Wiktionary:Tea room/2024/April

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
< Wiktionary:Tea room
Archived revision by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) as of 23:48, 11 April 2024.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Granger#Etymology 2

I don't see how sense 1 is a proper noun. The place names included here, supposedly for association with Grangers, are proper nouns, which muddies the waters - these would be better placed in Etymology 1. It has not been treated as countable either. For comparison, titles such as Freemason, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Tory, Whig, and Conservative are all treated as standard or ordinary nouns. DonnanZ (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donnanz: I have changed it to a common noun; after the place names were added, it was changed in Special:Diff/61552220. J3133 (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J3133: Thanks, I didn't think of looking in the history. It doesn't solve the desire to group all places together - anyway we have a problem with the unknown etymology of Granger#Etymology 3. Looking at the place in Texas, it could be either Etym 1 or 2. I may move that one. DonnanZ (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN-uk: big into

There seems to be a British usage of big as an adverb that's much broader in scope than elsewhere. The sense is "greatly", which is similar to Sense 3 in the existing entry, but I'd argue that win big and save big are kind of idiomatic usage that's widespread, whereas big into is a different form of idiom that's less widespread. (It might be particular to some region/regions of England?)

Contrast:

  • If you bet big you can win big!
  • I've always been big into sport, but I'm especially big into football.

On the other hand, is this more of a grammatical structure that could be applied to any (conventional) adjective? Just recently I heard "massive into", as in "I'm massive into trivia". But I'm sceptical that it's a universally applicable structure:

  • * "I'm little into fine dining." (Cf. "I've little interest in fine dining.")
  • * "I'm small into fine dining."
  • * "I'm moderate into drinking alcohol." (Cf. "moderately")
  • * "I'm tiny into surfing." (Cf. "a tiny bit")

—DIV (1.145.118.218 11:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I think the adverb use is already reflected in senses 3 ("In a large amount or to a large extent") and 4 ("On a large scale"), and the adjective use in sense 11: "Enthusiastic (about)", though as regards the latter the label "with on" probably needs updating since, as you point out, it can be used with into as well. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessarily British. It appears to be an ellipsis of in a big way. And you can certainly say "I've always been a little into sport." Leasnam (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I wouldn't rush to equate a little with little. Similarly, a bit can be used in that adverbial way, but never bit on its own. (The fact that each has its own WT entry is probably a good clue to this.)
We can say things like, "I've little time for sport", but now we're back to adjectival use.
—DIV (1.145.69.194) 1.145.69.194 00:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the senses are broadly correct.
Just a word of caution: AFAIK, "to be big on something" would be adjectival usage, but "to be big into something" would be adverbial usage.
—DIV (1.145.69.194 00:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Your "little, small, moderate, tiny" examples would not be used. "Big" is also used for industries etc. like Big Pharma and Big Science (never Large Pharma or Huge Science). Equinox ◑ 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Maybe it wasn't obvious, but I was trying to mark them as not representing actual usage by prepending an asterisk in each of those four cases. —DIV (1.145.69.194 00:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Re it being British: AFAICT neither "I'm big into X" nor "if you bet big, you can win big" is regionally restricted; I googled "Trump is big into" on the theory that it would bring up lots of American news media uses of that phrase, and it does: 1, 2, and lest anyone think that's just because of his love of bigly / big league, here's "Obama is big into", and "Minnesotans are big into fairness" in Al Franken's autobiography. (In turn, here's American media saying "Biden bets big on...", "Trump bets big on...".) - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Good research. I must say I'd never heard it in US English before, but evidently it does crop up occasionally. I can't find holes in your three examples — they're about US politicians and apparently either written by or spoken by people from the USA.
For me personally (being neither American nor British), the closest natural phrasing would be "big on", which looks like adjectival use in constructions like "Trump is big on ...", "Obama is big on ...", etc., as I can readily swap to "Trump is keen on ...", "Obama is keen on ..." and so forth.
To "bet big", "win big" and so on feels — for me — a much more widespread (idiomatic) construction than "to be big on". I agree that "bet big"/"win big" is not regionally marked.
I would also distinguish "bet big"/"win big" from "to be big on", given one looks adverbial and the other adjectival.
—DIV (1.145.69.194 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I've inserted an example sentence with "big into" under a subsense.
I think having an example of this structure is helpful. I am open-minded on whether it needs to be in a subsense, and how it should be labelled.
Note: I've labelled it as "informal" because on one occasion when a contestant on TV show Pointless repeatedly used the phrasing to describe his interests, the host (Alexander Armstrong) made a witty remark about that contestant's [poor] grammar.
—DIV (1.145.69.194 01:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The phrase "big into" appears:
Maybe my assessment of its regional connection was misplaced: maybe it's actually (originally) an Americanism?
Although the results are likely skewed by the phrase's informality, and (to me) reinforce the fact that it's not particularly common in any case.
—DIV (1.145.69.194 01:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

a buck is a buck is a buck

Is this form supposed to make sense somehow? PUC – 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis Leasnam (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other instances of this kind of emphasis? Sounds weird imo. PUC – 17:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is generally usable, e.g. this Washington Post article headlined "A Dog Is A Dog Is A Dog -- And Should Be Treated That Way" [1]. Equinox ◑ 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose' from "Sacred Emily" (1913, published 1922) by Gertrude Stein, formerly often discussed in literary criticism classes. "An X is an X is an X" is a snowclone if ever there was one. DCDuring (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or two

I was recently looking for an entry covering the use of "or two" in phrases like "I could use a drink or two." We have a thing or two, but I'm not sure the sense there ("a considerable amount; a lot") is a perfect fit; I would understand "I could use a drink or two" as meaning "I could use a drink and am open to making it two, or three, or …." So a couple questions: Should or two be an entry, a redirect, or not exist at all? If we rely on the entry a thing or two to cover this usage, should a second sense be added? 166.181.80.19 17:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the well-known phrase 'a pint or two' and the humorous alteration 'a pint or ten'. Even 'pint' on its own can be used as an understated way of referring to several pints. When someone says "I'm off to the pub for a pint" (or 'cheeky pint' or 'quick pint') then they rarely actually mean only the one. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another example that I think would be the same sense: "I'd like to teach him a thing or two." 166.181.80.37 19:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ad.

Anyone got a clue what the context label is on about here? The entry creator has made a few of these. This, that and the other (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be specifying the manuscript where it's found, e.g. File:NL-HaNA 1.04.02 1 19.jpg, which is rather something to list as a cite/quote, I think... - -sche (discuss) 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is mauve bright or pale, or both?

We define it as "1. (historical) A bright purple synthetic dye. 2. The colour of this dye; a pale purple or violet colour." Equinox ◑ 11:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful comment, but: as I've been cleaning up colour categories lately I've noticed that several of them have issues like this, or questionable definitions, e.g. desert sand... we probably need to systematically check all the colour entries' definitions. - -sche (discuss) 15:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia, "As the memory of the original dye ... receded, the contemporary understanding of mauve is as a lighter, less-saturated color[.]" CitationsFreak (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right. Good find. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The color I think of as mauve is more or less what the WP article calls opera mauve. It would be attestable. I don't know about the other four. DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good find; I've updated the entry. Please update further if needed. BTW, off topic but on the topic of other color things that need cleanup: a lot of entries linked in Appendix:Colors aren't in color categories yet. - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consultee definition seems wrong.

In American medicine, the consultee is the entity who asks for a consultation, and the consultant provides the consultation, ie, the consultant is the person who is consulted. 96.238.51.252 14:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Done Fixed. Equinox ◑ 14:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

gwledig, wledig

This word was recently the subject of a viral Youtube video (by Cambrian Chronicles) about how no-one knows how to translate it, if any of our Welsh-speaking editors want to watchlist or expand it. - -sche (discuss) 16:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Portuguese) Which one is the current standard form: co-hipônimo or coipônimo?

Since the last Orthographic Agreement, it seems that the prefix co- is never followed by a hyphen, as it is said in its entry. However, in spite of not being a frequently used word, the form co-hipônimo seems to be the only form that appears in dictionaries, at least online. Is this rule wrong? I tried looking it up but ended more confused than before. OweOwnAwe (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should flying, objectifying, etc. have /j/ in IPA?

No expert, but I seem to perceive a /j/ sound there. Equinox ◑ 11:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's not phonemic: there is no contrast between /ˈflaɪ.ɪŋ/ and /ˈflaɪ.jɪŋ/ (assuming neither is pronounced with any stress on the second syllable). The analysis of so-called "diphthongs" is debatable and some phonologists have entertained the idea that words like fly, etc. end in something like /aj/ or /ɑj/, but our transcriptions don't follow that phonemic analysis. Since we use /aɪ/ to transcribe the diphthong in general, that transcription is also sufficient before a vowel.--Urszag (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, if we don't want /j/ here, I spy a few entries which need cleanup (since some people add pronunciations without such a high-level grasp of phonology) : decalcifying, despaghettifying, railgun, WLAN. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche, Urszag: Actually, the entry for railgun shows a good grasp of phonology - there's no /j/ beyond the diphthong, but there is tendency to introduce a vocalic element, which is why there is one phonemic transcription but two phonetic transcriptions. --RichardW57m (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

panter-pantle confusion

pantle is "(obsolete, Lancashire) Alternative form of panter (“A snare for catching birds, formed from twisted horsehair”)". But panter is merely "A net; a noose", not mentioning horsehair at all. How to resolve? Equinox ◑ 12:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khamnung

There are two senses given, but are they really different senses, or just different ways of expressing the same sense? (This is the work of the "Ancient Meitei"/"singular oasis of comparative civilization and organized society" editor, several of whose entries have been at RFV and RFD.) - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hold one's pee

This was deleted back in 2015. I think it should be restored. We have hold one's piss and I am sure that hold one's pee gets used in all the same ways. 2600:1006:B194:CA54:0:50:35F8:9001 22:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Ukrainian) новий

In the page new/translations, this word is shown as но́вий, but when I follow its link, this word is shown as нови́й. Which one is right? Intolerable situation (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

нови́й (novýj) is correct. I've corrected the error on new/translations. Thanks for spotting it. Voltaigne (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pajeet

Is anyone else able to weigh in on the back-and-forth happening over how to define this entry (see edit history)? - -sche (discuss) 16:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

exponential

Are we doing justice to the extremely widespread use of this term in a way that seems to explicitly disagree with the "mathematical" sense of "constant rate of growth"? Do we have to make explicit the idea of rate of change per unit of time (vastly more common than any other variable? Or is my reading of our definitions of this term inadequate?

In other dictionaries:

Oxford Learners: "(formal[!!!]) (of a rate of increase) becoming faster and faster"
Collins: "Exponential means growing or increasing very rapidly."
Most other dictionaries don't mention the common use.

In one cite I found, from an educators' handbook:

    • 2013, Yvelyne Germain-McCarthy, Bringing the NCTM Standards to Life: Best Practices, High School, page 101:
      ... Students apply the definition of slope to various representations of growth functions to discover differences between exponential and constant rate of growth.

Evidently, many people perceive "exponential growth" as much faster/bigger than "constant rate of growth", which seems to be interpreted as a constant amount of growth per unit of time. Such use seem much more common than what we label the "mathematical" use. If we follow the notion that definitions should be in order of current frequency rather than, say, dates of usage, then the last, "loose" definition should be first, and the first last.

Further, I doubt that our second definition "Expressed in terms of a power of e." is a "mathematics" definition attestably distinct from our first "Relating to an exponent".

If our use of labels is 'topical', then shouldn't all of the definitions of exponential be mathematics? DCDuring (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: second definition, see: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/webtemplate/ask-assets/external/maths-resources/images/Expo_form_complx_num.pdf
Basically, a complex number z can be expressed in Cartesian or polar form, or in exponential form, which is an expression specifically in terms of a power of e. Multiple Mooses (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Multiple Mooses Thanks. Are there any other instances of such use of exponential? The entry would benefit from labels that indicate the context(s) in which exponential is used in this sense. If this is the only use, then we need a fuller definition IMHO. DCDuring (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
In the phrase the exponential function, the term exponential has a similar meaning, i.e. relating to expression as a power of e. Multiple Mooses (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see: https://math.mit.edu/classes/18.03/sup/sup6.pdf
"exponential principle", "exponential solutions" Multiple Mooses (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In "exponential principle" the term exponential seems to have everything to do with "exponent' and little to do with "e". Similarly for "exponential solution". Many books have "exponential function" with bases of 2 or 10 as well as "e". The function with "e" as the base is often called the natural exponential function or the "exponential function with base "e"". "E" is a vary interesting number, but I'm not seeing def. 2 as helpful in defining any of these phrases. If you can provide examples (See WT:ATTEST) that unambiguously show support for def. 2 please provide them. DCDuring (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think part of the confusion is the phrase "rate of growth" ("rate" indicates we're talking about the first derivative - it's not the unit of growth that's constant, but the amount that the unit of growth itself grows!). Tripling is a classic example of a constant rate of growth, but it's also an explosive growth (1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,etc). I don't think people have a fixed mathematical image of what they mean when they say "My workload is increasing exponentially" and probably in some cases they're thinking of something less than a constant rate of growth ("... it feels like I get a new duty every month!", which would be merely arithmetic increase). In general, I think ordering by usage is good, but in this order there is a logical progression between each sense, and I don't like having "loosely"/"by extension" senses appear before the sense they're an extension of! (On the other point, I agree with Multiple Mooses - the e^x sense is something distinct from the n^x sense, although you can see it as an extension of that form I guess. If we need something to help disambiguate them, I'd say sense 1 is chiefly the counterpart to "logarithmic", while sense 2 is chiefly of complex numbers) Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have RfVed the 'e' sense. I'd like to see it used in expressions other than exponential function. Also, I note that other dictionaries have a noun PoS for exponential, which we lack. DCDuring (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that it's hard to find uses which justify the separation of senses 1 and 2 as they currently are, but that sense 2 is a special case of a more general use-case: see my long post at RFV.
On the other hand I very much think sense 3 should be reworded. What characterizes exponential as opposed to polynomial growth is that neither the growth, nor the growth of the growth, nor the growth of the growth of the growth, etc. is constant: none of the derivatives are constant. I've seen the phrase "constant rate of increase" used to describe geometric progressions, but never in mathematics (where it would probably be considered wrong); I would strongly prefer something like "rate of growth is proportional to the current value" and some good ux's. Winthrop23 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the exponential function (ex) is a special case of an exponential function: does not make exponential mean "relating to e". Even if there should be no consensus on a specific definition of a generalized exponential function, we still need attestation for definition 2. DCDuring (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not being clear: My opinion is that definition 2 should be deleted because it cannot be adequately distinguished from definition 1. However, exponential has many uses where it means "related to the exponential function []," and this sense should be included (in particular, there are many uses of exponential in this sense that can be distinguished from "related to an exponential function." To wit: exponential distribution, exponential order, exponential window, exponential map [of a Lie algebra], exponential series, etc. all of these rely on special properties of the exponential function, or are defined from it.). The point I'm trying to make is that definitions 1 and 2, as they are now, relate to exponents (or "exponential terms"), and I don't think the distinction drawn by definitions 1 and 2 is attestable. On the other hand, in the context of functions, exponential has a more particular (e-flavored) meaning which is definitely attestable.
I'd cut sense 2 and add a separate sense for "related to the exponential function" (probably, if we want to be complete, with sub senses for distribution and order since in these cases exponential can modify X outside the set phrase exponential X). If there weren't an RFV & a Tea room discussion I'd add this myself, but I don't want to overstep. Winthrop23 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a constant rate of interest applied to an initial account balance, with no deposits or withdrawals, yield exponential growth of the account balance.
For definition 3, how about "increasing or decreasing by a fixed ratio for each unit of time". DCDuring (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's well put about the rate of interest.
I like the idea of making use of time--almost always, as you say, that's the independent variable. I'd be happier with "scaling" or "multiplying" instead of "increasing or decreasing", since it's slightly more precise (reading uncharitably, it's possible to construe "increasing" as referring to adding, and "ratio" as just "fraction", which would mean the growth is linear). Winthrop23 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Dutch) gender of kat (Etymology 1)

In cat/translations, the gender of kat in Dutch is marked as masculine, but in kat, the gender of it under Etymology 1, which is the one that has the meaning "cat", is marked as feminine. Which is correct? Intolerable situation (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Van Dale, kat is primarily feminine and secondarily masculine. The official Dutch wordlist and the Algemeen Nederlands Woordenbook have it as masculine/feminine. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal gives it as feminine/masculine. Our own policy on Dutch gender deprecates f or m and recommends f in such instances, so that's probably what we should go with in cat/translations. Voltaigne (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that policy is used for words which are per se feminine and are masculine only insofar as the three-gender system has collapsed. In such cases, using "f. or m." would be redundant, because every word that is originally feminine (and doesn't refer to a female person) can be treated as masculine in contemporary Dutch. However, words that really vary between genders even in a three-gender system should get both genders. And it seems that "kat" is such a word. It is important here that the WNT already gives it both, because the WNT has a strict three-gender approach. 90.186.83.227 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actioner

We have a definition for actioner (an action movie), but we do not have a definition for actioner as opposed to actionee, and the former term is not mentioned in the latter entry. I have no particular desire to compose the definition myself, as trying to decipher exact meanings of corporate and/or legal jargon gives me a headache, but perhaps someone else here is up to the task.

https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/actioner-vs-actionee

citation citation citation Multiple Mooses (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PIE roots beginning with bare /r/

We list only two PIE roots beginning with a bare /r/, compared with ten that begin with /h₁r/. The two bare-/r/ roots are both cited to Pokorny. Moreover, there is no particular reason that I can see why they should be treated differently than the others .... there are no Greek reflexes from which to guess about a possible original vowel or laryngeal. (Greek initial /r/ exists in just a handful of words, most of which are derived from the single PIE root *srew- ... those beginning with laryngeals in PIE have vowels in Greek.) This suggests that according to the standard reconstruction, PIE may not have allowed initial /r/ at all.

Do we know if more recent PIE scholars have added laryngeals or other sounds to the two PIE roots with bare r? We could add those as alternate forms, or even move the pages there and make Pokorny's reconstructions into the alt forms. Thanks, —Soap— 12:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Uralic

Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/ruŋke- looks suspicious too, as the only attested descendant we have is in the center of IE territory, so I wonder if it's either sound symbolism or actually a loan into Hungarian. I dont fully understand all the abbreviations used on this site, which lists some other words beginning with /r/ (page back and forth like a paper dictionary), and Im not sure Im looking at proto-Uralic or only proto-Finno-Ugric. —Soap— 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"you get" - verb? phrase?

There's a (British? Commonwealth?) phrase "you get" that means more or less "that exist" or "there are". A few examples:

"that exist"

  • "It was so refreshing to hear, unlike the type of people you get in London and the south east of England." (link)
  • "Lovely decor inside, reminds me of gastro pubs you get in gentrified areas of London." (link)
  • "They’re like those children’s books you get where you make a story by [putting together] different pages…" (link)

"there are"

  • "You get non-binary people - you get people who don't identify as a man or..." (link (video))
  • "It was a terrible place to live. You get places like that. It is just the way it is." (link)
  • "Hubris is interesting, because you get people who are often very clever, very powerful, have achieved great things, and then something goes wrong - they just don't know when to stop." (link)

Is this just a sense of "get" (I don't see any that match currently), or is it a set phrase we should have? I can't imagine it with out the "you". I note we have you get that, which feels related.

I also don't know if the more distinctively American "you got" is the same thing (as in this quote from Joe Biden: "Number two, it would generate economic growth — the opposite — because you got people who are, in fact, now going to be freed up to be able to go borrow money to buy a home...") - it feels like they have subtly different nuances ("you got people who are evil" feels like it's calling specific people evil, while "you get people who are evil" feels more like hypothetical statement about the universe) but maybe I'm imagining that. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "you get" also exists in American English, and my initial reaction is that it seems like a sense of get, because it seems like a general phenomenon of using verbs 'impersonally' which occurs with a variety of pronouns/subjects and a variety of verbs. Compare "You never get people like Richard and Judy slagging off fat people in the same way they slagged off skinny models" to "[It's] interesting because you see the dried powdered black pepper everywhere yet you rarely see it in tropical gardens growing" or "Vinegar is so interesting, because you find all these home remedies like 'use it to clean the algae of your deck'", "you encounter", and of course the classic "there's"=there are and "it's"=there is/are. (It's harder to distinguish uses of "I get", "we get", "we find" etc which are impersonal vs are including the speaker and other people as subjects, but e.g. "April fools day is wild because we get people who aren't funny most days really going for it." does not strike me as fundamentally different from the same sentence with "you get".) - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for "you get" existing in American English. I have the impression, though, that it is more widely used in Commonwealth English. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another reading of the most of the whole set of examples that -sche has collected is that get is a generalized verb for experience/perceive. Any verb of sensing works, as well as expressions like run the risk of. This reading makes it easier to incorporate the full range of pronouns into the usage. Our definitions of get don't include this as a distinct extension of the main definition: "obtain; acquire". The closest MWOnline comes to this is "to be subjected to" (got a bad fall); AHD has "to be subjected to" got a bad fall and "To perceive or become aware of by one of the senses": get a whiff of perfume; got a look at the schedule.. OTOH, in line with the 'impersonal reading, Oxford Learners has "get something (informal) used to say that something happens or exists"; You get (= There are) all these kids hanging around in the street. They still get cases of typhoid there.. At the very least, this extension of the most basic sense of get would account for the emergence of the 'impersonal' reading. DCDuring (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

misspelling or not--bullion, boullion, bouillon

Do i remember incorrectly, or is boullion an acceptable alternate spelling of bullion? Is boullion also an acceptable alternate spelling of bouillon, or is it misspelled on the 湯 page? How common must a misspelling be to merit inclusion on Wiktionary? --173.67.42.107 05:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt somebody will moan about the length of my answer, but anyone who can't stand it is free to skip reading it. Given how often people write *boullion when they mean bullion (which is a lot, according to the 6k ghits), I'd say it merits a {{misspelling of}} entry at Wiktionary. The exact location of the dividing line between {{misspelling of}} and {{alternative spelling of}} is a deep epistemologic question that gets into who and how many accept it, but in many cases there is also an element that one knows it when one sees it, as they say, although some ones know with a clearer idea than other ones do. For example, I'll be deep in the cold cold ground before I cede acceptance of *pruritis. If one asks why, the answer is nuanced: I recognize that it is not impossible for it to arrive at acceptability, epistemologically (because wide enough use is capable of eventually defeating all else when it comes to orthographic standardization, no matter who doesn't like it), but the problem is that that misspelling is nonetheless emblematic of a certain kind of orthographic skill issue: many people think it's OK merely because they're more or less incapable of seeing why it might not be OK, and that fact in itself is what fans of standardized orthography object to: people with dim orthographic "vision" (God love them, nothin against em) are not the right ones to make judgments about acceptability within standardized orthography, just as people with dim eyeball vision (God love them, nothin against em) are not the right judges of color palettes or airliner runway approaches. The idea is, those fans prefer that the acceptability decision be left to people who are even capable of seeing misspellings in the first place. If a spelling reflects a specific misapprehension (underlying its use), then fans of standardized orthography are loath to accept it. After all, many of the six thousand members of Category:English misspellings could potentially be declared accepted variants, but most of them are not close to tipping over that line (into consensus acceptability), because by the time we got done accepting most of those, there wouldn't be much point left in even trying to have standardized spelling at all. The fact that no respected traditional [i.e., well-curated] dictionaries enter *boullion as far as OneLook knows as of this writing accords with the idea that people who care about having standardized spelling are not ready to consider it an accepted variant. They know that the reason many other people write it is probably in many cases (albeit not all) that their brain was unduly influenced by the appearance of the word bouillon and is a little vague and/or careless on the difference. There's that theme again — if a spelling reflects a specific misapprehension (underlying its use), then fans of standardized orthography are loath to accept it. Thus (to answer one of the original questions), no, *boullion is not an acceptable alternative spelling of bouillon — it is a misspelling of it. As for "How common must a misspelling be to merit inclusion on Wiktionary," I'd say that if there are hundreds or even thousands of ghits showing it in action (among the countless *fokes out there who aren't exactly *sooper *kean on the whole spelling thing), then it is justified in having a {{misspelling of}} entry at Wiktionary. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Done at *boullion (sp). Quercus solaris (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do a barrel roll

Sum of parts (does not deserve a page) and alternate form of barrel roll#Verb (deserving a page)? --173.67.42.107 05:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the first argument wins and the second argument is unpersuasive because the same pattern would also have hundreds of other instances that do not merit entries. For example, feed#Verb versus give feed#Noun. The clause beer me means give me a beer#Noun, but give someone a beer will (rightfully) never be an entry. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

API

i made a "sandbox" at Talk:API#proposed deviation from usual format. i think it might be more useful to put Wikipedia links with each definition instead of lumping all the Wikipedia links into a single =Further reading= section? --173.67.42.107 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, because to my mind it is more useful, direct, and intuitive to users. My gut will not be surprised if other Wiktionarians dislike it. The Beer parlour ("for policy discussion and cross-entry discussion") is the correct place to propose it, rather than the Tea room ("for questions concerning particular words"). Quercus solaris (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shitify

Shitify adjective sense 3 currently has the labels "(UK, Australia, South East, regional, New Zealand, vulgar, slang)" - where do "South East" and "regional" refer to? Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/April&oldid=78843754"