Wiktionary:Tea room/2023/February

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← January 2023 · February 2023 · March 2023 → · (current)

---

hnnggg

Numerous forms exist; what should be the main one? J3133 (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The trite answer is: whichever is most common (for a particular meaning), but of course that can be hard to judge :/ and may vary by sense. I know hnnng often means something different (comparable to the weird polysemy of yeesh). Spellings with more than three repetitions of a letter would be avoided in favour of shorter spellings as long as those are attested (which they are, AFAICT). - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Italian plurals of terms in -ologo

@Catonif, Sartma, Imetsia as native Italian speakers ... I'm cleaning up manually added second plurals and I came across a bunch for terms in -ologo. Our default plural generates -ologi but there were several terms indicated with a second plural -ologhi. Usually Treccani lists these plurals but says they're "uncommon" or "rare". My question is this: Can *all* terms in -ologo take a plural in -ologhi? If so is it universally uncommon/rare? Example terms indicated with a second plural in -ghi: anatomopatologo, bibliologo (-ghi is "rare"), biologo, cancerologo, cinologo, citologo (-ghi is "rare"), dietologo, esobiologo, etologo, fisiologo (-ghi is "uncommon"), litologo (-ghi is "rare"), malacologo (-ghi is "uncommon"), mitologo, paleoclimatologo (-ghi is "rare"), sovietologo, tuttologo (-ghi is "uncommon"), xilologo (-ghi is "rare"). For some of those without "uncommon" or "rare" given, that may be an oversight, and if you look the term up in Treccani it may also say "rare" or "uncommon"; don't know. Benwing2 (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard nor read forms with -ghi, they sound funnily dialectal. Ngrams shows some hits for biologhi fisiologhi etc. especially in older texts. It can't even plot some, like *dietologhi *cancerologhi, possibly because the words themselves are of later coinage. I don't see a particular pattern of why some were set to rare and why some to uncommon, it is in the end a universal thing for all the words in -ologo (bearing in mind the coinage period, that is). Surprisingly tuttologhi shows a rather high percentage of uses, likely because the word can be used in informal and/or uneducated speech (where -i/-hi can easily be mixed up), while the other terms are usually technical jargon. Catonif (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Same as @Catonif. You do hear tuttologhi sometimes, especially in spoken Italian, but all other words are generally -gi. I'd definitely correct someone if they said -ghi (hoping they won't bother going to check Treccani, lol). — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 14:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Adding to that: I've just checked all those words on Zingarelli, and it only gives -gi as their plural forms. For tuttologo it also gives -ghi, but marks it as "rare". — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 14:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Treccani gives filologhi as “less common”, but Google Ngram Viewer suggests that – at least since 1800 – this plural form is actually rare. An Italian speaker who speaks this plural with a hard /ɡ/ is, I think, also likely to form the plural of dietologo with a hard /ɡ/, even if they have not encountered this term before. So the preference may be more speaker-dependent than having anything to do with the first component. Given that the preference for this plural ending is rare, combined with the fact that most -ologo terms are not exactly household words, it may be a matter of chance for any specific member of this class whether lessicolog(h)i encountered a plural -ologhi form.  --Lambiam 16:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! I will remove the -ghi forms except for tuttologhi. Benwing2 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Plurals with a special meaning

The plural form terms has a special meaning of ”interpersonal relations“, usually qualified (on speaking terms, on good terms, ...). This sense is indicated as (currently) sense 7 at the entry for the singular term, without indication that the sense is specific to the plural. The entry for terms only states that it is the plural of term. The treatment of damages is different; the special plural only meaning is given at the plural form, while the entry for singular damage provides no hint of the plural having a special meaning; there is a curious and misleading usage note that the term is “only used as an uncountable noun, except in the plural”. The plural goods is treated similarly. For pains we list a singular sense of the plural only meaning as sense 5 of pain, labelling it as (chiefly in the plural). (We do have a special entry for at pains with a redirect for at great pains and also one for go to pains with the analogous redirect.) Nothing at the entries length and lengths refers to a special sense for the plural, except for the “derived term” go to great lengths, which, however is normally hidden from view in a collapsed list. (We also have an entry for go to extraordinary lengths, but not for the also common go to extreme lengths; neither will account for carry to great lengths^[1] or push to great lengths.^[2]}

Question. Should singular entries alert users to special meanings only assigned to their plural forms? If so, is there already a preferred way for doing so? If not, what would be a good way?  --Lambiam 09:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO, yes; I strongly think that in such cases and similar cases, like where a sense is listed at "the foobar" rather than just "foobar", the singular or "expected" lemma ("foobar") should have a sense-line pointer to the plural (or the "the foobar" form). A lot of people understand that if you read "the patients suffered from outbreaks of rising of the lights", the dictionary is going to define what "patients" are at patient, and what "outbreaks" are at outbreak, and they're going to assume "lights" will also be explained at light, so if we're unexpectedly actually putting content on an inflected form (which we otherwise never do), then As CodeCat said in 2012, we should "either include additional information about the plural on the singular page, or provide an obvious link." For linking from verbs to their phrasal derivatives I made Template:used in phrasal verbs, but for message, megrim, light, peanut etc I just wrote "See foobar"... but I think it'd be great to have a template... - -sche (discuss) 10:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a problem, though, when the plural has a separate etymology from the singular: I can't think of cases in English off the top of my head, but this was the case with Latin minae vs mina where I ended up adding a "See also" line after an IP mistakenly mixed them up. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

True. In English, that subjectively feels like less of a problem to me: someone seeing "patients suffered from outbreaks of rising of the lights" and looking up patient, outbreak and light seems more likely or at least more important (to me) than someone seeing "the bus arrived" and looking up bu. But whenever it is a problem, like at mina~minae where the edit history made clear that people expected to find the one entry in the other place, definitely add a "See also", yes (and if it continues being a problem, maybe even give it more prominence as a usage note). I wouldn't even object to adding "See also"s to bu~bus or even bot-deploying such crosslinks to all such cases (at least for languages where it's uncommon, like English), since it offers some slight benefit and no apparent harm, although that seems like a low-priority task. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

While I was thinking about the name for such a template, e.g. {{see plural}}, it occurred to me that a similar issue exists with special senses for other classes of words formed by modifying a root word, such as by affixation. An example is Turkish Mehmetçik, which looks like a completely regular diminutive of Mehmet, but has a non-transparent specific meaning. Similarly, the Dutch diminutive mannetje has, next to the expected sense of “little man”, two other, special senses. I think it is better to have a template to cover all such cases. Would {{see instead}} be a good name? The parameters would be the same as for {{mention}}.  --Lambiam 14:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

abstration

Seems to pull up various hits in art and mathematics? There's also Polish abstracja. I can't quite pin down definitions. Vininn126 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The term abstrate is used in a few contexts, so abstration is plausible, but I can't find any cases where it's not just a typo for abstraction. The art ones I've looked into are all errors for abstraction in context (and this title is just an error by Google per the original title page). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I was actually wondering if that was the case, it seemed like the Polish hits were also a typo. Vininn126 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs no longer appearing?

As of a few days ago, I cannot see hieroglyphs on Egyptian word entries. If the word has an alternative hieroglyphic spelling (including in a dropdown box), hieroglyphs appear there. However, it used to be that the main hieroglyphic spelling was provided immediately before the definition. Is anyone else having this issue? I've checked on multiple PCs, so I don't think the issue is on my end. 98.162.248.95 07:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Egyptian has also recently been causing bugs in translation sections, which I suspect is related. It's probably down to some change in the underlying MediaWiki software or a recent change in one of the core modules. See WT:Grease pit#Egyptian hieroglyphs. Theknightwho (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

illac

Is the pronunciation /ilˈlaːk/ correct in Latin? Normally the primary stress in Latin is in the second-last syllable if that syllable is long, which is clearly the case with the word illac, thus /ˈillaːk/ is the expected pronunciation. What's going on with this word, or is this just a mistake on the page? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. It is stressed that way because it derives etymologically from illāce, from illā + -ce; penultimate stress would be expected in illāce (either from the regular Latin stress rule, or from the special rule that stress goes on the syllable immediately before an enclitic). The stress of the word's descendants provides further confirmation that the stress remained on the second syllable even after the apocope of the final -e.--Urszag (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

on purpose

and its purported synonyms: deliberately, intentionally, purposefully, willfully/wilfully

I was reading "Three Ways of Spilling Ink", an essay by J. L. Austin, and came upon his discussion of intentionally, deliberately, and on purpose. The short of it is that he believes that in the question of the form "Did you do that [intentionally/deliberately/on purpose]?" these words are not necessarily synonyms. This is most easily seen for deliberately, which is often equivalent to with deliberation. Purposefully is not substitutable into most sentences that include on purpose and vice versa.

"He went about his business purposefully." is not the same as "He went about his business on purpose."

"He spoke about it on purpose." is not the same as "He spoke about it purposefully."

I don't think wilfully/willfully is a very good synonym either. Its definition includes "maliciously" and a purpose or act done on purpose is not necessarily malicious.

It is evident to me that we are doing little to accurately describe these distinctions in the entries for these words and still less in the Thesaurus.

How could we amend the entries for these terms to as to both show or even highlight the distinctions often made and the sometime synonymy of these terms? DCDuring (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more that these adverbs have other subsenses that are not synonymous with on purpose, but they do all share a sense. Vininn126 (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question. We don't seem to honor the distinctions, let alone highlight them, even in the entries. Look at the definitions for willfully, for example. DCDuring (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You are right. I think the other adverbs might need a second definition with something like "determinedly", i.e. focused on completing a task or with careful consideration. Vininn126 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Is maliciously a synonym of wilfully (which we have defined as "Deliberately, on purpose; maliciously", as if all of those were synonyms? To me they seem like three different definitions. DCDuring (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be. A "wilful child" is not merely one who exhibits free will, but one who is basically bad (cf. wanton). Equinox ◑ 21:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

One problem is that multiple one-word glosses (a "synonym" cloud) do not a definition make, though that is what MW 1913 often had. DCDuring (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like "maliciously" would be a separate sense or subsense, since certainly something can (also) be done wil(l)fully in a way that's only wil(l)ful and not malicious. I agree with what I think DCDuring and Vininn are saying, that we need multiple senses for these words, since they're only synonymous in some senses. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

ſh

Should this be moved to ſh? I'm not sure. On one hand, as far as I know any word using this letter would be entered with (or moved to) sh (certainly, that's how we enter any other language that had positional long s vs regular s). On the other hand, individual letters get entries even when spellings with them don't. Should the entry mention that modern works would typeset texts with sh / that such words would be entered in Wiktionary as sh? - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Circular etymologies at anhēlō and anhēlus

Wasn't sure whether to list this at RFC, so I thought I'd bring it here first in case a Latin speaker can resolve it quickly. The etymology of anhēlō says "anhēlus + -ō", while the etymology of anhēlus says "From anhēlō". (If it helps, the OED (at anhelous) says anhēlus is from "a suffixed form of the Indo-European base of Sanskrit an- to breathe: see animus n.". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

{{R:itc:EDL|page=43}} [3] has the nominal as the primary form with the verb as a derivative:

The form and semantics of anhēlāre show that it is a more recent denominative derived from anhēlus.

70.172.194.25 19:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your edit comment, it seems that the noun anhēlātiō (“shortness of breath, gasping, panting, puffing”) exists: see anhelation (I was editing this entry for WOTD which led me to the issue with anhēlō and anhēlus). — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Miranda rule is synonym of Miranda right ??

Rules may prescribe rights but rules are not, in fact, rights. Does this entry need some sorting out? Equinox ◑ 21:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary synonyms are never exact—especially not with technical or legal terminology like this. (See bug/insect etc.) I think it would be fair to call the two “synonyms” in a lay sense. It might be worth adding a {{q|colloquial}}.

But the bigger problem I see here is actually in the existence of a third page, Miranda warning. “Miranda rule” is much more a synonym of “Miranda warning” than “Miranda right”. I’d vote for that (or, alternatively, for both to be listed as synonyms, with “Miranda warning” first). TreyHarris (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

They are not mutually substitutable, so they are not synonyms. I think someone may have been too lazy to do both real definitions. They obviously belong under related terms or see also headers if not incorporated into each other's definitions. DCDuring (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Equinox ◑ 07:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

where the sun don't shine

This was labelled "chiefly US", then changed by VEHICLEFAN5500 to "US, UK". Is it in fact common in the US and UK yet not Canada or Ireland, or is it actually just not regionally restricted, like some other words I've seen changed in this way? (A look at the user's talkpage will tell you many of his edits are hard to distinguish from trolling, he desists from specific problems when specifically instructed, but then seems to switch to borking things in another way, e.g. previously not adding outright wrong labels per se but breaking formatting, but now formatting correctly but instead removing necessary qualifiers, changing every "sometimes xyz" to always "xyz", etc.) - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@-sche: "Where the sun doesn't shine" gets used in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And don't for doesn't is common enough in the UK. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I say we give it a week for any Irish/Canadian/Australian/South African editors to object and if no one does then let’s remove the regional tags altogether. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Is 建設現場 correctly transliterated?

Currently, in IPA, romaji, and furigana, 建設現場 (construction site) is transliterated as “gensetsugenba” / 「げんせつげんば」. Other dictionaries I consulted render it as “kensetsugenba”/「けんせつげんば」, and the IME’s I’ve tried (Apple’s, Google’s, and Microsoft’s) only accept the reading beginning with け, not げ.

The entry’s {{ja-kanjitab}} uses the けん reading of 建; but that would be correct, even if it were pronounced げん via rendaku or phonological shift, because (at least according to Kodansha) げん is not a common reading for 建, and {{ja-kanjitab}}’s documentation says to use the corresponding common reading before voicing changes.

Here — being a word-initial kanji — 建 is obviously not being rendaku’d.

But I have no clue about whether the Tokyo dialect Wiktionary has standardized on has an irregular pronunciation that voices the 建 here (though I note that the entry for the first constituent part, 建設, is written with ke / け readings).

I suspect this was a simple typo carried over ever since the first draft of the entry; but I don’t want to just change it, not without checking with someone who knows for sure the Tokyo pronunciation here.

(Btw: I found this in adding the translation to construction site; there I gave the けん/ken reading, and was confused after I saved and clicked through. I didn’t change it to match the other page, though, since it seems wrong, but in any case, the two need to be harmonized.) TreyHarris (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@TreyHarris: Looks like the creator typoed the kana string in {{ja-pron}}, but entered it correctly in {{ja-kanjitab}}. I'll have a go at cleaning up the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

שממית

Someone with Hebrew/Aramaic expertise should take a look at this entry. I just made a major edit to it, and I'm still not fully satisfied. There's more on the talk page (the sources I couldn't track down) and citations page (from the Talmud, using שׁ, if the points on Sefaria are to be believed) and information from Klein should be incorporated (e.g., the Arabic comparison — سَامّ (sāmm) — though I can't find this exact meaning in Wehr/Lane; the form with samekh). The Aramaic descendant(s) should be listed. 70.172.194.25 08:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

railroadian

Is this word in general use, or is it confined to an organisation called Railroadians of America? DonnanZ (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Donnanz Never heard this word and it doesn't sound common. I would say railroad worker. Benwing2 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I came across it in a calendar review (of all things) in a 1946 issue of Railway Magazine: "The Virginia & Truckee Commemorative Calendar.—The San Francisco branch of the Railroadians of America (1500, Chanslor Avenue, Richmond, California) ... There is another entry for railroadiana, backed up by Wiktionary Railroadiana, but I was doubtful about railroadian anyway, it seems to be used only when referring to that organisation, and what you say confirms my suspicions and no entry is proposed. Cheers. DonnanZ (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I would say they are railroad enthusiasts, not railroad workers; there used to be the term railwayist used in the UK. DonnanZ (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Donnanz Makes sense, I guess I'd say railroad enthusiasts or informally railroad fans. Benwing2 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Medicine and pathology labels

Any thoughts on when the labels "medicine" and "pathology" should be used? I am sometimes unsure. Should anything disease-related (diseases and symptoms, for example) be labelled "pathology", for example? — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that Category:en:Pathology is a subcategory of Category:en:Medicine I would guess that the medicine label should only be used when there isn't a more specific subtopic. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: looking at "w:Pathology" it says "Pathology is the study of the causes and effects of disease or injury. […] [W]hen used in the context of modern medical treatment, the term is often used in a narrower fashion to refer to processes and tests that fall within the contemporary medical field of "general pathology", an area which includes a number of distinct but inter-related medical specialties that diagnose disease, mostly through analysis of tissue and human cell samples." Do you think it it would be reasonable, then, to label terms relating to diseases, injuries, and symptoms with "pathology", and terms relating to treatments with "medicine"? — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I agree on applying the pathology label to disease, injury, and symptom terms. For treatments, it's possible that things like the healthcare, pharmacology, emergency medicine, or alternative medicine labels are better suited, but if there's nothing obvious then the plain medicine label should be fine. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, I have just discovered we also have "Category:en:Diseases", and that if {{lb|en|diseases}} is applied the template displays "(medicine)". What a mess. Perhaps it should display "(pathology)" instead? A usage note at "Category:en:Pathology" says "English terms used in pathology, the study of disease". (Also, I also noticed there has been a cleanup notice at that category since 2017 …)

OK, I propose we write usage notes for "Medicine" and "Pathology" to help editors with categorization. What should we say? — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Diseases is a set category (terms for particular diseases), Pathology is a topic (terms relating to pathology), they aren't redundant. AFAIK context labels generally aren't meant for categorising into sets, so it makes sense that {{lb|en|diseases}} doesn't point to the diseases category, though I do agree pathology makes more sense as a target. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Quercus solaris: here is the most recent discussion on this issue. If you think "Pathology" should be redefined, then may I suggest that you raise the matter here for discussion. (@Al-Muqanna, for your information.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi all. Here's my TLDR summary of the issue. I'll defer to others on WT's final disposition for it. I just don't want WT to use a label that seems misplaced through merely not knowing any different. Pasted below is a recent edit summary that I wrote to justify my edit. Thanks. "[term is relevant] throughout medicine, not solely pathology; pathology to health care professionals usually does not mean "the [general] study of disease" but rather cell and tissue analysis as its usual meaning. Pathologists rarely deal in clinical symptoms directly. Wikt's use of the pathology label was poorly chosen and widely propagated within WT by a few WT power users who evidently (understandably) didn't realize how the word is normally used by people who actually use it in working vocabulary (HCPs)". Quercus solaris (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

weird Dutch rhymes

I'm seeing categories being created for rhymes like -ɔrɣərkɔmpɑnji (for Borgercompagnie) and -ɔstvərloːrən (for Kostverloren). User:030NogBeterHe is creating these rhymes. Are these really correct? I don't know Dutch but I'd expect maybe the rhymes only go as far as the secondary stress. (Notifying Rua, Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Azertus, Alexis Jazz, DrJos): Benwing2 (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge the stress follows the primary sillable (for example, why there's no rhyme on the -uiger for stofzuiger). You can also see the rhymes on -aardigheid, which also follow primary stress and not stress on -heid. Usually that means in the case of toponyms that you end up with odd rhymes, but I added them the first time around anyway so I decided to go for broke and add them following primary stress. If that turns out to be incorrect, I can change them back, although that will take some time. 030NogBeterHe (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Dutch plumbers may connect two pipes using a mof. Home layouts often require bends in the plumbing, and mofs that come with a bend are available on the market.^[4] The machine for bending the mofs is a mofbuiger.  --Lambiam 20:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)}

What's the use of a rhyme category with one entry? — Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I was primarily going for consistency. I had already added some rhymes on the secondary syllable, but as that didn't turn out to be correct, I decided to rework the entries (also to deal with some clunky formatting) and added the rhymes going from primary syllables. Again, if that is undesirable as well, I can go back and change that. 030NogBeterHe (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that rhyme pages for only one linked entry are not useful and I cannot for the life of me imagine what should rhyme on Borgercompagnie (worgercompagnie?). I think that the length and the repetitiveness of a compound word (e.g. 'rhymes' including the same final element(s)) also play into it. You could argue about whether rhymes for entries like neukseks and beukseks are appropriate, but I think genegenheidsrelatie and gelegenheidsrelatie would take it a little too far. Nobody would think that the latter two are good rhymes. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So I assume you would recommend removal in that case right? I'll get on it as soon as possible, my apologies for the inconvenience. I'll do all the legwork to remove the rhymes, will take a while but it's what has to be done 030NogBeterHe (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@030NogBeterHe That is my opinion on the matter, but I would recommend to wait until the discussion has concluded down before taking any action. I believe that @Thadh had a view that was closer to yours, if I got it right. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Roger that, went through some of the Belgian exonyms to see how quickly the removal option could be implemented (quite quickly thankfully, means it can also be reversed quickly) but I'll wait for further discussion. 030NogBeterHe (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(comment got eaten) Wondering if any other native speakers can comment on such rhymes. In English, you can rhyme on secondary stress in many cases, e.g. for me Rademacher /ˈrɑdəˌmɑkr̥/ and Knickerbocker /ˈnɪkr̥ˌbɑkr̥/ are rhymes. I've noticed that Finnish is the same, and User:Surjection's Finnish templates explicitly chop off the rhyme at the secondary stress level even though Finnish has word-initial primary stress. Benwing2 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This would work for Dutch as well, although I wasn't sure if this was allowed or not. Initially I assumed it was and added rhymes on that basis, but I then found evidence that suggested this was not the case, so I went for primary stress instead. I'll go with whatever option is judged to be correct for the community. 030NogBeterHe (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

My view is that we should use the final (secondary) stress of a word for rhymes. Makes more sense than to use large strings of phonemes that wouldn't ever be matched. Thadh (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We generally do not create English rhymes pages solely for secondarily stressed syllables, as far I can see. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I got that impression for Dutch as well eventually, hence why I switched to primary rhymes. 030NogBeterHe (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

To ask the obvious question, what do songs and poems (and rhyme dictionaries) do? Do they rhyme such long words only on other long strings that are identical from the primary stress onward, or on shorter strings that match from the secondary stress onward, or what? - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@-sche For creative works I'd say that it is very similar (if not practically identical) to usage in German. Songs and poems use secondary-stress rhymes. Whether they are picky about metre depends on the writer's ambition. I would have to check a few rhyme dictionaries before I can answer that question. I think that it is a bad idea to conflate rhymes on primary and secondary stress in this way, because the secondary-stress rhymes also include metrical patterns. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, Thadh, Benwing2 It appears the discussion has died down somewhat, so I think I'll make the decision to remove the primary stress rhymes as well as the other "anomalous" rhymes for now. I'll keep the ones that do work of course. This solution will only make it so that I wasted some time in the past; if a project-wide decision is ever reached on secondary rhymes, viable rhymes can easily be botted in. I'll also bring the Dutch toponyms project as a whole in a workable (albeit incomplete) state in the coming weeks; personal circumstances will mean that I soon won't be able to dedicate the time and enegery I could spend on it while quarantined back in 2021 and early 2022, but I do want to at least leave a solid base to build further on. Once again, my apologies for the inconvenience and I'll make sure this is sorted out. 030NogBeterHe (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@030NogBeterHe Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Knowingly hurting yourself

I found a great word basically meaning knowingly doing something that is bad for you ( or not in your best interest) but doing it anyway. Has overtones of “ and you can’t stop me, so there”. It sounded Greek but when I looked it up on Wikipedia, it cited first use as 19th century. So I know it exists, I looked it up!

Along the lines of aphasia, or aspatria or a Greek goodness name starting with A

Any help appreciated Tazsprout (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

akrasia? 70.172.194.25 16:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

childish taunts

nanny nanny boo boo redirects to na-na na-na boo-boo, defined as US or Canada. At least where I'm from, no one ever says na-na, it's always nanny. Should we move? On the same note, what about the childish taunt "burn on you!"? We don't have this defined at all anywhere that I can see; one of the definitions of burn (#17) is "to insult or defeat" but this seems different, more like a gamer type of term than a childish taunt. (Hmm ... no Internet refs I can find for "burn on you", maybe it was strictly local.) Benwing2 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The na-na ... one is solidly attested on Google Books. Nanny looks much more common, though, so it might make sense to move the main lemma. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

to die in video games

"(video games, slang) To lose a game. Whenever my brother dies, he ragequits."
Is this a distinct sense? If you fail at a survival game and the elements kill you, or you run into yourself and are destroyed in Snake, or someone shoots you in Fortnite, that seems like the first/generic sense of die, not separate, just like we don't have separate definitions at jump for "to cause your character in a video game to leap: after you climb to the top of the statue in Assassin's Creed, jump off to reach the secret area", or at pipe for "a representation of a pipe, in Mario". Do you die if you fail at Solitaire? If so, is that specific to video games, or is it more general (e.g. connectable to how a comedian may die if they bomb). - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not capable of inclusion per WT:FICTION and also a hokum definition since it depends on the game whether one loses when dying. Fay Freak (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Obviously something happens in the game when you "die", whether it is losing or respawning, which is not the same as literally dying. bd2412 T 21:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It might be more plausible if it's used for losing any game regardless of whether that involves in-game death, but that sounds a bit odd to me. Having said that, you do find terms like "deathmatch" and "sudden death" in e.g. strategy games where it just refers to losing so the possibility of a transferred meaning is there. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Im sure lots of people have said I died! after losing a nonviolent video game, or a fighting game where one is merely knocked out rather than killed. But I can think of a few explanations for that .... 1) theyre used to a different genre of game and just use it reflexively; 2) hyperbole; 3) in some games, it's not really clear what happens when the player loses (e.g. Donkey Kong Country, Yoshi's Island, and any game that allows infinite respawning in place); and 4) a simple mistake, as some people are just not familiar with video games in general and might think that all games are blood-and-guts. So this is one of those cases where we could probably scrape up three cites, but it isn't really the same meaning each time, and therefore the definition would need to be so vague that it would just be subsumed under the plain old definition 1.

This also reminds me a bit of the discussion on talk:bleeder, where a game-related sense we were skeptical of seems to actually exist, but where the author of that entry seems to have been an RPG-focused gamer who over-extended the sense to video games as a whole. I wonder if the creator of this entry was really just thinking of violent games when they added this, and didn't mean to imply that people are saying I died when losing a game of Tetris or the like. —Soap— 11:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I've got a curious feeling that I added (or cleaned up) this sense, long ago. If we are talking about the in-game character dying (like being shot, or falling off the screen) then it's not a separate sense, any more than "I got a power-up mushroom!" -- yeah, your character did, and you are, temporarily, playing their role. It's not a separate sense. There might be an interesting sense about whether a video-game character (not the player) can "die" by failing, without actually losing their life. Pretty marginal IMHO. (And see also "life/lives" as the traditional counter of how many more chances you have got to play, regardless of whether death occurs. But then there are continues... As someone asked, can you "die" in Tetris? Perhaps we need something better than the made-up example of the brother.) Equinox ◑ 08:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally I happen to know that if you are developing a game based on Disney intellectual properties (Mickey Mouse etc.) you are not allowed to talk about dying, or losing lives. Therefore, well, you can lose a game and not die. Ha. Equinox ◑ 08:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Die" is what I say when I lose in Dance Dance Revolution. Drapetomanic (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Since this will be scrolling off the page in a few days, I wanted to make one more comment. I stand by what I wrote above, in that this can all be folded into sense 1, because it is mostly used literally (where a character actually loses a life), and extended use can be covered by metaphor. Since there's already a subsense of defn 1 that relates to video games, maybe we could reword that.

However, if we do that, I want to make sure that the specific construction died to is still mentioned there. That construction is what's specifically associated with video games, I think, although we do have a quote for it in a different context. As to why these expressions exist, .... it may be for some reason that gamers find "I died" and even the grammatically awkward "I died to" softer and more casual than "I got killed" or " ___ killed me". —Soap— 09:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

master (and derived terms)

I just deleted this usage note from master bedroom, and I quote:

• Some speakers now choose to avoid this term preferring instead to use primary bedroom. Initially this was due to a fear that the term may have arisen from the institution of slavery (as though it derives from master's bedroom; see also proscription of master and slave).

I think the note is certainly true, but probably (other than the bedroom part) belongs under any term with master in it, right? In recent years, computer programmers have dealt with opposition to the old master and slave (referring to one system that defers to another; see [5]). Shall we put this note under master, and link there as necessary from others? Equinox ◑ 07:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not aware of objections to or proposed replacements for the terms master copy and master’s degree, and also not for derived terms like masterly and masterstroke. Objections against headmaster appear to be based on its gender-specificity.  --Lambiam 19:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

flutter wheel

There's another term for this thing, I remember. Can anyone help job my memory??? JJ72 Bassist (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added a picture and some coordinate terms. HTH. DCDuring (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It is basically a turbine.  --Lambiam 13:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Picard

The first two definitions currently listed under Picard#Noun are

1. Someone from Picardy. (historical)

2. A member of an Adamite sect of the sixteenth century and earlier, in the Flemish Netherlands and in Bohemia.

Do these actually belong under Picard#Proper noun? --173.67.42.107 06:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, they don't. It's correct as is. Equinox ◑ 06:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Ottoman kaşkaval (قاشقوال) borrowed directly from Italian caciocavallo, or via an intermediary?

It feels strange that /t͡ʃ/ to be adapted as /ʃ/, since Turkish does have that sound (ç), which is used in other borrowings from Italian (like bilancio to bilanço). Wouldn't it be better explained by an intermediary language which does not have that sound, like Greek? Bogdan (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

May I propose Sicilian cascavaddu? This is now pronounced [kaʃkaˈvaɖɖu] and what is now [ɖɖ] was once pronounced [ll] (which still survives in some central dialects and is evident in all old Maltese borrowings). Catonif (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding to this, I'd like to clearify that caciocavallo is characteristic of southern Italy, and especially of Sicily and Campania. The standard Italian form is actually calqued from the southern dialects, so having the etymon be the standard form would actually be the theory with intermediaries. Catonif (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I see on Google Books that "cascavallu" was a form that was previously used in Sicilian. Bogdan (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Catonif (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

But it would be a cluster? Is ⟨çc⟩ not avoided? How often does one see it? There is also an arbitrary variation between /t͡ʃ/ and /ʃ/ to some degree, as in the end of كشنش (kişniş) and in the other direction چلتیك (çeltik), چمشیر (çimşir) (maybe @Vox Sciurorum will come to know better examples).

Yet it seems not unlikely that “Italian” in reality stands for an Italian dialect, as it often is in older sources in particular. Fay Freak (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I expect ç to be used to represent /t͡s/. You will see several examples in my collection of transliterations at User:Vox Sciurorum/Ottoman Names. These represent how late Ottoman newspaper writers heard foreign names. When ç is used the original sound was Italian or German z (as /t͡s/) or Russian ч. When ş is used, the original sound was French ch, Russian ш, German sch. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

...but I see the word was around long before the 19th century reference on its page. Nişanyan records it from Seyahatnâme in the 17th century. As an old and likely lower register word it is likely to have mutated. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Position and quality of stressed vowel in obscure Italian verbs

@Catonif, Sartma, Imetsia The following are the verbs where I can't verify the correct pronunciation of the root-stressed forms. Can you help with any of them?

• abbrostolare obsolete variant of abbrustolare
• accapegliare obsolete variant of accapigliare
• compostare "to compost": ò or ó or both?
• friendzonare "to put in the 'friend zone'"
• gionglare "to juggle"
• morphare "to morph": probably ò?
• nerfare "to nerf (video game slang)": probably è?
• performare "to perform"
• scarrupare (Neapolitan) "to crumble; to ruin"
• torniare variant of torneare "to tourney, to joust"
• ubiquitinare "to ubiquitinate"
• baioccare "to snap one's fingers" already sent to RFV

Maybe Zingarelli or Devoto-Oli will be of help? Thanks for any help you can give. Benwing2 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2

1. Zingarelli
   • compostare: io compòsto, etc. (this is how I pronounce it, but compare Devoto Oli below)
   • performare: io perfórmo, etc.
   • no declension given for torniare, but considering that it's etymologically related to tornèo, and analogically to tórno, I would go with "io tórnio, etc.
   • no entry for abbrostolare, accapegliare, friendzonare, gionglare, morphare, nerfare, scarrupare, ubiquitinare, baioccare
2. Devoto Oli
   • compostare: io compósto, etc. (compare Zingarelli above)
   • friendzonare: io friendzòno, etc. (pronounced frèndẓòno)
   • performare: io perfórmo, etc.
   • no entry for abbrostolare, accapegliare, gionglare, morphare, nerfare, scarrupare, torniare, ubiquitinare, baioccare

I personally wouldn't consider scarrupare as Standard Italian. It's clearly dialectal, so I would mark it as Regional Italian, just like freschino.

I wouldn't worry too much about the pronunciation of obsolete variants and neologisms, since no-one uses them natively, so your guess on where to put the accent and how to pronounce the tonic vowel is as good as anyone else's. Verbs coming from English words, like morphare or nerfare tend to mimic the English pronunciation, but then again, it depends on how well that individual speaker knows English (Italians normally order "a Cock" instead of "a Coke" in restaurants and bars... One would think that such a famous brand would be spared the mispronunciation, but no, lol).

This does remind me of that discussion we had about indicating acute/grave quality in Italian tonic syllables, and if anything strengthen my opinion that it should indeed be enough to just indicate the stressed syllable, without giving indication of the quality of its vowel. I did find an Italian dictionary that does just that. It would be the easier and most neutral approach. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 10:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sartma Thanks! BTW I finally was able to delete the old Module:it-conj and corresponding junky templates like {{it-conj-ciare}}. Also I'm planning on doing a run to remove redundant pronunciation respellings from {{it-pr}}, e.g. convert {{it-pr|pretentsióne}} to {{it-pr}} for pretenzione since there's a default rule for terms ending in -zione. I feel this will reduce the possibility of human error and make it clear that it's fine to use the defaults when they're there. What I'm not doing is removing explicit respellings from short words like 'lìbro' (here there is only one possible pronunciation so defaulting is OK) and 'lènte' (this happens to match the -ènte ending; this "works" but it's not a valid morphological analysis and would be confusing). Benwing2 (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The Greek word, Love.

I remember that the Greek language has 8 different words for the English verb Love. Eros, Philia, Storge, Ludus, Mania, Pragma, Philautia and Agape. It seems to me that there are many other forms of love. Will someone who is more familiar with the Greek language please explain how these 8 words encompass all the different kinds of love? Horstman8 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this Wikipedia article will provide the information you seek: Greek words for love. 70.172.194.25 19:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ludus is Latin. It’s basic sense is “game, play, fun”. While love can be a game for some and a source of fun, the term does not have a specific connotation related to love. The latter also holds for Ancient Greek μανία (manía, “madness, mad desire”) and πρᾶγμα (prâgma, “deed, act”); they cannot be translated with the word love.  --Lambiam 16:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

These three terms stem from the colour wheel theory of love of psychologist John Alan Lee.  --Lambiam 16:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

We cannot poll the Ancient Greeks for their opinion whether some list of terms encompasses all the different kinds of love, for two reasons. The first is pragmatic: they are all dead. The second is more fundamental: the word “love” in this question cannot be translated.  --Lambiam 16:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

resource

Wiktionary often claims things are RP that aren't. RP is not identical to "all British English". In RP, this word (resource) has the accent on the second syllable. The REE-zors pronunciation, with the accent on the first syllable and a long vowel (and a z) is commonly found - and in fact this is what I say - but it is not RP, even if Wiktionary says it is. See Daniel Jones' pronouncing dictionary of RP. 2A00:23C8:A7A3:4801:733E:646C:63DA:CF9D 13:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and in general we should probably move away from RP to contemporary British pronunciations like Standard Southern British. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

net

It seems we are missing the common figurative sense, as in, "to cast a wide net" (to find something or someone). What does everyone think? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The definitions of net in current dictionaries seem to have regressed from MW 1913, which had:

2. Anything designed or fitted to entrap or catch; a snare; any device for catching and holding.

A man that flattereth his neighbor spreadeth a net for his feet -- Prov. xxix. 5.

In the church's net there are fishes good or bad. -- Jer. Taylor.

It seems to me that we need to make it clear that we are not limiting the definition to physical devices, nor is the only function of a net to "trap" or "ensnare".

Or we could rely on people's ability to understand and use metaphor. DCDuring (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Some other common collocations with net are fall/slip through the net, without a [safety] net, tighten the net. There does seem to be a common figurative sense. DCDuring (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

In line with the existence of most contributors here in a world devoid of many of the physical things that inhabit more blue-collar worlds, we lack many terms derived from net that are distinct designs of nets, of diverse types of reticulation (eg, square, triangular, hexagonal), integration with other hardware (eg, frame, handle), and purpose (eg, protection, entrapment, lifting). See {{R:OneLook|* net) for examples of terms included in other references. I expect that Commons contains pictures of some of these items. DCDuring (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

English names of languages: common or proper nouns?

There appears to be great inconsistency in the POS applied to English names of languages. For instance, French is described as a proper noun and Russian as a common noun, even though there is no grammatical difference between the two.

My personal preference would be to call such terms proper nouns, but my greater priority is consistency, regardless of the prevailing option. 70.172.194.25 05:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added hundreds and I always do proper noun. Equinox ◑ 05:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to make the distinction at all then language names are fairly unambiguously proper nouns, as the names of specific entities. A language is even currently used in an example at Wiktionary:English proper nouns (albeit the section was added quite recently, in 2021). We have a fairly expansive concept of proper noun, too, since something like Pooles as a plural is listed as a proper noun when certain grammars treat things like this as common noun derivatives of proper nouns, so to me at least there'd be no real logic for excluding language names. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be surprised to find that one can't find Russians referring to dialects or registers of the Russian language, but I don't think that means that Russian ("language of Russia") is a common noun. I don't know what we should do about Russian ("breed of cat"), for which we also have a common noun ("an individual of the breed"). DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

They're proper nouns in English. Ultimateria (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

mizu shobai

@Simplificationalizer Our definition does not seem to agree with that on Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 06:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If you ignore Wikipedia's first sentence (which was only added in September: compare the version before then) it does. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Erewhon

We don't have an entry for this yet. It seems obvious to me as a layperson that the Wikipedia IPA /ɛrɛhwɒn/ is an incorrect representation of the author's naive wish to have an Italian style clear vowel sound in each syllable, which violates the basis of English phonology. --Espoo (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you can really do better than a quote from the author for the pronunciation of a proper name in a work of fiction. (Such names are not generally included in Wiktionary, are they?) Even if it is a violation of English phonology, why does that mean it is necessarily incorrect? We find /ɛ/ at the end of a syllable in meh /mɛ/ regardless. Urszag (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It would go in Category:en:Fictional locations if it passed WT:FICTION Drapetomanic (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's correct that the author's wish violates English phonology, then almost all native speakers are essentially incapable of fulfilling this naive wish. So it's quite clearly incorrect and misleading to claim this to be the English pronunciation of this word, as Wikipedia does. The entry there, and a possible entry here, should indicate the possible English rendition of the author's wish (f.ex. with schwa) and the probably more common two-syllable pronunciation. It could in addition explain that the author wanted a non-English pronunciation or that the author was perhaps unaware of schwa notation. --Espoo (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(But we have Erewhonian.) Equinox ◑ 13:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW this is also a nonfictional location: a chain of stores in California known for selling high-dollar niche foods; in that context, the first e (+ r) is the vowel of air and the second e is a schwa or sometimes omitted (you can hear multiple people pronounce it all throughout e.g. this video). BTW, should we have an entry for that word I just used, high-dollar? I see hits for "sell very high-dollar [products]" but not "sell very high-pound...", "...high-euro...". - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow. I bought macrobiotic-diet items I couldn't afford at Erewhon in Boston around 1970. I only heard it pronounced "air-wan". DCDuring (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

High dollar is just a variant of top dollar, and "high-dollar" is just the hyphenated attributive form. So yes, we should have an entry, but it would probably be best as an "alt-form-of". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought that alt forms was only for orthographic and spelling differences, not significantly different component words. Not that Wiktionary consistently follows that.

Also, is high dollar used as a noun? I'm not familiar, though it is certainly plausible. DCDuring (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you would call it. Both "top dollar" and "high dollar" are used with "pay" as in "pay high dollar" or "pay top dollar" for something. It seems almost like some sort of pidgin. Expressions having to do with quantity/price seem to be all over the map as far as POS, anyway: a lot, a great deal, an arm and a leg, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Greek nouns in -ώ

There's a declension of Greek feminine nouns in -ώ, such as Κλωθώ and Σαπφώ, which have no plural listed. Many of these are proper nouns, but some are common nouns, like τυτώ. It doesn't make much sense to talk about three Clothos or three Sapphos, but it does make sense to talk about three barn owls.

Some weeks ago I asked about this in the Greek chat. Luke Ranieri (I think it was he) answered with this suggestion: αἱ τυτόες, τῶν τυτόων, ταῖς τυτόοσιν, τὰ̄ς τυτόας for the uncontracted plural, and αἱ τυτοῦς, τῶν τυτῶν, ταῖς τυτῶσι(ν), τὰ̄ς τυτῶς for the contracted plural. I didn't ask about the dual; my Greek is mostly New Testament Koine, by which time the dual was desuet, and even Euclid used the plural for two things.

The Greek Wiktionary doesn't list a plural for τυτώ either, though it lists the word in both Ancient and Modern Greek, and someone left a note asking about sources for the plural forms. Are these nouns all defective, with no possible plural, or is it possible to form a plural? How would I talk about many barn owls in Ancient Greek? PierreAbbat (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This recent article comments: "This declension is almost exclusively attested in the singular, while the plural forms are quite rare and have been historically replaced by other declensions such as the thematic (nom. pl. λεχοί, acc. pl. Γοργούς etc.) and the nasal inflexion (nom. pl. Γοργόνες, acc. pl. Γοργόνας etc.)." The old Greek Grammar by Smyth simply says "When dual and plural occur, they are of the second declension: nom. λεχοί from λεχώ […] acc. γοργούς from γοργώ". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The Greek Wikipedia has a longish article on the species Τυτώ (68,762 bytes) and has 40 occurrences of a singular form (nominative or genitive), but never uses a plural, resorting instead to such locutions as τα πουλιά αυτά (“these birds”). For comparison, the English Wikipedia article has 96 occurrences of the singular barn owl and 41 of the plural barn owls.  --Lambiam 18:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Salar yir

Is missing any gloss or lemma. Presumably from Proto-Turkic *yẹr.
Apropo on Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic the entry Salar: reads yer Flāvidus (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

cybernetics and cybernetic

The main sense is "The theory/science of communication and control in the animal and the machine." Uh, what? Ultimateria (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What are you confused by? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The whole thing is poorly written, but "in the animal and the machine" sounds terrible to me as a native English speaker. What is the relationship between communication / control / animal / machine? Ultimateria (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It sounds a bit dated to me but not incomprehensible. "in animals and machines" (or even "in animals and in machines") might be clearer. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)