frankly, feels politically motivated. Theknightwho (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, on a procedural note, I don't think this should have been closed as RFV failed without taking into account the initial discussion. Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. How about extending the discussion another two weeks? In my defense, I did publicize the discussion in the most prominent place I could think of, and even posted about it again yesterday to remind anyone who was procrastinating commenting. I assumed there just wasn't any interest. Maybe we need a separate noticeboard for such discussions so people know they're happening?
- I'm not sure about counting comments outside of the explicitly set up discussion; that doesn't seem to be the standard applied in WT:Votes and other venues, where you have to show up to the formal discussion to count. But I do see your point. It we were to count the comments above the subsection, then the result would be 2-1, which would pass. 70.172.194.25 21:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear: I'm not blaming you at all; I think there's still quite a lot of confusion of how this policy works, as we've had everything from fully-formalised votes to ordinary discussions. My understanding was that we'd settled on something in the middle. Particularly given the bulk of the above discussion happened quite a while ago, I think it's fair to say that the things said there were said under the assumption that they would be taken into account. Thanks for reopening it, anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I would certainly agree that the policy is confusing and that it has been applied in very different ways. Thanks for understanding. I've bumped up the closure date for 👌. Btw, do you think the closure of 🦀 was okay, or should that discussion be extended as well for similar reasons (esp. lack of exposure)? 70.172.194.25 21:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think it probably should (though I wouldn't have anything to add to it). Giving it a read, the outcome feels as though it's in line with the prior discussion, but it would be good to get more voices involved in the formal discussion if we're going to use this format. Theknightwho (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Getting more people to comment would be ideal. The problem is that I can't force people to comment. I could ping random people (probably annoying, and could be accused of bias if those people are known to be approving or disapproving of online sources) or repost it to BP/TR (arguably spammy given that I've already done that). In going through the RFVN backlog there are likely to be other such cases and it would be good to know how to handle them, though. There are already a couple other such sections on this page, my feeble attempt at resolving ancient discussions that are going nowhere, and in those cases I used
{{wgping}}
for the language in question. 70.172.194.25 22:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)- Just going to add that the SPLC is on Wikipedia's list of perennial sources here, specifically in relation to the subject of extremism. There have been no less than 19 discussions as to whether it should remain there. As above - it's difficult to take a curt dismissal of it seriously. Theknightwho (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Getting more people to comment would be ideal. The problem is that I can't force people to comment. I could ping random people (probably annoying, and could be accused of bias if those people are known to be approving or disapproving of online sources) or repost it to BP/TR (arguably spammy given that I've already done that). In going through the RFVN backlog there are likely to be other such cases and it would be good to know how to handle them, though. There are already a couple other such sections on this page, my feeble attempt at resolving ancient discussions that are going nowhere, and in those cases I used
- I think it probably should (though I wouldn't have anything to add to it). Giving it a read, the outcome feels as though it's in line with the prior discussion, but it would be good to get more voices involved in the formal discussion if we're going to use this format. Theknightwho (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I would certainly agree that the policy is confusing and that it has been applied in very different ways. Thanks for understanding. I've bumped up the closure date for 👌. Btw, do you think the closure of 🦀 was okay, or should that discussion be extended as well for similar reasons (esp. lack of exposure)? 70.172.194.25 21:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear: I'm not blaming you at all; I think there's still quite a lot of confusion of how this policy works, as we've had everything from fully-formalised votes to ordinary discussions. My understanding was that we'd settled on something in the middle. Particularly given the bulk of the above discussion happened quite a while ago, I think it's fair to say that the things said there were said under the assumption that they would be taken into account. Thanks for reopening it, anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Moved here from RfD. --Lambiam 08:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This word doesn't exist in Turkish. Dohqo (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- According to Turkish Language Association's Kişi Adları Sözlüğü (Personal Names Dictionary) it means: 1. Görkemli, kuvvetli, muazzam. 2. Yiğit, kahraman. 3. Rütbe, unvan.4. Bir tür kaplan. — This comment was unsigned.
- Not in
{{R:tr:OTK}}
. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Translingual; has {{rfdef}}
and a single scholarly cite as a specific epithet in ichnology. I could not find another at Google Scholar among the numerous hits for "upsila", not at the Catalog of Life. DCDuring (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- This was added over a decade ago by User:Doremítzwr, who was somewhat fixated on minor historical peculiarities and apparently quite ignorant of taxonomy. Given that at least one of the taxonomic codes mentions "an arbitrary sequence of letters" as one type of taxonomic name, we should be more selective of which specific epithets we create entries for. After all, there are literally millions of species, and in some disciplines taxonomists are desperately trying to come up with unique names for thousands and thousands of them.
- I would propose that we don't include a specific epithet if it isn't used in a certain number of binomials, with possibly some kind of loophole for names that make their way into other terms. Perhaps also a few could be allowed for well known species, but I'm not sure how we would decide on application.
- This reminds me of misspellings, where we disallow rare ones. A specific epithet used in only one species name would only be looked up by someone who already knew the species name- aside from etymology, there's basically nothing they could learn from an entry here. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fine with me. The number 3 seems like one possibility and is not entirely arbitrary, echoing RfV as it does. There are probably some peculiar ones that might have some linguistic interest (humor, etymology etc.) that don't have three binomials in which they are used (eg humbugi), but I'd be willing to sacrifice them. DCDuring (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Such cases could be documented at the binomial (Ba humbugi is more interesting than just "humbugi" anyway). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- The etymology may be worth having. More relevant is being told whether it is an adjective, which is relevant for professionals when assigning to a new genus in accordance with the principle of the instability of binomial names. Unfortunately, we also list genitives as adjectives, which is rather unhelpful. Has policy in this matter been decided? Two offenders I found straight off were boisei and darwinii. --RichardW57m (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- We have etymology at upsila#English. DCDuring (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fine with me. The number 3 seems like one possibility and is not entirely arbitrary, echoing RfV as it does. There are probably some peculiar ones that might have some linguistic interest (humor, etymology etc.) that don't have three binomials in which they are used (eg humbugi), but I'd be willing to sacrifice them. DCDuring (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Elsewhere I find this ichnospecies referred to as Psilonichnus upsilon,[135] also while referring to “Frey et al. 1984”, as in the quotation with P. upsila.[136] The bibliographic reference is somewhat ambiguous; it could refer to [Frey, R. W. and Pemberton (1984), “Trace fossil facies models”, in Roger G. Walker (ed.), Facies Models], or – more likely in view of the et al. suggesting more than one co-author – [Robert W. Frey, H. Allen Curran and S. George Pemberton, “Tracemaking Activities of Crabs and Their Environmental Significance: The Ichnogenus Psilonichnus”, Journal of Paleontology vol. 58, no. 2, March 1984, pp. 333–350.[137]] The latter uses P. upsilon, so the epithet upsila appears to belong to the ichnospecies Oopsadaisy, whose primary substrate is formed by reference works such as dictionaries. --Lambiam 11:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is a memorospecies until we delete it. DCDuring (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Frey et al., or perhaps the genus, appears to be typified by ignorance of Greek and Latin. In one paragraph, I see P. tubiformis (m. or f.), P. upsila (f.), and P. lutimuratus (m.), though surely Psilonichnus is neuter! Shades of Tellus Tertius! --RichardW57m (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hits at BHL are for Upsila (place) and the plural of upsilon ("hook") in a single 1852 journal. Nothing at the Catalog of Life or the Index of Organism Names for the epithet. DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Saterland Frisian. Pinging @OriginReboot. I could find a lot of mentions, and the term seems to be in used over at Saterland Frisian Wikipedia, but both SW and Piet Kramer's dictionary use forms containing -äi- instead (Säidelsbíerig and Säidelsbierich respectively, as is expected), and I couldn't find any durably archived attestation of this spelling. Thadh (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's the official Saterland Frisian name, cp.:
- saterland.de, saterland.de: "Bereits die Ortseingangsschilder der vier Gemeindeteile Sedelsberg (Seedelsbierich), Scharrel (Skäddel), Ramsloh (Roomelse), und Strücklingen (Strukelje) sind zusätzlich mit dem saterfriesischen Namen beschriftet"
- Niedersachsen erlesen: "Heute ist Seeltersk in Saterland zweite Amtssprache: Die Ortsschilder sind zweisprachig: Ramsloh (Roomelse), Scharrel (Skäddel), Sedelsberg (Seedelsbierich) und Strücklingen (Strukelje)."
- nwzonline.de: [picture]
- --Amicus vetus (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Sanskrit. Rfv-sense: Kharoshthi.
So far as I am aware, it is an assumption rather than a good guess that the Sanskrit word refers to the script known as Kharoshthi in English. Any Sanskrit examples of usage in this sense would be from the last two hundred years. (On the other hand, the cited quotation is the ultimate known source of the English word.)
I think the word may actually have two senses - whatever script it meant in the original sense (if it isn't a word like jabberwocky), and the Kharoshthi script as known today. However, we don't have a quotation for the latter! --RichardW57m (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.
Old English.
- This is attested <<Ðæt ic hæbbe hnesce litlingas, and gecelfe cý mid me - that I have tender children and incalving cows with me >>. Also found here [[138]]. Leasnam (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is also the entry at ġeċealf, which is/is not the same term (?) Leasnam (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Based on the similar terms ġeēan, ġefearh, and ġefol and the lack of i-umlaut in all of these, this word was actually ġeċealf. Hundwine (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Hundwine Per Clark Hall A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, the form is geċealfe "great with calf" sourced to GenC 33:13, where GenC is explained in the intro as "Crawford's Heptateuch" version of the poem of Genesis. Benwing2 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, send to WT:RFVN. --Astova (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Hundwine, Benwing2, Astova This, that and the other (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The two Nahuatl languages mark this terms as noun and adjective respectively, is that correct? --TongcyDai (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.
Hebrew. Apparently incorrect. --Huckerby980 (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. It's used in the press occasionally, although בית עבוט is more common. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Should we have an entry for משכונות by itself? I can't quite figure it out; could it be cognate to מִסְכֵּן (compare Mozarabic משכון (mškwn))? From the uses it seems to have three meanings: (1) pawn (security for loan)[139]; (2) pawn shop (perhaps by shortening of חנות משכונות); (3) neighbourhood. Cases of the last one are probably misspellings of משכנות. --Lambiam 09:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hawaiian.
I can find no evidence for this at all. There is a verb having to do with sprinkling water, so this may need to be changed to an rfv-sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ya, looks fishy.
- FWIW, the Wikipedia Jackrabbit article redirects to Hare. Wehewehe's entry for "hare" gives us:
hare
Lepu, hale, lāpaki, ʻiole lāpaki. See rabbit.
kā.pī.pī
Redup. of kāpī.
kā.pī
vt. To sprinkle, as with salt; to salt; to scatter, as sand or salt. Also kōpī. Mai kāpī mai ʻoe i ke one, don't throw sand at me.
- Methinks that the IP that created Hawaiian kāpīpī is off-base.
- Note that the HAW translation they added at English jackrabbit will need to be removed / fixed as well. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Princeipeazul Could you provide attestation for this based on Wiktionary entry guidelines? I can't find this in any published source. It kinda needs to be to be tracked in Wiktionary. Thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, we've got tropa listed as meaning a group of friends in Tagalog, so there's probably something to this, but there's clearly a mistake somewhere. If it were a typo for something like tropatita i could see this being a diminutive coined in Spanish and then loaned, or even coined natively using familiar patterns .... but although the letters are close I get the impression that no such word exists, and that anywhere it appears on Google search results is an example of the two separate words tropa + tito spelled bunched together as in hashtags. Alternatively, there may be a connection with patutsada, created by the same author, and with the same six letters in a row. —Soap— 21:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Soap: It's obvious that it's related to "tropa". The issue is attestation. So many variations of Tagalog slang come and go but they don't stick. Probably this is one of them. Without attestation, it can't be an entry in Wiktionary. By the way, the IPA template you put is wrong, when "ts" is at the end of a Tagalog sentence, it doesn't produce a /tʃ/ sound but a /ts/ sound. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Pali. Rfv-sense: Brahmaloka
It seems unlikely that a Pali word would refer to a specifically Hindu concept, which is what Wiktionary claims Brahmaloka to be. Additionally, Theravada Buddhism appears to have about 20 different brahmalokas. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.
This is a Pattani Malay word. - Patnugot123 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why should it be deleted? Can't it just be turned into a Pattani Malay entry?
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC) - @GinormousBuildings can you respond to Patnugot123's request by demonstrating that this is in use as a Malay word, or whether it belongs to the distinct Pattani Malay language? This, that and the other (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Vietnamese for Brussels. Has this ever been used? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's been a year. Failed. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
July 2022
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN. 10:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Unattestable. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- To be checked: [140]. 98.170.164.88 04:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Indonesian and Malay. Rfv-sense: "my God" (interjection). Added by @Munmula under their old account (@Alumnum) at ilahi on 22 May 2019. -- NameName233 (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Old English. All I'm seeing is ælfþone (Bosworth-Toller). 98.170.164.88 00:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I created an entry for ælfþone. "ielfþone", along with "ielfiġ" originally appeared on this page: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ielf#Derived_terms
"ælfþone" is in the Mercian orthography.
2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:A07C:91F6:D2CC:EC3A 00:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense: (botany, obsolete) biennial (the orbital period of Mars is 2 years)
As an aside, I assume the part about the orbital period of Mars is the etymology of the sense, but I'm not certain. Theknightwho (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can find “♂ Biennial” and “♃ Perennial” here, as well as “☉ Annual”, thus extending the correspondence between the plant’s longevity and the astronomical object’s orbital period, undoubtedly the origin of the association of these symbols with plants. “♄” is also listed, but as simply meaning “Shrub or Tree” – all of which, however, are perennial anyway. Likewise here and here, although the latter has a toppled Jupiter in the table; later uses in the book are upright). --Lambiam 14:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Taking the three sources together, I'd suggest that we amend ♂ to read
biennial plant
for the sake of consistency. All three sources seem to give a mix of noun and adjective glosses for these symbols, and they're not consistent with each other when it comes to the same symbol. Given that they're not used within running text, it doesn't really matter which style we choose, butbiennial plant
is more elegant thanOf a plant, binennial.
Theknightwho (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Taking the three sources together, I'd suggest that we amend ♂ to read
Translingual. Rfv-sense: (botany, obsolete) herbaceous perennial plant (the orbital period of Jupiter is 12 years)
Not sure how the two halves of the sense relate to each other, to be quite honest. I guess herbaceous plants live longer than 2 years (see ♂) but less than woody plants (see ♄)? Theknightwho (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense: (botany, obsolete) woody perennial plant (the orbital period of Saturn is 30 years)
Also unsure how the two halves of the sense relate to each other, but I assume it's to do with woody plants living longer than herbaceous ones (see ♃). Theknightwho (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Written Oirat. Using proper formatting this is: ᠨᡇᡇ᠍ᠷ
Moved from RFDN. HeliosX wrote: "As far as I may be concerned about transliterating the w:Clear script, these orthographies are all false and, due to this, the entries shouldn't be kept." LibCae, the entry's creator, responded: "The first variant was attested in Pozdneyev’s printed dictionary (although it’s not enough unless we find it in a manuscript). Should we keep the spelling for a while?"
tl;dr can it be attested in a manuscript? This, that and the other (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Old English. This seems to be unattested and should be moved to *fyxen; the OED dutifully prepends a asterisk to it in its entry for vixen, and it is absent from both Bosworth-Toller and the Dictionary of Old English. To avoid confusion, it's worth noting that a adjective fyxen (“related to foxes”) does actually appear to be attested. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 17:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hundwine do you have any observations before I close this as RFV-failed? This, that and the other (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Norse. This edit by Xact (talk • contribs) added some extra information, but did not really follow the Wiktionary format, and I cannot verify the content because I cannot read the language of the book in the link. --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like the info is right based on the reference, but they should have made a new L3 header for the noun instead of sticking it in the etymology. The quotation from the c. 1500 manuscript ("AM 625 4") is shown in the panel on the right of the reference, but someone more knowledgeable should confirm it I guess. 98.170.164.88 00:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Arabic. Rfv-senses: "to be revealed or divulged, to become known", "(of a secret) to leak out". There was an edit war over whether to include these intransitive senses, in addition to the transitive sense of "to reveal, to divulge, to disclose", which is currently the only one that remains. To be clear, I was not involved in the edit war.
FWIW, Wehr lists all these intransitive senses as well as the transitive ones, almost verbatim: [141]. 98.170.164.88 03:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- See my response above. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 03:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Abu Al-Haytham Ibn al-Tayyihan said إن الوصي إمامنا وولينا برح الخفاء وباحت الأسرار [142] --2001:16A2:E950:3402:28B9:7B80:EB65:4073 09:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Belarusian. Tagged but not listed. Original tag said:
made-up word. I looked several dictionaries, the closest is ялито in Гістарычны слоўнік беларускай мовы, Vol. 9 with the meaning "Intestine". The reference also cites a couple of examples with obscure meaning, including Bible. Anyway the word is still spelled differently.
added on 12:54, 16 July 2022 by Jarash (talk • contribs). —Mahāgaja · talk 12:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The word ялі́ты-таў appears in this dictionary: [143]. I added three citations from other sources, but two of them are non-ideal: a LiveJournal post and a Yiddish–Belarusian dictionary (where it appears as one of the glosses for ביצה (bitsh)). You can find more on bnkorpus.info and archive.org by searching for the lemma form, but the hits are mostly mentions. I find that it's not that easy to search for attestations in Belarusian since Google Books is lacking. The same applies to some other Eastern European languages. Maybe some leniency is justified. 98.170.164.88 01:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Middle English. Rfv-sense: "question". This purported sense seems to be a erroneous extrapolation from fræġn; there's no trace of it in the MED or OED, and I don't see any evidence of any attestations that these two dictionaries've missed. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. Leasnam (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Leasnam Can you confirm that everything in this search is using it as a verb? I can't parse some of these passages, e.g. "þe frain" in isolation could either mean "ask thee" or (hypothetically) "the question", "hir frain" could mean "ask her" or (hypothetically) "her question". I'm guessing it's the verb in all cases, but I just wanted to check. 70.172.194.25 06:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't able to find any clear noun uses of frain Leasnam (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also searched for frein, freyn, and frayn and came across this which looks like it might be a noun, here [[144]] - the very first instance where it says And at þaim gaue þair fader frayn - if I'm reading this correctly (which I hope I am) it says "And at them gave their father frayn ("question" ?)" i.e. "And their father directed a question at them", and he appears to ask a question in the very next line...but frayn is a slightly different spelling, of course, than frain. Leasnam (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also should point out that frayn above doesn't appear to likely mean "ash-tree" or "bridle/rein" - two other possible renderings for this spelling Leasnam (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Hazarasp Thoughts? 70.172.194.25 07:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty unwell at the moment, so I can't answer. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Hazarasp Thoughts? 70.172.194.25 07:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also should point out that frayn above doesn't appear to likely mean "ash-tree" or "bridle/rein" - two other possible renderings for this spelling Leasnam (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also searched for frein, freyn, and frayn and came across this which looks like it might be a noun, here [[144]] - the very first instance where it says And at þaim gaue þair fader frayn - if I'm reading this correctly (which I hope I am) it says "And at them gave their father frayn ("question" ?)" i.e. "And their father directed a question at them", and he appears to ask a question in the very next line...but frayn is a slightly different spelling, of course, than frain. Leasnam (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't able to find any clear noun uses of frain Leasnam (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Leasnam Can you confirm that everything in this search is using it as a verb? I can't parse some of these passages, e.g. "þe frain" in isolation could either mean "ask thee" or (hypothetically) "the question", "hir frain" could mean "ask her" or (hypothetically) "her question". I'm guessing it's the verb in all cases, but I just wanted to check. 70.172.194.25 06:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Sense 2: bowtie. Also please fix the page to point to non-English RFV if you can; I could not find instructions to do this, so it points to English RFV. Equinox ◑ 15:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unicode calls it that. `python -c 'import unicodedata; print(unicodedata.name("⋈"))'` prints BOWTIE. This suggests that there must be a historical reason where some people did call it bowtie. Nowadays most people just call it the natural join symbol. A Google search for this symbol only returns results with bowtie when it's on Unicode table websites.
- All in all, I would suggest Delete. This just duplicates the Unicode box to the top right. Keeping this specific definition provides no additional information. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
(Bulgarian) @ZomBear Hello, you just recently suggested this sense be verified, and I noticed there is no debate for this yet, so I thought to start this post. The word seems relatively legitimate to me, but is not overly common; nevertheless you can find uses of it online (not in literature) and I have heard it used as a native. What do you think? Kiril kovachev (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kiril kovachev Hi. I didn't find the Bulgarian form ебати (ebati) anywhere in the dictionaries (Is this some kind of borrowing from Russian or what?). Everywhere mentioned only Bulgarian еба́ (ebá). Also very interested in where did the Old Church Slavonic ебати (ebati) come from? It is also nowhere in the dictionaries. Could this vulgar word be used in the language of church services at all?... strange. --ZomBear (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ZomBear I certainly couldn't find the word in any dictionaries either. The exact etymology of ебати (ebati) is also very unclear, as the main source I usually consult for BG etymology, the Bulgarian Etymological Dictionary, is extremely terse with their description and gives the meaning in Latin... (some sort of censorship?) ...and the term they give is еба, ебавам, etc., which are not ебати as in this entry. I can't say whether it is borrowed from Russian either, as it's got parallels in every other Slavic language you can name (just look at the descendents on Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/jebati), so pinpointing where it comes from looks very difficult. Nevertheless it is obviously cognate with all the other languages' words, and with еба in Bulgarian itself.
- I couldn't find ебати in OCS either, and once again BER was of no help.
- It's also pretty much impossible for it to be used in a liturgical setting, but OCS is also used to subsume Old Bulgarian on Wiktionary as well (as far as I know), where it would be much more apropos in a vernacular sense. We should ask the original OCS entry creator @Mladifilozof. So, by my account, there is no good documentation on the Bulgarian to be found, and for OCS, which I have no expertise in, I couldn't personally find any sources or uses. That said, ебати#Bulgarian still clearly seems to exist in the Bulgarian conscience, as I've found uses on social media, as well as this definition on an online Bulgarian slang dictionary (akin to Urban Dictionary). I don't know whether Wiktionary's standards permit this as a valid justification for keeping the page, but to me it seems constructive to keep the word on here in the hopes it will help people who look up the word in the cases where it shows up. Kiril kovachev (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ZomBear Hello, may I hear your thoughts on the above, please? It's been almost a year, but I am even more resolute in saying that ебати, although vulgar and somewhat parochial in its usage, does get used and should constitute noteworthy Bulgarian. If you would like, I can compile a list of usages online, but even just looking up the word will turn up a healthy picking of instances, so I think we should remove the request for verification for this if you would assent. Kiril kovachev (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Middle English. Rfv-sense: "island". This word apparently seems to have only survived as a place-name suffix after the Old English period; the MED has no attestations of use as a independent nominal. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
August 2022
Old English. In the following passage, the OED claims that only sċitte is attested (further down, it appends a asterisk to sċite).
2022 March, “shit, n. and adj.”, in OED Online[145], Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press:
The attested Old English form [sċitte] shows a (jōn-stem) derivative formation from the zero-grade of this base, with doubling of the consonant caused by the stem-forming suffix
While offering no commentary, Bosworth-Toller similarily has no entry for sċite (“shit”); its entry at sċīte is for "sheet". Given these considerations, it seems pretty obvious that the form sċite is not in fact attested, and that this entry should be moved to Reconstruction:Old English/scite (though Modern English shit can come from either *sċite or sċitte, superficially making such a reconstruction unnecessary, the existence of *sċite is implied by ME and Middle Scots forms with reflexes of ME /eː/ from open-syllable lengthening of /i/). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree the entry should be moved to sċitte. Leasnam (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
RFV-resolved This, that and the other (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Rfv-sense Pokémon". Dennis Dartman (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Dartman: The sense "Pokémon" is easily verifiable in any official translation of the games of the Pokémon series. Sartma (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- See the deletion discussion, however. Dennis Dartman (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Dartman, the confusion is that this is not about RFV of a specific sense for this term. (FWIW, Pokémon is the only sense currently in the ポケットモンスター (Poketto Monsutā) entry.) This is specifically seeking evidence that this passes WT:BRAND. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Tagalog. Needs to fit the inclusion criteria. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
An apparent calque of firearm, and synonymous with Feuerwaffe and Schusswaffe. But attestation of this word is scant (89 hits on Google, including those generated by the Wiktionary entry itself). It is not to be found in the usual dictionary/corpus database sources (Duden, Pons, DWDS, etc.), and the audio on the page is for Feuerwaffe (presumably copied across from that page). Can we find attestation to support this entry's existence? Voltaigne (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Here is a use of the term with a different meaning, possibly the same as for the implied use in Strodtmann’s feuerarm’gen Moloch. Some uses in the sense of a Schießgewehr: [146], [147], [148], [149]. If (as is IMO plausible) this is a partial calque of English firearm, the German noun Arm is innocent and the etymology we give needs to be corrected. --Lambiam 15:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve changed the etymology to “partial calque of English firearm”. --Lambiam 19:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- A leading apostrophe; a form of the apostrophe when it occurs at the beginning of a word.
Translingual. I have seen leading apostrophes in both old and new books but always as ’, never ‛. J3133 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Saek.
No evidence is presented that this spelling has ever been used, nor any explanation of why any recorded pronunciation with the alleged meaning 'five' should be written in this extraordinary manner. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is correct written word and there are a lot of evidences. Since Seak has six tones (or seven but one is for fixing the right tone) so they need two more tone marks. I have all Saek orthography rules, dictionaries, and lores. They are defined many years ago. [150] See Fulltext.pdf page 62 for description. If you stick only with western authors, you won't see these. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Prematurely-created Mariupol Greek Greek spellings
Mariupol Greek. (As will probably be obvious from the section header.)
I created those by transliterating the Cyrillic entries for фукрум and яло, respectively, using the table in WT:GRK-MAR TR to convert Cyrillic into Greek script, assuming, rather naively, that this was a mechanical one-to-one conversion following the rules in the table.🤦♀️
I was quickly disabused of that notion.
Hence, listing the two ones I did create until advised otherwise here, to determine whether I managed to accidentally create the attested correct Greek spelling for these ones. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 15:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Whoop whoop pull up: I have found and added a quote for both. Mariupol Greek seems to have a surprisingly large corpus of books published in the '30s - makes me rethink the fact that we lemmatise at Cyrillic. Thadh (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- It has been brought to my attention by @Poursa0 on Discord that this isn't Mariupol Greek, but rather Demotic. So we're back to square one. Thadh (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thai. Rfv-sense: Accipiter spp.
Word might mean "dove", according to Hippietrail. I looked up all five Accipiter species found in Thailand, according to Avibase, which has vernacular names in many languages, and didn't find any Thai terms. Some English vernacular names for predatory birds contain the name of their prey in their name, like goshawk and sparrowhawk. DCDuring (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Non-domestic fowl normally prefix the classificatory word นก (nók, “bird”) to their names, as obscurely mentioned in the entry for เขา (kǎo). So Hippietrail is right about the word meaning 'dove', and googling finds plenty of confirmation for the meaning 'columbid'. However, if one looks up นกเขา
นin the Thai Royal Institute Dictionary, one will find it defined roughly as Accipiter, with the species A. trivirgatus, A. badius and A. gularis getting specific mention. The connection seems to be a similarity in plumage.- Fixed typo - spurious trailing no nu (น). --RichardW57 (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- The hawk seems to be normally called เหยี่ยวนกเขา, as can be seen in the Thai Wikipedia at https://th.wiktionary.org/wiki/เหยี่ยวนกเขา. Quiet Quentin's found one book with that longer word; and I've found a newspaper website page at https://www.matichon.co.th/prachachuen/prachachuen-scoop/news_1716240 - I'm not sure how good that it is; and an example in the Bible at https://www.bible.com/th/bible/174/JOB.39.26.THSV11. I couldn't find any examples of just นกเขา for 'hawk'. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
21 Old Uyghur lemmas. These were all added by @Anylai back in 2017/18, though all but one are unsourced. ʾβ is sourced, but the one that's available online uses a completely different orthography. Nothing shows up on Google, from what I've been able to tell.
It would also be good to bring any of these that can be verified in line with the rest of the language by converting them to the Old Uyghur script. It's understandable why these weren't, though, given it was only added to Unicode in 2021. Theknightwho (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I did a few of these but I got bored. I think they all exist. One way to find citations is to go to the VATEC "corpus location query form" and enter the term (replacing each right half ring with a question mark, because otherwise it won't work). You then get a list of uses in texts and can click on the bolded chocolate-colored link to see the context, translation, etc. Let me know if you find one you cannot easily find attestations for using this method.
- It's also possible to search for them on Google or Google Books, replacing the right half rings with apostrophes. Unfortunately, a lot of the Google Books hits only show partial context, and there's no translation available to confirm the meaning, etc. 98.170.164.88 03:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Mongolian. Not found in any dictionaries. Cognate with English khan and khagan. Appears to be a naive transliteration of Mongolian ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ (qaɣan) going by this diff, but you can't convert between the two systems like that. The correct conversion is хаан (xaan), which we already have an entry for. Theknightwho (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Gaulish. Needs a source or quote to show attestation. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense: The Tether cryptocurrency, USDT.
Not seeing any uses of this as a currency symbol. Seems to be more of a branding thing. Theknightwho (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know but it is in Wikipedia [151] --Hekaheka (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- It is, but just because we can source them saying it's their currency sign doesn't mean it's actually used as one. Theknightwho (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Mongolian. Not convinced this is a suffix in Mongolian. There are borrowed terms like буддизм (buddizm) and коммунизм (kommunizm), but they come from Russian. Theknightwho (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Are there any native terms, namely (/possibly) neologisms, that use the suffix? How aware are speakers that this is a suffix? Vininn126 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Between Монгол хэлний зөв бичих дүрмийн журамласан толь and Большой академический монгольско-русский словарь I've found 50 - all of them are Russian borrowings. However, I've found evidence of цэдэнбализм (cedenbalizm, “Tsedenbalism”), which I suspect was coined in Mongolian. Theknightwho (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Tagging @Bathrobe, who may be able to comment on this. Theknightwho (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Between Монгол хэлний зөв бичих дүрмийн журамласан толь and Большой академический монгольско-русский словарь I've found 50 - all of them are Russian borrowings. However, I've found evidence of цэдэнбализм (cedenbalizm, “Tsedenbalism”), which I suspect was coined in Mongolian. Theknightwho (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to WT:RFVCJK.
September 2022
Kapampangan. Created by @Fringilla and tagged for speedy deletion by @Ysrael214, who wrote: "Whoever wrote this didn't know that q is a glottal stop and not meant to be written". WT:APAM says that word-final glottal stops do not exist in the language, but this seems to be contradicted by the reference given in the entry, a dictionary containing many words ending in "q", which is employed to represent a "glottal catch". None of our other Kapampangan entries have a "q" in the orthography as far as I can tell, but I feel like this should at least wait out its 30 days. This, that and the other (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other You see Kapampangan doesn't have a standard orthography as of date, more so on the date that the dictionary was written (1971). That dictionary made q to be explicit so that readers will know where the glottal stop is and properly speak the word. I moved kakaq to kaka, as it is the prescribed orthography by Wiktionary at Wiktionary:About Kapampangan (Batiauan Orthography, only made 1997) or more correctly, kákâ to show pronunciation. The 'q' from that dictionary is equivalent to marking the previous vowel with a circumflex accent.
- Wiktionary:About Kapampangan is also wrong with the following:
- Kapampangan not using glottal stops at the end of words (though it is correct that it does not use glottal stops mid-word, glottal stops disappears at the end of a word if it is used in between a sentence)
- Circumflex accent is not used (only grave accent is not used in Batiauan orthography but circumflex is used to show glottal stop after the syllable)
- Thanks! Ysrael214 (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ysrael214 thanks for the extensive response. I'm pinging @TagaSanPedroAko who wrote WT:APAM - it sounds like that page needs updating. This, that and the other (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The Inupiaq numeral system presented here is consistent with the vigesimal system of this language for small numbers, but seems rather strange for very large numbers in the millions, billions or trillions. It seems that none (except for the smallest ones) is attested outside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iñupiaq_numerals. 193.54.167.164 13:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- (@Kwamikagami since you added them) Honestly a very interesting number system, reminds me a lot of the Yorùbá number system. I looked for the source that's listed, "MacLean (2014) Iñupiatun Uqaluit Taniktun Sivuninit / Iñupiaq to English Dictionary, p. 840 ff", but I've been unable to without buying it or going to a physical library. I did find, though, "Edna Ahgeak MacLean (2012) Iñupiatun Uqaluit Taniktun Sivunniuġutiŋit North Slope Iñupiaq to English Dictionary, University of Alaska Fairbanks: Alaska Native Languages Archives", which seems to be a precursor to the prior source, and does have all the numbers cited. However, I don't have the energy right now to add them to every entry, so I'll leave it to y'all to decide if it's officially cited or not. AG202 (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- These are the numbers taught in schools. Though the language is moribund. kwami (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- The large numbers certainly aren't traditional. I imagine the language was extended to cover large numbers so that it would be adequate for science and mathematics. Something all languages with large numerals have done. kwami (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. Not in Kuznecov (1946) nor Lytkin (1962), all google books results (all mentions, by the way) seem to be Komi-Zyrian. Thadh (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Romani Swadesh List
Hi, I am a native Romani speaker of the Lovari and the East Slovak dialects, and I can't help notice that the Swadesh list for the language is very misleading and full of errors, and should be improved upon. Firstly it lists the Swadesh list as a 'Romani' Swadesh List, when this couldn't be further from the truth. To begin with my points it should be noted that Romani isn't a standardised language, and that it's dialects feature many words from their contact languages, even basic ones such as on this Swadesh list, whereas many maintain native words for these words which this list seems to ignore, and tries to paint an image of Romani being a sole language which will be illustrated in my points.
Firstly, the lexemes within the list are solely confined to only one dialect, the Kalderash one, as seen by the list having words for simple concepts such as 'some' as borrowings from Romanian (which highly influenced Kalderash). This paints the image that Romani has highly borrowed words from Romanian when this is incorrect as only some dialects have, and many use native Romani terms for words such as 'some' which a simple visit to the ROMLEX linguistic database can display.
Secondly, the name itself is misleading. If the list is based of off Kalderash Romani words and phonology, it should be annotated so and the name of the Swadesh list should be changed to 'Kalderash Romani' or even 'Vlax Romani'. If a 'Romani Swadesh List' is created which I will discuss in my last paragraph, using native oiklitic (words before the migration to Europe) which are consisted of native Indian terms and loanwords from Armenian, Iranic and Byzantine Greek. Kalderash has unfortunately lost many native words for basic terms that the vast majority of dialects preserve, such as using 'skurto' for short in the Swadesh list, when many other dialects maintain a native 'xarno' (from Persian) which isn't featured on the list.
My third issue is the alphabet. It is based of off Courthiade's Romani alphabet, which has been adopted by the World Romani Congress. Now it may seem using this alphabet will be beneficiary then but I disagree, as I mentioned that Romani isn't a standardised language, and in transcription of the language and its many unintelligible dialects by Roma activists and academics, foreign scholars and daily language speakers a form resembling Pan-Vlax alphabet is used, with speakers not using letters such as 'θ' 'ʒ' and 'ç' and many using carons such as 'š' instead of 'ś' and other letters. Therefore, I suggest the language should be transcribed using the Pan-Vlax alphabet instead as come up with by Ronald Lee. The alphabet phonemically helps transcribe most dialects of Romani, and is used by Academics such as Ian Hancock, Nigla Boretzky and Joszef Vekerdi who specialise on the language, and by websites who transcribe words in the language such as ROMLEX.
Lastly, many of the words on the dialect lack attestation, such as the word 'pedo' for animal which isn't found on ROMLEX or any other academic resources, and many dialects use Slavic terms for 'animal' or come up with neologisms surrounding the verb 'to live'.
Therefore my solution is to revise the Swadesh list, which has been done for the Ossetian swadesh list which features an old and new, better and more researched list. It also features two columns for it's two main dialects, Iron and Digor, which could be used for Romani to represent it's dialects, but I would find this hard to do as some dialects are more attested than others, and instead I think using words etymologically researched by academics to be native should be used instead, in a Pan-Vlax alphabet. Therefore, I conclude that the list is in serious need of revampment and it should be redone, with sources such as ROMLEX, Nigla Boretzky's dictionary of Balkan Dialects and Vekerdi's dictionary being the main resources of word finding. Anavaline (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Anavaline: Be my guest, I'm pretty sure you're our only Romani editor at the moment. Thadh (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Anavaline: having borrowed forms in a list isn't wrong, per se, but in this case the lack of other data does give a wrong impression. In general, it's better to have more varieties in these than fewer, even if some varieties have gaps. With more data, it will show the kind of things that you're describing verbally here. That's the whole point of Swadesh lists. They're far from perfect, but that's what they're for. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Dutch. Basisdemocratie is in use, but this isn't. See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2022/September#basisdemocraat. This, that and the other (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Zhuang. Etymology 2: "seaweed; algae" and "green (as seaweed or algae)". Added by @Octahedron80. I could not find this in 壮汉词汇 or 壮汉英词典. It might be a misinterpretation of 古壮字字典, where daeuh is given as a syllable that can be used with raez in the word daeuhraez; it does not show any independent use of daeuh. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 14:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I believe it is from your source gave me in 2019, where I saw sawndips, that is now unavailable. My sources do not state it either. daeuhraez might be the right word. (and how is it formed?) --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- I found daeuh=blue (historical blue includes green) in Nong Zhuang [152] that should not be included in Zhuang; they are kind of different languages. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80: I wonder if all the Zhuang varieties should be put under "Zhuang" (like "Chinese") or if we should actually separate them. I've been assuming that Zhuang functions the same way as Chinese in that it is a macrolanguage with all Zhuang varieties under it (with the appropriate labels for the regions). For example raemx seems to include most Zhuang varieties. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 23:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nong Zhuang, Dai Zhuang, Zuojiang Zhuang have more consonants and vowels than Standard Zhuang. Northern Zhuang (in Northern Tai) and Southern Zhuang (in Central Tai) are not the same group; it is obviously not able to unify. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Narragansett, "string". I don't see this in A Key into the Language of America, which is the definitive source for this language. The only gloss involving the word "string" is "enomphómmin" ("to thread or string"). Where did this come from? Is it reconstructed? Is there a verifiable cognate in Massachusett or any other Algonquian language? (Was not able to find in the Massachusett-language Natick Dictionary, searching for 'string', 'rope', 'cord', 'thread'.) 98.170.164.88 02:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- According to the edit history, the entry was created because it was mentioned in the etymology of [[wampumpeag]] and [[wampum]]. Various English texts about etymology do give umpe or ompe as a word for string [of beads] in "Algonquian", usually specifically Narragansett or Massachusett, but obviously we need to see if it actually exists (on its own) in those languages. Wikipedia points to Dictionary.com for the statement that the PA form of wampumpeag was *wa·p-a·py-aki, so we're looking for a reflex of Reconstruction:Proto-Algonquian/-a·py, but while I can obviously find reflexes of the longer term *wa·p-a·py-aki / cognates of wampumpeag, like Abenaki wôbôbi, I haven't had time to check if there are any likely reflexes of *apy. It wouldn't surprise me if umpe only exists in the compound wampumpe- and not as a separate word (both *apy and its reflexes seem to often exist only in compounds). - -sche (discuss) 09:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- If it's not directly attested in Roger Williams (or other colonial writings that document the language, if any exist), I think treating it in the reconstruction namespace is the way to go. 98.170.164.88 22:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Mongolian. It means Brummies (as in people who live in Birmingham in the UK) - for some reason only the plural was added. Completely impossible to verify. Theknightwho (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Zhuang. From http://www.jiu60.com/hoiz/ , but not found in 壮汉词汇 (Sawloih Cuengh Gun). Also not found in 广西民族报. --沈澄心✉ 11:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Zuojiang Zhuang. Copied from Wikipedia. --沈澄心✉ 12:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Zuojiang Zhuang. Mentioned in vunz#Zhuang. --沈澄心✉ 13:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Mon. Rfv-sense: Can't find any sense in Shorto 1962 that looks like "axis centre". — This unsigned comment was added by RichardW57m (talk • contribs) at 12:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC).
Delete. I think I've found the source of this entry. Immediately below the entry for ဗၞိက် in Halliday 1922[1], there is an entry which in our style is ဗၞိဟ် (/Penih/, “axis, centre”, n.). Now, I can't find another once-printed dictionary to confirm it, but Halliday gives a derived term and Dr Intobesa, in the Mon Wiktionary, gives it as a translation of English 'centre', so what we have is a typo and a failure to perceive commas. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@咽頭べさ: Is ဗဏိက် another spelling of the word meaning 'trade'? You put it under this apparent typo instead. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ R. Halliday (1922) A Mon-English Dictionary, Bangkok: Siam Society, page 339
October 2022
Old English. "Old English cyningrīċe" is only attested as kynyngrīches (genitive) in a ostensible charter of King Edward the Confessor. The OED states that the charter is "probably a forgery of the late 11th or early 12th cent.
". After a admittedly brief and superficial examination of the text, I concur with the OED and would lean towards a later dating; the text appears to be nothing more than Early Middle English sprinkled in with a few archaisms, which leaves us with with no basis for a entry at cyningrīċe. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hrrm Okay. Move to *cyningrīċe then ? There are cognates in Old Saxon kuningrīki, Old High German kuningríchi. Leasnam (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the existence of Old English *cyningrīċe is certain enough to create such a form. Note that kingriche is barely attested in Early ME (which would be unexpected if it was a old formation, as words for "kingdom" and "authority" occur profusely in early ME texts) and the earliest attestations vary between forms in nominative king, genitive kinges, and dative kinge, suggesting a new and unsettled compound.
- Let me digress for a bit now. I don't think the OS and OHG forms are relevant here, given that they could be modifications of earlier Old Saxon *kunirīki and Old High German *kunirīhhi (attested as chuneriche) with replacement of the mysterious unproductive Proto-West Germanic *kuni- with reflexes of semantically transparent *kuning. Contrastingly, OE speakers wouldn't've felt the need to replace cynerīċe with *cyningrīċe because the reflex of *kuni- (cyne-) was still productive in that language. Further proof for this theory is that kingriche only starts to appear with any real frequency after kine- (the ME reflex of cyne-) ceased to be productive, suggesting that it it is a modification kineriche along similar lines. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hrm, alright. Well,
I'll probably still create a reconstruction for the OFS, OSX, GOH (*kuningarīkī) as a late remodelling of the original *kunirīkī. I think we should still leave the OE entry as an unrelated reconstruction though, since it's mentioned in so many places and folk will be looking for it, and no-doubt keep re-creating it if they do not find it. We can add a detailed Usage note explaining that it's most likely not real (?) Leasnam (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)- Okay, you've already made it. What do you make of Old Norse konungríki ? Calque, or independent formation ? Leasnam (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- We can use
{{no entry}}
to dissuade people from creating cyningrīċe; no reconstruction page is needed for that purpose. As for Old Norse konungríki; I'm not sure about its status; I'd need more research into its attestation pattern to make a decision. Finally, I'll note that my theory about *kuningarīkī originally being *kunirīkī, while compelling (to me at least) is not something that I'm entirely dead-set on. It could be that *kuningarīkī is old (or at the very least a old remodelling) and was just lost in OE. It's even possible that there could've been a *cyningrīċe; the important thing is its existence isn't likely enough to justify sticking a stake in the ground by creating a reconstruction. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 19:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)- I just took a look at the MED for king-riche. I think this is a borrowing/calque/partial-calque from Old Norse. Many of the forms are clearly Norse-like. Timeframe matches up as well. What do you think ? Leasnam (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hrm, alright. Well,
Urdu.
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#ایرشاوان. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Unattested lemma. Transliteration of ईर्षावान (īrṣāvān). نعم البدل (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Urdu.
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#اتینت. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Unattested lemma, Transliteration of अत्यंत (atyant). نعم البدل (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Old Portuguese. I'm having trouble attesting it. The word is most certainly a learned borrowing and the only references I find attest the forms selmana, setmana, somana, and sumana instead, not semana ([153]). - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Undetermined. Purported to be 'Thai Mon'.
This is claimed to be a word that might naturally be met in the Thai script in a context where it conveys meaning. It is instead a phonetic transcription of a word in one or more lects that up to and beyond 12 October 2022 were here considered to be part of the Mon language. No evidence has been presented that the Thai script is naturally used anywhere for writing the Mon language. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Fala. No sources or citations are given. I think it's more likely a typo for queixo, which might be attested somewhere as an alternative spelling of queixu (moved from RFD). Santi2222 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Pali.
What evidence do we have for this form? The etymological form is อคฺคฬ (aggaḷa), with a retroflex lateral. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- (1) ETipitaka Pali-Thai Dict & Pramaha Prasert Mantasevi's Thai-Pali Dict (2) Wisdom Library "Aggaḷa, & Aggaḷā (f.) (also occasionally with l.)" (3) Concise Pali-English Dictionary > shorturl.at/hnT27 sub dict // Single ฬ sometimes used as ล in many words, including the word 'Pali' itself. That's why I described there [154]. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80: The only one of those sources of mentions that looks durably archived is Buddhadatta's Concise Pali-English Dictionary, which I think screams out for the use of
{{LDL}}
. At least the PTS directs one to actual usages. Unfortunately, I suspect Buddhadatta's entry is itself a misspelling, or rather a typo. The preface says, "In compiling this work I have constantly referred to the Pali-English Dictionary,...", so why does Buddhadatta's work omit aggaḷa? --RichardW57m (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC) - Keep. Now, it is possible that Buddhadatta's work is sufficiently important that his errors will be repeated in modern compositions. If such compositions are to be included in our coverage, then it is helpful to users to include them. Additionally, there are very probably Sinhalese Pali manuscripts that use the dental instead of the retroflex. Accordingly, I propose categorising the spelling with a dental as a misspelling. We therefore should not record it as an alternative form in the correctly spelt lemmas. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've created aggala and alternative citation forms aggalo and aggalaṃ, which all have the same evidentiary requirements as the challenged word. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- The heading "Aggaḷa, & Aggaḷā (f.) (also occasionally with l.)" comes from the PTS, but the remark with 'l' (which looks like an obscure abbreviation because of the full stop!) might only apply to the feminine form. Childers[1] gives the masculine and neuter forms with the retroflex, but the feminine with the dental. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC) RichardW57m (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80: The only one of those sources of mentions that looks durably archived is Buddhadatta's Concise Pali-English Dictionary, which I think screams out for the use of
References
- ^ Childers, Robert Caesar, Dictionary of the Päli language, London: Trübner & Company, 1875, page 8.
Pali.
What evidence do we have for this form? The etymological form is अग्गळ (aggaḷa), with a retroflex lateral. This entry was created by @Octahedron80, as was the challenged entry above. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Same as above. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Pali.
See #อคฺคล above. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Icelandic. Could find one [155] instance of this (this other old instance is not an example of Icelandic). Respellings of foreignisms are somewhat common but only a few come to be used by more than one person. (ping @Numberguy6) --Hvergi (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Indonesian: supposed to be a borrowing from the Minangkabau word with the same meaning. I haven't heard this in Indonesian except in heavily code-mixed (Indonesian–Minangkabau) speech and couldn't find Indonesian examples in written texts. Pinging @Octahedron80 who created the entry. Austronesier (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember where I got this. But I already added that it borrowed from Minangkabau at the first place. There are many Indonesian words refer to cockroach. If lipeh seems not to be Indonesian, please remove; I am not a pro of this language. I will remove at thwikt too.--Octahedron80 (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Octahedron80: Great, thanks for the quick feedback. Well, it's one of those words which often are borrowed ad hoc when bilinguals are speaking Indonesian, but occasionally are more familiar with the regional language term and resort to code-mixing, which usually happens with words for plants and animals, household tools, certain body parts and emotional states. But that doesn't make them part of the common Indonesian vocabulary; they can be only considered actual loans if adopted by monolinguals, or bilinguals speaking a different regional language. This mostly happens with Betawi and Javanese vocabulary, but only rarely with Minang words; lipeh isn't one of them. Pinging also @Xbypass for confirmation. –Austronesier (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Old Mon.
As far as I can tell, the vowel digraph shown here was not used in Old Mon! Now, these may entries may be Middle Mon, but no attestation of use or mention is provided. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Siraya. I know nothing about this language, but one of our resident Austronesian experts, User:Austronesier, has stated that "The Siraya word for 'person, people' is tau, not tayw. Siraya spelling was not standardized, but tau is among the words that never fluctuate in spelling.". Is there any support for the spelling tayw? 98.170.164.88 18:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Wiktionarian89: What's your take on this? (See also Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2022/October#Taiwan.) –Austronesier (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This is made-up crap to bolster a rubbish etymology. –Austronesier (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: Is the word taywan real? 98.170.164.88 23:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- I consider this one made-up, too. Real attested Siraya words that might be the source of "Taiwan" (like Taivoan) are trisyllabic ending in the sequence -v[o/u]an, not **-wan. –Austronesier (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: Is the word taywan real? 98.170.164.88 23:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Persian. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 21:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- He also says that people of the city Termez in Uzbekistan refered to لوبیا (beans) as ژاژومک
- ...و اهل ترمد او را ژاژومک گویند...
- A site lists other forms of ژاژومک (dehkhoda and amid) and according to Amid dictionary it's an old Biology term:
- ژاژوک (žâžôk) (dehkhoda and amid)
- ژاژک (žâžok) (dehkhoda)
- Dehkhoda quotes a poem couplet with an unknown meaning he found in the Asadi Persian Lexicon attributed to poet "Abul-Abbas" (probably Abu'l-Abbas Marwazi)
- ماه کانون است ژاژک نتوانی بستن / هم از این کومک بر خشک و همی بند آن را
- Dehkhoda quotes a poem couplet with an unknown meaning he found in the Asadi Persian Lexicon attributed to poet "Abul-Abbas" (probably Abu'l-Abbas Marwazi)
- ژاژمک (žâžomak) (dehkhoda)
- ژژک (unknown pronunciation) (Amid)
- Note: I found that "ژاژ" means a "kind of camelthorn which camels find too tough to chew." probably not related but thought sharing. Light hearted sam (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Fenakhay added quotes on the page. Light hearted sam (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Old English. Not in the DOE and apparently unattested as a adverb (rather than a inflected form of ġeon). Bosworth-Toller has a entry for ġeonre (providing no quotes), but it probably originates from a misinterpretation of the aforementioned inflected form. In any case, the Middle English forms (such as Chaucer's yonder instead of *yondre) seem to indicate Old English *ġeonor, not ġeonre; the presence of epenthetic /d/ is no counterargument, as it can originate in contexts such as yonder and (/ˈjɔn(d)r‿an(d)/). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Burmese.
Also take into account the hardlink ခုဝိန်.
Already tagged as 'neologism'. I got no Google hits for it. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Burmese.
Also ရှင်လျင် (hranglyang) and လေ့စပ်ခြင်း (le.caphkrang:).
@Cepyita added a number of Burmese language entries, including these, that Hintha is not familiar with as a Burmese speaker. They also do not exist in the cited reference (Myanmar–English Dictionary on Sealang.net). --RichardW57 (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Burmese. Rfv-sense:
We need uses or mentions to back up 'to love' and 'to fall in love'. They are plausible extensions of what is supported. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Burmese.
Looks plausible, but none of what I found by Google looked citable. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Tamil.
ஸாராம் (sārām) is an unattested misspelling of ஸாரம் (sāram). Please therefore delete the hard redirect ஸாராம் (sārām). --RichardW57 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Old High German. Not denying it exists, but I'm having some difficulty finding it...(?) Leasnam (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Mid-Autumn Festival Nanuk and the Peas (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Mon.
Looks to me as though SEAlang has made a typo for ခၠေဝ် (khlew), which is well mentioned[1]. (Notifying RichardW57m): . --RichardW57 (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Navajo. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is the kind of thing that Stephen G. Brown and @Metaknowledge were always arguing about, because the former was a professional translator whose job was to come up with a translation, not to inform people about the patterns of usage or non-usage in a given language. @Eirikr, who has studied the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've actually taken notice of this problem back when Metaknowledge was still active. Without knowing a shred of Navajo, my opinion still is that absent any evidence that native speakers use these words (or even just understand them and deem them natural) we should not include them and I would hope this is the majority view here. Wiktionary is not a playground where people can publicize their inventions. If it actually is the case that these two terms are made up too, I would be pretty upset considering the traction they have gained on the internet. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- A few of those threads cite Wiktionary ([163], [164], [165]), so if this turns out to be unattestable, which remains to be seen, then we aren't completely blameless in the spread of dubious information. I think the bigger culprit may be Navajo Wikipedia, but I can't really fault them for using circumlocutions to describe things their language has no word for. It's not like they should be prevented from documenting concepts just because there's no word for them in printed Navajo dictionaries. As for what Navajo people would say in actual speech if they wanted to refer to a tank, I have no idea, but I'd be a little surprised if they always went with this exact phrase just because it happens to be the one used on nv.wikipedia and here. 98.170.164.88 01:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, the Code talkers probably had a term for it, but that's not the same as use in ordinary Navajo text or speech. Still, there were a good number of Navajo veterans who no doubt would have talked about their experiences in the war. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Good point about the code talkers. For whatever it's worth, I found this word list, which says the code word for "tank" was "CHAY-DA-GAHI" ("tortoise"). I think this is chʼééh digháhii. As an aside, I wonder if it's worth incorporating the sense of "tank" into the entry in any way; it's not really normal language use, but code talking is probably among the most notable uses of the language and there are likely to be several references. (Are there even surviving recordings we could cite?)
- More to the point, if those Navajo veterans wrote books about their experiences in the Navajo language, we could consult those. If not, then I guess we could try to get in contact with a native speaker, preferably one who is unaffiliated with nv.wikipedia to avoid potential bias. CFI doesn't have a provision for adding words based on personal anecdotes that haven't been published, but I personally feel like a direct interview with a native speaker of a LDL may deserve at least as much weight as a Usenet post. At the very least, we could at least use the information to tell if removing this term is the right move. 98.170.164.88 03:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- To address your point about what word ordinary speakers would use, my strong suspicion that they’d simply use the word “tank”. Obviously the code talkers situation may affect things (did chʼééh digháhii become the conventional word?), but it seems unlikely that these lengthy terms could be anything other than a novelty. Theknightwho (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, the Code talkers probably had a term for it, but that's not the same as use in ordinary Navajo text or speech. Still, there were a good number of Navajo veterans who no doubt would have talked about their experiences in the war. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- A few of those threads cite Wiktionary ([163], [164], [165]), so if this turns out to be unattestable, which remains to be seen, then we aren't completely blameless in the spread of dubious information. I think the bigger culprit may be Navajo Wikipedia, but I can't really fault them for using circumlocutions to describe things their language has no word for. It's not like they should be prevented from documenting concepts just because there's no word for them in printed Navajo dictionaries. As for what Navajo people would say in actual speech if they wanted to refer to a tank, I have no idea, but I'd be a little surprised if they always went with this exact phrase just because it happens to be the one used on nv.wikipedia and here. 98.170.164.88 01:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've actually taken notice of this problem back when Metaknowledge was still active. Without knowing a shred of Navajo, my opinion still is that absent any evidence that native speakers use these words (or even just understand them and deem them natural) we should not include them and I would hope this is the majority view here. Wiktionary is not a playground where people can publicize their inventions. If it actually is the case that these two terms are made up too, I would be pretty upset considering the traction they have gained on the internet. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is difficult to confirm in the wild, as indeed a lot of Navajo is. At the moment, the best I've found is an instance of use on this webpage from a Jehovah's Witness website: https://www.jw.org/nv/Naaltsoos-b%C3%A1-Hooghan/naaltsoos/watchtower-study-july-2021/Jiih%C3%B3vah-Ha%CA%BC%C3%B3ln%C3%ADn%C3%ADg%C3%AD%C3%AD-Be%CA%BC%C3%AD%C5%82%CA%BC%C4%B1%CC%81%CC%A8/
- The full phrase / term chidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí isn't visible in the page text as rendered in the browser, but only in the alt text ona couple images -- view the source and search that to find the term. This appears a couple times in the source of the page, repetitions of the same sentence (emphasis mine):
1. Anaaʼ hólǫ́ǫgo siláo łaʼ chidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí yikááʼ dah sidá, łaʼ éí bikééʼ joojah.
- Very rough translation: “There is a war and a soldier sits on top of a [tank / the thing that's a car that crawls about and has a cannon and people sit on it], and one [the generic "one"] runs along after it.”
- Notably, this is content from the Jehovah's Witnesses, a group that makes an effort to translate texts into the languages of the groups they are proselytizing, so it is unclear to me if the author was a native speaker. That said, this is an instance of the term used in running text, and for an WT:LDL, that might suffice.
- I agree that an effort should ideally be made to contact the community of people actually speaking Navajo and get their input. However, I haven't the contacts needed to engage in such an effort, nor do I have sufficient bandwidth for the foreseeable future. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Incredible find! I'm curious how you came across this, since it doesn't appear to be indexed by Google or even jw.org's own search engine. 98.170.164.88 17:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Re: finding it, I had a hunch that Google was doing something stupid. I noticed a lot more hits for the substring chidí naaʼnaʼí (“car that crawls around → tractor”), so I modified my search: google:"chidí naaʼnaʼí" "átʼé" -wiki -wikt -intermedia -wordsense -glosbe The second hit was the Watchtower page, which (confusingly) contains the exact long phrase chidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí that Google was failing to find. HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- As it’s such a descriptive phrase, could it be that this was the original source? Or does Navajo commonly use lengthy descriptions as set terms? Theknightwho (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- The nv.wikipedia article dates to 5 July 2009, under a slightly different spelling (moved to the current title on 2 October 2009). The en.wiktionary entry was created 31 December 2009. On the other hand, the Watchtower article is from July 2021. 98.170.164.88 21:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- So it is. My bad. Theknightwho (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- The nv.wikipedia article dates to 5 July 2009, under a slightly different spelling (moved to the current title on 2 October 2009). The en.wiktionary entry was created 31 December 2009. On the other hand, the Watchtower article is from July 2021. 98.170.164.88 21:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Incredible find! I'm curious how you came across this, since it doesn't appear to be indexed by Google or even jw.org's own search engine. 98.170.164.88 17:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The form with "beeʼeldǫǫhtsoh" is given as an example of a descriptive noun phrase in the introduction to Young & Morgan's Navajo Language (1980), and as its own entry on page 272 of the same dictionary. Also in other editions of the same work. Here is even an article from Ádahooníłígíí, a Navajo-language newspaper, that uses the term. 98.170.164.88 03:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
November 2022
German. Unused? --Amicus vetus (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Can only find inadequate sources: self-published book, poem on a blog. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
German. Rfv-sense: (rare) objective. (I'm assuming the sense of objective = goal is meant) Nothing from a cursory Google Books search. Pinging @Apisite as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Afrikaans. RFV'ed by @Lingo Bingo Dingo back in '20, never listed. Created by @Morgengave.__Gamren (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- No lack of mentions in dictionaries or lists of sayings, but the only use (if it is a use) I saw was in a children‘s joke.[166] I see many uses of blaffende honde nie byt nie, but these are not in durably archived sources. --Lambiam 20:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Erzya. RFV'ed by @Neitrāls vārds in '17, never listed. Created by an IP.__Gamren (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I mostly find "кенярксов куля", "паро куля", and "Евангелия(нть)" in this Erzya translation of the New Testament in verses where one would expect to find "gospel". A search on multilingual Wikisource, which has several texts in Erzya, is also fruitless, though it does turn up results for Ёнь-куля in Moksha. The only Google hits for "ёнкуля" are Wiktionary mirrors. Are there other NT translations we could check, or other Erzya corpora in general? 70.172.194.25 22:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Erzya. Rfv-senses. RFV'ed by @Neitrāls vārds in '17. There's a reference to a site called "oahpa"; I don't think it looks particularly reliable. If you pick Erzya-German it gives two definitions (1) Gerte, Rute and 2) Angelrute), and what looks like a declension table. If you pick the Erzya-Russian, it glosses it instead as пруд (prud).__Gamren (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- There's a corpus, and it seems to be attested; however, we'd need someone who actually speaks the language to verify these.__Gamren (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Gaulish, tagged but not listed. I assume the situation is that the term is attested (perhaps in a work designated as "Autun"?), but with unclear meaning. The referenced book says it "appears probable" that the second element means "seat" and relates it to sella and 𐍃𐌹𐍄𐌻𐍃 (sitls), but makes no attempt to interpret the first element. Can we get the context sentence into the entry, if it exists?__Gamren (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Czech. Sense: (dialectal) Beating or fighting stick (Word used to threaten with or initiate a fight)
I suspect this sense does not meet WT:ATTEST. @Kreyren. I will note for the newcomer that authoritative dictionaries do not count and that we need quotations in use and that they need to be from print (incl. Google Books) or from Usenet. If this gets deleted, the discussion will be archived to the entry talk page, so the hypothesis will be available there to the interested readers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Dan_Polansky: Would agree the word prýgl is not well known as to my knowledge it was rarely used and too many people confuse prigl vs prýgl to mean Brno Reservoir. The only relevant source (beyond an expert opinion as hantec native and doing research locally) I could find is http://prigl.cz/brnaci/jak-vznikla-slova-prigl-borec-a-brno, thus why I argue that due to the nature and development of hantec it should receive a special treatment in terms of attesting to verify the words through historical references and co-relation to documented languages at the time like the one provided in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:prigl --Kreyren (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify: Because Hantec is very dynamic language as it's developed by natives who take a word they like and then make it sound like moravian-ish to then get situations when there are like 20+ terms for women breasts.. Thus the only sane approach should be to look into the origin of the word and contest it on the bases of history and linquistics. --Kreyren (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- The difference between "prigl" and "prygl" is merely in spelling: it is the same word. In so far as Hantec is an uncodified dialect, there is no "correct" spelling, and we have to look at actual use, consistent with WT:ATTEST. From normative perspective, one may note that "r" is usually followed by "y" and not "i", and from that standpoint, "prygl" and "prýgl" are preferable spellings, and this may explain why they are easier to find in print in Google Books. I added the sense of Brno Reservoir to prýgl since that is attested in use; whether someone considers it "wrong" is beside the point in a descriptivist dictionary such as Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- prigl vs prýgl are two very very very different words which are spelled differently and pronounced very differently like "jet basem na prigl" vs "Dostaneš prygle vole!" with notation on the "Y" in "prygle" to near english accent in nature. --Kreyren (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- The difference between "prigl" and "prygl" is merely in spelling: it is the same word. In so far as Hantec is an uncodified dialect, there is no "correct" spelling, and we have to look at actual use, consistent with WT:ATTEST. From normative perspective, one may note that "r" is usually followed by "y" and not "i", and from that standpoint, "prygl" and "prýgl" are preferable spellings, and this may explain why they are easier to find in print in Google Books. I added the sense of Brno Reservoir to prýgl since that is attested in use; whether someone considers it "wrong" is beside the point in a descriptivist dictionary such as Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Mon. Rfv-sense: "Alternative form of ကအ်"
Delete. This 'sense' is only intelligible if the page were originally for ကံ, for which some senses have alternative form ကမ် and yet others have alternative form ကအ်. Alerting banned author @咽頭べさ to solicit comment from his home page --RichardW57 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Nothing refers to this. Not even close to Chinese. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I found the word in ไคเภ็ก [167]. (ฮอกฮี is [168], transcribed from Hokkien.) Outside ไคเภ็ก: the Thai wikipedia page for นฺหวี่วา [169], and [170], [171], [172], [173] (spelling?). Not sure how much this word is used (instead of cite)? Thriftypapaya (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense: androgyne, intersex (especially when male in appearance)
. This has been/is the target of some edit-warring which is probably best solved by adding supporting quotations. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense: transgender
. This has been/is the target of some edit-warring which is probably best solved by adding supporting quotations. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Since we only have Unicode as support, it would indeed be good to have some supporting instances. I went through the Unicode history, and it was added in version 4.1. There were two revisions to the proposal by Michael Everson, the latest being L2/03-364 (N2663). He doesn't give an illustration for this use, only says (re. an illustration of its alchemical use) that
- this symbol is also used now to indicate "transgendered sexuality" by some members of the LGBT community.
- I'm tempted to delete this definition as being unsupported, except that the Unicode chart does say "= transgender". Indeed, I did delete it, only to have someone else restore it. Personally, I don't think the Unicode chart is sufficient evidence for a Wiktionary definition.
- PS. As evidence for the unreliability of Unicode, note that the Unicode chart used to say that ⚥ was "= hermaphroditic (in entomology)", based on Everson's proposal, until I pointed out the error and they changed it to "(in botany)" this year. kwami (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- you know the unicode charts are used on dozens of wiki pages in multiple different languages, I understand its not the be all end all but still seems silly to only be making a big deal about it on this page, especially since its been in the unicode like this since 2005 with no issues. You dont think its a little weird to have its unicode symbol and link right underneath the main picture of the page while saying its not good enough?
- I'm not sure how the definition is unsupported though, a pretty quick search online shows that its not uncommon for people to use the sign as an alternative to the main transgender one. I'm not sure what kind of quote you guys want, its not like theres one voice to turn to that has the final say on this stuff, but to pretend like its not commonly used as a synonym to the main transgender symbol seems intentinally ignorant Kollie78 (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- A Google Books search does not turn up much. Instead of imputing intestinal ignorance to other editors, why don't you supply pointers to citable sources using the symbol in this sense? --Lambiam 07:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- I dont know what kind of results you're looking for, but you arent going to find any definitve source from a book on this topic, the more commonly used transgender symbol doesnt really pull up anything either from a google books search.
- https://anunnakiray.com/all-the-gender-symbols/
- https://twitter.com/abbychavastein/status/1099739367164260359
- https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-Self-Inking-Stamping-Crafting-Planners/dp/B09853BBWG?th=1
- https://www.etsy.com/listing/1037401247/male-with-stroke-sign-transgender-genderhttps://web.archive.org/web/20210601020917/http://transgendersociety.yolasite.com/history-of-transgender-symbolism.php Kollie78 (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- A Google Books search does not turn up much. Instead of imputing intestinal ignorance to other editors, why don't you supply pointers to citable sources using the symbol in this sense? --Lambiam 07:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Navajo. An IP keeps changing this from "sea horse" to "zebra", the latter of which was removed here pursuant to this RFV. They've also created this tea room thread. Can somebody please look into the attestability of both terms? Thanks. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Eirikr as the only active user knowledgeable in Navajo (that I know of). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- The Navaho Language (1972) by Young & Morgan has this as "zebra", but it looks like it might not have a space between the components. 98.170.164.88 02:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- This 1980 edition, by the same authors, puts a space between the components, and gives three senses "water horse (mythological animal), zebra, sea[-]horse". This 1971 edition only gives "zebra". 98.170.164.88 02:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, I restored the zebra sense and added the spaceless alt-form (though that may have been a mistake, I'd prefer to wait for someone knowledgeable in Navajo before doing more edits). The other IP user also pointed to additional usable sources in the tea room thread. I added an older version (1943) of Young & Morgan to the entry because that is conveniently citable off of Google Books using your script. I don't know whether there's a standard
{{R:nv:...}}
template for this reference. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)- I'm tempted to add
{{syn|nv|łį́į́ʼ noodǫ́ǫzii|lit=the striped horse}}
based on this reference. 98.170.164.88 03:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to add
- Thank you, I restored the zebra sense and added the spaceless alt-form (though that may have been a mistake, I'd prefer to wait for someone knowledgeable in Navajo before doing more edits). The other IP user also pointed to additional usable sources in the tea room thread. I added an older version (1943) of Young & Morgan to the entry because that is conveniently citable off of Google Books using your script. I don't know whether there's a standard
- This 1980 edition, by the same authors, puts a space between the components, and gives three senses "water horse (mythological animal), zebra, sea[-]horse". This 1971 edition only gives "zebra". 98.170.164.88 02:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Belatedly, @Fytcha, thanks for the ping, but I would not have been of much help here. I've studied Navajo, but only a little from books and audio, and I have no contacts with native speakers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Dutch, tagged by Surj. This looks supremely suspect, nothing in any of the dictionaries at either the GTB or the eWND. The speculative suggested Gaulish etymon is another red flag and so is the anomalous phonotactics. Google Books offers nothing but scannos. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Thadh, Rua, Morgengave, 030NogBeterHe, Mnemosientje for feedback.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)- @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Never heard of it. Google Books does give a German verb apparently, but that has nothing to do with Dutch. Thadh (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Nothing shows up in the usual literature, the closest is a hit for the singular noun "schrong" (appears only once in 1732, seems to mean "excision") in the WNT 030NogBeterHe (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Vietnamese. Rfv-sense: partisans. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Mon. Rfv-sense: Verbal senses.
I can't find these senses in Halliday, Stevens or Shorto. Curiously, they are a coherent set of the senses of Burmese မှိန်း (hmin:). --RichardW57 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
German, tagged by IP, not listed. Previously in RFD, see Talk:Schnullerbeißer. Jberkel 16:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Listed in the www.wortbedeutung.info dictionary as part of a long list of words for someone who performs oral sex. The dictionary does not have a separate page for it, and so the much narrower definition we have does not appear. —Soap— 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- wortbedeutung.info takes information from wiktionary, cp. Info. --18:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 93.220.62.203 (talk).
- Yes, it's basically an SEO-optimized version of Wiktionary. I don't think there's much hope citing this one, it's obscure (and pre-Internet) slang, and the kind of subcultural texts where this might be found are usually not indexed or part of corpora. – Jberkel 19:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- wortbedeutung.info takes information from wiktionary, cp. Info. --18:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 93.220.62.203 (talk).
Tagalog. Rfv-sense: Needs three attestations for this definition. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify: this RFV is for sense 1: lingam. Equinox ◑ 19:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Tagalog. Rfv-sense: Needs three attestations for this definition. This time for the definition "happy ending". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Scots for "originate". Equinox ◑ 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Here it is in an English novel, but spoken by the character "Mr. Goodie, a Scots gentleman"; another similar example, in which the word is uttered by a "Scotsman". Do we want to count these? Seems dubious. The word also appears on the Scots Wikipedia, but that might not mean much in light of the 2020 revelation that much of the wiki was written by non-Scots-speaking users; not that we would even want to cite Wikipedias in general. 98.170.164.88 03:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would like it if we had a policy that quoted speech within a novel does not count as attestation, since it's eye dialect at best, and there are also novels featuring small children, characters with speech impediments, and talking animals, which could allow us to flood the dictionary with entries like wowwipop .... but there is no such policy, and we have allowed words like this before, such as gonnegtion. —Soap— 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@Makisig Chua Needs attestation. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is on tl.wikipedia, and a small number of other websites (that may have taken it from WP). There are also a handful of Twitter hits, none of which are particularly convincing. Nothing on Google Books/Scholar/Groups or Issuu. 70.172.194.25 06:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Tagalog. @Makisig Chua Needs attestation. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Similar to the above, didn't find much convincing evidence. 70.172.194.25 07:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Ligurian. It's highly plausible that a Ligurian speaker would say egemonia if they wanted to say "hegemony", since all Ligurian speakers today are also speakers of standard Italian, and use of dialetto stretto is on the decline throughout peninsula. However, I wasn't able to find this word in the three dictionaries of Genoese that I checked: Olivieri (1851), Casaccia (1876), Frisoni & Gazzo (1910), nor was I able to find any published texts written in Ligurian that used the word. The Ligurian Wikipedia does use it, and the creator of the entry stated that this was where they got it from, but that's not sufficient attestation per WT:ATTEST. 98.170.164.88 00:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Old Polish. Not in SSp and doesn't even appear in any Middle Polish dictionary.
All derived terms in Old Polish come from jabłko, not jabło. The only mention of this word being Old Polish is SJP1900, which does not source it's reference. Vininn126 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Almost certain that one's wrong. It's also mentioned in Krasnowolski and Niedźwiedzki's Słownik staropolski, which lists just about any word that fell out of usage as "Old Polish" (charitably speaking, it has different criteria than ours). Probably an addition guided by that dictionary. If it's not in SStp, I don't know where else. Hythonia (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Source: Trubachyov, Oleg, editor (1974), “*ablo”, in Этимологический словарь славянских языков [Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages] (in Russian), numbers 1 (*a – *besědьlivъ), Moscow: Nauka, page 41 --ZomBear (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- @ZomBear ESSJa is not a good source here. I usually believe ESSJa but Sławski stated that the only dictionary that mentions this word does not give the primary source. But I would keep it as word is attested in Slovincian and Old Czech. Sławobóg (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Sławobóg I'm not a fan of adding such words just because their supposed ancestors have descendants in other languages. Proto-Slavic *kradějь for example has a Slovincian descendant, but Polish kradziej was first attested only in the nineteenth century. We have a mention in ESSJa, but I'd like to see an actual Old Polish citation. Hythonia (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ZomBear ESSJa is not a good source here. I usually believe ESSJa but Sławski stated that the only dictionary that mentions this word does not give the primary source. But I would keep it as word is attested in Slovincian and Old Czech. Sławobóg (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
December 2022
Swedish. Rfv-sense: Request for verification of gök with sense "penis". Possibly local dialect. Otherwise subject for deletion. --Christoffre (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- This might have some basis in fact, as it's mentioned here:
- 2002, Fredrik Lindström, Jordens smartaste ord, Albert Bonniers Forlag, →ISBN, page 188:
- Men även göken kan förekomma i de här sammanhangen; det finns exempel från svenska dialekter där ord för gök även har betydelsen 'penis' (notera även ordet göka, 'ha samlag', som jag återkommer till).
- (please add an English translation of this quotation)
- But we need to find something more substantial. 70.172.194.25 02:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Russian. Rfv-sense: "Block Island". I can find use in Russian of остров Блок (ostrov Blok) and Блок-Айленд (Blok-Ajlend), but does this usage extend to Блок (Blok) on its own? In a quick search I wasn't able to find e.g. "на Блоке". Also, even if this sense does exist, someone should check the animacy (the word is currently marked as animate, but place names in Russian are generally inanimate). 98.170.164.88 00:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- The Russian Wikipedia seems to have article titles for all but one of the New England islands indexed as simple titles, as seen at w:ru:Категория:Острова_Род-Айленда. Presumably the same is true outside New England. Whether this reflects actual speech in Russian, or an idiosyncracy of the Russian Wikipedia, I dont know. —Soap— 23:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Don’t these uses of “Блок” in the combination “остров Блок”[174][175][176] count as attestations, just like in English the use of “Bali” in the combination “the island of Bali” should qualify? --Lambiam 11:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, yeah, I did find use in such contexts but wasn't sure it counted. If Russian-language editors think it should count, then I'm fine with it.
- Another example where "остров" is an essential part of the name is остров Принца Эдуарда (ostrov Princa Eduarda), and it would be weird to put that under Принца Эдуарда (Princa Eduarda). There are also остров Врангеля (ostrov Vrangelja) and остров Колгуев (ostrov Kolgujev). I think остров Блок (ostrov Blok) is similar to these in that it is always preceded by остров and the word Блок itself doesn't get inflected. But I could be wrong. A dissimilarity with these other examples is that they have the name of the island in the genitive, but OTOH two of them are originally surnames, which also applies here. 98.170.164.88 13:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
w:Beja language "hippopotamus"
inflection line has it as a noun form. Contributor seems to make entries in many languages. I assume it's an LDL. DCDuring (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've expanded the entry. It's a noun, though it seems to be derived from a Nubian genitive form. Ivadon (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Vietnamese. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Russian: I can't find references to either of those two meanings. The dictionaries I have available give the translations "to get lost", "to be astray". 78.69.121.4 20:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @78.69.121.4: The senses given were right but it's hard to understand without a context and more examples. I've expanded a bit and added some usage examples for senses you may have doubts. It's a verb with many meanings. Also @Tetromino, Thadh, Benwing2: please see if it needs further improvement. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Various supposed Serbo-Croatian given names
Please see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#Slavic given names created by 2601:243:1400:74cf:896a:14b8:9f7f:8d7e. This is a cross-post because all of the entries have sections for both English and Serbo-Croatian, and the question is whether they exist at all or are completely made up. Thanks, 70.172.194.25 00:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
ČR, all meanings except the meaning "Czech Republic"
"ČR" is a well-established abbreviation for Česká repubilka, "Czech Republic" and this meaning absolutely prevails. The names of the other three republics do begin with the same letters in Czech language, but the frequency of the usage of those other republic names is extremely small compared to the frequency of the usage of "Czech Republic", so that the abbreviation ČR meaning "Chechen Republic” etc. would have to be explained in context. I sincerely doubt that the abbreviation "ČR" is used in the sense of Chechen Republic” etc. Amsavatar (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- (A helpful IP has added two cites to the sense ROC and one to the Chuvash Republic.) - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Ancient Greek. Rfv-sense: “perhaps also ox”. --Lambiam 08:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Does the fact it's used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew שׁוֹר (šôr, “ox”) count? See e.g. Exod. 21:35, "ἐὰν δὲ κερατίσῃ τινὸς ταῦρος τὸν ταῦρον τοῦ πλησίον, καὶ τελευτήσῃ, ἀποδώσονται τὸν ταῦρον […] " in the LXX, "ox" in the vast majority of English translations though Strong's glosses it as "ox, bull, a head of cattle" [177]. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Seems this is also the case in the New Testament, without Hebrew interference: almost every translation gives "oxen" for ταῦροί in Matt. 22:4, cf. also this reference. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've added the quote and translation from the standard critical editions of Matthew and I've noted that Bauer's New Testament lexicon says the same thing about the word, so I'll call this cited. I've changed "perhaps" to a non-gloss note "chiefly as a sacrificial animal" per Bauer. A separate question, which might need further research, is whether the sense should be explicitly tagged as Koine. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. A complication is that English ox has two distinguishable senses: (1) a male bovine, used as a draught animal, typically gelded – as such a hyponym of bull; (2) any bovine animal – as such a hypernym of bull. In Modern Greek, ταύρος (távros) is strictly a bull, so one wonders if this sense as a sacrificial animal is indeed specifically Koine. --Lambiam 12:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- By Lev. 22:24, a gelded bull could not be used as a sacrificial animal. Is that relevant here? --Lambiam 12:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Estonian. Was marked for speedy deletion by an IP with reason misspelling of "hotell"
. They appear to be correct, but seeing as the entry has been around since 2009, I am bringing it here for completeness. This, that and the other (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- It may be an old form. It occurs in many old newspaper articles: e.g. [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184]. Some newer ones: [185], [186], [187]. In some of these it occurs multiple times, making a misspelling less likely.
- Can we get someone who knows Estonian to check/add these? 70.172.194.25 16:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Navajo, meaning "Star Wars". The headword is given as "Sǫʼtah Anaaʼ", but the page title is "Sǫʼtah Anah". But are either of these even attested? And even if they are attested, do we really want an entry for this (cf. WT:NSE, etc.)? 70.172.194.25 18:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently there is a Navajo dub of the original 1977 film, which may bolster the case for inclusion, although I'm still not sure. Which spelling did they use, btw? This article uses "Anah", but this one uses "Anaaʼ" (in an image). 70.172.194.25 19:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
According to υἱύς, it is an early Attic form of υἱός (huiós, “son”). But this capitalized entry is for a concept in Christianity, and Christian-era Greek is Koine, much later than early Attic. So is the u-stem form Υἱύς ever actually attested with the Christian meaning 'Son' (second person of the Christian Trinity)? —Mahāgaja · talk 21:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I highly doubt it is attestable for the Christian era. For that matter, though, is the treatment of υἱύς (huiús) itself actually correct? This source lists ὑύς (huús) and ὕς (hús) as the Old Attic forms, ὑός (huós) for later Attic and υἱύς (huiús) as Laconian (Doric). This book (third paragraph) similarly has Attic ῡύς, but Doric ϝͱιος with υἱύς, υἱός as "normalized standard" forms. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the declensions shown are both of Υἱός. Apart from a minor alteration in the pronunciation and the inclusion of an Epic declension (which seems even more like an Epic mistake), the page is a pasted copy of the page Υἱός. Note in particular the weird “From earlier υἱύς (huiús)”. Remarkable fact: the IP who created this, created 437 new entries in a single edit session of 8 hours and 19 minutes, sometimes 5 or even 6 in the same minute (like at 11:57); quite a feat. --Lambiam 13:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Somali. I noticed this due to the RFV of Sool, Sanaag and Cayn and wondered about the lack of capitalization, then noticed it gets no Books hits, and on the web capitalization is all over the place: Reer Darwiish, Reer darwiish, reer Darwiish, reer darwiish, ... - -sche (discuss) 22:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Hindi-Urdu. Made up. —Svārtava (talk) • 06:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find this. 70.172.194.25 16:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Norwegian, corresponding to English iff (“if and only if”). Danish omm failed RfV; Swedish omm looks citable. AFAICT the Norwegian term isn't easy to find, aside from one occurrence on Norwegian Wikipedia, but maybe other examples will turn up. 70.172.194.25 07:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Turkish. Created by @Samubert96, marked for deletion by @Afb2011, then @Whitekiko added some references. Changing to RFV because you don't just mark pages for deletion like that. Vininn126 (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like a transliteration of an Ottoman Turkish word. If it had survived into Modern Turkish, it should have become *mağız. Neither form found in TDK. --Lambiam 15:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
Old Prussian terms
Old Prussian. Possible only (re-)constructed and not attested. --01:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- The attested forms may be abglopte, abklopte, and/or abgloyte. Cf. [188], [189]. Also see Altpreussische Monatsschrift, vol. 7, p. 594, Chronicon Prussiae. I'm not exactly sure where all those variants came from. Different copies of the manuscript? Regardless, the exact spelling abglābti isn't attested. 70.172.194.25 02:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally, Nesselmann as well as Pierson in Altpreußische Monatsschrift give another meaning. --10:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
bhe is attested with the meaning "and". There are other attested variations, but be doesn't seem to be one of them. [190] [191]
bhe is also attested with the meaning "without", but again be is not attested in this sense. [192].
The exact spelling be is apparently only attested with the meaning "was" (to be, past tense). [193] [194] 70.172.194.25 02:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- BTW: bhe got created. --10:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Especially because of the "New"; maybe cp. [195]. --05:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- So basically this should be an adjective form (feminine accusative singular) referring to an ethnicity instead of a proper noun referring to a language, and the definition needs to be changed accordingly. AFAICT the capitalization and diacritic should stay as they are though, unlike what Nesselmann has. See [196]. The reason I like the VU site is that it's really easy to see a scan of the original attestations, just click the red links and then the little icon next to "Faksimilė". 70.172.194.25 05:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- BTW: Prūsiskan (adjective form) got created. --10:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This is real and should be in mainspace but without the macron. "ter kai" occurs here, and elsewhere this occurs as part of the phrase "ter ains". 70.172.194.25 05:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Given explanation is: „denn – tik“, but the terms have different meanings. Nesselmann translates it as als (“as; than”); Berneker doesn't have it. In the passage it should correspond to German denn, and so tik and only, just, merely seem to be wrong translations. --09:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, good point noting the discrepancy. The original passage in the Enchiridion where the interpretation is under dispute translates to something like "and that he may not be helped in any other way / than that he was born new through baptism out of God". It seems like only would also fit in that gap and express the same meaning; not all languages express the same idea using a direct word-for-word translation. For example, compare this interlinear translation of the Old Prussian (also by Mažiulis, but shows that he must have intentionally translated it this way). And in "ter ains" (allein - tik vien - only one / alone) in particular, it seems to be much easier to explain its function as an adverb meaning "only" than as a comparative conjunction meaning "than". There's also an external Baltic etymological argument for thinking it may have this meaning; see
{{R:bat:CPMBL|page=288}}
[197]. So I think the meaning "only"/"merely" is probably defensible and includable, but we should maybe also include a note discussing this. 70.172.194.25 20:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)- Like CPMBL,
{{R:lt:LEW|head=tè|page=1071}}
[198] glosses ter as German nur ("only") and compares it to the Lithuanian te, te-. So this seems to be the most common interpretation among Balticists. - This recent paper OTOH offers a seemingly different etymological comparison. I have no idea how accepted the theory outlined here is, but Petit sees Prussian -er- as an equivalent morpheme to what Lithuanian and Latvian have as -i(e)k-. The theory relates to the well-known system of Baltic correlatives in t- and k-. But to get to the point, even this idiosyncratic paper glosses *ter as 'so much, only' (adding the asterisk, perhaps not noticing that ter is actually attested outside of the construction ter ains?); which makes sense because it would be t- + -er, equivalent to Lithuanian t- + -ik = tik. 70.172.194.25 23:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Like CPMBL,
- Oh, good point noting the discrepancy. The original passage in the Enchiridion where the interpretation is under dispute translates to something like "and that he may not be helped in any other way / than that he was born new through baptism out of God". It seems like only would also fit in that gap and express the same meaning; not all languages express the same idea using a direct word-for-word translation. For example, compare this interlinear translation of the Old Prussian (also by Mažiulis, but shows that he must have intentionally translated it this way). And in "ter ains" (allein - tik vien - only one / alone) in particular, it seems to be much easier to explain its function as an adverb meaning "only" than as a comparative conjunction meaning "than". There's also an external Baltic etymological argument for thinking it may have this meaning; see
RFV-resolved, although I wonder whether the two senses couldn't be unified by glossing it as English "but", which can be used both for "only" ("there is but one") and "other than" ("no god but God"). 70.172.194.25 00:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The Ancient Greek word σάτρα is currently given as comic Old Persian for 'gold', and is found in both LSJ and Bailly. However, a 2004 article by Andreas Willi puts forth a compelling argument that the line (Ar. Ach. 100) from which this word is taken, should rather be segmented as ἱ αρταμαν' εξαρξα ν[ι]απισσ' ο[υ]ασ' ατρα. He takes ατρα to represent Old Median *aθrā 'here, then'. If this interpretation is accepted, the page for σάτρα should be deleted. What do you think? AntiquatedMan (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @AntiquatedMan: If it's in standard dictionaries, we should keep it, but we can add a usage note explaining the modern alternative explanation. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- That seems to be a good road, yeah. What should I do with the alternative reading of the line? Obviously it can't remain as a quotation, as it does not show the stated definition of 'gold', but I do want to include it somewhere. AntiquatedMan (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- It can be in the usage note. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- That seems to be a good road, yeah. What should I do with the alternative reading of the line? Obviously it can't remain as a quotation, as it does not show the stated definition of 'gold', but I do want to include it somewhere. AntiquatedMan (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
This is obviously morphologically incompatible with our Proto-Brythonic reconstruction. The inscription containing this name has case endings; in our reconstruction they're gone already. It's clearly not in the same language as our Proto-Brythonic and thus shouldn't be sorted under "Proto-Brythonic". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also the etymology line is clearly anachronistic. It’s weird seeing the form being derived from clearly much younger lemmas. // Silmeth @talk 22:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- In retrospect, probably better to give it a Proto-Celtic header with a Brythonic label. --Skiulinamo (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Done. I had to make Proto-Celtic attested tho. --Skiulinamo (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- ...It's not Proto-Celtic either. Not only is Proto-Celtic itself dated too early for the inscription to be Proto-Celtic (the inscription was written around Roman times), the inscription itself has the wrong accusative singular ending (-in instead of -am). It is almost certainly not attested Proto-Celtic. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- At some point, granularity just becomes pedantic and makes fools of us all. --Skiulinamo (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Your move also caused technical problems (we'll continue this at Beer Parlor). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- It should certainly be put under ‘Brittonic’, it’s much to late to be Proto-Celtic. That’s just a fact, it’s not pedantic, it’s just correct. You wouldn’t put a French noun under ‘Latin’… Silurhys (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- At some point, granularity just becomes pedantic and makes fools of us all. --Skiulinamo (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- ...It's not Proto-Celtic either. Not only is Proto-Celtic itself dated too early for the inscription to be Proto-Celtic (the inscription was written around Roman times), the inscription itself has the wrong accusative singular ending (-in instead of -am). It is almost certainly not attested Proto-Celtic. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Done. I had to make Proto-Celtic attested tho. --Skiulinamo (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- As we're discussing in another thread here, Proto-Brittonic/Brittonic should be a daughter of Proto-Celtic and the hypothetical parent of Brittonic (attested from the 4th/3rd century BC and lasting until the mid 6th century AD, when it gave way to Neo-Brittonic). Uindiorix dates to the Brittonic period and should be labeled as Brittonic. Wiktionary ridiculously calls Archaic Neo-Brittonic (mid-5th century AD through the end of the 8th century AD) "Proto-Brythonic"; both inaccurate and idiosyncratic, as no professional Celticist uses this term to refer to Neo-Brittonic. M.Aurelius.Viator (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I've moved it back to Proto-Brythonic. It's true that attested Proto-Brythonic forms don't match up with our reconstructed forms, but we call them both Proto-Brythonic anyway. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Proto-Brythonic. Attested in Latin ADIXOUI DEUINA DEIEDA ANDAGIN UINDIORIX CUAMENAI, but - in the same vain as Artognou - that seems to make it a Latin transcription of a Proto-Brythonic name, and not a Proto-Brythonic term in its own right. Theknightwho (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: You are technically right if it is a Latin sentence, so this page would have to be split into a Latin page and a Proto-Brythonic reconstruction. But the inscription’s language has been controverted. So it could be an Undetermined language lemma as some other names including ΒΟΥΗΛΑ. There would be no gain in information with either option. Technically it is an attested term with arguable header attribution. Fay Freak (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak I would prefer to have the Proto-Brythonic entry at a reconstructed normalised spelling, with a Latin entry at Uindiorix that states it's a Latin transcription of the Proto-Brythonic name. That would keep the distinction clear, better matches the expectations of users who work in one language or the other, and also leaves room for discussion as to what the best normalised form actually is. Theknightwho (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho, as a minute of research would tell anyone, the sentence Uindiorix is attested in is today universally agreed upon by scholars to be in Celtic, not Latin. The only question is if it's too old to fit in how we on the project define Proto-Brythonic, and not dialectal Proto-Celtic. @Mahagaja --
{{victar|talk}}
22:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)- The sentence isn't Latin at all. The clearest evidence is found in the lexeme andagin, composed of an- "un" and dagin "good (accusative)". Kwékwlos (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho, as a minute of research would tell anyone, the sentence Uindiorix is attested in is today universally agreed upon by scholars to be in Celtic, not Latin. The only question is if it's too old to fit in how we on the project define Proto-Brythonic, and not dialectal Proto-Celtic. @Mahagaja --
- @Fay Freak I would prefer to have the Proto-Brythonic entry at a reconstructed normalised spelling, with a Latin entry at Uindiorix that states it's a Latin transcription of the Proto-Brythonic name. That would keep the distinction clear, better matches the expectations of users who work in one language or the other, and also leaves room for discussion as to what the best normalised form actually is. Theknightwho (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
German. Rfv-sense: (Northern Germany) harvest moon
Tagged (diff) with the comment "also as References (unlike Quotations) aren't sufficient for WDLs and as the Reference is gone" but not listed. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 06:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Skalvian. RFV-term, appears on Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/tewas. Is this language even attested at all? For some reason, extinct Baltic languages are a magnet for questionable additions. The person who originally added this also included Sudovian, Old Curonian, and Kursenieki.
- Sudovian is barely attested, only in one word list (that scholars aren't even sure is Sudovian) and a few short sentences from one medieval book (that are likely actually Old Prussian, and academic Old Prussian dictionaries treat them as such, e.g. [199]). The form they added for Sudovian, "tove", was apparently an unattested invention of Suduva.com; I have replaced it with an attested spelling from the word list.
- Old Curonian is in a similar situation, only having one representative text (which isn't even securely identified as Curonian), but possibly a great deal of words could be legitimately academically reconstructed from onomastics and the significant regional influence it had on Lithuanian/Samogitian and Latvian. Luckily, the one purportedly Old Curonian text is the Pater Noster, so the word for father is attested ("thewes"), but it doesn't even match the spelling added by the user ("thæwæs", which has no other hits on Google) unless I'm missing something.
- Kursenieki is definitely attested, and even has two living speakers, but it's still rare so it nonetheless sets off a bit of an alarm. The particular Kursenieki form "teve" may be attested, as searching for "teve mūses" on Google brings up some hits, mostly various Wikipedias and one 2017 self-published ebook (funnily enough cited on w:lv:Kursenieku_valoda, but surely an instance of citogenesis since the text has been on de.wikipedia since 2012), but I have no idea the original source/authenticity of this Pater Noster translation. ALEW, which I trust more but still isn't an ideal source, gives "têvs" as the Kursenieki cognate of Lithuanian "tėvas". Dictionaries and texts in the language exist but I don't think I can access any of them. The form is superficially plausible, although I have to wonder whether "teve" is supposed to be the vocative instead of the nominative (lemma form), which I would have expected to end in -s. For example, the Lithuanian Pater Noster starts with "tėve mūsų", instead of the lemma form "tėvas". But in Latvian, of which Kursenieki is a dialect, the nominative and vocative are both "tēvs", so IDK.
70.172.194.25 00:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Burmese. Created by a vandal. RcAlex36 (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- This Twitter post makes me think the term might be real. Dunno about the etymology. Whether it's citable to our standards, IDK either. The current citation is terrible (the title of a random YouTube video consisting of various clips of dancing women; the word isn't even spoken in the video, nor is any word other than "one, two, three, four"(?) at the start). 70.172.194.25 21:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ǵenh₁- 'to be born' names it in unnassorted, as meaning (2) "kinsman".
- article also has the meaning1 of "known"
- article etymology has it from γιγνώσκω, itself from Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ǵneh₃- 'to know'
- I suspect meaning 1 comes from H3 and meaning 2 from H1. Can anyone confirm so to split etyms?
Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 21:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Beekes assigns both meanings to the root of γιγνώσκω (gignṓskō):
- γνωτός, -τή 'relative' belongs to γιγνώσκω.
- 70.172.194.25 23:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I will take this to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2023/January where it should be. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
February 2023
Mongolian. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 05:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. One of the defining features of Permyak is that Proto-Permic *ť is reflected as <ть> instead of the Zyrian <йт>. квать is supported by the dictionaries I have. Seems to again be a case of someone not knowing what Permyak is. Thadh (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Another one. Should be чӧскыт.
Another one. Should be шоныт.
Another one. Should be небыт.
Another one. Should be вунӧтны.
Another one. Should be югыт.
- Югыд seems to be Komi Zyrian or Komi Izhma, so we can just change the name of the language, no need to delete the whole entry. Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Another one. Should be сьӧкыт.
Another one. Should be кӧдзыт.
Another one. Should be пемыт.
Honestly, I'm getting tired of this shit by Rajkiandris. Can we just nuke all his entries without sources? Thadh (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Another one. Should be ой. Thadh (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Ancient Greek.
I can't find any evidence of this, but I don't have access to good resources on Ancient Greek proper nouns. Given the religious proscriptions on use of the Divine Name, I'm skeptical, but I don't know enough about Koine usage to be sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hellenistic Jewish writers still needed a form to write, as יהוה is, and those proscriptions don't exist for non-Jewish sources, cf. the citations at Ἰαω, so there's nothing inherently implausible about it on purely religious grounds. This particular form is quite difficult to track down, though. The claim at Iehova that it's attested in the Gnostic Pistis Sophia (which survives only in Coptic in any case) appears to stem from an earlier Wikipedia misinterpretation of Charles William King's 19th-century study The Gnostics and Their Remains, which, while discussing the Pistis Sophia, mysteriously states that "The author of the 'Treatise on Interpretations' says, 'The Egyptians express the name of the Supreme Being by the seven Greek vowels ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ'". (Wikipedia now correctly states "Charles William King attributes [it] to a work that he calls On Interpretations", but previously ascribed it to the Pistis Sophia.) Unfortunately King gives no indication at all as to what the 'Treatise on Interpretations' is, and it's never mentioned again. So I'm inclined to delete this, in the absence of any better evidence. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think the place to look for this would be the Greek Magical Papyri, which are absolutely littered with all sorts of theonyms, including many variations on the Tetragrammaton, as well as all sorts of ‘magical’ sequences of the seven Greek vowels. I haven’t found this exact form myself with a cursory glance, but if it would be anywhere, that would be the most likely set of texts to search. (Also note that King refers to ‘the Egyptians’; the Magical Papyri themselves originate in Greco-Roman Egypt.) Another source that may have some information about where this comes from, if anyone can dig it up, is Gesner’s 1746 De laude dei per septem vocales; various more modern books refer to this when discussing this particular form. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Edit: I’ve dug up the above-mentioned treatise by Gesner; it can be found on p.245 of this work (Commentarii Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis vol. 1). Unfortunately I don’t think my Latin and Greek are quite up to the task of wading through it, but if someone else wants to give it a try, perhaps there might be some useful references there. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I found ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ (in all caps) on page 254 of Gesner's thesis, but the thesis is written in Latin, and the term is only mentioned, not used. I don't know whether this is sufficient for inclusion. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Edit: I’ve dug up the above-mentioned treatise by Gesner; it can be found on p.245 of this work (Commentarii Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis vol. 1). Unfortunately I don’t think my Latin and Greek are quite up to the task of wading through it, but if someone else wants to give it a try, perhaps there might be some useful references there. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think the place to look for this would be the Greek Magical Papyri, which are absolutely littered with all sorts of theonyms, including many variations on the Tetragrammaton, as well as all sorts of ‘magical’ sequences of the seven Greek vowels. I haven’t found this exact form myself with a cursory glance, but if it would be anywhere, that would be the most likely set of texts to search. (Also note that King refers to ‘the Egyptians’; the Magical Papyri themselves originate in Greco-Roman Egypt.) Another source that may have some information about where this comes from, if anyone can dig it up, is Gesner’s 1746 De laude dei per septem vocales; various more modern books refer to this when discussing this particular form. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Liray70 For new coinages like these, at least three separate citations are required and the citations need to span at least a year. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Please provide at least three separate citations are required and the citations need to span at least a year. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Polish. Wikipedia articles don't count. Vininn126 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia articles don't count as cites, but it's worth noting that both that article as well as ziarnojadek's refer to the Jagiellonian University's Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, so it might be worth looking somewhere there. Hythonia (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Polish. Wikipedia articles don't count. Vininn126 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
As an inhabitant of West Bengal and a native speaker of Bengali, I don't think I have ever heard of these terms. I found nothing like these in Bengali-language publications in West Bengal, including Anandabazar Patrika, Bartaman etc. So far, I have found words like বীরভূমবাসী and বর্ধমানবাসী, which are demonyms of বীরভূম and বর্ধমান respectively. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Pali. Rfv-sense: Does the feminine of the present participle santa have this form? --RichardW57m (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Translingual. Synonym of :D
Isn't this an alternative form of :P or :p? Theknightwho (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Uh, this is difficult, how would you distinguish in quotes? Both are asumed faces. It is sure though that in some cases it is the former due to typing so lazily as to omit pressing the shift key. Fay Freak (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Tbh I usually see it used with a bit more irony cheekiness, :d is more like :v. :D is usually just expressing joy. Vininn126 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Then let's forgo defining it as “synonym of” aught and relegate the uncertainties, concerning which actual symbols it is related to, to the etymology. Fay Freak (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Did we all see the comment on Talk:Unsupported_titles/:d? Because I was skeptical too. I dont play that game but the explanation makes sense. And, as for other online games ... I can see how an originally capitalized emoticon could evolve to lowercase for ease of typing in a fast-paced video game, especially these days when we rely so much on more colorful emojis. —Soap— 10:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Then let's forgo defining it as “synonym of” aught and relegate the uncertainties, concerning which actual symbols it is related to, to the etymology. Fay Freak (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Tbh I usually see it used with a bit more irony cheekiness, :d is more like :v. :D is usually just expressing joy. Vininn126 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Pali. Rfv-sense: swim
Pali. Rfv-sense: float
I can't find this meaning in any dictionaries, and I've looked in PTS, Childers, Maung Tin and Buddhadatta. Wiktionary does have this meaning for the cognate Sanskrit तरति (tarati). The meaning was added for Pali by @LolPacino. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Pali. Rfv-sense: 'absence'
I see no reason to deduce that this contraction should be reckoned as a noun. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Esperanto. Both added by the same editor; the third entry (at the time of writing; kanadino) may also be suspect. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Dutch. I think it's still German. PUC – 12:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Maltese. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
Swahili. Tagged by Tbm with the reason: “I can't find attestation. Maybe a misspelling of ghasia?” MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I only find one use, but the word seems to have a different meaning here. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I can't find attestation but maybe I haven't looked enough...? tbm (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I find exactly zilch. -Ehukuliwa seems to be a thing, though. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
German. Zero Google hits. The user has created many such entries which may need attention. Equinox ◑ 19:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Search for inflected forms like google books:sechsundzwanzigköpfigen, google books:sechsundzwanzigköpfige. That gives enough results of the term. One could only argue regarding the meaning:
- a being/creature with 26 heads [possible not existing and not given in the entry]
- a group of 26 people [easily attested like sechsundzwanzigköpfige Besatzung, Gruppe, Mannschaft, Delegation/Gremium/Komitee/Kommission]
Middle English: “(uncertain) to obtain”. The MED only has attestations with y. J3133 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- The reason here appears to be that the MED has filed the other senses under wainen and this is seemingly an extension of the same term, so it makes sense to move this to waynen, which is the main lemma for us anyway. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to WT:RFDR.
- Discussion moved to WT:RFDR.
Old Polish. Not in SSp, nor even M. Arta! Vininn126 (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Not in SSp, in M. Arta, which is actually just a dictionary of Modern Polish archaisms. Vininn126 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Not in SSP, M. Arct archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. The only attested form I believe is brwiach, which leaves us open to lemmatization? This one requires more input. Vininn126 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Not in SSp and not even in M. Arct's dictionary. Vininn126 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Forms should be trześnia, czrześnia, per SSp. Vininn126 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Not in SSp. Vininn126 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Arct archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Arct archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Appears to be a Middle Polish entry confused for an Old Polish one. Vininn126 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC) RFV failed. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Form should be głupi. Vininn126 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Long e was not written yet, expected form is jeno, which exists. Vininn126 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Burmese.
I don't believe sealang.net provides a true representation of the word. Show us a picture! Other on-line dictionaries are showing သိက္ခာ instead. The SEALang rendering could be due to a faulty algorithm for resolving pre-Unicode 5.1 AA as round AA or TALL AA, e.g. 'tall after KHA' instead of 'tall after non-subscript KHA'. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Old Polish ended in 1500, and the provided dictionary is anything after that. Vininn126 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Documented form is kciuk. Vininn126 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Attested form is małżonka. Vininn126 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Not the attested form, other forms are. Vininn126 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Form should be stróża. Vininn126 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. I don't even know what to say about this one. Vininn126 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. I don't believe the reference given has any actual quotes. Vininn126 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Form should be trześnia. Vininn126 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- A weird case. Delete, probably, though SStp does indeed have zewnu (as one word). Hythonia (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- We could move. Vininn126 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Not the attested form. Vininn126 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Vininn126: Per Bańkowski this one does appear in Old Polish, but only in place names (see w:pl:Łomna, appearing as early as 1155). Other than that he says the meaning "frangible" was used in the 16th-18th century, which appears to be corroborated by other dictionaries. The alleged descendant is, per WSJP, derived from ułomić, from PS *u-lomiti. Hythonia (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- If we decide to keep this as a mention, supported by the demonym, we should make it abundantly clear. Vininn126 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. Forms should be stdza, scdza, sdza. Vininn126 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. I do not believe the citation has a quote in running text. Vininn126 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- "running text" is not a requirement for attestation, AFAICT from WT:ATTEST. DCDuring (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- For an LDL, you are right, but I can't find a mention. SSp is basically the the only corpus for Old Polish, and I can't find it here. (It's unfortunate this is basically the only corpus) Vininn126 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Old Polish. M. Art archaism. Vininn126 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV failed. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out being Middle Polish or just an obsolete term, but for now deleting. Vininn126 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
An unadapted English loanword in the extinct language Cochimi of western Mexico. The cactus was given this name in English at just about the time when Cochimi was going extinct, so I wonder if it's even meaningful to say whether the word is or not part of the language. It's also a bit strange that a language native to the cactus' habitat would need to borrow from English to describe it, so it's possible this is an error of some kind and that the scientist never intended boojum to be part of the Cochimi language. The Spanish and Nahuatl wiktionaries also list this word as belonging to two other languages of the area, so for those who edit other wikis, this RFV could be applied to those languages as well. —Soap— 12:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Translingual. "taxonomic" I would have thought it belonged among Italic terms for RfV.
Sometimes used as a transliteration for Greek. DCDuring (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Any Latin usage would normatively be spelled with c and y (and indeed all the taxa seem to be -ichthyes). Can't find evidence that this is ever used except as a transliteration of Ancient Greek ἰχθύες (ikhthúes, “fish”, plural). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. Should be haka according to Gołąbk's dictionary. Vininn126 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. Vininn126 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. Vininn126 (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. I believe this could be real, and I think some chemistry textbooks have been printed in Kashubian, I would like at least one quote from them... Vininn126 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. Gołąbk lists as hôk, I propose the entry be moved. Vininn126 (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. I think it should be jantar according to my sources. Vininn126 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. Vininn126 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. Vininn126 (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. Like with europ, I think this is real, probably in some Kashubian textbook, I just would like a quote. Vininn126 (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. Vininn126 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Kashubian. Originally from pl.wikt but unsourced. Vininn126 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- In pl.wikt there are two sources. Olaf (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- RFV passed. Vininn126 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Polish. Or Silesian? Vininn126 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Rfv passed and moved to Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
RFV passed and converted to Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Polish. Based on that references it's an old ghost word? Vininn126 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Query in Google Books ([200]) gives at least 4 other dictionaries with this meaning. Olaf (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Polish. Or Silesian? Vininn126 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC) RFV passed and converted to Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Polish. This is pretty clearly Cieszyn Silesian the dialect, but the question is should we treat this dialect as an LDL. This actually does apply to some other rfv's, such as czołgot, bałucha, bachróń, and bachoro. @Hythonia. Vininn126 (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Thai. Rfv-sense: a transgender woman.
As a (native) Thai speaker, I have never found anyone using the term to refer to any transgender woman. Also, a Google search did not return any use of the term in such a sense. --Asembleo (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I tried myself to verify the existence of this name but I was unable to find anything reliable on it, I've also never seen it in any charters or the Domesday Book and to my knowledge the element ǣdre isn't used in any other Old English names. Pirsicola T. (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Lisu. This doesn't make sense within the Fraser script orthography, and I can't find any evidence of it online. The "transliteration" is very clearly taken from A Dictionary of the Northern Dialect of Lisu, but in actual fact that uses a separate Latin orthography altogether that follows quite different rules.
I suspect this was simply copied from the Chinese Wiktionary. Theknightwho (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
Silesian. Drzyń as a last name exists but I can't find even a mention outside of us. Vininn126 (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. No mentions outside of us it seems. Vininn126 (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Mongolian (orange (fruit)). Not in any dictionary I can access. The spelling апельсин (apelʹsin) (exactly as in Russian) gets hits in Mongolian Google searches. The regular term for orange (fruit) is жүрж (žürž).
Passive inflections of amori
amori appears to be intransitive. See for example the Reta Vortaro, where they list active but not passive participles, and the example:
- se edzo opiniis, ke lia edzino amoris kun alia, sed ne havis pruvon, tiam li iris kun sia edzino al la templo
with intransitive "amoris kun alia" rather than transitive "amori alian".
If this is the case, then the 27 passive inflections in the following table should be deleted. (I thought it would be disruptive to tag them individually for verification.)
Conjugation of amori
|
kwami (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Ukrainian, tagged but not listed. Rfv-sense: "(figurative, derogatory) gaudily dressed woman or girl". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. Another @Carl Francis entry without any supporting citations. Kwékwlos (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. Imagine an alternate history in which Russia invaded the Philippines instead of Spain. Sounds like @Carl Francis lives there. Kwékwlos (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. Is Disney suddenly relocating to the Philippines, @Carl Francis? Kwékwlos (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. He only went as far as India, not the Philippines. Another @Carl Francis creation with no citations. Kwékwlos (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. @Carl Francis, how related is Cebuano to Polish? Kwékwlos (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. Another @Carl Francis product. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. @Carl Francis, did you mistake English for Spanish? Kwékwlos (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. @Carl Francis Should be Lanzarote. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. @Carl Francis, are you living in German Philippines? Kwékwlos (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. Again, I didn't think the Germans ever maintained a colony in the Philippines, @Carl Francis. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. @Carl Francis Did you think the French creators suddenly found themselves in Cebu? Kwékwlos (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. @Carl Francis. I don't know how an English term would be borrowed directly into Cebuano in the absence of any other Philippine language. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. @Carl Francis. I don't know how an English term would be borrowed directly into Cebuano in the absence of any other Philippine language. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Of all the recent RFD's, this one stands out as the most believable since this word has also been borrowed into other languages. It is in the linked dictionary with senses much as our entry claims it has, although the dictionary spells it as targit. Is this a matter of two different spelling standards, or should we change the spelling of our entry? In any case, I cant be of any help in finding citations, let alone citations for all five senses, but it seems wholly reasonable to me. Best regards, —Soap— 18:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. Are Barbies even made in Cebu?
Also @Carl Francis Chuterix (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Cebuano. @Carl Francis Kwékwlos (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Ancient Greek. None of the dictionaries says that the adjective διαλυτός (dialutós) actually forms an adverb. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Likewise the negated adverb. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bailly (1935) (also at Logeion) cites Polybius. --Thrasymedes (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's for ἀδιαλύτως (adialútōs) with a different accentuation. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Silesian. Vininn126 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Polish. Partial verification request for the definition. Kaci is the relational adjective of the noun kat, which has two distinct meanings: literal, "executioner," and figurative, "tormentor." It's pretty easy to find usage of the noun in the figurative sense, but I can't seem to find occurences of kaci as relating to it, only to the literal meaning (especially in collocations like kaci topór — executioner's axe, kaci kaptur — executioner's hood, etc.). Hythonia (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Notably, WSJP clearly states it only relates to "executioner". Vininn126 (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Quote from [201] (1840): "Kiedy miano czarownice i czarowników próbować torturami, kaci zabobonnicy i guslarze wielcy, golili im na sam przód włosy" (English: "When witches and sorcerers were to be tried by torture, tormenting superstitious [people] and great guslars shaved their hair first."). Here "kaci" is definitely used as an adjective from "kat" in the sense of "tormentor", and not "executioner", but still the meaning is literal.
- In another example, we can see contemporary usage in the figurative sense, but it's just a random quote from the internet, and a kind of poetry, so it may not adhere to the strict language rules: [202].
- Still, I believe "kaci" is just a standard creation of an adjective from a noun "kat", so there is no reason why we shouldn't use it in all possible senses. It's just rare, so it's hard to find examples. Olaf (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Olaf Per our WT:CFI, each definition needs three examples, just just the entry as a whole. If the only definition is "of or relating to a executioner", we need three examples of that. Vininn126 (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- I thought this discussion is about meaning of "kaci" as "of or relating to a tormentor", because "of or relating to an executioner" is already well confirmed with dictionaries. So here is the third quotation in which "kaci" is definitely used in a figurative sense: https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Wi%C4%99%C5%BA/m25IAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=kaciego&dq=kaciego&printsec=frontcover Olaf (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Hythonia As the lister. Vininn126 (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Two examples more:
- [203], look for "kacia": "Lecz czy dzielić się musiał wymiotem? Skąd ta wiedza, ta pewność kacia, ze stojąc pod płotem sam nie grzęźnie po uszki otulon swych projekcji błotem?" - refers to an unpleasant situation, but not an execution.
- [204], look for "kaciej", second item: "w pewnym momencie poczujesz bunt, potem nienawiść do swego krzywdziciela, a nawet chęć zemsty. Dążąc do ich realizacji "przyobleczesz szaty" kata, by w kolejnym żywocie odpłacić się temu człowiekowi za wszelkie krzywdy, jakie ci uczynił. Po pewnym okresie swej kaciej działalności może pojawić się poczucie winy."
- Olaf (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Two examples more:
- @Hythonia As the lister. Vininn126 (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- I thought this discussion is about meaning of "kaci" as "of or relating to a tormentor", because "of or relating to an executioner" is already well confirmed with dictionaries. So here is the third quotation in which "kaci" is definitely used in a figurative sense: https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Wi%C4%99%C5%BA/m25IAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=kaciego&dq=kaciego&printsec=frontcover Olaf (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- (Sorry, this took a bit to type up, the reply interface lags a lot on this page.) @Olaf: Addressing the latter part, I was a bit unsure about this request, yeah. It is a rather standard derivative, so maybe the definition was fine like that? Still, I was slightly alarmed by the fact WSJP lists two definitions for kat ("executioner" and "tormentor"), whereas for kaci it specifies that it refers to the sense "executioner", so I felt that it's better to be safe than sorry.
- The latter two examples seem fine; the first, hm. It seems ambiguous? It might be employing the adjective, but given it speaks of what's happening during an execution, it seems more likely that it's a noun concord (i.e. two nouns -- kat zabobonnik in the singular -- because, like, there would assumedly be torturers present, and they'd be superstitious as well). I don't know if the Criteria for Inclusion would allow the second quote, but at the very least it's proof the word's used that way. Hythonia (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, oops -- never mind. Hadn't seen your last comment prior to typing this up. Yeah, this looks like a closed case. Thank you. Hythonia (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Olaf Per our WT:CFI, each definition needs three examples, just just the entry as a whole. If the only definition is "of or relating to a executioner", we need three examples of that. Vininn126 (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Manx.
According to the source cited (or at least the 2nd edition), the independent fut. form is ee, not *eeee, as Broderick puts it (p. 326 in the 2nd edition, 2009):
The -ee- of the stem absorbs the -ee of the Future Independent
He gives ee ee /iː-i/ for ‘she will eat’ – but anyway, neither form (ee or eeee) seems to be attested as the future indep. of gee in the texts of Manx corpus (and there are no hits for eeee at all). IMO the whole page should be removed unless an actual non-artificial example can be found.
Also the Middle Irish ancestor form given (ithidh) doesn’t follow our MIr. spelling convention and is rather a Classical Gaelic form in post-15th c. spelling. // Silmeth @talk 14:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- This lesson book says on page 51 that the verb is usually eeys, and gives the example sentence eeys ee for "she will eat" (no object). This suggests that eeee is indeed possible, and grammatical, but is "usually" avoided because it is difficult to pronounce even in isolation, let alone before another ee. —Soap— 18:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Eeys is also present in the corpus, in three different texts. This makes sense as the old relative (itheas) form spreading to independent position.
- Anyway, a form continuing ithidh definitely makes sense grammatically – but it likely wouldn’t be spelt *eeee, due to the simplification mentioned by Broderick. Compare other verbs like folmee eh < falmhaighidh ‘he will empty’ (not *folmeeee eh, dep. cha volmee/n’olmee), immee eh < im(th)ighidh ‘he will go’ (not *immeeee), etc. (although those have the -ee part in unstressed syllable, unlike the ee- verb – but IMO nothing suggests this should be different unless there’s a counterexample; and if neither spelling is attested, *eeee is at best a reconstruction). // Silmeth @talk 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Another remark: Phillips (Early Manx, early 17th c.) has níi for ‘will wash’ (níi e y ghasmedjyn ghosse ayns fwil yn niawghráwiníi ‘he shall wash his foot-steps in the blood of the non-believers’), and also íi for the verbal noun (later (g)ee, and not
*eeee) – both those forms were originally disyllabic (nighidh, ithe /niɣ´əð´, iθ´ə/ invalid IPA characters (´´´)) – showing that eeee is impossible (but already in Phillips’ translations there is no íi or similar for the finite verb, it’s only used as a verbal noun in periphrastic constructions). EDIT: Phillips also uses níi for later nee ‘will do’ (< do-ní /dəˈn´iː/ invalid IPA characters (´), monosyllabic), so even his íi doesn’t mean a lot for the 17th c. So I’m pretty much convinced eeee hasn’t existed and should be deleted. // Silmeth @talk 12:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Another remark: Phillips (Early Manx, early 17th c.) has níi for ‘will wash’ (níi e y ghasmedjyn ghosse ayns fwil yn niawghráwiníi ‘he shall wash his foot-steps in the blood of the non-believers’), and also íi for the verbal noun (later (g)ee, and not
I’d say this fails. Can I ask someone with the powers to remove the article? // Silmeth @talk 11:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- It’s been 2 months now. @Mahagaja? // Silmeth @talk 10:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Seems not to be real. Broderick himself lists in in the first edition of the cited source, but not in the second, so I guess he discovered it doesn't actually exist. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: Definitely a made-up thing. Interesting that the ee form (which he gives in the 2nd edition) is also non-existent in the corpus (and eeys also generally only as relative), so this verb is just never used in the simple future. May I ask you to delete the article? // Silmeth @talk 12:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Seems not to be real. Broderick himself lists in in the first edition of the cited source, but not in the second, so I guess he discovered it doesn't actually exist. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
RFV-failed, entry deleted. // Silmeth @talk 12:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Ancient Greek. Not in any of the usual dictionaries. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Ancient Greek. Neither accentuation is in any of the usual dictionaries. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Bengali. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#یوگیہ.
Urdu. This word must be kept on! This word is found on Hindustani Dictionary. — This unsigned comment was added by গহীনঅরণ্য (talk • contribs) at 9:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC).
- @গহীনঅরণ্য: The original RFD nomination, which I have changed to RFV, says "Not Urdu. Transliteration of योग्य (yogya)." Urdu is only half of Hindustani, and it is not just Hindi spelled with a different script. We need to see evidence that this is used in Urdu, not just Hindi. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Kyrgyz. Two supposed calques from Finnish, both added by User:Almanbet Janışev and have no ghits outside of Wiktionary. Most entries in Category:Kyrgyz neologisms appear suspect in general. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I need to add that this user has been adding entries from other Wiktionaries not checking if they match our WT:CFI or not. Vininn126 (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Maltese. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 02:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Middle English. J3133 (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Dutch. Rfv-sense: "(obsolete) homosexual, gay" - -sche (discuss) 21:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Albanian. Recently added by an anon. I don't know Albanian, so I don't know if this is a real term or something somebody made up one day. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thai. Unattested at all. No usage of the term is found anywhere. Google search returned no usage of this term. --YURi (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Thai. The attestation of the term is in doubt.
- Regarding Definition 1 - Not sure what the OP really wanted to refer to. But the def provided seems to refer to any medicine that is gold in colour, which, if so, would constitute an SOP.
- Regarding definition 2 - Never once have I seen this term used in this sense. Google search returned no usage of the term in this sense.
--YURi (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Turkish. Tagged by User:Xenos melophilos. Defined as a misspelling. As a standalone term it has more than three apparently citable uses. It's harder to tell if it is a rare misspelling (RFD material), common misspelling, or alternative form. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Verificated in kuantum. TDK is a government foundation and whatever it says is the official language. If the words taken from foreign languages are taken in a late period, TDK generally prefers to take their spelling close to the original. Quantum is already an academic word, we don't use it in our daily life. So, kuvantum can not be a dialect. It's a misspelling. We spell it kuantum and read this word as it is written. BurakD53 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think you're right about RFD. BurakD53 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
German. Rfv-sense: "voluptuous, curvaceous". – Jberkel 19:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. The word is missing in the "Komi-Permyak-Russian Dictionary (1985)" and "Russian-Komi-Permyak Dictionary (1946)". Burmort (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
such a word cant exist and doesnt exist, not mentioned in any dictionary either AleksiB 1945 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Whatever, but you should not have deleted the text to which you are looking for verification. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- reverted AleksiB 1945 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- no reply after 20 days. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- reverted AleksiB 1945 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Finnish. Rfv-sense #3 under Etymology 2: Synonym of hammas.
- @Surjection I don't think so. We have sense #1 "thorn, prong, tooth or similar element e.g. in a plant, a saw or a rake" and it is correct that in this sense "hammas" is a synonym. Having this (#3) as separate sense leads one to think that "pii" might have referred to the anatomical tooth as well. I found no evidence but am happy to see any quotes that would prove me wrong. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- pii's original etymological meaning is tooth in the anatomical sense, but it's not obvious that this sense survived into Finnish - I'll see if I can find quotes. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't. RFV-deleted — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Greenlandic. Tagged by @Gamren in 2017 but not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
German. Tagged by an IP editor but not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Low German. An IP editor requested verification of the past participles ebeennt and gebeennt in the inflection table. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Low German. An IP editor requested verification of the past participles ebedüüdt and gebedüüdt in the inflection table. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Low German. Tagged by an IP editor, not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Low German or Low Saxon. The L2 says Low Saxon, the head template says Low German. Tagged by an IP editor but not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- nds = Low German (strict sense) = Low Saxon -- it all means the same. (nds-nl = Dutch Low German/Saxon has an addition.)
- gröyter (small g) is more likely, but still questionable. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3724:F14:A8BC:6D10:5D61:B07A (talk).
Low German. Rfv-sense: "dog". Tagged by an IP editor who added a sense as an oblique form of Rüe (“dog”). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Icelandic. Rfv-sense: industriousness. Tagged by @Numberguy6 but not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Albanian. Can we source that? Sławobóg (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
is it -blast or -plast? Does Irish use the same suffix for both? Either way, there seems to be no usage of this word in running text. This also covers the alternate spelling biothbhlast. Thanks, —Soap— 12:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The tearma.ie entry given under Further reading says the term actually means 'bioblast', not 'bioplast', so I'm changing that. Still doesn't verify its existence, though. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)- I see that our entry for bioblast says that it's just an alt form of bioplast anyway, so never mind. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I didnt think to check the English. -blast and -plast have similar meanings, but not the same, so I dont think bioblast and bioplast should be synonyms in English either, but i found this from a different thread mentioning that bioplasm may not actually exist, so it may be that these words are all archaic and the meanings of -blast and -plast were not set in stone at the time. —Soap— 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
lemo (Esperanto)
Esperanto. Rfv-sense: "lemming". I have only found one use on Google Books, while a quick look on Google Search did not hit anything either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Dutch. Rfv-sense: "cocky" — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Irish. The lowercase form ꝉ is used in Old Irish and Middle Irish, but I don't think it's used in modern Irish, and I don't think the uppercase form is used in any of them. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Ukrainian. Rfv-sense: nowheresville. Tagged by User:Underfell Flowey, not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- At some stage the renaming caused a storm of memes in Ukrainian and Russian at some period but the sense is wrong, IMO. Google "Горішні Плавні мем" to see meme examples. Since the name sounded funny, someone may have assigned that meaning but I don't think it was anywhere widespread. — This unsigned comment was added by Atitarev (talk • contribs).
Polish. Smells of so much BS. Vininn126 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Learn how to read in Polish. The reference is right there. And by the way, User:Vininn126: I am expecting an apology, colleague. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Lokys dar Vienas
- 1) Your formatting is atrocious
- 2) I seriously doubt you can read it. Please look at any other entry I've worked with before commenting on my ability to read it.
- 3) I am not going to apologize for asking you to learn how to format and source correctly "buddy" (which is probably what you were trying to say instead of colleague). Vininn126 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Lokys dar Vienas The only definition there that should be added should be the first, we don't add the names of titles as definitions, nor do we accept quotes directly from Wikipedia. Find me three quotes in running text referring to the mountain. Vininn126 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you insist on being a rude colleague or on refusing to accept me as a colleague, so be it. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Lokys dar Vienas I'm not trying to be rude, I'm trying to be direct and inform you of the standard held here.
- 1) Random sources from academia.edu are not generally kept here
- 2) You have not provided quotations in running text as per our WT:CFI, I am not sure if you are familiar with the Use–mention distinction, but in order for a word to be added here it needs to be used naturally in a sentence 3 times. Vininn126 (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Lokys dar Vienas The quotes you added are still mentions, not uses, see Use–mention distinction. Furthermore, please stop adding the name of the book, that's not the type of thing we include on Wiktionary. 3rd of all, you completely ignored my statement about not adding random crap from Academia.edu as a source. Did you not understand me or did you ignore me? Vininn126 (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Lithuanian. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 18:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Vietnamese. According to @PhanAnh123: “Should this entry really be created? This guy doesn't have a lot of significance to most Vietnamese (history buffs aside, of course) and that single line from Truyện Kiều is probably the most people know about him.” --ChemPro (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Super-easy to find three cites on Google Books. I think this needs to go to RfD, though. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Maltese. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 12:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Indonesian. Rfv-sense: eternal era. Tagged by User:Rex Aurorum years ago, not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Indonesian. Tagged by User:Rex Aurorum years ago, not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Xbypass ? Can't find this anywhere. This, that and the other (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Breton. Defined as "Hogwarts". Tagged by an IP editor in 2019. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Oriya. Tagged by an IP editor years ago with the comment "ṣô + nukta becoming /ɻ/ does not make sense". This may be meant as a request for verification of pronunciation /ɻɔ/. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Swedish. Tagged by User:Christoffre, not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Turkish. Tagged by User:Afb2011. If it exists it might be spelled evreng, the Ottoman pronunciation given in {{R:tr:NewRedhouse}}
. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Vietnamese. According to @PhanAnh123: "Need clarification, both etymologies. The first one is a proper noun so it would most often be spelled with capitalization. The second etymology is even more suspect, it probably means to be a part as chu choa mẹc/chu choa mẹt or chèn mẹc/chèn mẹt, but in that case, I can see no French here, and, as a component of interjections and hardly ever used a stand-alone morpheme (although, due to clipping, there're indeed a couple attestations of mẹc ơi) and is questionable if it even has any meaning on its own, I am not sure if I would even consider it a lemma." --ChemPro (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the first one, yes it should be in capital so it should be in a separate page.
- I'm quite sure I've heard it used before (which doesn't count I guess), though it becomes rarer, this should probably be marked as "dated". Web search results mostly list this ca dao that describe a French person speaking rather than used in Vietnamese, but I also found this article that list an old phrase in Vietnamese and in a story using it in an exclamation. There's also the dictionary entry linked in the reference.
- I hope these count as valid attestations for the second meaning. Togira Ikonoka 123 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- RFV passed, as provided citation has not been challenged for long enough
RFV label added by Kwekwlos, but not listed here. DonnanZ (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Limburgish. Tagged by an IP editor with the comment
- As:
- nothing at Google and Google Books.
- officialese names are uncommon in vernacular and minority languages.
- per w:Eupen dialect, the dialect is Ripuarian (part of Central Franconian) and not Limburgish.
Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Salar. Tagged by User:BurakD53 with the comment "I think it is misunderstanding of köprik “breast”, page 393". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
South Levantine Arabic. Rfv-sense: corkscrew. Tagged by User:AdrianAbdulBaha, not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
South Levantine Arabic. Tagged by User:Fenakhay. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Fenakhay: Deffo present in Jordan. Carrefour Jordan sells it. Something about fishing in Jordan, and a cooking show, although this is some nice Modern Standard Arabic the girl is talking; it is generally correct to assume terms for flora and fauna to belong to either literary language or dialect if found in one unless there is contrary evidence. My search is
"الجمبري" "الأردن"
, as Jordan is between Egyptian and Hijazi Arabic where it is used because of influence from Egyptian Arabic; apparently here borrowed from Egyptian into Jordanian phonology, hence unexpected /d͡ʒ/. Fay Freak (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Proto-Brythonic. It's a given name attested in the inscription PATERN[--] COLI AVI FICIT ARTOGNOU COL[I] FICIT, which is Latin, which strongly suggests this is a Latin transcription of a Proto-Brythonic name, and not a Proto-Brythonic term in its own right. By comparison, the reconstructed form would be *Arθgnọw.
I should note that this has been RFV'd before ([205] - discussion here), but the notice was removed after 2 days with the baffling reasoning that it is attested, without actually addressing the fact that the dispute is over which language it's actually attested in. Can we please clear this up once and for all? Theknightwho (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Proto-Brythonic. According to the etymology, it's attested in a Koine Greek text as a transcription of a Proto-Brythonic given name. Same issue as #Artognou and #Uindiorix, in that the attestation makes it a Koine Greek term (which we group under Ancient Greek), and not a Proto-Brythonic term. Theknightwho (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
South Levantine Arabic. Tagged by User:AdrianAbdulBaha. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
South Levantine Arabic. More seafood skepticism from User:Fenakhay. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
South Levantine Arabic. Rfv-sense: sexuality. Tagged by an IP editor. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Vlax Romani. Tagged by the creator of the definition. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Russian. Rfv-sense: eavestrough. Tagged in 2017 by D1gggg whose account is now globally locked. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Vox Sciurorum: The term can be referenced in Ushakov, Ozhegov, Zaliznyak, orthographic, etc. dictionaries: The links are all here: [206] Ushakov gives a usage example: "Воробьи́ под застре́хой вьют гнёзда." Kindly retract the rfv. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Russian. Rfv-sense: To lie in wait. Tagged by User:Allahverdi Verdizade. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Pali. Rfv-sense: seventh
Sattha (“seventh”) looks like a typo to me. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete --RichardW57 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've traced the spelling with the aspiration back to Duroiselle's A Practical Grammar of the Pāli Language, Third edition, 1921. Paragraph 251 gives the form as 'sattha', while Paragraph 275 gives it as unaspirated satta. I suspect interference from adjacent chaṭṭha (“sixth”) and aṭṭhama (“eighth”); their underdotting in the text has to be taken on faith - it is not visible in the scan of the original. --RichardW57m (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Polish. Marked as "individualistic" i.e. idiosyncratic by Doroszewski, and he does provide a quote! But when I check for mioteln* in Polona I find only quotes for miotelnica and mentions in dictionaries, i.e. {{R:pl:SJP1800}}
, but Linde does not provide any quotes. I also can't find anything on NKJP. I think we might be able to scrape two more quotes, but I'm having a hard time finding them. Vininn126 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. The word is not in Kuznetsov's Dictionary (1946) or the Krivoschekova-Gantman Dictionary (1985). Burmort (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Dutch. Rfv-sense: "testicle".
WNT gives one mention, but that's about it for now. Thadh (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Telugu. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 16:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Malayalam. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 16:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have added gloss for given name [207]. Vis M (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Malayalam. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 16:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- It was the spelling for എപ്പോൾ (eppōḷ) in older works.s:ml:Page:CiXIV40.pdf/125, s:ml:Page:CiXIV133.pdf/546, and several others.
- I think I created this entry by mistake while sourcing missing lemmas from older works, and then realized the mistake and immediately added the archaic label. Vis M (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Pali. Hiatus is odd, especially given its absence in the claimed antonym. @Felfeu: Where's this word been seen? --RichardW57 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe this is obvious, but the hiatus is because both parts of the compound are negated, not just the first. I dont know this language ... would an ā normally swallow a following a, even if that /a/ is a very important morpheme? —Soap— 14:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Some of the X-not-X compounds have looked very unclear, but I forgot the first rule - try Google. I've now found seemingly good quotations and will put at least one of them up tonight. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @soap: It's an SoP (as in the looming German/Swedish/Sanskrit problem) and coal mine mess! First durable source hyphenates, and also hyphenates the feminine form of the positive, but not the neuter form of the positive. --RichardW57m (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Soap: I misread the accusative of the feminine form as a neuter form. The Sinhala script version has the phrase or whatever as a single word, so we now have quotes for one word in the Sinhala script, and for hyphenated and two words in the Roman script. They're not independent. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Some of the X-not-X compounds have looked very unclear, but I forgot the first rule - try Google. I've now found seemingly good quotations and will put at least one of them up tonight. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Pali.
Even an LDL needs some evidence of existence for its words. Can find no evidence of this noun in Pali. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, it's got two descendants listed at the bottom of the चतुरङ्ग page. Would these two be better explained as direct loans from Sanskrit? —Soap— 09:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- It works - dating of the loans would help. The compilers of Thailand's Royal Institute Dictionary gave up on trying to decide whether words were borrowed from Sanskrit or Pali. In this instance, I think borrowing via Thai would also be possible. The word exists in Thai, though not on Wiktionary. The homonymous adjective in Pali has a ghostly existence - it can be seen as an intermediate element of compounds, but is also borderline SoP. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Pali. Rfv-sense: 'spur'
Dictionaries record patoda (“goad, spur”). --RichardW57m (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Pali. Rfv-sense: an ascetic forest-dwelling
Put simply, what evidence do we have that this was (or is) used as a noun in Pali?--RichardW57m (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Pali. Rfv-sense: to say
Both vacati and vatti appear to be grammarians' fancies, and Childers writes, "Saddiníti gives the present forms vatti and vacati, neither of which I have yet met with in texts, vadati in Pali being generally substituted for the present of वच्."[1].
Geiger makes no reference to vatti in his discussion of athematic verbs. In his grammar, Thomas Oberlies uses the expression '(*)vatti' to refer to the forms from the stem vac. Neither grammar makes any mention of vacati.
As the Saddiníti refers to them, there may be some merit in fashioning an explanation of the terms on Wiktionary. (Note that Oberlies' usage is in English.) --RichardW57 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Apisite Please note that I've sent vacati/vatti to RfV. RichardW57 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Childers, Robert Caesar, Dictionary of the Päli language, London: Trübner & Company, 1875, page 559.
Pali. Rfv-sense: to say.
To be considered with the above (vacati). --RichardW57 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Pali. Rfv-sense: diaphragm
Delete: I think I made a simple mistake here.--RichardW57 (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. The word is not in the Krivoschekova-Gantman dictionary (1985) or the Kuznetsov dictionary (1946). Burmort (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. The word is not in the Krivoschekova-Gantman dictionary (1985) or the Kuznetsov dictionary (1946). Burmort (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak. The word is not in the Krivoschekova-Gantman dictionary (1985) or the Kuznetsov dictionary (1946). Burmort (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Dutch. Rfv-sense: "thousand euro". Although this type of transference from guilders to euros would not be unheard of, it would be a relatively illogical shift. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Vietnamese. Rfv-sense: Mường language(s). I don’t think Mường on its own can mean the language; that’d be tiếng Mường. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Vietnamese. Rfv-sense: Jarai language. Same as above. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Neither accentuation is listed in any of the usual Ancient Greek dictionaries. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- The form ἐπαναλύτης is mentioned in the LSJ's entry for ἐπανάλυσις: "Hsch. -λύτης, = Lat. remeabilis, Gloss."--Urszag (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's true. I withdraw the RFV for the paroxytone, but not for the oxytone. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Ancient Greek; tagged but not listed. It's given in {{R:LSJ}}
and Wilhelm Pape's Ancient Greek–German dictionary, but they both say it's a wrong reading for ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία (enkúklios paideía), and the works cited are by Quintilian and Pliny, both of whom wrote in Latin, not Greek. It's therefore not at all clear that ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία (enkuklopaideía) is attested anywhere, at least not in classical Ancient Greek. Maybe it's attested in Medieval Greek (as an antecessor to modern εγκυκλοπαίδεια (egkyklopaídeia)?), but then it's probably a loanword from Latin. Basically, it looks like encyclopaedia was coined in Latin on the basis of a mistaken reading of a Greek phrase. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Belgian Dutch. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Esperanto. As Surjection wrote, “Both [Kanadestro and britestro] added by the same editor; the third entry (at the time of writing; kanadino) may also be suspect.” The standard form would be kanadanino. J3133 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Burmese.
The on-line version of the dictionary has a different spelling, သန္ဒေ. Is that also correct, or perhaps a common misspelling? I'm breaking the hard link for a Pali word form; someone else (e.g @Hintha) will have to add Burmese သန္ဒေ (sande) if such a word exists. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- SEALANG erroneously spells the word as သန္ဒေ (sande), likely due to a clerical error when digitising the Myanmar Language Commission's dictionary's contents. Other dictionaries, including my paper copy of the 2012 Tet Toe English-Myanmar Mini-Dictionary (p. 296), corroborate the သန္ဓေ (sandhe) form. -Hintha (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you please record the relevant dictionary definition. The best I could do was to find the word on p996 of Judson, where it merely says 'See ပဋိသန္ဓေ', which doesn't read to me as meaning 'means the same as'.
- I don't understand how, within Burmese, ပဋိသန္ဓေ (pa.ti.sandhe) can be derived from Burmese သန္ဓေ (sandhe) if that is borrowed from Pali paṭisandhi. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Burmese.
Compound of သန္ဓေ and shares the samme attestation problem. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Fixed by finding entry in Judson and removing link to MED. I've taken the liberty of removing the invocation of
{{rfv}}
. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Burmese.
Compound of သန္ဓေ and shares the samme attestation problem. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Burmese. There is also a hard redirect to this page. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Compound of သန္ဓေ and shares the samme attestation problem. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Old English. I'm unaware of any attestations of this verb outside of the past participle ġefylċed, which is attested sufficiently late that it could represent a vowel-reduced form of ġefylċod, the expected participle of the class 2 weak verb fylċian. This seems probable, as class 2 verbs tend to oust class 1 ones in late Old English; even if the verb was inherited from Proto-West Germanic *fulkijan (which is far from certain), it could've changed class at some point. 2407:7000:942C:8000:4B9:8AE8:9E3D:8FC4 03:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Appendix:Toki Pona/teje.
Toki Pona. Tagged by User:LesVisages (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be an RFV issue? Though not sure how that works for Appendix-only languages. AG202 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sent to RFV since the only reason given by the tagger was "WT:ATTEST". — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is one cite given. Thadh (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Where? CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the usage note. Thadh (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Where? CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is one cite given. Thadh (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sent to RFV since the only reason given by the tagger was "WT:ATTEST". — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Malayalam.
Kutchkutch (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think this should be deleted. I couldn't find any source describing or attesting this term. Vis M (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Old English. Not in any of the sources I checked. The user in general seems a bit clueless. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure why you said that but I did not make anything up, the Old English form was already on the wiki for war, I just put it directly for more (useful) information. Nightcore8365 (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Nightcore8365 Which wiki? The Old English wiki is not a reliable source. Benwing2 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- en.wiktionary.org, entry war, possibly influenced by etymonline.com — This unsigned comment was added by Nightcore8365 (talk • contribs).
- @Nightcore8365 Which wiki? The Old English wiki is not a reliable source. Benwing2 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- OED says "Late Old English (c1050) wyrre, werre"; one cite for each spelling is provided from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. MED skips the Old English etymon entirely and also includes the "Peterb.Chron." quotes in its own entry. This, that and the other (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- This entry seems legit enough, but @Nightcore8365 what reason did you have for not just creating the entry with a single definition line:
- ? Since the term itself is very late and very rare, having four senses seems unworkable. This, that and the other (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Middle English. Compare #checklaton = Talk:checklaton. Evidently an idiosyncrasy of Spenser (a Modern English writer) only. This, that and the other (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Translingual. Rfv-sense:
Currently being used as USDT ("Tether") symbol by some exchanges such as crypto.com and OKX.com
- Just pointing out we still have an open discussion above. —Soap— 05:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Ancient Greek. The neuter noun καταλυτήριον (katalutḗrion) is just barely attested in dictionaries, but this adjective not at all. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#Federspitz.
German.
This word and Federspitzes don't exist. The only correct forms are Federspitze and Federspitzen, I corrected them. lg --Zase Wieder (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
German. The original definition was devil dog in the sense of a U.S. Marine. Does this sense actually exist in German? Megathonic (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- According to this site, the epithet was coined in German by an American, and then translated to English as devil dog. Thus it was never really used by Germans even though it was a German language phrase. It's possible that it's been picked up ironically now that we're friendly to Germany and have an airbase there, but I couldnt find any low hanging fruit to pick. —Soap— 11:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
German. It is defined as a big rig. The entry is slightly misspelled; it should be großes Rig. Before moving the entry to the correct spelling, I'd like to verify the definition is attested and that this form is idiomatic (for example, that it has to be das große Rig as opposed to simply das Rig). Megathonic (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)