Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Italic
| Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions. |
Requests for verification
Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question. |
Requests for deletion
Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests. |
Requests for deletion/Others add new request | 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 request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions. |
Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits. | ||||
|
{{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 Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (Oscan, Faliscan, etc.), or any Romance language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan, etc.).
- For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.
- For Chinese/Japanese/Korean entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK.
- For entries in a reconstructed language, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction.
- For all other entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.
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.
August 2020
[edit]French. Not familiar with this. PUC – 10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see a few uses, sometimes hyphenated, but (grammatically) as a singular: [1], [2], [3], [4] (the last one is a mention). In the following case I think it means a head of white hair, so the sense of a white-haired person may be metonymical: [5]. --Lambiam 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Needs citations in the appropriate place. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- The common French expression for silver hair is "poivre et sel" but it's only used as an adjective, not a noun, and neither is "cheveux blancs" used as a noun to designate a white-haired person. 193.54.167.164 14:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Des cheveux poivre et sel (wfw. "pepper and salt hair") means mixed black and white hair, often appearing grey. All-white hair is des cheveux blancs and donner des cheveux blancs à quelqu'un (wfw. "give someone white hair") approximately means "endlessly get on someone's nerves". — Tonymec (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- The common French expression for silver hair is "poivre et sel" but it's only used as an adjective, not a noun, and neither is "cheveux blancs" used as a noun to designate a white-haired person. 193.54.167.164 14:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]Latin. Tagged by Greenismean2016 on 4 November 2018, not listed:
“it looks like this should be coccum + fero” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Normally, the suffix is -fer – I don’t know the rules of formation of taxonomic rules in all fields of biology but this is incorrect Latin, so the page should be coccifer probably for both Latin and Translingual, ignoring now the distinction between Latin and translingual. So the taxonomic names with that form seem to be illegally formed. Scyphophorus cocciferus is one of the cases where a word is only attested in miswriting. Pinging @SemperBlotto as the author. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- It looks OK to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- It what sense is it illegal? It isn't really bad Latin. Lewis and Short have deiferus and infructiferus. While obviously occurring far less often than the 166 entries for terms ending in fer, the ferus ending seems to have occurred in classical Latin. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- @DCDuring, SemperBlotto: L&S is pretty careless about manuscripts. As with the ghostword zirbus, Georges has it differently and right as Georges lacks both these two forms and lists infrūctifer and deifer with the same two singular quotes as in L&S. The two 2 -ferus forms seem ghost words and their manuscript appearance, as well as their appearing in nominative singular in those singular quotes, is doubtful. We read in Rosén, Hannah (2000) “Grammaticalization in Latin? Two Case Studies”, in Glotta, volume 76, , page 105. »The inventory of these nouns up to the 6th century comprises ca. 190 -fer words (of which 60 are Late Latin, 4th to mid-6th century) and ca. 80 -ger words (of which 35 are Late Latin). […] Apart from variant forms there are 2 isolated (exclusively) -ferus words: Late Latin infructiferus and hybrid theoferus.« He goes on about some being calques of Greek terms with -αγρος (-agros) or -φόρος (-phóros), which explains deiferus which is however also deifer. You do find some New Latin quotes for infructiferus but mostly mentions and infructifer is rather in use. equiferus mentioned by Rosén is also a ghost word, one reads that we have “equifer als echte Nominativform durch die Glossen erwiesen”. The occurrences are all so rarified in attestation that they can be considered non-existing in native speakers’ Latin. In any case Wiktionary needs to have are coccifer, infructifer, deifer etc. as main forms, the others can only be had as dubious forms. @PUC, Brutal Russian. Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- It what sense is it illegal? It isn't really bad Latin. Lewis and Short have deiferus and infructiferus. While obviously occurring far less often than the 166 entries for terms ending in fer, the ferus ending seems to have occurred in classical Latin. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why don't we have an entry for coccifer#Latin? DCDuring (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak, SemperBlotto, DCDuring Hey, thanks for the ping. I think it makes sense to distinguish between the ancient and the new latin usage. In Latin as a living language, at least for some speakers, these syncopated/non-syncopated, or more likely restored pairs were definitely alloforms. There are parallel pairs for -ger(us), and some words only exist with the full ending (mōrigerus). The situation can be further complicated by the reinterpretation of some of these as 3d declension forms, at least in some varieties (no examples come to mind there are some for sure, even if only detectable through Romance). There also exist forms like mascel, sicel for the regular masculus, siculus, albeit it's often suspected these are Sabellicisms (note the final vowel that escaped the regular u-colouring by the velar L, meaning the L had to have been geminate - or the word had to be borrowed). These then would be legitimate, native-speaker Latin. — Another thing altogether is New Latin, in our case used as a polite term for the Latin of the people who don't know Latin but make use of it in coining nomenclature. Their authority is a typical school grammar, and when their word-formation disagrees with the prescriptions of a school grammar, it's to be treated as a simple mistake on their part (this fine creation comes to mind) instead of referring them to any process characteristic of a living language. Now, these scientists' mistakes often coincide with attested non-literary Late Latin or reconstructed forms - no big surprise there - but I imagine they themselves would admit to simply having made an oversight in coining the term, and would hardly try defending their creation by appealing to attested non-literary Latin or any such whataboutisms. It's not a peculiarity of their idiolect of Latin or a specimen of ongoing grammatical change, it's a simple mistake coining a word in a language that you don't speak. — Ultimately, however, if a name is used, and isn't blatantly ungrammatical, I don't see what we can do about it other than list it as it is. Would anyone propose marking it as mistakenly formed and redirecting to coccifer? I hesitate to call that prescriptivism any more than I'd call it that when a teacher corrects a student. Even so, if a name is in use, we certainly need to have the entry - but what if the schoolgrammatically-correct name isn't used at all? Retroactively "correcting" what the editor perceives as "bad Latin" is hardly the task of a dictionary editor (imagine the task they'd have on their hands with Mideval Latin! xD). Brutal Russian (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Fay Freak, DCDuring: Tangential, but I sorted out deifer by moving deiferus and creating an altform entry at the source before seeing this discussion, so I thought I should leave a record here. Just to note, L&S's citation under deiferus, Cassiodorus's 6th-century Ecclesiastical History, is not Classical and does not have it in the nominative anyway (hominem deiferum), so this just seems to be a back-forming slip-up on their part. They also seem to have gotten the citation wrong (in the standard Migne it's only at 7.9, as Gaffiot has it, not 7.1, unless they were using some other edition I can't find). Apart from Deiferus being the personal name of a medieval saint, deiferus as adjective is a somewhat common alternative to deifer later on—it comes up in an early modern translation of John Damascene for example, which supports the -φόρος calque point—so it makes sense to keep the altform entry. I would tend to support Fay Freak's suggestion for coccifer and infructifer too, though I haven't dug into the terms. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- The overt contempt for "non-standard", non-Classical usage seems inappropriate for a descriptive dictionary. Does Latin attract folks who don't like language as it is spoken and written by normal people, you know, evolving? Is such evolution only accepted once it has acquired an army? Many languages actually have alternative forms, unless they a suppressed by a language academy. DCDuring (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DCDuring: I very much agree; in the case I am talking about "deifer" is merely the sensible main entry simply because it is more common and earlier. I personally think it makes no sense at all to talk about proscribed forms and the like in post-Classical Latin unless there is for whatever reason good evidence of them being proscribed synchronically. I don't know the situation of the other two. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
December 2020
[edit]Italian. Sense: “across, sideways, sidelong”. Tagged by Imetsia on 12 September, not listed. J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
February 2021
[edit]French. Old entry created by me, apparently unattestable. PUC – 11:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@PUC Not sure what qualifies as attestation, but this is a very common expression. There are even more senses than just the softening of an order. "je passe un coup chez le dentiste" (rapidement), "un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus" (tantôt... tantôt),... Lots of hits on Google. Sitaron (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
If it's real, we need citations. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
fr:coup sense 12 says it is used as a synonym of "fois" (like here) but the first two (of three) examples given there belong to a more usual (less familiar) level of language than here. The third example, though, is exactly the colloquial use mentioned here, and it is a quotation from a well-known French author: J’ai eu du chagrin de savoir que ton neveu s’était fait refuser aux postes encore un coup. — (Marcel Aymé, La jument verte, Gallimard, 1933, réédition Le Livre de Poche, page 25). — OTOH as a native French speaker I confirm that je passe un coup chez le dentiste or un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus do exist, as part of familiar spoken French; a tiny wee bit less familiar (more "standard") would be je passe en vitesse chez le dentiste and tantôt il me croit, tantôt il ne me croit plus. — Tonymec (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I took the liberty of adding the example above from fr.wikt at un coup. Passe un coup le sel! instead of Passe le sel, s'il te plaît. is very familiar but it is used in colloquial spoken French. — Tonymec (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Tonymec: Thanks for adding sense 2 and its accompanying quotation. I also found some discussion related to sense 1 at w:fr:Français de Nouvelle-Calédonie#Un coup. Using "un coup" with an order may be especially common in that particular dialect, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist in metropolitan French or other dialects. But what we really need is a durably archived example of such usage. Have you been able to find any? 70.172.194.25 20:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: A durably archived example ? I dont have any, and it might be hard, considering that it is used mostly in spoken rather than written or literary language. Myself, I'm not a New-Caledonian but a Belgian and I would have thought it especially frequent in the "spoken dialect" of Paris but known to different degrees by radiation in most or all of the French language areas. — Tonymec (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Tonymec: Would you say that the use of "un coup" in any of these would count as sense 1? [6] [7] [8]. The problem is that these are all articles by one author in one paper (from Mauritius). And there's also this article on Mauritian French which uses it quite heavily (although we can't cite the latter, because they're technically mentions instead of uses). My methodology to find these was to search for "moi un coup le/la" on Google, hoping that the inclusion of "moi" would tilt the results towards imperatives like "dis-moi", etc., and the inclusion of "le/la" would get adverbial uses of "un coup" instead of cases where "coup" is just acting as a regular noun. But there actually aren't many results. I'm not going out of my way to search for French spoken on remote islands, it's just what seems to pop up when looking for this for whatever reason.
- If this is commonly used in Parisian France, wouldn't it be possible to find a song, TV show, magazine, or something that uses this? 70.172.194.25 08:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: I would count "un coup" as sense 1 if it can be replaced by "s'il te plaît" at the end of the sentence with no change of meaning; I would label it as "familiar" or "colloquial" and also "spoken language". Finding it in a song or magazine, I don't think so. In a TV show or even in a cinema film, I'd say maybe, if the characters are using colloquial spoken language. Teenager characters, maybe. But I wouldn't bet my head on it being easily findable.
- In sense 2 "un coup" can be replaced by "une fois" at the same place in the sentence and I copied a quotation from fr.wikt about that sense. It is also "familiar" or "colloquial" but it has been found at least once in published text. — Tonymec (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: Maybe in some dictionary, but recent dictionaries might be copy-protected (in France, until the 31st of December following the last living author's death plus 70 years) and older ones might be unaware of such a recent evolution in the language. I don't know how far we can make use of the French "exceptions to author's rights" allowing "short citations for use as example or illustration" and "extracts for information" (see fr:w:Droit d'auteur#Exceptions au droit d’auteur with footnotes sending back to the Berne Convention).
- In addition, "moral rights" are in France part of intellectual property rights; they are perpetual and can neither be relinquished nor given over, even by testament ("perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible"): the author, and after him his "natural heirs", cannot avoid exercising them. — Tonymec (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @70.172.194.25: A durably archived example ? I dont have any, and it might be hard, considering that it is used mostly in spoken rather than written or literary language. Myself, I'm not a New-Caledonian but a Belgian and I would have thought it especially frequent in the "spoken dialect" of Paris but known to different degrees by radiation in most or all of the French language areas. — Tonymec (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Latin. Senses:
on time, in time, punctually(not tagged)- temporarily
- for the current time, for a while, at present
Tagged by 2003:DE:3702:3E91:54CA:403:2464:75BF on 20 February, not listed. J3133 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- L&S lists the senses, ”For some time, for the time being, for a while, for the moment“, giving references to Cicero, Livius, and Tacitus. Le Gaffiot gives the same Cicero references for a sense of “pour un temps, momentanément”. --Lambiam 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
May 2021
[edit]Romanian. Rfv-sense "(vulgar, slang) extraordinary, super, excellent". Removed by IP (diff) with the comment "never heard it being used as an adjective, ever; add it back ONLY with a reference". — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Robbie SWE, Bogdan: I found nothing. I'm also not familiar with this use. Fytcha (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's definitely a real slang use, a synonym for pizdos. It's hard to find slang usage online, since it's a colloquial use (and when I google this word, I get only porn sites), but here's one proof of usage: "spectacol pizdă". Bogdan (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I found it used as an adverb in a song: "Suntem tot ceea ce crezi tu că sună foarte pizdă". Catlop (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Latin: “genitive plural of merx”. It was in the declension table instead of mercium (see Talk:merx). Should it be re-added to the table or deleted (i.e., it is wrong or not attested)? J3133 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Georges: "merx, mercis, Genet. Plur. mercium, f. [...] I) die Ware [...] tabes mercium, verlegene W. [...] 2) meton., der Preis der Ware, der Warenpreis, mercium quantitas, Cypr. de habit. virg. 14. [...]". But well, it could also depend on the edition (or manuscript), which is something which foolishly gets ignored here quite often...
- Gaffiot 2016: "merx, mercis, gén. pl. mercium", but without any source.
- L&S is without any note, so foolishly mercum could have been assumed, or be generated from the declension template without checking anything or without realising that the template could be wrong...
- Additionally, mercum could also exist but be a low or medieval Latin form, which then should be mentioned but also should be marked. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC).
- [two occurrences here], a third can certainly be fished out in google, but this form is a clear solecism even medievally. I would relegate it to an Alternative form linked at mercium. Brutal Russian (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
[edit]Latin. Tagged by 2003:DE:3728:BF61:3CEF:6BEC:3439:FB55 on 7 June, not listed:
- “for masc. gender.
- L&S has "subst.: vŏlantes, ĭum, comm., the birds", but some other dicts only have f. (logeion -> LaNe: "subst. volantēs, ium en um f (poët.; postklass.)", Georges: "subst., volantēs, ium, f. (sc. bestiae)") and sometimes L&S has guesses, unattested information.”
J3133 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously, it could be masculine or feminine when used as a substantive, depending on the context: (vermes) volantes or aves (volantes). Maybe all attestations happen to refer to feminine animal nouns (aves, columbae) and not to for instance culices or passeres. Do we need such attestations to verify the inherent gender ambivalence? An entirely different issue is whether we should list such obvious nominalizations at all; we do not list a noun powerful, even though its use as a noun is fairly common;[9] and we also do not list an (attestable[10]) noun sense for flagellantes. --Lambiam 11:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
(Notifying GianWiki, Metaknowledge, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia): Created by User:SemperBlotto, supposedly an adjective meaning "glove" in a relational/attributive sense. Unlikely to be correct as an adjective ending in -a, and not in any dictionary I can find. Benwing2 (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I can't really find any dictionary supporting the existence of an adjective like guantario, except this, which I believe might've been used as a reference for the Wiktionary entry. There are a couple of usage examples I can find online – either as an adjective or as a noun (an alternative form of guantaio (“glovemaker”)) – but that's all. — GianWiki (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's more likely that wordsense pulled it from Wiktionary. The entry has been around for 7 years. – Jberkel 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Treccani seems to use it (industria guantaria). Also in Google books: from 1937 (industria guantaria), from 1939 (industria guantaria, attività guantaria, produzione guantaria). As for guantario, there's this book (problema guantario), from 2006 (maestro guantario), from 1959 (settore guantario). - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
July 2021
[edit]Italian ammazzavampiri
[edit]SOP: "vampire-slayer". Benwing2 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- google books:ammazzavampiri seems to have enough results (even though several have Buffy l'ammazzavampiri = Buffy the Vampire Slayer) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3720:3741:3181:23C1:CDC2:56E4 (talk) at 22:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC).
August 2021
[edit]French. The French Wiktionary entry lists one of the meanings of abeillage as "Élevage des abeilles", i.e. the raising of bees, or beekeeping. However, all of the uses I found online were referring to the other historical senses of the word. If this sense is kept, it should at least perhaps be tagged as rare because it seems the more common translations for beekeeping are apiculture or a multi-word phrase like "élevage des abeilles", "industrie abeillère". 70.175.192.217 18:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Can somebody confirm the gender? This and also Lagopus and λαγώπους give the gender as feminine (the latter offering both masculine and feminine). However, λαγώς and πούς are both masculine, so I can't see how the compound could possibly be feminine. If it really is, something needs to be added to the etymologies to say how this counterintuitive gender has happened. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- As for Lagopus zoologists treat it as being feminine, as can be seen by the species epithets of two of the three species, the other one not being helpful. Lewis and Short asserts Latin lagopus as being feminine. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ancient Greek λαγώπους (lagṓpous) is a nominalization of an adjective meaning hare-footed; compare the adjectives ὀκτώπους (oktṓpous, “eight-footed”) and ἐρυθρόπους (eruthrópous, “red-footed”). For these adjectives, the masculine and feminine forms are the same. The gender of a nominalization will usually be determined on semantic grounds; if seen as a shortening of ὄρνις λαγώπους (órnis lagṓpous, literally “hare-footed bird”), it will inherit the gender of ὄρνις – and thus still can go either way. --Lambiam 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Oxford Latin Dictionary agrees that lagōpūs (“ptarmigan”) is feminine. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek says that λαγώπους (lagṓpous, “ptarmigan, white partridge”) is masculine (the neuter λαγώπουν (lagṓpoun) is also substantivized and refers to some sort of clover or other trefoil). I'm pretty sure when LSJ says "λαγώ-πους, ποδος, ὁ, ἡ" it means that as an adjective the masculine and feminine have the same form. However, it doesn't look like this word is ever actually used as an adjective meaning "hare-footed". It's only ever used as a masculine noun meaning "ptarmigan, white partridge" and as a neuter noun meaning "clover, trefoil". —Mahāgaja · talk 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Dioscorides[11] and Oribasius[12] use non-neuter λαγώπους (lagṓpous) for the clover. The grammatical gender cannot be discerned from the brief mentions (γνώριμος can be feminine), but Pape gives ἡ λαγώπους as translation of Hasenklee (hare’s-foot clover),[13] and Johann Adolf Erdmann Schmidt gives this as translation of Waldhonig,[14] probably not referencing the substance but a type of clover from which honey is obtained. --Lambiam 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: In your last example, ἡ λαγώπους is actually the translation of Waldhuhn, so it's referring to the bird. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for the correction; I overlooked the -xyz entries. It is somewhat unlikely that the Latin writers borrowing lagōpūs from Greek would have assigned it the feminine gender if they were not following a Greek example. --Lambiam 09:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Lambiam: In your last example, ἡ λαγώπους is actually the translation of Waldhuhn, so it's referring to the bird. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Dioscorides[11] and Oribasius[12] use non-neuter λαγώπους (lagṓpous) for the clover. The grammatical gender cannot be discerned from the brief mentions (γνώριμος can be feminine), but Pape gives ἡ λαγώπους as translation of Hasenklee (hare’s-foot clover),[13] and Johann Adolf Erdmann Schmidt gives this as translation of Waldhonig,[14] probably not referencing the substance but a type of clover from which honey is obtained. --Lambiam 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Oxford Latin Dictionary agrees that lagōpūs (“ptarmigan”) is feminine. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek says that λαγώπους (lagṓpous, “ptarmigan, white partridge”) is masculine (the neuter λαγώπουν (lagṓpoun) is also substantivized and refers to some sort of clover or other trefoil). I'm pretty sure when LSJ says "λαγώ-πους, ποδος, ὁ, ἡ" it means that as an adjective the masculine and feminine have the same form. However, it doesn't look like this word is ever actually used as an adjective meaning "hare-footed". It's only ever used as a masculine noun meaning "ptarmigan, white partridge" and as a neuter noun meaning "clover, trefoil". —Mahāgaja · talk 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ancient Greek λαγώπους (lagṓpous) is a nominalization of an adjective meaning hare-footed; compare the adjectives ὀκτώπους (oktṓpous, “eight-footed”) and ἐρυθρόπους (eruthrópous, “red-footed”). For these adjectives, the masculine and feminine forms are the same. The gender of a nominalization will usually be determined on semantic grounds; if seen as a shortening of ὄρνις λαγώπους (órnis lagṓpous, literally “hare-footed bird”), it will inherit the gender of ὄρνις – and thus still can go either way. --Lambiam 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there's also the possibility, that the Latin gender isn't attested, but just assumed on whatever grounds. If that's the case, there maybe should be a usage note explaining the situation and the assumption.
- In Latin dictionaries it's:
- L&S: lăgōpūs, ŏdis, f. - 1. bird, 2. herb
- Gaffiot: lăgōpūs, odis, f. - 1. bird, 2. plant
- Georges: lagōpūs, podis, m. u. f. - 1. m. bird, 2. f. plant
- So they agree, that the herb/plant is feminine. As for sense bird, all three reference works refer to Plinius: Plin. 10, 133 (Plin. 10, 48, 68, § 133). That is, according to edition:
- LacusCurtius: "capitur circa Alpes etiam, ubi et phalacrocoraces, avis Baliarium insularum peculiaris, sicut Alpium pyrrhocorax, luteo rostro niger, et praecipua sapore lagopus. pedes leporino villo nomen hoc dedere cetero candidae, columbarum magnitudine."
- Carolus Mayhoff, 1875: "iam et in Gallia Hispaniaque capitur et per Alpes etiam, ubi et phalacrocoraces, avis Baliarium insularum peculiaris, sicut Alpium pyrrhocorax luteo rostro niger et praecipua sapore lagopus. pedes leporino villo nomen hoc dedere cetero candidae, columbarum magnitudine."
- transl. John Bostock & H. T. Riley, 1855: "It was formerly reckoned among the rare birds, but at the present day it is found in Gallia, Spain, and in the Alps even; which is also the case with the phalacrocorax, a bird peculiar to the Balearic Isles, as the pyrrhocorax, a black bird with a yellow bill, is to the Alps, and the lagopus, which is esteemed for its excellent flavour. This last bird derives its name from its feet, which are covered as it were, with the fur of a hare, the rest of the body being white, and the size of a pigeon." ["last bird" in nominative isn't in the Latin.]
- --16:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
September 2021
[edit]Latin. Can this form, alleged to be a genitive plural of the Latin adjective memor, be attested, or are we dealing with a so-called non-i-stem variant? --Lambiam 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Template:la-decl-3rd-1E has been retired to a template farm upstate, but I suspect this was the culprit, leading to an erroneous auto-generated entry. @Benwing2 --Lambiam 01:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- A&G mentions the ablative singular of it. --Myrelia (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Might it be that A&G is mistaken: [15]? For some uses of the ablative memore, see [16], [17], and [18]. --Lambiam 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- That looks like Medieval Latin or Anglo-Latin. Georges: "Abl. Sing. bl. memori" = Ablativ Singular bloß memori = ablative singular is only memori. --Myrelia (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- In Wiktionary, Medieval Latin is Latin. So it seems both forms of the ablative can be attested, but only one may be Classical. Still, what about memorium – can this form be attested? --Lambiam 08:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- ML. is Latin, but there should be a qualifier/note.
As for gen. pl.: Can the other, memorum, be attested? Or is it just an assumption, a form generated by an inflection template? Maybe it can by: "hunc crebro ungula pulsu incita nec domini memorum proculcat equorum, Verg. Aen. 12, 533"? --Myrelia (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- ML. is Latin, but there should be a qualifier/note.
- In Wiktionary, Medieval Latin is Latin. So it seems both forms of the ablative can be attested, but only one may be Classical. Still, what about memorium – can this form be attested? --Lambiam 08:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- That looks like Medieval Latin or Anglo-Latin. Georges: "Abl. Sing. bl. memori" = Ablativ Singular bloß memori = ablative singular is only memori. --Myrelia (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Might it be that A&G is mistaken: [15]? For some uses of the ablative memore, see [16], [17], and [18]. --Lambiam 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- A&G mentions the ablative singular of it. --Myrelia (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
December 2021
[edit]- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.
(French) RFD sense of the fictional character: "One of the Three Musketeers." It already says this in the etymology, and IMO that's enough if it's a rare male given name derived from the book. This RFD goes along with the RFD on English Aramis. Note the inconsistency also; we have Aramis as English, Porthos as French, and no entry for Athos. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Send to WT:RFVN and check regarding WT:CFI#Fictional universes? --21:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:373f:4037:3c6c:85b5:850a:bea0 (talk).
- Needs figurative use. Ultimateria (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Athos, Porthos, and Aramis are not given names; they are family names, patronyms. So is d’Artagnan. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
[edit]Rfv-sense "neighbour". Is this restricted to the biblical sense of neighbour (“a fellow human being”), or is it also used for the literal sense of "person living on adjacent land/house/apartment"?__Gamren (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t think this is specifically biblical. In the Vulgate this translates ὁ πλησίον (ho plēsíon) (“one’s neighbour”) in the Septuagint, a nominalized adverb derived from the adjective πλησίος (plēsíos) meaning near, neighbouring. Latin has the feature of zero-derivation nominalization of adjectives,[19] so perhaps Jerome simply used the nearest Latin equivalent of the Greek adjective as a noun. (Jerome could instead have used vīcīnus (neighbour), also a nominalization of an adjective; we can only guess why he did not do so.) IMO there is hardly a reason to list this separately under the PoS “Noun”. When used as a noun, the term has a spectrum of meanings depending on the different senses of closeness, including “someone living nearby”, but is more likely to mean “next of kin”. --Lambiam 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
February 2022
[edit]Are days of the week capitalized in Middle French? --TongcyDai (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
March 2022
[edit]Portuguese.
As it's slang, it's more difficult to attest it in writing. --2804:1690:806:2D50:63D2:7057:A6A8:E9D6 07:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Probably made up and probably belongs in RFV, but oh well. It was in a crappy song Pierdeme El Respeto but not much out there. --Vealhurl (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Moved to RFV. Thadh (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
According to the authoritative text 'Rivet & Smith (1979) The Place Names of Roman Britain' (p315), the Latin name is indeclinable. What is the authority for a previous editor stating that 'Condate' follows a Greek-type' declension. If none, then this declension table should be deleted. — This unsigned comment was added by Avitacum (talk • contribs).
- @Avitacum: I moved this from the English requests page (WT:RFVE) to this one. This, that and the other (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. My mistake! Avitacum (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- But well, could be that gender and/or inflection isn't attested.. --16:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Apparently Pliny used etēsiās once, but the Latinate first declension singular is unattested. It's a plurale tantum. This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
[edit]Originally marked for {{speedy}}, but I’m not sure this cannot be attested. --Lambiam 13:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I tagged it for speedy because Oedipus is a proper name with no plural. But you're right, it does seem to exist. The question then becomes, what does it mean? This, that and the other (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Max Beerbohm is reported to have said, “They were a tense and peculiar family, the Oedipuses, weren’t they?”.[20] --Lambiam 12:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, many of the Latin cites (e.g.) seem to relate to the same meaning as Oedipuses often has in English: multiple different tellings of the Oedipus story. -- Visviva (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like we need a better way of handling plurals of proper nouns, not only in Latin but in other languages as well.
- As far as Latin is concerned, we currently have a lot of genitive plural form-of entries for Latin proper nouns (but no other cases, oddly). These genitive plurals are "orphaned"; there is no reference to them in the lemma entry. In situations where the plural of a proper noun is actually attested, it ought to be added to the lemma's declension table, perhaps with some kind of special note. This, that and the other (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Lewis & Short: "Oedĭpus ... plur. acc. Oedipodas, Mart. 9, 26, 10". So plural is attested (maybe not in gen. but only acc., but that's usually no hinderance of giving all forms if they are predictable). Open Questions:
- What does it mean?
- Is it still a proper noun? Maybe the proper noun Oedipus (some king) became a common noun (with a meaning like 'mother-lover')
- --22:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- All cases of the plural are abundantly attested in post-Classical Latin so this seems rather pointless. Whether they're displayed in a case table in the main entry is one thing, but either way the non-lemma entry at Oediporum should certainly be kept. As an example of plural use: "Proinde principes, quibus hoc monstrum periculosius occurrit, si damni praecipitium evadere, et monstrum hoc enecare voluerint, aut Oedipi, ut ita dicam, sint, aut Oedipos, hoc est, consiliarios sequantur necesse est." ("Accordingly, those princes whom this monster rather threateningly attacks, if they wish to escape the precipice of injury and slay this monster, should either be Oedipuses, so to speak, or follow Oedipuses as counsellors" [21]).
- I don't think it's wise to treat personal names in general as automatic singularia tantum: the ways in which they can be used as plurals are fairly predictable (most obviously a group of people with the same name, but also different versions of a historical or literary personage, applying the name metaphorically to multiple people as in the case I quoted, or different aspects of a classical god). Whether they're then downgraded from "proper nouns" to "common nouns" is a question I'll leave for the scholars. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: perfect passive participle of cādō. This PPP is claimed to be indeclinable, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What's more, dictionaries (including TLL) don't mention a PPP for this verb. A supine stem is given, but given how widely-used this verb is, you'd expect to see some kind of reference to the PPP if it existed. This, that and the other (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the idea is that it only occurs in the compound forms of the impersonal passive construction (where the subject is always neuter singular), as shown in the conjugation table on cado. I just tried to search for an actual quotation exhibiting the use of impersonal PPP casum + auxiliary, but I haven't found one yet.--Urszag (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Italian: "(usually humorous, sometimes menacing) Said when someone is unwilling to repeat what they have already said.". I created Citations:Paganini non ripete but I'm not sure the quotations actually support the definition given. 98.170.164.88 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe this? 98.170.164.88 00:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- The citations are all correct. Paganini non ripete is a super-common expression, you can find it in every good Italian dictionary, too. Sartma (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Goldoni and Consolemania quotations do seem to be using it to express unwillingness to repeat something said. Servi is using it for refusal to perform a musical encore, which is the same as the original story. Chirichelli and Odone are using it to refer to things that cannot be repeated because they are unique, etc., the same as what Paganini originally meant; but repetition of speech is not involved. Barbiera requires more context to understand, but I think also falls into this metaphorical category.
- I'm not disputing that the expression exists with some meaning, but if it's super common hopefully we can find three quotations that are unambiguously using it to refer to refusal to repeat speech. And maybe we should flesh out the non-speech meaning too (something that cannot be repeated because it was improvised, etc.). 98.170.164.88 18:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
June 2022
[edit]- Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.
Latin. Described by @Theknightwho as: "Fake participle formed from the fake supine of absentō" (they meant accanō). This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
[edit]Created by User:SemperBlotto. Appears to be a nonexistent back-formation based on radioassistenza. Benwing2 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: It's a real word. Zingarelli has it too. Sartma (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma Thanks. However, we need citations; if it exists, it's rare enough not to be in reverso.net or Google ngrams. Benwing2 (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma All cites in Google Books are from dictionaries. I still think it doesn't exist. Benwing2 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: It is a technical term, so it might not be easy to find, but navigazione radioassistita is something even common people talk about. radioassistere (and servoassistere) are given in all major Italian dictionaries. I'm not interested in any of the fields where those terms might get used more regularly, but still, as a native speaker, I know those words... Reading you writing that they are "nonexistent" is a bit weird. Sartma (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma All cites in Google Books are from dictionaries. I still think it doesn't exist. Benwing2 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma Thanks. However, we need citations; if it exists, it's rare enough not to be in reverso.net or Google ngrams. Benwing2 (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Likewise with radioassistere, this is a nonexistent back-formation from servoassistenza. Benwing2 (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: This too is a real word. Sartma (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma This too is a dictionary-only word. Benwing2 (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Look for servoassistito in [this pdf]. I guess these words are used mainly in the past participle as an adjective. Maybe we can add that as a user note? Saying that these verbs don't exist or are dictionary-only words is a bit of a stretch. Also, what does it mean "dictionary-only word"? If a word made it to official and prestigious Italian dictionaries, I can assure you that it is an Italian word. How much people use it is a different question, but definitely nothing "invented" makes it to those dictionaries (with the only exception of feminine forms of certain words, added in dictionaries like Zingarelli for political reasons but that no-one uses). The other way round does happen though: there are words that people use and still haven't made it to the official dictionaries. Sartma (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: an example of an inflected form of servoassistere (search the page for servoassiste). Sartma (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma Thanks for your comments. A dictionary-only word is a word that appears in dictionaries but has no usage. This includes prestigious dictionaries. WT:CFI requires 3 citations in "durably-archived" sources (books, magazines, etc. but generally not blogs or online forums) in case of words that are challenged, and the citations must be of uses, not mentions (dictionary definitions and discussions of a word are mentions). IMO if servoassistere is a real word, it should be easy to find all sorts of citations as it would be a useful concept. The fact that it's nearly impossible to find cites indicates to me that it falls into the dictionary-only category. It looks to me like some dictionary took the word servoassistito and inferred a verb servoassistere out of this that had no usage at all at the time. Possibly due to the existence of the word in the dictionary, some people will eventually use the word, but at this time it seems to have no currency. Benwing2 (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Google "che servoassiste". Sartma (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2:
- Examples of servoassiste:
- "chiamiamolo per nome...............è il modulatore che servoassiste la frenata e gestisce l'abs"
- (...) il motorino elettrico che servoassiste il piantone dello sterzo
- "L'olio dei freni e quello che servoassiste l'azionamento della frizione."
- "l pistoncino idraulico che servoassiste la frizione sinistra"
- "La molla servoassiste in questa direzione"
- Zinagarelli registers the earliest attestation of this verb in 1983... It's been around for a while. It's definitely not a "dictionary-only" verb. Sartma (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Examples of servoassistono:
- @Benwing2: Examples of servoassistere:
- @Benwing2: "It looks to me like some dictionary took the word servoassistito and inferred a verb servoassistere out of this that had no usage at all at the time."
- Also, about this, and to be clear: the dictionaries I'm quoting are not just "some dictionaries". "Treccani" is not "some dictionary". "Zanichelli" is not "some dictionary". Those are works of the best linguists and lexicographers we have in Italy.
- Anyway, I've also found this. Apparently it's servoassistenza that came from servoassistere:
- Do they have quotations? Existing in a dictionary =/= able to be added. Vininn126 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Vininn126: None of my links is valid as a quotation? Also, the word is present in all major dictionaries, not just "a dictionary". I don't care if you don't want it on Wiktionary, to be honest. Delete it if you feel like. But can we at least stop saying that the word is made-up or nonexistent? To be honest, listening to non-native speakers telling me that a word I find completely and boringly normal is not a word in my own native language is starting to seriously get on my nerves. Sartma (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to yours. I was referring to the major dictionaries. I am not arguing for or against the deletion of the word, but rather against the argument that "it is in x dictionary therefor it should be in ours". Vininn126 (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Vininn126: I'm not saying that we should keep those verbs because "they are in the dictionary". I'm saying that as a native speakers I don't see any issues with them, PLUS they also are in all major dictionaries (mainly to confirm that it's not regional/slang but actual standard Italian). Sartma (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Vininn126: None of my links is valid as a quotation? Also, the word is present in all major dictionaries, not just "a dictionary". I don't care if you don't want it on Wiktionary, to be honest. Delete it if you feel like. But can we at least stop saying that the word is made-up or nonexistent? To be honest, listening to non-native speakers telling me that a word I find completely and boringly normal is not a word in my own native language is starting to seriously get on my nerves. Sartma (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do they have quotations? Existing in a dictionary =/= able to be added. Vininn126 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: "IMO if servoassistere is a real word, it should be easy to find all sorts of citations as it would be a useful concept."
- This is not true. That's not how languages work. Most written material in Italian tends to a nominalised style, so it's expected that you'd find servoassistenza or "SOMETHING servoassistito/servoassistita" more often than the declined form of servoassistere. It's more likely that people use the inflected forms when talking than when writing a manual. Internet will always be biased on this point, and the spoken language will always be more difficult to find, especially when it comes to technical fields. Plus, the semantic contexts where you would say that "something servoassiste something else" are quite marked, which contributes to make them more rare. But from there you can't logically derive the conclusion that "the verb doesn't exist". That's terrible logic. Sartma (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma Thanks for your comments. A dictionary-only word is a word that appears in dictionaries but has no usage. This includes prestigious dictionaries. WT:CFI requires 3 citations in "durably-archived" sources (books, magazines, etc. but generally not blogs or online forums) in case of words that are challenged, and the citations must be of uses, not mentions (dictionary definitions and discussions of a word are mentions). IMO if servoassistere is a real word, it should be easy to find all sorts of citations as it would be a useful concept. The fact that it's nearly impossible to find cites indicates to me that it falls into the dictionary-only category. It looks to me like some dictionary took the word servoassistito and inferred a verb servoassistere out of this that had no usage at all at the time. Possibly due to the existence of the word in the dictionary, some people will eventually use the word, but at this time it seems to have no currency. Benwing2 (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sartma This too is a dictionary-only word. Benwing2 (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sources listed above may not be “permanently recorded media”, but here are three print sources of è servoassistito: [22], [23], [24]. --Lambiam 18:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: I see this word being used in that sense quite frequently in my day-to-day life. Pretty sure I've used it like that myself. You can find it on the internet and in dictionaries too. 186.212.6.138 03:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Seems this isn't even tagged in the page anymore. Polomo47 (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
August 2022
[edit]- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.
French: Apparently this is the name of a former country in Africa. Probably just used by one author and copied elsewhere. Dunderdool (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Googling it throws up a historic map of Senegal. Is this wolof? Theknightwho (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like the country being referred to is the Kingdom of Jolof and its predecessor, the Jolof Empire, which is the same word as Wolof (also Djolof, Yolof, etc.) and which we treat at Wolof#English (sense 3). Although the definition there may be a little misleading, since in the Kingdom period, it was only one of multiple Wolof-speaking states, the others including Waalo and Cayor ([25]). 142.166.21.76 14:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Belongs on WT:RFVN, although FWIW this looks very easily citable in French, and might even pass CFI in other languages like German, Italian, and English. 142.166.21.76 13:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
October 2022
[edit]French. See Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/October#French: se donner le mot. If the term cannot be verified as a synonym of passer le mot, it should perhaps be replaced by a redirect to se donner le mot. --Lambiam 16:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Latin. Taken from Gaffiot. Gaffiot, with du Cange, gives one citation, Tertullian Ad nationes 1.9 "abaliud a maiore defenditur", and apart from various scanos on Google Books it seems to be a hapax. But modern editions of Tertullian do not treat this as a word and instead render the passage "si ab aliquo aliud, a maiore defenditur" (e.g. Borleffs 1954). Von Hartel 1890 already comments, "An die Existenz des Wortes abaliud glaubt heute wohl Niemand" ("nobody today believes in the existence of the word abaliud"), and Schneider 1968 gives the emended sentence and labels abaliud a ghost word. I can't find any reliable source disagreeing with this assessment. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Easily 'attested':
- Tertullianus, Ad nationes [To the nations], lib. 1, cap. 9 – in some editions, e.g. Bibliotheca patrum ecclesiaticorum latinorum selecta. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edita curante E. G. Gersdorf. Vol. IV. Qu. Sept. Flor. Tertulliani opera. Ad optimorum librorum fidem expressa curante E. F. Leopold. Pars I. Libri apologetici., Lipsia, 1839, p. 141:
- Abaliud a maiore defenditur.
- Tertullianus, Ad nationes [To the nations], lib. 1, cap. 9 – in some editions, e.g. Bibliotheca patrum ecclesiaticorum latinorum selecta. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edita curante E. G. Gersdorf. Vol. IV. Qu. Sept. Flor. Tertulliani opera. Ad optimorum librorum fidem expressa curante E. F. Leopold. Pars I. Libri apologetici., Lipsia, 1839, p. 141:
- And also found in dictionaries:
- Add Category:Latin ghost words (done) and a usage note (missing). --Amicus vetus (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Amicus vetus: Please re-read my comment above: the modern consensus is that it is not found in Tertullian, it is an error of manuscript interpretation (and not therefore used in actual Latin).
By definition, it cannot be both a ghost word and attested.(Well, it can, but in this case it doesn't seem to have crept into actual usage anywhere, hence my RFV.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Amicus vetus: Please re-read my comment above: the modern consensus is that it is not found in Tertullian, it is an error of manuscript interpretation (and not therefore used in actual Latin).
- I've read your comment carefully. It's found in Tertullianus -- at least in old editions thereof and an example was provided (and it's different from misprints/typos). That it is an error (scribal error in the manuscript, misreading, wrong conjecture or whatever) doesn't change that. Thus the entry is justified, and an explanatory usage note ('it's a mistake/ghostword' etc.) what is lacking. --Amicus vetus (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Amicus vetus: I think we're arguing at cross-purposes a bit. My point is that if there was never a word abaliud used by Tertullian or anyone else to mean "on the other hand", then our gloss is entirely spurious and should not be listed as a sense (it can be in the etymology, usage notes, or whatever—from elsewhere on this page some people might prefer this to just be a link to an appendix, I don't care too much either way). The only sense listed should, I think, be "alternative form"/scribal corruption of ab aliud. The fact that it is found in older editions of Tertullian does not support listing it as a sense, which is a matter of how the text is interpreted rather than how it is printed—and it's the sense that's being RFV'd here, since I'm not at RFD requesting the entry itself be deleted. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)
November 2022
[edit]Transliterated names and surnames in Portuguese
[edit]Recently, I deleted several transliterated Japanese names and surnames created by a single IP that had little evidence to be in use in Portuguese language and looked like simple copies of the English entries. After a message from @Benwing2, I've gave some thought to this approach, so I'm opening this discussion in order reassess if the deleted should be restored or if the remaining unattested terms in Portuguese surnames from Japanese and Portuguese given names from Japanese should be removed as well. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Sarilho1 My sense is that surname entries like this should be kept if they convey some useful info that is specific to the destination language, otherwise deleted. For example, if the surname is common enough to have a fairly fixed pronunciation, and we include that, this counts as "useful info". One example is Fukushima, which has a pronunciation given (maybe because it is also a toponym, and in the news a lot). I would say, on the contrary, that an etymology that is simply copied from the English entry doesn't count as useful info. Basically, we should discourage people from creating entries by just copying the English entry and making automatable changes to get an entry in another language. The intended result of this is that only sufficiently common or well-known surnames from foreign languages (e.g. names of famous Russian composers, in the case of Russian surnames) end up as entries. Otherwise we could end up with endless autogenerated surname entries swamping a given page. Not sure if this explicitly matches with CFI, but probably to the spirit of it. Benwing2 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
January 2023
[edit]Latin, feminine declension in -os, -oe. The Latin RFV IP wants to add this declension but I see no evidence for it in sources; expected phrases like res adespotos, res adespotoe, oda adespotos etc. look unattested (res adespotae is passably common, and indeed appears in the NLW entry, "quasi res anteà fuerint adespotae"). The form adespotoe looks totally unattested and my immediate searches did not turn up any instance of forms in -os, -orum modifying a feminine noun. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- --04:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- 2nd point, first link, "adespotos" is either agreeing with "impressus", not "Vuittenbergae" (it's not in the genitive), or being used as an adverb (thus -ōs?). Second link, sermo is a masculine noun. Third link (assuming "vita Arist. adespotos" is meant, and it's the vita that's adespotos) may count, although perhaps a rather thin basis. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- (this asked for forms in -os in general, regardless of gender. --06:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC))
Latin: “genitive singular of caeliscalpium”. Mentioned by Al-Muqanna at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/January § Option to suppress archaic -ī gen. sg. in Latin nouns in -ius/-ium. J3133 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- It does actually appear at this website but I assume it's a mistake (and not a valid citation anyway). Looks fictive otherwise. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Can't find evidence of this being used in (New) Latin texts, although it appears in some Latin-style names for diseases (e.g. retinopathia congenitalis). Maybe just Translingual? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is used in English and German, and appears as a "new Latin" style name, so perhaps this should just be marked as English. Translingual won't account for individual language conjugations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- In German it's capitalised Retinopathia (accusative Retinopathia, not Retinopathiam) as in Retinopathia pigmentosa. So like baby-foot is French and not English, and footing (exercise walking, jogging) is French, Italian, Spanish and not English or Translingual, retinopathia can be English (and also French etc.), and Retinopathia German. See also: Category:Pseudo-loans from Latin by language. --14:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
February 2023
[edit]Italian. Also RFV'ing atrovarsi. @Catonif, Sartma Both are these are another wonderful SemperBlotto creation, claimed to be alternative forms of trovare/trovarsi. No references given as to where these terms came from and they are not in any dictionaries. Attempts to Google them produce lots of typos for a trovare/a trovarsi but not much else (and excluding trovare from the search yields no hits). Benwing2 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I placed two quotes, though I normalized at attrovare per the sources and because a- instead of a*- is just an obsolete orthographical practice once greatly used especially by northern authors. The TLIO link shows great use in northern dialects. Hopefully I'll find a third quote in proper Tuscan. Catonif (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Italian. Created by User:SemperBlotto again. This is a dialect word from Neapolitan and Calabrese but I can't find any cites in Italian per se. Benwing2 (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Convert to a normal Neapolitan entry? Nicodene (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Romanian. I found this in DEX, but I havent been able to find it actually in use ... everything I turn up seems to be a dictionary, a list of words, or (in just a few cases) translation of an English-language text . I can't find a pronunciation given anywhere. There may be some French influence, as the definition given in DEX somewhat resembles that for pitchpin in this French dictionary.
I would be willing to count this as a valid use, but not this since the latter is clearly machine-translated. But that is all I could find. —Soap— 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've expanded the entry with another use in a popular novel (albeit somewhat mention-y). I couldn't find any other examples of the term in Romanian texts. Einstein2 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Bogdan You added the Romanian section last year, perhaps you can dig up a third use for this term? Einstein2 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looking into it again, DLR gives another use of the word, so this is possibly cited now. Einstein2 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, if you regularly consult DLR/DA, you’re going to love this: https://dlr1.solirom.ro/ —Biolongvistul (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looking into it again, DLR gives another use of the word, so this is possibly cited now. Einstein2 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do Romanian pitchpine and French pitchpin refer solely to North American pine species? “pitchpin”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé [Digitized Treasury of the French Language], 2012. says so. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think so, yes, though it's a bit of a mess, since as our own entry indicates, the pitch pine can refer to more than one tree. The DLR dictionary gives only Pinus palustris as the definition, but Wikipedia gives only Pinus rigida. Since the habitats of the two trees dont overlap much, I suspect at one point it was in use in English to describe both species, and that people probably still call Palustris pitch pine today, but as arborists have become more standardized, they ended up going with Rigida as the one true pitch pine. Whereas the foreign dictionaries were probably compiled much earlier.
- Anyway, my Romanian isnt good enough to tell at a glance whether the cite given in the DLR dictionary is good enough to qualify as a use rather than a mention .... I'll trust you all if you say it is, and we can let the word remain listed in our dictionary. And we even got a pronunciation out of it, too. However, without the full context and with my limited skills in the language, I can't say on my own whether the DLR dictionary's cites are really uses in running text or more like "this is what they call a pitchpine" examples. Thanks, —Soap— 18:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- In English, it would not be surprising to me that Pinus rigida was usually the referent for pitch pine, but that the term was also often used for any pine that potentially yielded pitch economically. MW just uses an "especially" for P. rigida. DCDuring (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- You can rest assured it passes. There’s the quotation you found (which is better than you might have realised, as it is a transcription of an actually published text), then there’s quotation #1 from DLR, where it is used without explanation in a technical text, then there are these two occurrences in a forestry magazine. That makes three uses (as opposed to mentions) even if you don’t count DLR quotation #2 (which, as Einstein2 said, is more of a mention/English embedding indeed). Do these need to be on the page itself or does this mere discussion legitimise the entry? —Biolongvistul (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- It would be better if they were in the entry, but we sometimes let users enjoy multiple link chases, if indeed they trouble to look at the talk page (where this discussion should be archived in due course). DCDuring (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
[edit]This is allegedly a Latin adjective meaning "Maronite", but the main word for that in Latin is definitely Marōnītae (usually found in the plural, like most words ending in -ītae), which I just added. I'm having a hard time figuring out whether "maronitus, -a, -um" actually exists as more than an occasional mistake. I added one citation of "Maronitorum" that I think is not a misprint (but could be interpreted as a grammar error; compare this similar example with -arum), so I guess that qualifies the word for inclusion based on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Limited_Documentation_Languages, but I wanted more eyes on this to check.
Two candidates I found that do seem to be misprints/typos or mistakes: this book refers to "la Grammatica arabica Maronitorum (París, 1616)" but the actual 1616 book seems to use the spelling "-arum"; and an example of "nomen Maronitum" in this book seems to be a mistake for "nomen Maronitarum".
I also found an example of "Colegium Maronitum" used in an English text. Given that "Colegium" seems to be misspelled, I'm not that confident in the Latinity of this. Urszag (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Urszag: I think the best solution is just to tag it as a nonstandard altform of Marōnīta (more common than -ītēs when I checked). Though I'm aware many Latin dictionaries lemmatise demonyms and the like at the plural, given that that singular form is decently attested I think it's unhelpful for Marōnītae to be treated as a plurale tantum. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
[edit]My understanding is that only acuāle is attested and aciāle is a reconstruction. @Hazarasp -- Sokkjō 07:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Apparently it's attested once in a Late Latin translation of Oribasius; see Adams and the cites at the bottom of the page. By the way, I would reconstruct Proto-West Germanic *akkjul or *akkil, with adaptation of the suffix to native *-ul, *-il, given that OHG usually has <o> or <i> in the suffix. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
[edit]Italian. Rfv-sense: large face. Tagged by @Catonif but not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Italian. Rfv-sense: fusspot. Tagged by @Catonif but not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Old French Etymology 1 "beer". Appears to have been tagged late 2022, but possibly never listed here (?). Leasnam (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- First attestation dates to 1429 per the TLFi and FEW, squarely in the Middle French period and hence a borrowing from Middle Dutch. Nicodene (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Latin. This is apparently a way of writing Ⅿ (“one thousand”), but I'm pretty sure it should be ⅭⅠↃ. Putting brackets around the letter I might be visually similar, but smells like BS. Theknightwho (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Sicilian. Rfv-sense of three senses defined as "root" meaning base of hair, privileged user on UNIX, and top level folder. Tagged by User:Catonif. All are plausible semantic loans from English. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Was introduced by a complete copy-pase of the English entry (diff). Catonif (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. Added by @Trooper57. I can't attest this. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I stumbled upon some videos about Azorean Portuguese. I should've put it on the references. [29] Trooper57 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
June 2023
[edit]- Discussion moved from WT:RFDI.
Italian. Only found in personal and place names. (The current definition claims "especially", implying the word would be attestable outside of those, which would make this an RFV problem, but that's contradicted by the onomatology label, so I'm bringing this to RFD.) Very unlikely to have ever been an Italian word in any case, as all the names it is in are Germanic coinages. Catonif (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion: it is a rare poetic word; see here, where it is listed in a vocabulary of poetic words.--37.163.130.70 20:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, moved to RFV (sorry for the confusion. If it isn't clear, see the beginning of the page for explainations of how this works). The example you provide is curious: the glosses (prando together with polve, ritorte, etc.) are clearly about the sonnet in the preceding page (it's not a vocabulary), though in the sonnet, alongside polve and ritorte we find brando, which is widely attested also elsewhere. Looking at the gloss closely, I suspect that P is actually a B that lost its lower belly either in the printing or in the scanning phase, or alternatively a straight-up misprint. Note that even if we were to consider it a voluntary P, it would still not be enough to keep the entry per our criteria of inclusion. Catonif (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Latin. Does not appear to be spelled as one word in reality. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
[edit]Portuguese. Is the lemma registered in Portuguese or only occurs in Old Galician-Portuguese? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- [32] [33] [34]
Do these contents help to attest it? SentientBall (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
[edit]Portuguese or just Old-Galician Portuguese? - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Middle French. Tagged in 2021 but seemingly never listed. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Added a citation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
French: "# cashmere goat (Capra hircus angorensis or Capra hircus laniger)"
No citations present. The subspecies are not recognized by Mammal Species of the World, the Catalog of Life, WP, or Wikispecies. It is my understanding that the goats that are the source of cashmere are breeds that do not have well-defined links to subspecies. DCDuring (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The entry is confused, but that's no reason to post a confused rfv. This page is for verifying usage of a specific term, not goat taxonomy. Let me try to explain the main issues involved:
- First of all, cashmere and angora are types of goat wool named after places in regions where they have historically been produced: cashmere from Kashmir and angora from Ankara. They are each produced by a specific breed of goat. French Wikipedia claims, based on this reference that the Angora breed was introduced to Turkey from Kashmir, and infers that the two breeds are basically the same animal, along with similar goats in places like Tibet. English Wikipedia, based on its own sources, says that the origin of the Angora breed is unknown and treats Angora goats and Cashmere goats as separate breeds, with the Tibetan goats included in the Cashmere goat article.
- As for the taxonomic names: back before the taxonomic treatment of breeds and cultivars was somewhat standardized, it was common practice to assign them to taxonomic ranks like subspecies. I haven't done a very thorough search, but the taxonomic names in question do seem to have been in use (Whether the Angora-specific Capra hircus angorensis is used for Cashmere and Tibetan goats is another question entirely). IMO the entry would be better off without them, since they're obsolete, inaccurate, and misleading.
- Which brings me to what I think is the real issue: there is at least one book that says "La chèvre Cachemire - égalment appelée Chèvre du Tibet", so for at least some people, they're synonyms. The sticky part is determining whether "chèvre du Tibet" is a term for cashmere goats in general, or merely for the goats found in Tibet, which are inferred to be the cashmere goat breed. In other words, would someone use the term "chèvre du Tibet" for a goat in Kashmir or China? To use an analogy, even though people in Brussels and in Paris both speak the same language, would anyone say that Parisians speak Belgian French? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if the RfV caused confusion. I am challenging the definition, at least the part that includes the taxonomy. The taxonomy is probably old, very new, or informal, should the definition prove to be attestable. If there is evidence of usage with these taxa, then it stays. I usually do not challenge entries that at least use current or recent taxonomy, leaving that for others. There is a similar problem with respect to a German entry for Angorawolle. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I did not want to take it on myself to delete the taxonomy and leave the rest, as my skepticism may prove unwarranted. DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if the RfV caused confusion. I am challenging the definition, at least the part that includes the taxonomy. The taxonomy is probably old, very new, or informal, should the definition prove to be attestable. If there is evidence of usage with these taxa, then it stays. I usually do not challenge entries that at least use current or recent taxonomy, leaving that for others. There is a similar problem with respect to a German entry for Angorawolle. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. There are currently 192 entries in this category, most of which are not listed here. The tagging was largely done by Sarilho1. I am making this listing so that Portuguese editors can look through and either cite or speedy delete any obvious entries. This, that and the other (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. However, most of the entries are names and surnames. I opened that discussion above some time ago. - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Most of the tagged terms seem to be names and surnames that are either pretty common or very common in Brazil. Finding citations for a hundred terms is gonna be quite the tiresome ordeal. MedK1 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
September 2023
[edit]French. PUC – 17:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to exist: "Ce cocktail bière brune, liqueur de café, sucre et demi-expresso est un "after dinner"" [35]; "Que ce soit pour un apéritif en tout début de soirée ou un after dinner, le Bar du TIGRR est un des endroits incontournables du centre du village" [36]. Don't know whether it meets CFI. Equinox ◑ 11:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Old Galician-Portuguese. The entry was just a copy from the Portuguese one. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Latin, "vandalism". Not in the NLW, didn't find anything on Google Books. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Google Books for "vandalismum" brings up some Latin results... --02:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- These are automatic translations and spam.
RFV failed.Fay Freak (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)- [37], [38], [39], [40]&[41] are neither auto-translated nor spam. Additionally, there's [42].
- Also: the close was to early, cp. WT:RFVI: "After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, ...". (Originally, it was sat for more than a month, but the latest comment was younger than a month.) --17:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- As for Al-Muqanna, Google Books does not bring anything up for me. So I referred to Google Search which has it as spam. The close was not too early, since the WT:RFVI passage refers to the creation of a discussion with the claim of an entry being unattested; relating it to the latest comment is just your misguided opinion. Fay Freak (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are examples that are not spam or automatic translations. I have re-added the entry and am marking this as RFV-passed.--Urszag (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- These are automatic translations and spam.
Portuguese. Never heard this adjective in Portugal. Portuguese dictionaries don't register it either, so if it is indeed a Portuguese expression, it is at most colloquial. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. Originally tagged for speedy deletion with rationale "misspelling of chuva molha-tolos". Ultimateria (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a 'misspelling'. MedK1 (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Sicilian. Originally tagged for speedy deletion with rationale "This entry is mispelled. The semiconsonant j- is widely accepted as a simple i- when derived from Latin nexus pl- and fl-". That may be the case but there is an entry at scn.wikt with several other spelling variants. Ultimateria (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged in 2021 but not listed. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
October 2023
[edit]Spanish, "foreign countries; abroad". This might be an error for el extranjero, as defined by RAE.es and the Spanish Wiktionary entry. It seems roughly parallel with how in English we say "I moved to the country" to mean "countryside" and the article cannot be omitted. Perhaps since this is such an unusual construction in both English and Spanish, some people are getting confused. Thanks, —Soap— 02:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- If deleted, a placeholder definition should be added to redirect to el extranjero, as most people won't think to search with the article. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the protocol is here, but my two cents are: it's simpler and it makes more sense to keep it in one entry. It's the same word; it just means something a bit different when you add the article el. The Gran Diccionario Oxford Español-Inglés/Inglés-Español includes the sense of "abroad" in its entry for extranjero. Not to mention the RAE entry doesn't bother creating a whole new page for el extranjero; they just make sure to distinguish the noun sense from the adjective senses.
- Ascadian Idler (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Attested. I agree that it's simple to just keep this as one entry. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
vada and vada cheneral
[edit]Aragonese. Aragonario gives vaca as a translation of Spanish huelga, DOA gives vaca and vaga. Santi2222 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- According to the Diccionario Ortografico de l'aragonés (Seguntes la P.O. de l'EFA):
- bada f. ‖ lat. vulg. de batare ‖ cast. rendija; paro laboral; huelga; aburrimiento ‖ cat. badall; aturada laboral; vaga; avorriment
- Im not sure where they got their data from and it's a source that doesn't where it's said or why how many, but nonetheless is a reliable source. Jinengi (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
French. Rfv-sense: "tartan". Weylaway (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. "Namoral" absolutely passes RFV; it's got thousands of hits on Google and even definitions in Dicionário Informal. I see it pretty often too. It's understandable that @Sarilho1 hasn't encountered it before, though: it's slang from Brazil and most likely not really used in Portugal. MedK1 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Then you can add quotations that attest it and close the discussion, no? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure can. What counts as an okay quotation source? Surely you don't expect to find nonstandard spellings of slang in books, right? MedK1 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- WT:CFI - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Lol if that's enough for you, then it falls under "clearly in widespread use". MedK1 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- If it were clear, this entry wouldn't have been tagged for verification. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's a nonsensical statement. You putting an RFV tag on an entry doesn't make any difference to how widespread the term is. Theknightwho (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- If it were clear, this entry wouldn't have been tagged for verification. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Lol if that's enough for you, then it falls under "clearly in widespread use". MedK1 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- WT:CFI - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure can. What counts as an okay quotation source? Surely you don't expect to find nonstandard spellings of slang in books, right? MedK1 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. This does meet the criteria. It is exceedingly common and there are loads of pages, videos and Google hits regarding it. MedK1 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Compare WT:CFI: 3 durably archived usages are needed. --16:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. A quick Google search shows you many Brazilians with this name (among others that got RFV'd). One of my IRL friends has this name, spelt this exact same way. Seriously, what is up with all the random RFVs for anything Brazilian? MedK1 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- The requests for verification are for Portuguese words, not "Brazilian". - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- ??? @Sarilho. Are you unaware Brazil speaks Portuguese? We don't have any name laws over here. The RFVs, per definition, are on a per-language basis. It doesn't matter that they're not a thing in Portugal, they exist in Brazil and any three-second Google search would tell you as much. Just mark the term as (Brazil), duh! That's what you do with every other Brazilian term. 189.90.66.85 13:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- As you perhaps might be unaware, in Wiktionary there is only a Portuguese language, not a Brazilian one, except for etymological purposes, so all the rfvs I mark are Portuguese rfvs, not Brazilian rfvs. If I find that a Portuguese word needs verification, then I mark it with a rfv. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Sarilho1: You two are just talking past each other. I hope you're at least making a rudimentary check for Brazilian usage before posting rfvs, because we're all volunteers here and it's not a good idea to waste people's time verifying common words. I suppose it might be annoying that people don't think of Portugal as much in relation to Portuguese as they think of England in relation to English or France in relation to French, but that's not something Wiktionary can do anything about. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- What wastes people's times is to 1. mass create unadapted names and surnames with no care for verification of usage, 2. mass create misspellings and eye pronunciations without proper attestation. The first, mass created by an IP some time ago, includes names and surnames from languages such as Bulgarian, Russian, Romanian, French, German, Polish, or Japanese, needs to be thoroughly verified (and everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion above on the topic or engage in that cleaning). The second, given their clear colloquiality or specialism (in case of eye dialects), clearly requires careful attestation. I've attested several misspellings, such as pristino, metereológico or Azerbeijão to justify their inclusion, I don't see why the same work shouldn't be expected for other misspellings such as namoral or mecher. I stress that we are not talking about common nor standard words here (I haven't mark for verification the various Old Tupi derived terms that have been created and can be easily verified as standardized terms, for instance) so your collective attempt to claim that I'm engaging in a crusade against the so-called Brazilian is completely senseless and unfounded. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- PS: Just to illustrate the dire need of properly attesting misspellings is the current attempt to label seteto as a misspelling from Portugal, completely ignoring the fact that the entry was created by a Brazilian Portuguese speaker. Instead of mindlessly including misspellings and label them as from Portugal or from Brazil when they seem strange, maybe we should request that the WT:CFI are applied first, as the word might actually not even exist in any variant. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Of COURSE the entries are unadapted! Like I said, there are no laws stating names in Brazil need to obey standard Portuguese orthography rules. Barely any names in English get attested either. You see names like Bradleigh go by unquestioned precisely because English doesn't have that rule; you can find English speakers with that name if you google it!
- You're being intentionally disingenuous and obtuse here. It's exactly as User:Chuck Entz said: you're making people (me in these cases) go around verifying extremely common words for no reason. You're also the only one making the moronic implication that "Brazilian" might be a separate language from Portuguese: in my original RFV, I was explicitly talking about "Brazilian" as a region; a Brazilian form rather than an European or African one. "As you perhaps might be unaware" my foot!
- You should be utilizing common sense and looking up the terms you're unfamiliar with before going around marking everything with RFV just because Portugal hasn't had any major influx of Japanese immigrants or anything in the past century. You should quit wasting other people's time by making them look for random people with normal names such as Furuhashi. Mark stuff for RFV only if you can't find any results for it or less than three as CFI asks. You literally RFV'd an ex-president's surname. An ex-president for crying out loud! And not a minor one, either — it's the one that got coup d'état'd by the military in 1964.
- I didn't add "seteto" you know. I made sure to only add the ones that I come across online daily, ones that Google provides hundreds (sometimes thousands) of hits for precisely because they're common.
- As a human being, I'm not infallible either. One mistake with septeto doesn't make your bullshit any more justifiable. Quit the dishonesty already. If you have the time to mark hundreds of random words as RFV willy-nilly, you have the time to find proper citations for a couple of them — not that they really need many anyway. John as a proper name only has one quotation. MedK1 (talk)
- The discussion of the surnames is above, not here. You opened this section exclusively for the entry Nathan which is still unverified. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Way to go dismissing everything I said when you brought up those other words too, right above my response. MedK1 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- We are not on Reddit for me to feel the need to address your off-topic remarks and petty insults. - Sarilho1 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Good thing there are no off-topic remarks nor petty insults here and just expressions of my disapproval for your actions amidst perfectly on-topic thoughts regarding all the random RFV markings. It's not off-topic to provide examples of what I'm talking about, but it is pretty derailing and unconstructive to point out that my paragraphs are a few lines too far down the page and say nothing else. It's not hard to engage with what is, in fact, on topic. Your distaste for my wording doesn't change the words' relevancy. MedK1 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- We are not on Reddit for me to feel the need to address your off-topic remarks and petty insults. - Sarilho1 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- You call it 'unverified', but wedged in the paragraphs you neglect to read is the mention of someone (among truly many, many others -- it wasn't even hard to only take soccer players for the sake of the examples here) with the name. I linked that same guy again. Maybe that'll be enough to sate your thirst for common name citations? Maybe we should RFV Henrique next, maybe it doesn't pass CFI even though there are thousands of people with the name. MedK1 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you are ensure, about the validity of Henrique, then open a discussion, rather than uselessly raise that possibility. Someone more knowledge than you will try to verify it and, with that, keep the quality expected of Wiktionary, rather than lowering it to include every and any unverified mass-copied garbage (like trying to justify a word as Portuguese by given the example that is used by people born in the Netherlands with no connection to Portuguese-speaking countries whatsoever). - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Ensure". Nice. MedK1 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Sarilho1 Your conduct is unacceptable: you are abrasive and rude, and you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting everyone who disagrees with you. If you continue to do so, I will block you for a week. Theknightwho (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the first person to throw around vulgarities such as "bullshit" here and attacking the other person was MedK1, so I'm not sure calling Sarilho out for his rudeness is entirely fair... PUC – 21:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you are ensure, about the validity of Henrique, then open a discussion, rather than uselessly raise that possibility. Someone more knowledge than you will try to verify it and, with that, keep the quality expected of Wiktionary, rather than lowering it to include every and any unverified mass-copied garbage (like trying to justify a word as Portuguese by given the example that is used by people born in the Netherlands with no connection to Portuguese-speaking countries whatsoever). - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Way to go dismissing everything I said when you brought up those other words too, right above my response. MedK1 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- The discussion of the surnames is above, not here. You opened this section exclusively for the entry Nathan which is still unverified. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Sarilho1: You two are just talking past each other. I hope you're at least making a rudimentary check for Brazilian usage before posting rfvs, because we're all volunteers here and it's not a good idea to waste people's time verifying common words. I suppose it might be annoying that people don't think of Portugal as much in relation to Portuguese as they think of England in relation to English or France in relation to French, but that's not something Wiktionary can do anything about. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- As you perhaps might be unaware, in Wiktionary there is only a Portuguese language, not a Brazilian one, except for etymological purposes, so all the rfvs I mark are Portuguese rfvs, not Brazilian rfvs. If I find that a Portuguese word needs verification, then I mark it with a rfv. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- ??? @Sarilho. Are you unaware Brazil speaks Portuguese? We don't have any name laws over here. The RFVs, per definition, are on a per-language basis. It doesn't matter that they're not a thing in Portugal, they exist in Brazil and any three-second Google search would tell you as much. Just mark the term as (Brazil), duh! That's what you do with every other Brazilian term. 189.90.66.85 13:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. Supposed misspelling of septeto. Some users attempted to mark it as European Portuguese misspelling, however the creator of the entry is a Brazilian Portuguese speaker. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Some users". No comment. I see plenty of hits for "seteto" online, among them something written by a Portuguese teacher. I see it in aulete too. This actually makes me think that not only is it attested enough for CFI, but it's also not a misspelling at all. MedK1 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, some users. You and some IP, which makes it some, not one. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is "septeto" always or usually pronounced with [pt], or can it also be pronounced with just [t]? From what I could see, the 1990 spelling reform alleges that the correctness of "pt" vs "t" in spelling depends on whether the word has [pt] "nas pronúncias cultas da língua", so it doesn't seem possible that "seteto" could be a simple misspelling (unless by just omitting a letter): seems more like an alternative form representing an alternative pronunciation, and whether that pronunciation is stigmatized or unremarkable should be marked in the entry.--Urszag (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- The IP that edited the entry claimed that "p" is never omitted in Brazil. I'm not aware of it happening in Portugal either. It's possible that it occurs, but so far the claims are that it doesn't. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I meant that "seteto" couldn't be a 'misspelling of septeto' in Brazil because upon saying "septeto" out loud, the tendency would be to say it as "sepiteto"; the P wouldn't be omitted. The only way you'd get "seteto" is if it actually were an alternative form of the word... which does seem to be the case since I could find it in texts by Portuguese teachers and dictionaries alike. MedK1 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- The IP that edited the entry claimed that "p" is never omitted in Brazil. I'm not aware of it happening in Portugal either. It's possible that it occurs, but so far the claims are that it doesn't. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Portuguese. This is about the 3rd sense. Are we positive this isn't just the 2nd sense but with the word moved to the end of the sentence (perfectly normal in Portuguese)? I'm saying the example sentence for sense #3 means "We could dine together tomorrow then." I added some synonyms to the second sense, and both of them could apply to the 3rd one too. "Podíamos jantar juntos amanhã então" is definitely something I can see myself saying. Is this really something only used only in Southern Brazil? Granted, that's where I'm from, but it sure doesn't feel like a regionalism and I don't think I've ever raised any eyebrows using it in São Paulo or when talking to people from the Northeast. MedK1 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, perhaps I used the wrong template. I'm not questioning whether it's used like that (because it is and I do), but rather if it warrants being listed as a separate sense (I don't think so). MedK1 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Latin protologisms?
[edit]--13:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Tagging for deletion.--Urszag (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
French. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like BS. PUC – 21:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @PUC I know nothing about the merits, but this IP geolocates to Tunisia- which does have French-speakers. I suppose there might be local usage that doesn't show up anywhere we can find it. That said, I've seen them editing in languages that they would have no personal experience with, so I wouldn't take their word on anything without independent verification. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Le Poucre" seems to be a surname. Otherwise there's this but I'm not really sure what it means here: https://books.google.com/books?id=1PhNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA56--Urszag (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Here's some more on it--apparently, the surname is also spelled "Le Poulchre" (which isn't too surprising an alternative spelling): https://books.google.com/books?id=hnVSk04SIdgC&pg=PA453 Still not sure if it's attested as an adjective though.--Urszag (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
[edit]French. PUC – 21:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @PUC I think this is meant to be parallel to ĵ in that it's specific to phonetics as used in France. Theknightwho (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- As noted on Talk:ẑ, Wikipedia (in English and French) offers some other uses of this letter that may be worthy of mentioning in a Translingual section, particularly the Macedonian transliteration (if it indeed caught on in real-world use). This, that and the other (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
French. Nothing on fr.wikt, fr.wikisource. Maybe Canadian French? Jberkel 15:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Spanish. In a bunch of dialectal dictionaries. Nothing found used in the wild Seoovslfmo (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
December 2023
[edit]Sicilian. The spelling is attested in Latin, and the Latin word does descend from Sicilian, the question is whether the spelling can be found in Sicilian running text. @Hyblaeorum as creator. Catonif (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Various 'Latin' terms that are (just?) taxonomic names
[edit]- I can find some attestations of frangula in Latin as a botanical name, but not as an adjective meaning 'fragile'. Daniel Sennert's Epitome naturalis scientiae (1637) includes it in a list: "...Buxus, virga sanguinea, frangula, Evonymus".--Urszag (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Urszag In case you haven't already seen this: in modern taxonomy the name "frangula" goes back to Linnaeus as the specific epithet for what is now Frangula alnus. The reference to "Dod. pempt. 784", evidently refers to this and the following page in Stirpium historiae pemptades sex by Rembert Dodoens. This is the 1616 edition, but it also appears in at least the 1583 on as well. As you can see, it's all in Latin- not "taxonomese", but real Latin. Of course, that has no direct bearing on Latin frangulus. It does discuss names on the top of p.784 and says that this name was in use by others at the time, so an explanation of the name may exist in writing somewhere, and it might be derived from Latin frangō due to brittleness of the wood, as the Wikipedia article on Frangula alnus claims. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Adjusting to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have deleted the Latin inflections but I have also repurposed actinocarpo (and its inflections) to Portuguese. --kc_kennylau (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Through some research and discussing with @Kc kennylau at Wikt Discord server, I can safely assume actinocarpo is a ghost word, i.e. a term that only exists in dictionaries — and a pretty old aone, one of the earliest mentions is from 1937. Basically, all hits are either from dictionary entries or definitions in some compilation work, I couldn't find any usage example of this word.
- My guess is that someone wanted to explain what the specific epithet actinocarpus meant in scientific names and made a calque along the way, as both actino- (actinomorfo) and carpo (mesocarpo) exist in these kind of compounds in Portuguese. The etymology of all these is a mess too, but that's for another day. Trooper57 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Adjusting to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
All seem to have been created just because of the taxonomic names. Urszag (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- And that's a problem because? DCDuring (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just a regular RFV. As I view it, and I've seen other editors agree in the past, a taxonomic name by itself doesn't count as a usage of a word in the Latin language. Therefore, we should either verify that these have been used in Latin or move them to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd really be OK with just moving them to Translingual. I doubt that we have many readers or Latin botanical species descriptions coming to Wiktionary for help and not finding them under Translingual. There are plenty that are real Latin, but compound ones like all but lycioides of these four are very rarely 'real' Latin. And I wouldn't argue about something ending in -oides either. I don't know about frangulus, but it was not an arbitrary sign: I'm sure it was intended to mean something based on some vintage of Latin and/or its morphology. DCDuring (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! While I suspected they might not be attested as 'real' Latin, for some of them I'm genuinely uncertain about if uses in Latin exist, so if they do, I'd like to know about it. I think I'll try to follow up on the lead found by Chuck Entz for frangulus and do more of my own searches for the others before moving any of these.--Urszag (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd really be OK with just moving them to Translingual. I doubt that we have many readers or Latin botanical species descriptions coming to Wiktionary for help and not finding them under Translingual. There are plenty that are real Latin, but compound ones like all but lycioides of these four are very rarely 'real' Latin. And I wouldn't argue about something ending in -oides either. I don't know about frangulus, but it was not an arbitrary sign: I'm sure it was intended to mean something based on some vintage of Latin and/or its morphology. DCDuring (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just a regular RFV. As I view it, and I've seen other editors agree in the past, a taxonomic name by itself doesn't count as a usage of a word in the Latin language. Therefore, we should either verify that these have been used in Latin or move them to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Latin. @VGPaleontologist. See also: Talk:albifrons. --08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
French. Never heard this. PUC – 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Checking Google Books, there are a few 19th-century recordings, however, they mostly refer to a type of shot in pool:
- Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture inventaire raisonné des notions générale les plus indispensable à tous
- Dictionnaire national, ou: Dictionnaire universel de la langue française
- Les jeux de la jeunesse
- The Royal Phraseological English-French, French-English Dictionary
- Dictionnaire historique d'argot (only non-billiard example I could find), also cited here
- I would suggest rewriting the entry as doesn't appear to be a synonym of coup bas. Sidenote: I found usages of "coup de bas en haut" / "coup de poing de bas en haut" as a translation of "uppercut". Io Katai (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
French. Brand of cubed cheese snack. I'm not convinced there is significant generic usage. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Theknightwho has now added the English version apericube which seems equally uncommon... Equinox ◑ 19:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Equinox I’ve definitely heard the English form used (albeit rarely). Theknightwho (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: Maybe you have, but you need to find citations and prove generic usage. You may have just heard everyday talk of a trademark like "let's get another of those Babybels, they are good on crackers". Equinox ◑ 02:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
(Discussion moved here from Talk:adventurus.)
Couldn't find this word used at all, Searched PHI and [Perseus] . Theoretically it could be the future active participle of adveniō, though I was unable to find it used that way. The word you are looking for is likely either periculi (trials or perils), iter (journey), or cursus (travels/race). I believe it would be best if we removed the noun form from this definition.
Kiwiroo (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Edit: Adding in a search through the dictionaries I have on hand:
Cassell's Latin Dictionary (→ISBN) Not Found
The New College Latin & English Dictionary (→ISBN) Not Found
Kiwiroo (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- In addition this supposed noun is in the wrong gender; it should rather be adventūra, which is in fact attested as a borrowing from one or more Romance descendants of Vulgar Latin *adventūra.
- I would imagine that the assumption of an *adventūrus resulted from a misinterpretation of the etymology of the English adventure, that is, 'from Latin adventurus' could be read as implying the existence of such a noun in Latin.
- It appears that @TheMouseAvenger, who added the noun, has been inactive since 2018. Nicodene (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
French. PUC – 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be in RFD for being SOP? MedK1 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which definition of cheval means "foolish"? DCDuring (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
[edit]Catalan. Created by Wonderfool several years ago. Not in any dictionary. This is definitely a possible internationalism but if so we need attestations. Benwing2 (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I searched through all the catalan diccionaries that are listed in the catalan reference templates, and they only attest "intersecar"; the only hit I got was this in Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (Ctrl+F "intersec" - four hits). If it exists it was probably modeled after the noun, like the English and Portuguese equivalents. I think it's safe to delete, I'll even create the proper one under intersecar. Sérgio Santos (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "handcuffs". Tagged by an IP but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm the IP. I've never seen this before; afaik it's only used like that in Spanish. MedK1 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-failed Polomo47 (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "(colloquial) to own; to defeat; to overwhelm". Tagged by MedK1 but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged by Sarilho1 but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The word exists, but the definition is incorrect. Should be "dishrack". Polomo47 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-deleted the original sense. Polomo47 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "(derogatory) upstart; nouveau riche" and the corresponding adjective. Tagged by Sarilho1 but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Aromanian. Tagged by Super Dromaeosaurus (talk • contribs) ("I have not been able to find proof of this being the Aromanian name for the city, it might be original research or a hoax") but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Tagged by an IP in 2022. I can't find it, but even if I could it would be SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Spanish, was removed out of process. Jberkel 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging creator @Apisite for input. Ultimateria (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jberkel, Ultimateria: At least there's secutar per the R:es:DRAE reference template. --Apisite (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- With a different meaning, though… Jberkel 23:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Nominated for speedy deletion with rationale "The correct spelling is mesinho with S, because "mês" ends with an S and as such it doesn't receive a Z on the diminutive. Any dictionary will tell you this." Ultimateria (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as original nominator with the reasoning above. MedK1 (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. Polomo47 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Galician. I'm questioning the "pus" sense. I'm not positive this sense has survived to the modern day — the other text seemed to be one man in the middle ages drawing a parallel between pus and venom, and I wasn't able to find any quotes of "veleno" for pus being used past 1500. MedK1 (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Spanish. El Salvador slang...also estar cheles. Vanishingly rare, even in conjugated formsDenazz (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all rare in El Salvador. Both terms are attested in DRAE: “estar, o quedar, cheles dos o más personas”, in Diccionario de la lengua española [Dictionary of the Spanish Language] (in Spanish), online version 23.7, Royal Spanish Academy [Spanish: Real Academia Española], 2023 November 28. Also, here there are hundreds of X's posts where people use both terms: Search / X. Saviourofthe (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Latin. For dat. sg. "Pammenē", acc. "Pammenēn", abl. "Pammenē". --11:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- For quotations using this term, see Citations:Pammenes. 0DF (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Uses of translingual Pammene (“tortrix moth”) swamp the results of google books:Pammene. I feel disinclined to wade through them to find any datives or ablatives of the name. They're going to be just as difficult to verify as the ablative Pammene and vocative Pammenē. 0DF (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the single result for Pammenen is post-Classical, New Latin. If there's nothing in ancient Latin (Old, Classical, Late Latin), this should be marked in the entry. And while abl. Pammenē might then be based on analogy (e.g. sophistēs), this doesn't apply to dat. Pammenē. --00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I’ve changed the RFV text to “We only have citations (see Citations:Pammenes) for the genitives (Pammenī, Pammenis) and accusatives (Pammenem, Pammenēn) right now. What about the nominative, datives, ablative, and vocatives?” 0DF (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is not an isolated example, there are analogous complications in the declension of Alcibiadēs, Thūcȳdidēs, Herculēs, Achillēs, etc. These can generally be analyzed as third-declension nouns with some anomalous forms (including potentially the genitive singular). I've adjusted the table to remove dat. sg. "Pammenē"; the length of the vowel in the ablative does not seem determinable from the current citations.--Urszag (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Urszag: Thank you for citing the nominative and ablative. Re removing the Greek-derived dative, I would say that the Greek-derived dative Hercule͡i (of the Latin Herculēs) is just such an example of a borrowed dative that analogously supports a dative *Pammenē (even if the orthography is different). If *Pammenī can't be attested, then IMO either both datives should be given (asterisked) or neither dative should be given. 0DF (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- As the note on that page mentions, the spelling "Herculei" probably corresponded to a pronunciation that ended with the vowel /iː/, like a normal Latin third-declension dative singular form. We could compare "Orphei" = Greek Ὀρφεῖ as a dative singular of "Orpheus" (Verg. ecl. 4, "Orphei Calliopea"). From a Latin-internal standpoint, I think the use of "-ei" to represent /iː/ in forms like "Herculei" can be interpreted either as the archaic digraph spelling (also seen sometimes in nominative plural or dative/ablative plural forms) or as a case where "e" is slurred over by "synizesis" with the following vowel letter i, with the latter representing a long /iː/ sound (compare the use in poetry of Pēleō, Nēreō as disyllables, or of the native Latin words aureō, aureīs, ferreī). Whichever explanation applies, the irregularity would be a matter of spelling or of the form of the stem, rather than the use of an irregular terminal vowel for this case/number category. I don't think Pammenē, with long /eː/, is a likely form, as /eː/ is not normally found at the end of Latin dative singular nouns. It's conceivable that Pammenī might have an alternative spelling Pammenei (pronounced the same way) as a Graecizing variant, but I don't think we should go out of our way to present such irregular spellings, when similar names such as Alcibiades are attested in Classical Latin with the dative spelled as Alcibiadi.--Urszag (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Urszag: Thank you for citing the nominative and ablative. Re removing the Greek-derived dative, I would say that the Greek-derived dative Hercule͡i (of the Latin Herculēs) is just such an example of a borrowed dative that analogously supports a dative *Pammenē (even if the orthography is different). If *Pammenī can't be attested, then IMO either both datives should be given (asterisked) or neither dative should be given. 0DF (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: a female screw. I looked through the links at the bottom of the entry and found a few Latin texts with this word, but I couldnt find anything in which any sense other than the literal ones would be the most natural interpretation. Im skeptical that there is a sexual meaning that would be used three times in Latin in order to pass through RFV. One-off sexual innuendos might be there, but that's not CFI-compliant. It's also possible that the originating author misread something, or was copying from a source who had, and that the word actually means a literal female screw (search hardware sites etc), but Im not sure Roman carpenters even had screws, let alone the less common female form. —Soap— 15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Number of citations: "For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate [...]. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate [...]".
- Latin is not a WT:WDL. Regardless of considering it extinct (which Early, Old, Classical, Late, Medieval and Vulgar Latin are) or alive (New Latin; Church Latin), 1 source is sufficient.
- But feel free, to consider using {{lb|la|rare}} or {{LDL-sense}} (cp. {{LDL}}).
- As for a source, L&S has: "The female screw, Plin. 18, 31, 74, § 317.". Georges, which is younger and often better than L&S, has: "b) rugae, der Schraubengang, die Schraubenmutter (griech. περικόχλιον), Plin. 18, 317." (i.e. in plural). Gaffiot translates it as écrou.
- You're welcome. --08:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
[edit]Latin. --10:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to make this request. We have sēdēs listed as an i-stem, and so the genitive plural is given as sēdium. However, my textbook claims this word to be a consonantal-stem of the 3rd declension, which would have a genitive plural sēdum. German Wiktionary lists the non-i form instead; Latin Wiktionary actually lists both (and notable doesn't include the accusative plural variant sēdīs which we list). If this is indeed a case where variation occurs, we should probably include note of that and in what contexts/language stages this is the case. Could someone please verify? Helrasincke (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is indeed the right place to request verification of inflected forms of Latin words. It looks like this is discussed by other dictionaries. Lewis and Short says "gen. plur. sedum, Cic. Sest. 20, acc. to Prisc. p. 771 P.: sedium, from form sedis, Liv. 5, 42 Drak. N. cr.; Vell. 2, 109, 3)". The doctoral thesis Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin, by András Cser (2016) suggests that consonant-stem inflection would be expected overall, saying that third-declension words with the nominative singular ending -ēs "do not show other i-stem forms apart from GENPLUR nubium and cladium (the latter varying with consonant-stem cladum; no GENPLUR forms attested for fames at all). In Latin historical linguistics -ēs is known as a typical feminine i-stem ending for the NOMSING originally" (page 126). I'll take a look for what other attestations might be found.--Urszag (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Latin. It's essentially synonymous with carmen, and so it seems suspicious that it has the same nominative/accusative plural form carmina. Is it a medieval/Late Latin backformation, or a backformation in the mind of a modern editor? No other dictionary I have seen lists it. Urszag (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised this has lasted sixteen years. It is without a doubt the result of an editor's unfamiliarity with the language. There's of course nothing like this in any Latin dictionary, and searching forms like carminum brings up sentences where that is clearly genitive plural (=carmen); carminō doesn't bring up any sort of dative or ablative singular (only the verb carminō); etc. Nicodene (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's been edited now with an example of "carminorum"; I also saw some other examples of that form. The question though is whether this actually implies a second-declension singular "carminum, carmini", or if it is best interpreted as a heteroclitic form (like vāsōrum and various post-classical genitive plurals in -ōrum).--Urszag (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am relieved that there is nothing in the Catalogue of Life that uses this. DCDuring (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's been edited now with an example of "carminorum"; I also saw some other examples of that form. The question though is whether this actually implies a second-declension singular "carminum, carmini", or if it is best interpreted as a heteroclitic form (like vāsōrum and various post-classical genitive plurals in -ōrum).--Urszag (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
French. Rfv-sense: "shaped like that of a crow or raven". Seems like a weird definition and Wiktionnaire doesn't have it. I added "corvine" and made the previous definition a gloss. If it's citable, it may simple mean "related to crows or ravens". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- The adjectival sense is noted in the GD "2. Corbin, adj., de corbeau : Le genre corbin." (Corbin, adj. 'of crows': the crow genus). However, when I looked at the referenced work L'Histoire de la nature des oyseaux (book 6, chapter 5), the original phrase is actually "C'est la plus petite de toute les especes du genre Corbin" (It's the smallest of all species in the genus Corbin), which doesn't support the adjectival sense. I would suggest removing it. Io Katai (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Tagged by Nicodene with reason "Is this actually attested in the sense that underlies the Romance outcomes?" This, that and the other (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is on the entry's maker, namely @LatinGuy87.
- - Nicodene (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Supposedly New Latin for "stapler". Tagged in 2022 but not listed. The word seems to be restricted to Capellanus' "Latin Can be Fun" (1997). This, that and the other (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. --12:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Galician. Rfv-sense: "where, whereby". The quote from 1264 was moved to Old Galician-Portuguese.
Tagged by MedK1 but not listed - please remember to list your RFVs as soon as you tag them!! This, that and the other (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Previous discussions archived at "Talk:E=mc²" established that only the following idiomatic sense should be kept in English: "A formulation or realization that captures a profound thought in simple terms." Is there are corresponding idiomatic sense in French? — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- The French version of the page cites two examples where it's used in the idiomatic sense of "simple, yet genius principle". There was also an RfD requested in 2013 on the French Wiktionary, but it was kept due to the idiomatic usage. That said, searching Google for idiomatic instances of "le E=MC2 du/de" or "le E=mc² de/du" turns up maybe only 22 unique results and of possessive forms like "Mon/son/etc. E=MC2" gives 3 or 4 results.
- You could say it fails WT:ATTEST as it doesn't have widespread usage and you'll be hard-pressed to find enough citations from durably archived media. Io Katai (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
March 2024
[edit]Latin. —Desacc̱oinṯier 23:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Haitian Creole. I suspect this isn't actually spelled with parentheses; rather, it can be spelled either plan pye or pla pye. If so, we should move the content to the more common spelling and have the other be an alternative form. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
All entries in Category:Australian Italian
[edit]Created by an Australian IP who has no clue what they are doing. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This entry seems unattested, see Hesperus where the latter is in no way adjectival according to Charlton T. Lewis and other sources. Adjectival forms formed from the stem are either Hesperius or Hesperis, both in all caps.
Responding to the above request (not sure how to do this - I'm not a regular contributor): I can't speak to whether "hesperus" was used as an adjective in classical or ecclesiastical Latin, but it is used as an adjective in botanical Latin. For example, there is a plant species whose name is Parietaria hespera.
- There are about 330 names of accepted non-extinct species at Catalogue of Life with forms of hesperus as (sub)specific epithet. About 50% more with names that are unaccepted or for extinct species. I'm guessing that the meaning is usually "western" for these. DCDuring (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't know about that ! But the real issue is the entry not being referenced as being of New-Latin usage and also being used in etymology headings (english Hesperus) when it's derivatives are uppercase-only and seems itself to be.
- I've noticed the same thing with Camena/camena which shows perhaps a common problem on wiktionary about not uppercasing latin entries that should in fact be upercassed. I'll check on that and do the changes accordingly concerning the Hesperus paradigms. Though I'd rather leave hesperus to someone else as I usually don't deal with new latin stuff. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- For most such terms we have entries for both upper- and lower-case forms. The lowercase form is usually attestable as New Latin or "Translingual" in the names of species. We haven't spent too much time on the matter because there is neither much interest nor consensus among contributors. In the case of hesperus, it is easy to attest to its wide and continued use in scientific Latin with the meaning "western". I am not sure about other meanings, nor about use in other vintages of Latin, though "Italian" might be in use or have been used in Ecclesiastical Latin. I don't understand the implications of or evidence attesting the "relational" definition "evening", specifically why it differs in semantics or syntax from attributive use of a noun in English. Is it just that the term is inflected by gender? Or is it just a tradition among Latin scholars or certain Latin scholars? DCDuring (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you meant. I'm sorry to ask but do you know how latin adjectives work? Hesperus is strictly a masculine noun and new latin hesperus (apparently) only an adjective. A proper (as not New Latin) latin adjectival form of Hesperus would be Hesperius, suffixed with -ius and thus inflected in gender, case and number according to what it qualifies. But again I probably misunderstood what you wrote. I do think the entry should be cleared up and added a new latin lb tag to avoid confusion and for correctness' sake. Tim Utikal (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be surprised to find that it was hesperius rather tahn hesperus in all Latins, eg, Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin. In any event, resolution requires citations.
- BTW, how do you think we should present the etymology of the 107 accepted genera of extant organisms? Are they likely derived from Hesperus (Latin), hesperus (Latin or Translingual), or hesper- (Translingual)? All three seem like possibilities. DCDuring (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm quite ignorant regarding new latin word-creation so I don't have anything to compare this exemple to. Each way you propose seem likely, though I maintain lowercase+adjective hesperus is quite aberrant and can't find any quote supporting it. It may just be a rethinking of the word from some scientist who didn't know his latin well enough (hardly credible) or may be a common thing to create new latin specific adjectives from former noun stems (it's for you to tell me if you know better). Either way hesperus is not incorrect if used in scientific context, just a completely different word which again should not be confused for the other and given its new latin/translingual tag. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you meant. I'm sorry to ask but do you know how latin adjectives work? Hesperus is strictly a masculine noun and new latin hesperus (apparently) only an adjective. A proper (as not New Latin) latin adjectival form of Hesperus would be Hesperius, suffixed with -ius and thus inflected in gender, case and number according to what it qualifies. But again I probably misunderstood what you wrote. I do think the entry should be cleared up and added a new latin lb tag to avoid confusion and for correctness' sake. Tim Utikal (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- For most such terms we have entries for both upper- and lower-case forms. The lowercase form is usually attestable as New Latin or "Translingual" in the names of species. We haven't spent too much time on the matter because there is neither much interest nor consensus among contributors. In the case of hesperus, it is easy to attest to its wide and continued use in scientific Latin with the meaning "western". I am not sure about other meanings, nor about use in other vintages of Latin, though "Italian" might be in use or have been used in Ecclesiastical Latin. I don't understand the implications of or evidence attesting the "relational" definition "evening", specifically why it differs in semantics or syntax from attributive use of a noun in English. Is it just that the term is inflected by gender? Or is it just a tradition among Latin scholars or certain Latin scholars? DCDuring (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
French. Rfv-sense: asteroid. Einstein2 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
April 2024
[edit]Romanian. Almost certainly does not exist in the meaning given (‘remote control’, as in the device). Google Image Search shows nothing of the sort and the dictionaries make no mention of such expression. If anything, it means ‘control from afar’, which is unidiomatic. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Spanish. Tagged not listed P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Spanish. Tagged not listed P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Spanish. Tagged not listed P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The original translation "to conciliate" looks like a lazy placeholder translation, and the line "to make calm" was probably added to clarify the sense because "conciliate" is not very common in English. I strongly doubt it can be attested. Ultimateria (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Spanish. Tagged not listed P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Mirandese.
Mirandese Wikipedia has this at Ourganizaçon de las Naciones Ounidas, and I can't find much of anything at this spelling- but there's not a lot out there. Pinging @Ultimateria, who knows more about this language than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz: I don't remember which sources I used to use for Mirandese but I can't find them anymore. Attesting anything in this language will be difficult. Ultimateria (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- In some articles (Nuoba Iorque, Die Anternacional de la Lhéngua Mai, Burro de Miranda) the Mirandese Wikipedia spells this Naçones Ounidas. --Lambiam 07:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit]Latin. Rfv-sense: nonsense, bullshit. Every dictionary I've checked only seems to list the mouse droppings sense. Weylaway (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Rudi Laschenkohl Can you verify this sense? Weylaway (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Spanish. Tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would expect queceño Phacromallus (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I view this exactly as another eye-dialect–spelling for Caipira "vermelho". Less common than "vermeio", but it shows some social media results, for what that's worth. Polomo47 (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Italian. Rfv-sense: "worrier". Ultimateria (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
French. PUC – 09:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Latin protologisms once again?
[edit]--20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
[edit]Latin protologisms once again? (2)
[edit]gender stuff
[edit]- cisgenus n in cisgender
non binarium n in non-binarytransgener in transgendertransvestitus m, transvestitor m, transvestitrix f, transvestitrum n in cross-dresser
--09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Romance languages
[edit]lingua Arpitanica f, arpitanica f in Franco-ProvençalLatin translations of langue d'oïl, Astur-Leonese, Aragonese, Extremaduran, Mirandese, Galician, Piedmontese, French, Valencian, Catalan, Portuguese
--09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
--05:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Latin.
All descendants point towards scloppus, which was once the spelling we used. The sole cite that I can find points to this site which actually has seloppo. This could be a scan error, but it's more likely a scan error for scloppo than for stloppo. (The suffix is because it's in the ablative case, i think.) And the onset stl- is only found in Old Latin anyway. Basically looking to see why we're insisting on using a spelling that seems to rest on so many unproven assumptions. There may be infomation here in the page history and here too. but i couldnt find the reasoning for this. @Nicodene if youre around sorry to bother but you seem the best person to ask. Thanks, —Soap— 21:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Soap: I was not aware that the form scloppus may actually be attested. I'll have to look into that. As for stloppus, it is attested in Persius and Marcellus Empiricus. As an onomatopoeic formation it may postdate the earlier /stl-/ > /l-/ seen in locus, etc.
- The descendants are are in any case consistent with both forms. For /kl/ < /tl/, cf. capiclum, viclus < capit(u)lum, vit(u)lus (both examples from the Appendix Probi) and siclus < sit(u)lus. Nicodene (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- but isnt that supposed attestation the same text i just linked to? i dont know the source material we're working with here ... parchment, stone tablets, or maybe even modern paper? ... but it seems to me that the people saying stloppus might've been looking at a single instance of a word, a hapax even, where the second letter was difficult to read. i'd be more convinced of the unusual -t- spelling if the Perseus text i linked to had it, but it has a spelling that suggests the word form was *seloppus. this could be a misreading ,but as i said above it seems more likely that it'd be a misreading for scloppus, which uses the traditional L onset cluster that all the descendants point to. is there a text we can look at that shows the -t- spelling, as opposed to a scholar who merely says that it's there? thanks, —Soap— 09:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's just a website- there was probably a scanning error somewhere along the way. And that is only one of the two attestations mentioned.
- The texts are parchment copies of copies of copies [...] reaching back across millennia to the Roman originals. Having delved down that rabbit-hole before, I am not eager to repeat the experience without a more compelling reason. I'll settle for finding more comments by reliable sources. Nicodene (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Nicodene This text has some discussion of the matter in the footnote, which spills onto the following page. This, that and the other (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just about to cite Jahn. As you can see from the critical apparatus, forms starting with stlo- such as stlopo do occur in some manuscripts, and as Nicodene said stl- turned regularly into /skl/. Jahn says Priscian cites this word as an example of a word starting with stl.--Urszag (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- but isnt that supposed attestation the same text i just linked to? i dont know the source material we're working with here ... parchment, stone tablets, or maybe even modern paper? ... but it seems to me that the people saying stloppus might've been looking at a single instance of a word, a hapax even, where the second letter was difficult to read. i'd be more convinced of the unusual -t- spelling if the Perseus text i linked to had it, but it has a spelling that suggests the word form was *seloppus. this could be a misreading ,but as i said above it seems more likely that it'd be a misreading for scloppus, which uses the traditional L onset cluster that all the descendants point to. is there a text we can look at that shows the -t- spelling, as opposed to a scholar who merely says that it's there? thanks, —Soap— 09:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Attested as a whole word? Or is this assumed based on Old Latin ceip-? — 2600:4808:9C31:F400:78F8:25D1:580F:9F12 21:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- L&S: "cippus (cīpus), i, m.".
- But it's without source, and not in Georges, Gaffiot, just L and DMLBS at [43].
- [44] (old) mentions a source: "cippus, auch cipus geschrieben z. B. Gram. lat. IV p. 574, 7 u. Var. bei Hor. sat. 1, 8, 12". Horatius' text can be found at [45]. This old ed. (1520) has it with cipus. (1864) gives cipus as varia lectio. So both can be mentioned in the entry:
- occuring in quite old eds. (which, of course, can be of lower quality)
- appearing in some old manuscript and being a varia lectio (likely of lesser quality/accuracy/etc.)
- --10:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Latin. --2003:DE:3717:71AC:A1D3:7211:AD2D:387E 06:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
French. Tagged but not listed. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, this is from a video by a stand-up comedian. The "spelling" is from the captions in the video, which write the name phonetically for humorous effect. No idea what the actual name is, but it definitely isn't this. Polomo47 (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-failed Polomo47 (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]Latin. Domus is currently listed with three possible dative singular forms: domuī, domō, domū. The first two are attestable, but is the third? It seems most grammars of Latin don't list it. Hypothetically, it might be possible, given what Gellius says about Caesar's argument based on analogy for using -ū rather than -uī in the dative singular of all fourth-declension words: "C. etiam Caesar, gravis auctor linguae Latinae, in Anticatone, “unius,” inquit, “arrogantiae, superbiae dominatuque.” Item In Dolabellam actionis I. lib. I.: “Isti, quorum in aedibus fanisque posita et honori 9erant et ornatu.” In libris quoque analogicis omnia istiusmodi sine “i” littera dicenda censet." But it's not clear to me how far Caesar's prescriptions were ever put into practice (even by himself). Anyway, if "domu" is unattested in this use it seems better to omit it, so as to avoid confusing learners about the declension of an already tricky noun.--Urszag (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Georges: "Dat. archaist. domo (Corp. inscr. Lat. 3, 6463. Cato r.r. 134, 2. Hor. ep. 1, 10, 13) u. domu (Corp. inscr. Lat. 3, 231 u. 5, 1220), klass. domui:" with reference to Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum (see e.g. [46]). --05:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Latin. --21:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Italian. Imetsia (talk (more)) 23:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
French. PUC – 17:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- autres pays, autres coutumes would be expected here Phacromallus (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The latter is easily attested,[47][48][49] as is autre pays, autres coutumes.[50][51][52] --Lambiam 12:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- We do have an entry for autre pays, autres mœurs (and of course autres temps, autres mœurs). --Lambiam 17:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: Win prizes. It is mentioned in an online dictionary, but I'm having trouble finding citations. Might be colloquial usage? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-sense-failed Polomo47 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Spanish. Listing seven subsenses seems excessive without any supporting quotes. Einstein2 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]French, uncountable noun. Jberkel 15:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- French doesn't really have uncountable nouns. Nothing in GBooks but there are examples on the wider web. Moreover, haschich has a plural given. I'm inclined to keep. This, that and the other (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Claimed to be youngster's slang. - Sarilho1 (talk)
Latin. This is a bit of an unconventional RFV, as there is a quotation, but I would argue that it does not warrant inclusion: the quotation is Varro giving this form as an example of a word that theoretically could exist, but actually doesn't. I wanted to check if anyone over the centuries has ever actually used this word. Per CFI, Latin entries must be attested be either "one use in a contemporaneous source" or "one mention ... subject to the below requirements: 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, each entry should have its source(s) listed on the entry or citation page, and a box explaining that a low number of citations were used should be included on the entry page (such as by using the LDL template". Does the community of Latin editors agree that mention of a form by Varro as a nonexistent word is an appropriate basis for a Latin Wiktionary entry? Or maybe the entry should be retained, since it appears in some dictionaries, but rather than "hapax" the label could be changed to something indicating it has 0 actual usage examples? I'm not sure whether either "ghost word" or "protologism" quite fit.--Urszag (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree that the current quotation doesn't count, because it's a mention. Theknightwho (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mentions in texts old enough count, but this one does not because it is mentioned as a not attested word; Varro would have starred the word, weren’t it that the star of hypothetical words only developed in the later 19th century CE. Fay Freak (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, no point keeping a word only attested once as an intentional non-word. (Yes I know this is RFV, but it's an exceptional case.) This, that and the other (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese.
- Seems "emirato" is in Priberam, and "Emiratos Árabes Unidos" inInfopédia. Although, the Portuguese Wikipedia page says the name is used "wrongly" because it isn't in VOLP... doesn't seem like a misspelling, but maybe proscribed? Polomo47 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Lewis and Short says "public talker of nonsense, a comically formed name, Plaut. Pers. 4, 6, 21 (703) Ritschl N. cr." This blog post suggests the form is "possibly completely conjectural". If it is a conjecture, we should at least give some context of who proposed it and why.--Urszag (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- WT:FICTION? Cp. Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion discussion. (Though Callidamates, Misargyrides, Philolaches and maybe others exist as well.) --22:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some of Plautus's character names make it as taxa, but the Catalogue of Life doesn't have this one. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC).
September 2024
[edit]Portuguese. Tagged by Sarilho1 in November 2022 but not listed. I think it's attestable, given Google readily shows many articles correcting the misspelling. Polomo47 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Sicilian. Seemlingly a hypercorrected protologism for actual partugallu. Sicilian dd corresponds to Italian ll in inherited words, though it is not the case for recent loans such as this one. (The word first surfaced in Italian itself in the late 18th century.) Catonif (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
French. See Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#English_vice (which will eventually be archived to Talk:English vice): as in that case, the question is whether these terms are used idiomatically, or only in descriptive "homosexuality is the English vice", "Boris Yeltsin is the Russian president" type ways (which notably do not make Russian president a term meaning "Boris Yeltsin") - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC).
Portuguese. Tagged by Sarilho1 in May 2023 but not listed. Polomo47 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is this really necessary? [53]. Theknightwho (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just listing it for bookkeeping. As for whether it really should be added... it's indeed a surname, yeah, but do people other than the musician really have it?
- It seems a lot of other languages do list Mozart — even though, for some entries, the only sense listed is the musician (I don't think that's allowed?) — so I guess it probably makes sense to have it in Portuguese too. Polomo47 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think for names of famous people, it makes sense to have entries in multiple languages even if the last name isn't actually used by native speakers of that language, simply because the pronunciations will vary from language to language. It's not always predictable. For instance, the English pronunciation of "Einstein" is typically /ˈaɪnstaɪn/, but in French its more commonly /ˈaɪnʃtaɪn/. In more inflected languages, these names can also have additional forms that are not found in the source language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Rfv-sense: "genitive plural of pus". I suspect this noun actually isn't used in the plural, at least not in Classical Latin.--Urszag (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
October 2024
[edit]Latin. Supposedly a vocative of chlamys, from χλᾰμῠ́ς (khlamús), but the declension table at the latter shows a vocative in -ς, which seems to be the norm for nouns like this with oxytone accentuation.--Urszag (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Based on the meaning, it's unlikely that there's any attested vocative. Smyth doesn't give the inflection of a term in -ῠ́ς. --00:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-failed.--Urszag (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Sicilian. Rationale: "This entry is mispelled, because slight similarities it has with Sicilian which lead to an italianized writing system. The actual form is de-sonorized: cuntatinu". Ultimateria (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Sicilian. Rationale: "This entry is mispelled. The initial ⟨i-⟩ is always a semiconsonant ⟨j-⟩." Ultimateria (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Spanish. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Portuguese.
google:"Senhore"&"Sr.e" show it's used. For example, here and here. The ordinal indicator ᵉ is used here and here for Srᵉ. Web-julio (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Latin. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Latin. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- L&S has "Note: 1. Act. form tŭĕo, ēre: censores vectigalia tuento, Cic. Leg. 3, 3, 7: ROGO PER SVPEROS, QVI ESTIS, OSSA MEA TVEATIS, Inscr. Orell. 4788." This, that and the other (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Italian. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:503D:66DC:DD82:9103 12:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "(informal) to replace the chip in a gaming device." I can find instances of chipar used in regards to cars; in that context, it means to remove the speed restriction or something? Seems rare in regards to video games, though. Polomo47 (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- For the automotive sense, see English chip (“To upgrade an engine management system, usually to increase power”). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-sense-failed Polomo47 (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Latin. It looks like Priscian mentions this form, but are there examples of it actually being used?--Urszag (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Latin. I don't see it in any dictionary or Latin corpus, also hard to find examples on Google Books. It looks like a participle of bēbō but that is supposed to inflect as a first-conjugation verb.--Urszag (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-failed.--Urszag (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Urszag just a reminder - when you mark an entry as failed, don't forget to go ahead and delete it or tag it with
{{d}}. It would be all too easy for someone to archive the discussion without it being acted upon. Thanks! This, that and the other (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Urszag just a reminder - when you mark an entry as failed, don't forget to go ahead and delete it or tag it with
Latin. Adjective form, but the adjective doesn't seem to be i-stem.--Urszag (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-failed.--Urszag (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Adjective form, but the adjective doesn't seem to be i-stem.--Urszag (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- RFV-failed.--Urszag (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Rationale: "The term is a protologism. None of the linked references attest the word (the first two go nowhere; in the second one, orthodoxissimus doesn't actually appear)". Ultimateria (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- This stuff should be immediately deleted. The user produces crap entries based on 'AI', see Wikipedia.
- Based on lack of response, @Jeaucques Quœure should be immediately blocked. Exarchus (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quote from the Wikipedia thread: "The fact that JQ is ignoring this discussion makes it even more outrageous. They need to be blocked to prevent further disruption." Exarchus (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Same. @Jeaucques Quœure. --07:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]Italian. Rfv-sense: "to put on a baby's nappy/diaper". Tagged, but not listed by User:Whitekiko.
Latin. Rfv-sense: "A place for the purpose of making, creating or fabricating." Not in dictionaries; should be labeled if it is used postclassically with this broader sense.--Urszag (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Accents were added at the same time "ph" was removed, so I expect the form esophago, but not *esofago, esôphago. Was this ever a thing? Polomo47 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Edited to include trachéia, for equivalent reasons. Polomo47 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Sicilian. Ultimateria (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Latin. Just Translingual? Ultimateria (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Asturian. Ultimateria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Asturian. Ultimateria (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDI.
This word is fake, I haven't found it in any dictionary, or elsewhere on the internet, nor I've heard of it irl. Fueyo221 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Post to WT:RFVI. ―Biolongvistul (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
All dubious entries by one IP that had been tagged for deletion. Ultimateria (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged but not listed. May be a dictionary-only word. Moreover, the definition doesn't make sense, as staid has no noun sense and the adjective doesn't mean "unhelpful". This, that and the other (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. I am suspicious of this term for 2–3 reasons:
- Most Google results show Alpes da Alta Provença. At the very least, that should be the primary form.
- Not only that, I failed to find any uses of the name in Portuguese-language articles.
According to Portuguese’s 1990 rules for using a hyphen, the term should be spelled Alpes de Haute Provence.. This actually isn't right. It's a normal reason then — just couldn't find results.
Polomo47 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. The Wikipedia page lists no Portuguese external links. Searching in Google brings up a single Portuguese-language result that appears to be heavily influenced by the Wikipedia page. I'm not convinced this is in use. Polomo47 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. The latter I think is unattestable; the former, if it's attested, we need to decide whether it's spelled that way because it's old or because it's misspelt. Polomo47 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cites sent to me by Trooper57:
- Corea
- Koreia
- (1904) https://memoria.bn.gov.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=761788&pesq=Kor%C3%A9ia&pasta=ano%20190&hf=memoria.bn.gov.br&pagfis=9
- (2005) https://memoria.bn.gov.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=028274_05&pesq=Kor%C3%A9ia&pasta=ano%20200&hf=memoria.bn.gov.br&pagfis=94819
- Koréia
- (1994) https://memoria.bn.gov.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=030015_11&pesq=Kor%C3%A9ia&pasta=ano%20199&hf=memoria.bn.gov.br&pagfis=145940
- (2015) https://memoria.bn.gov.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=898678&pesq=Kor%C3%A9ia&pasta=ano%20201&hf=memoria.bn.gov.br&pagfis=13570
- Polomo47 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Italian. Tagged for imminent deletion by Emanuele6 with the message There is no evidence of plural 'chippe', and pronunciation /'kip.pa/ (both autogenerated by wiktionary) existing; probably introduced by a user misspelling 'chippà' as 'chippa' for kippah#Translations; I have added kippah#Italian with the correct pronunciation/plural, and references to replace this page
. I concur, made into an RFV per our practices. Catonif (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Probably a modern-day misspelling rather than an old-timey spelling. Citations to validate this would need to be pre-1943, since after then it's been admiràvelmente and then admiravelmente. Polomo47 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Accent marks and mid-word h? Polomo47 (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged by @MedK1 in November of last year but not listed. Polomo47 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Usually spelled officiaes in 1900s texts. Polomo47 (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Accent marks and doubled consonants — incompatible. Polomo47 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. The 1945 orthographic agreement says terms prefixed with anti- only take hyphens if the following word starts with h, i, r or s. Not the case here. So, the current definition is clearly wrong. I want to know if it's a valid Brazilian Portuguese spelling, or if it's a common misspelling. Polomo47 (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Per Ciberdúvidas[54], the Brazilian Academy of Letters does not include hyphens in elements starting in hidro-, and neither does the 1945 Orthographic Agreement mention the prefix, so a hyphen wouldn't be used in European orthography either. It's clear no one prescribed this spelling, but it's worth sending to RFV just in case it's a common misspelling? If someone thinks this should go to RFD, I can do that instead. Polomo47 (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. This spelling does not follow any orthographic agreements. See Ciberdúvidas[55]. I can send this to RFD if that would be preferred. Polomo47 (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese semi-automated addition. The combination of a diacritic and greek digraph isn't common. Polomo47 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese semi-automated addition. If this were to have an accent, it'd be to distinguish from a word pronounced acéso, which doesn't exist seeing as we don't have it under aceso. Polomo47 (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. I can easily find fim-de-semana; on the other hand, I don't think this ever had hyphens. Polomo47 (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. As far as I am aware, the plural form of espêto was espetos, without the accent, because there was nothing to distinguish from. Compare pêra, peras. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Polomo47 (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion moved from WT:RFDI#espêtos. Polomo47 (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged for RFD by MedK1 a year ago but not listed. Etymological h’s were removed at the same time accent marks (like ê) were added. Polomo47 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Uses, at the same time th and accent marks. Unusual. Polomo47 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. RFVed by @MedK1 sometime but never listed. Polomo47 (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Unusual (i.e., rare or nonstandard) use of diacritics pre-reform. Should be hard to find in 3 independent sources. Polomo47 (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Tagged by @MedK1 a while ago but not listed. This is a somewhat nonstandard use of accents, even pre-reform, so it may be hard to find three independent cites. Polomo47 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Weird simultaneous use of accents and doubled consonants. Tagged by @MedK1. Probably hard to find 3 citations. Polomo47 (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. I expect Achilles instead of this, because that would be the proper etymological spelling. Polomo47 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. The form without the s seems very rare. Polomo47 (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Not a differential accent, so what is it? Polomo47 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)