Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history 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 English. For entries in other languages, 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:

• WT:RFV

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.

Oldest tagged RFVs

• trema
  ↑
  ↓
  soothness
  superseminate
  Hawai`ian
  pilk
  accordion
  abstorted
  pantaphobia
  I'dn't
  born
  flower
  pal up
  nonkilling
  royd
  proliferation
  morning-after
  BeReal
  boot
  code vector
  slaveboy
  oversit
  underfong
  dominus vobiscum
  nuces vomicae
  oes
  ponderosa
  kaparrang
  malasapsap
  virtually
  kreyk
  aquan
  pyment
  VIPer
  win one's spurs
  Adessenarian
  ignorantia juris non excusat
  false venus comb
  away
  pick flowers
  rontosecond
  heartburn
  Meiteilogist
  Meiteiologist
  allege
  Classical Meitei
  Classical Manipuri
  Ancient Meitei
  louk
  centimate
  Hu
  German vice
  facingly
  concrete
  in-line
  taptastic
  shis
  Odajyan
  palpebrate
  bête de scène
  feign
  underfriction
  wray
  Romaboo
  cyberethical
  snowman hole
  whorenalist
  caput Mundi
  slur
  thunder
  to high heaven
  Nerdview
  sparling
  Littie
  kettle king
  anti-reciprocal
  marrot
  confusionism
  forinsecal
  rave
  pseudocompressible
  grithbreach
  cornobble
  humen
  ring-a-ding
  silent h
  it wasn't only only
  frithy
  heroyam slava
  heroiam slava
  sh*t your mouth
  aweful
  geopbyte
  uncleft
  willy warmer
  phyllo-decaoxotetrasilicate
  primiparous
  soycialism
  who's
  

March 2020

macropicide

All mentions, no uses- even on regular Google search. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I managed to find one use (on citations page). There is also this, but it doesn't count. Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2020

murbie

(It's short for "market urbanist".) I've found tweets ([1], [2], [3], [4]), but nothing in more permanent places. Note that it's apparently not that intuitive, as you can frequently see people asking "what's a murbie?" in the replies. grendel|khan 22:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

y'all

Rfv-sense: "To block discussion on an internet board to restrict dissent". If attestable, I'd be interested in knowing what the etymology is. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ety presumably a social justice thing: [5]. In such circles those who disagree are encouraged to "sit down and shut up", "educate themselves" etc. Equinox ◑ 13:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

On closer inspection this seems to be Reddit slang. Try googling "got y'alled". Equinox ◑ 18:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Etymology from Know Your Meme: "Y'all can't behave." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not think this will be citable. I assert that it is clearly in use. I do not assert that it is clearly in widespread use. Like the emoji crab, it lives in a corner of the internet that Wiktionary does not quote. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

metrostenosis

DTLHS (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I found a single relevant cite. Another use seems to be a misconstruction of mitral stenosis. – 21:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Although it appears in a dictionary, I would consider this to be a use, which gives us two cites. Kiwima (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

litiatic

DTLHS (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I created lithiatic, which this might have been an error for. Old Man Consequences (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added two cites. Kiwima (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

enneacontakaienneagon

99-sided polygon. Seen in word lists only? Equinox ◑ 00:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

nigger killer

A vinegaroon or whip scorpion. I created this entry some years ago, can't remember where I saw the word, but it seems impossible to attest in use from Google Books, though there are a few mentions, e.g. (1976, Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas, page 22) "This large, semi-chelate whip scorpion has several local colloquial common names. Marx (1886) listed nigger killer, mule killer, grampus, vinaigrier, and vinegar maker." I am not sure which Marx that was; the one you're thinking of died in 1883. Equinox ◑ 01:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The Marx in question is George Marx. I'm not sure any of the texts mentioning this expression are independent of Marx's article. --Lvovmauro (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The Marx I'm thinking of died in 1977. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lvovmauro has just extended the entry with a lot more entries, and some citations, which is nice (thanks!). We still have the use-mention problem. Equinox ◑ 09:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Re-opened because one of the three citations is a dictionary, not a use, and another is of "people who call it Nigger Killer", which is probably a mention(?). The sweet potato sense also has a mention for one of its three citations, and the "rum" sense has mentions for two of its three citations, even if we tolerate the variation in hyphenation, etc. I'll try to see if I can find any more citations myself later. - -sche (discuss) 22:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the citations. Everything except the whip scorpion has three non-mention citations now. The whip scorpion has two, with the third being "the people who call it "Nigger killer". Kiwima (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

pimo

Listed as initialism, but shouldn't be capitalised? Also, the sense needs to be checked. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Same person seems to have created pomi; consider RFVing also. Equinox ◑ 23:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm from personal experience that the term is in use in the x-Jehovah's Witness community, cf. also https://xjwfriends.com/2018/01/08/ex-jw-terms/

RFV-failed. Every use or mention I find capitalizes it (PIMO). Kiwima (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

August 2020

Anitwitter

DTLHS (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the term, "Anitwitter" is not used much in news articles or books. Googling "anitwitter" (quotes included) brings up over 75,000 results. Searching the term on Twitter (Can't link) under latest Tweets shows it has "clearly widespread use". Is this valid evidence? If so, can I just remove the request for verification or do I need to put something on the page? AntisocialRyan (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It does seem to be a thing people say on or about Twitter. Related to the RFV of the crab emoji, how much does something have to be said on Twitter before we waive the durable citation rule? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

philateliana

I could find two uses (Citations:philateliana), but even a Google search doesn't return any other results. @SemperBlotto – Einstein2 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No other results. I wonder how many more words have been added that are not attested but were not added to RFV (also considering that it is an administrator who created it, thus perhaps should know better than to add unattested words and rely on other users to check if they are actually attested). J3133 (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto J3133 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I know that SemperBlotto creates many entries but that would not be an excuse for creating entries for unattested terms. Should I post somewhere regarding administrators creating them? I do not know. Either way, it seems that SemperBlotto is avoiding to take responsibility. J3133 (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Einstein2 You added this entry to RFV; I would like to hear your thoughts regarding my reply. J3133 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@J3133 I don't know much about this matter, but if it is part of a larger pattern of adding unattested entries, it certainly is a problem – given that we don't have the capacity to search for attestation for every new entry. – Einstein2 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

miranym

Interesting word, but one independent use shy of passing the RFV as far as I can find. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I added the two books mentioned in the entry to the citations page, but one seems like a mention (it's a glossary-like list of words and their definitions). The other one contains a mention followed by what arguably is one use. The string also occurs as someone's twitter(?) handle in this magazine, which isn't really a citation; it's not in any other magazines nor in academic journals AFAICT. (It's also a multiple-choice option in this seemingly not durably exam.) - -sche (discuss) 07:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

wind-break

Noun #2: flatulence/a fart. Used by WF's family, he claims! Equinox ◑ 20:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

WF also added a farty sense to windbreaker, blaming their family too. --Daleusher (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly see it, although mostly in non-durably archived text. I added two cites, and there are probably more out there. Kiwima (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

cited, but it seems more commonly spelled windbreak, so I have moved the definition there. Kiwima (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not cited. I just removed quotes that were from various blogs and digital-only news sources (i.e. not durably archived). The two quotes that remain are actually for wind break, not windbreak. If a third can be found, that's where this sense ought to go. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

cited. The quotes are not terribly interesting or useful - the better quotes are unfortunately in online magazines which, to my disgruntlement, are considered invalid. I am leaving the sense at windbreak, because although the permanently archived quotes are predominantly "wind break", the non-permanently archived uses I see are predominantly "windbreak". Further, it is messy and confusing to divide up the meanings of a word that has the same set of alternative forms. Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

October 2020

adrenokinetic

DTLHS (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I see several mentions (in other dictionaries) but not uses. I also checked Google Scholar and Issuu. - -sche (discuss) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

adrenokinesis

DTLHS (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Spleef, spleef

Rfv-sense of the Minecraft verb. The noun for the game was already deleted at RFD. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page, but could not find any more durably archived sources (there are plenty of versions of this verb on blogs and on promotional material). The deletion of the name of the game is not a clear reason to delete the verb. Kiwima (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If the verb form is to stay then the noun form of "A game in which players must destroy the ground under other players to remove them from the game." must be on the page; they can't exist separately, otherwise I have to explain the noun on the verb. – Nixinova [‌T|C] 05:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Explaining the noun at the verb is fine. Don't add a noun just to help you edit! Equinox ◑ 00:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

But the verb is literally mentioning a noun form of the word: "To play a game of Spleef". I dont think the RFV was for the definition of what I mentioned in my previous comment, right? So the noun should be added because the verb mentions that there is a noun form of "Spleef". – Nixinova [‌T|C] 23:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

bromopnean

I could find a single cite. – Einstein2 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I found a 2nd, which I added.

It also gets a G-hit with Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and Preposterous Words from 1974, but there's no preview to verify. Of course, the latter doesn't qualify in itself, unless it has a quote, but it suggests she found it somewhere prior to the date of either of our sources. kwami (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

disemelevator

Get out of an elevator. I think this has only ever been used in the single text cited. Equinox ◑ 05:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• If so, the quote could be moved to illustrate disen- (which would need to be created). Ƿidsiþ 12:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Except that the "m" wouldn't be there if it were "disen-". Without looking at the context, it seems like a playful reference to disembark, with an elevator being compared to a ship. Using the phonologically correct form would make that less obvious. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Given the otherwise odd m, I think this can indeed just as well be considered either a blend with disembark or (as our etymology currently considers it) dis- + em-. On the other hand, R. M. W Dixon, Making New Words: Morphological Derivation in English (2014), page 101, in the process of discussing the addition of dis- to en- ~ em- words "to indicate reversal", as in dis-em-bark, dis-en-throne and dis-en-tangle, adds that "There are some, rather uncommon, derivations with disen- ~ disem- where no verb with just en- ~ em- occurs; for example disem-burden." He is wrong there (I can find emburden), but it's possible disen- ~ disem- does exist on other words. This makes me think of Talk:-icity, because here too it could be argued that cases of disem- where no em- is attested are just happenstance and em- nonetheless could exist and shouldn't impede analysis as dis- + em-. (We do seem to have lately started avoiding "unnecessary" compound affixes; compare Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#-aise,_-aises.) - -sche (discuss) 16:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I managed to find a second and independent quote. There is also a use here, and another here, although I don't think those are durably archived, so we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

crayon

Rfv-sense (rail transport) An informal map of a proposed rail route.

I've seen it used in comments on Alon Levy's writings ([6],[7]) and on Twitter ([8], [9], [10], [11]); it may be a clipping of "crayon map", which we don't have an entry for yet. Seems hard to attest, as it's pretty slangy. See also a one-off coining of "crayonista" ([12]) by a writer playing off the tendency to draw fanciful maps. (See also [13], [14], [15].) grendel|khan 17:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What are the odds that this is limited to rail transport? DCDuring (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, isn't this covered by def. 3 "A crayon drawing."? DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring: It's not literally a crayon drawing, though; this, for example, is obviously not a crayon drawing, but it is a crayon in the sense of an informally-drawn rail map. (There may well be non-rail uses, but I haven't found any.) grendel|khan 19:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Grendelkhan: it sounds like a revival of the figurative sense "[a] work not carried out in detail, a 'sketch'", marked as obsolete by the OED in an entry last updated in 1893. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

tetartosphere

Not many ghits. Some are mentions, not uses. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I added two solid citations to the citations page, plus one reference to a twitter thread (which is probably not durably archived). Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not cited. Twitter doesn't count, and I am not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt when the two uses are from authors probably not writing in their native language (or even language family). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

norminal

I believe we need a formal and durably-archived attestation conveying the meaning of the term norminal. It appears the word was added by an IP editor about two weeks ago.

As a deeply involved editor on the English Wikipedia as part of the Spaceflight WikiProject, and a follower of spaceflight technology, I can offer that I have heard the word used for some time now, but that's mere original research and does not count for a set of durably-archived attestations that demonstrate the word meets the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion. The word was used once today on the NASA livecast where the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon Resilence capsule is carrying four astronauts to the International Space Station over the next 27 hours via a NASA paid-for transport contract, so I would expect we may see some media repetition of the word in the next day or so which will likely support the Nov 2020 use of the term. So probably will just need attestation of older uses from a few years ago. N2e (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of Google Book Hits for "norminal", but I would imagine that most if not all all are typos/scannos/blunders for "nominal". Intentional use will be hard to prove, I think. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As an aerospace engineer, I can confirm the word norminal is in common usage within the field. Retired U.S. Air Force colonel John Insprucker first used the term during a recorded SpaceX launch narration of the Intelsat 35e launch streamed live on Jul 5, 2017. The Webcast was captured on video, and the use of term occurred at timestamp 11:37. Since then, the term has become an injoke within the aerospace community. There is a reasonable discussion of the term on StackExchange. It has become commonplace to see hats and t-shirts with the word, as promulgated by Tim Dodd, and others. There is a "norminal" tag on Instagram. You will see the term in the comments from Military.com's article on a SpaceX launch on May 25, 2020. — This unsigned comment was added by Prototypo (talk • contribs) at 23:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC).

Did it originate as a mistake for nominal or a blend of normal and nominal? DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

cuntboy, sense 2

"A young man who has a vagina; a female-to-male transgender who has not had bottom surgery, or a character in speculative fiction." This is actually three senses for some reason listed as one; the first is oxymoronic, second and third are both cryptic (may also involve WT:FICTION). Are any attested? Ya hemos pasao (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The first is not oxymoronic at all, and the second, which is not cryptic and doesn't involve WT:FICTION, is a specific instance of the first. But whether the word is attested with that meaning is of course the crucial question. Sense 1 is the only sense I'm familiar with myself. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

squiry

Not convinced La más guay (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's a Middle English word that survived into the 16th century and we can keep it because there are about 8 uses if you combine the two eras. The quote you were looking to date appears in OED as "1525 Ld. Berners Froiss II clxxi. 505. It was nedefull for them within to make good defence, for against them was the floure of chyvalry and squyry." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Cited with a single modern English quotation as a continuation of its ancestor Middle English squierie. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

not cited. We still only have two cites in Modern English. Kiwima (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Meganesia

Rfv-sense the proposed name for Australia, as in the modern country. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure, but I did put a couple of cites on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

autonowashing

Another hot word with few attestations. Few of the web results seem durable and I also doubt that they are independent. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The word, a piece of argot, was coined in the autonomous technology literature, which is a rapidly growing area of research. What "results" fail independence and durability?

Here is the Google Scholar citation profile for the initial article: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=11683217585197084451 QRep2020 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Added attestations. QRep2020 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Google Scholar citation is fine, but the others are not permanently archived. Can we find anything else? Kiwima (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have different attestations to add in that case. Does this one not work though? https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93856 I would think so since it has a DOI and is said to be saved in all kinds of databases: https://www.intechopen.com/how-open-access-publishing-with-intechopen-works. QRep2020 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I added some different attestations. How is it looking now? QRep2020 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

glownigger

DTLHS (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League mentioning the form used in the Wiktionary entry; The Daily Stormer mentioning a hyphenated form; The Atlantic mentioning the alternate form "glowies". --benlisquare_T•C 03:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We're looking for uses, not mentions. DTLHS (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

In that case, the Daily Stormer example is a use, not a mention: "Is Snowden infected with cat poo bacteria or is he some sort of glow-nigger PR agent for hire? You decide." The same website also uses a non-hyphenated variant: "The glownigger problem is now officially out of control. The list of people NOT on an FBI watchlist grows shorter and shorter every single day." --benlisquare_T•C 04:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

IP was definitely not lying, this is living language. This, and “CIA nigger” (which I deem SOP), I have consistently encountered on the internet since Terry Davis’s statement in 2017, and it has engendered some clippings or other combinations like glowie or glowtard, although short of glownigger and glowie most are in my opinion protologistic, as occasionalisms that have not caught on. But that clip of Terry Davis, that schizophrenic meme, did catch on as a whole, ideal to express the idea of a persecution complex. Then one can say that someone “glows in the dark”, “so much glowing” and similar to mean that your chat partner on Telegram appears to be a sinister agent or jokingly express that he should watch his legality. I also think the productivity of nigger as second part of compounds increased after that incident, so that it could even be viewed as a suffix -nigger. So ’twould be sad if we had to lose this, as this is a monument in the development of the English language, and it is really often encountered and not just used by a certain author and his friends. Fay Freak (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

We still need 3 durably archived citations of uses. DCDuring (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Question here: I'm not too thoroughly familiar with what Wiktionary accepts as "durably archived", I spend most of my time on English Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia. Would a 4chan archiver based on the FoolFuuka open-source archiver be accepted as an archived citation of 4chan usage? Since, by design, 4chan automatically purges and erases old posts, various archivers based on FoolFuuka scrape thread content from 4chan using the asagi dumper and display them in searchable archives; examples of such websites include archived.moe, Desuarchive, Fireden, Warosu, among others. Also, would a Wayback Machine archive or archive.is capture of a 4chan thread also count as durably archived? --benlisquare_T•C 04:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I've heard glowie (only) among 4chan types. Good luck with the CFI! Equinox ◑ 20:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox There's also a verb, glow in the dark, as in "Not discord because that shit glows in the dark", "that version of events is so untrue it glows in the dark", "OP glows in the dark". If you or someone else will point me at an archive that's considered durable, citing this should be trivial.__Gamren (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

buzzsaw

"(slang) The MG 42 general-purpose machine gun." I see a few references (mentions, not uses) to "Hitler's buzzsaw", but not "buzzsaw" alone. Equinox ◑ 12:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not durably archived, but on MG 42 and MG 34 — Battlefield Forums I found "Otherwise, the game would quickly devolve into packs of players roaming around with 100-150 round buzzsaws just chewing anything that moves to pieces.", but otherwise, like Equinox, I mostly find "Hitler's buzzsaw". I did manage to find a single durably archived cite. Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the game "Call of Duty" uses the term "Buzzsaw" to refer to the MG 42. Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

poppers

Rfv-sense: "(informal, plural only) Drugs of the alkyl nitrate class used recreationally as a sexual stimulant, especially among gay men."

I haven't seen any sign that this is anything other than the plural of the corresponding sense of popper. DCDuring (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've been bold and converted it to a plural form of the singular. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• For starters, "bottle of poppers" has a huge number of hits on google and google books. Such a phrase wouldn't make sense if we gloss "poppers" as the plural of the sense "a capsule of amyl nitrite". See also, quotes like "Nicole Scherzinger ‘sniffed poppers’ at a gay bar". This does not carry the meaning that she inhaled from more than one bottle of poppers. Also worth noting that the Wikipedia article on the drug is titled Poppers. Their naming policy is to generally use the singular except in the case of plurale tantum (and a few other specific situations that don't apply here). Compare Blunt (cannabis), or Speedball (drug). Colin M (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• On the basis of many examples such as "A woman has died after drinking an entire bottle of poppers", that apparently does not mean "bottle of capsules", which would be the implication if "poppers" were an ordinary plural of our existing singular "drug" sense, I believe that this RFV needs further consideration, and for now I have reinstated the entry as it was at the time of RFV, while the RFV runs its course. Mihia (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A 'bottle of poppers' makes as much sense to me as a 'bottle of pills' or a 'bottle of ampules'.

• 1980, Leo Rosten, King Silky!, page 87:

  It's bottles with prescription labels I'm after ... I spot Valium (natch) and Benadryl. And there's a bottle of ampules.

Sniffed poppers is also ambiguous.

I have looked at a lot of Google Books hits for 'sniff poppers' and haven't found unambiguous support for the plural-only. Please, provide the evidence, quotes from durable media like books, magazines, etc on Citations:poppers. See WT:ATTEST. It's easy enough to restore your definition, just as it was easy to correct your mislabeling (without evidence) of popper as dated'.

I agree that the challenged definition should be restored. DCDuring (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No one would deny that "bottle of ampules" is a thing that can exist, but I question whether e.g. "drinking an entire bottle of poppers" in my example actually means that, though I suppose it could be possible if all the ampules are individually opened. Probably more watertight examples can be found. However, I don't think this sense is "plural only", since uncountable uses such as "how much poppers" or "too much poppers" exist. The uncountable sense may in fact be easier to verify than the plural one. In fact, I wonder whether the uncountable sense is primarily what we are talking about here, as something distinct from the ordinary plural of "popper". Mihia (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a debate forum. Let's get some citations. Does it take a singular verb? A plural one? Both? is it uncountable? Let the citations be unambiguous, so there is no doubt. There seems to be enough literature to find the citations. Who care if a noun is plural-only. A language learner would/should want to know how to use the term properly, which includes verb agreement. DCDuring (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I don't think it's uncommon for a plurale tantum to occasionally be used like an uncountable noun. e.g. (found on gbooks): "Depending on the value of the shoot and the chances of being able to actually see our Phat Farm logo would determine how much clothes would be given." "How much poppers" only gets 22 google results, and some of those are false positives ("I realized how much poppers had become a mental crutch for me."), so it's a very rare construction. Generally the word follows a plural verb agreement. I just added a quote at poppers demonstrating this. Colin M (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if "poppers" is like "clothes" then it should be correct to say "how many poppers", rather than "how much poppers", when referring to a quantity of the substance as opposed to individual countable items such as doses/ampoules/containers. This sounds odd to my ear, like "how many vodka". However, instances of e.g. "poppers are a drug", apparently not referring to countable items, do exist, in addition to instances of e.g. "poppers is a drug". Where verb agreement is concerned there may be some uncertainty or difference of view about whether it refers to a plural thing or uncountable thing. Perhaps it is "properly" uncountable, but people forget this when they see the "s", and think they need a plural verb agreement. Mihia (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What Mihia said. DCDuring (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused by your first sentence. "How many clothes" is, to my ear, unacceptable, in the same way that I would find it bizarre to say "I packed three clothes". It would require a measure word, as in "How many bags of clothes". Similarly, one would generally say "How many bottles of poppers". There are some words, like scissors or pants that resist being modified by either much or many (without a measure word). Colin M (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Poppers are not sold in bottles of glass ampoules. I cannot find a source that positively states this, in the same way that I can't find a source that positively states that French women don't wear colanders on their heads. But for anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject, "bottle of poppers" and "sniffed poppers" are not ambiguous in the way you're imagining. Here's a site with a general overview of poppers that may help. The second paragraph of the "Overview" section says that poppers used to be sold in capsules that would be cracked open. The first paragraph of the "drug use" section says that poppers are "typically taken as fumes inhaled directly from small bottles". That's what a "bottle of poppers" refers to. It's a bottle containing a volatile liquid. If you take the lid off and inhale from the bottle, you are "sniffing poppers". If you don't like that site, just do a google image search, or read the wikipedia article, or track down a gay friend or coworker and ask them to explain. Colin M (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Focus on the word poppers, not the chemical. Any knowledge you might have about the product can just help you create better hypotheses about the word. As a dictionary, we gather evidence about the meaning of each word and how it is used syntactically. DCDuring (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Poppers have been sold in ampules. Now they may be sold in some other form. Poppers in ampules is a countable noun. Poppers in a bottle should be an uncountable noun. Further, it might be used with either a singular or plural verb. An uncountable is used with certain determiners, like much, that are not used with countable nouns. If poppers is used with a singular form of a verb that would indicate unambiguously that the uncountable form is in use. Examples of common singular verb forms are is, was, has, and does. There may be other verbs commonly used with poppers that could also be included in search terms used to search Google Books and UseNet, possibly also, Google News and Google Scholar. DCDuring (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote above to Mihia, not every noun falls neatly into the mass vs. count noun dichotomy. I can't say "how much trousers" nor can I say "how many trousers". Colin M (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M:

1915, Official Reports of the Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, page 770, column 2:

[…] how many trousers, breeches and pantaloons have been ordered from each firm;

J3133 (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted. But based on this, would you say it would be appropriate to add (countable) to trousers? Colin M (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Just noting for possible comparison as a tricky plural-only-and/or-uncountable case the word spirits in the drinks sense. (Possibly slightly different in certain uses as there is more than one type, unlike "poppers", of which I imagine there is only one type.) Mihia (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the pedia article, all poppers have been alkyl nitrites, but there are several kinds: isoamyl nitrite, isopentyl nitrite, and isopropyl nitrite. There is also isobutyl nitrite, which may not be an alkyl nitrite. Our definition, which limits the word to amyl nitrite. may not be scientifically accurate. DCDuring (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good comparison. It seems to be a recurring pattern with illicit substances. Another good example is drugs. Right now we just define it as the plural of drug, but consider this headline: He brought drugs to the London courthouse. It didn't end well for him. In the article, we learn the man in the headline "was caught with four grams of ketamine". So drugs here does not refer to more than one psychoactive substance, but rather some quantity of a substance. I believe someone mentioned steroids at one point as well, and it follows the same pattern. If I say "Bob took steroids before the game", he cannot refute my statement by saying "That's not true, I only took tetrahydrogestrinone!". Colin M (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't all that hard. All you need is to have citations to unambiguously support the syntax you advocate. I am sure you could find them. I dispute the utility of the label plural only. What users might want to know about a given definition of a noun is whether it is used with a singular or plural verb. That is something that citations can show. DCDuring (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

grawlices

I have sought but I cannot find. This, that and the other (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf We do not accept arbitrary websites for the purposes of verification, as they are not considered "permanently recorded media". Please see WT:CFI#Attestation. This, that and the other (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I got distracted while editing. I thought that I had a durable attestation in a comic but I can't seem to find it. Evidently, the Honeycutt article is reproduced in →ISBN and there is another mention in →ISBN (but it's a mention, not a proper use). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the plural of grawlix. Generally, we do not require three examples of an inflected form, especially when it is a standard inflection, which this is. Kiwima (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima Since this is not a direct Latin borrowing, the standard plural grawlixes would be expected (see for instance, crucifix → crucifixes, not *crucifices). The word grawlix, itself a fanciful coinage, lends itself well to whimsical wordplay - it's completely understandable that someone should have invented an equally fanciful pseudo-Latin plural grawlices. But it seems to me that this form has not caught on and only survives in mentions. This, that and the other (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

catpuss

Seems reasonable, but I can't find evidence outside of "Bagpuss" mentions. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I speedied this but they must have recreated it. I could find nothing much. Yes, it occurs in the introduction to the old children's TV series Bagpuss ("old fat furry catpuss") but kids' TV is full of nonstandard wordplay. Equinox ◑ 20:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Not cited. @Kiwima, Google's OCR is not reliable, so you have to click through and take a look at the book you're citing. Two of them did not actually have this word, and the 2014 cite was a (misremembered?) attempt at recalling the line from the TV series, and therefore is not independent. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A

Rfv-sense: "Ammunition examiner". This, that and the other (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What I think has happened here is that someone has noticed that ammunition examiners in certain armed forces have the letter "A" on their badge or insignia. This, of course, does not mean that the letter A is actually used as a symbol in running text to mean "ammunition examiner". This, that and the other (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lolita

Common noun: "A situation resembling the plot of the novel Lolita...(etc.)". However, the two given citations are for "Lolita syndrome" and "Lolita complex". Can this really be used alone: that situation was a total Lolita? Equinox ◑ 01:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it; it's probably better to define it some other way: but how? {{n-g|In compounds, referring to the novel Lolita in which [...]}}? Or I suppose it depends on whether there are enough spaced compounds or phrases where "Lolita" functions as a word (another is google books:"a Lolita situation") that we want to cover it at Lolita in some way... - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It is about as nonsensical as defining a sense for Oedipus of “A situation resembling that of the protagonist of the tragedy Oedipus Rex” in order to explain the term “Oedipus complex”. I think that in Lolita syndrome and Lolita complex we see the attributive use of sense 2, although I think it is unnecessary specific to relate this to sexual pursuit by adults; it suffices that to them the girl has sexual allure, as in other attributive uses: “a Lolita figure”; “a Lolita smile”.  --Lambiam 22:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, this is not a question for verification. I think it is probably best handled by removing this definition and adding a usage note about the attributive use of the noun. Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It is an RFV question because there is a sense that I think isn't correct. I don't think we even need a usage note necessarily, just the usual list of "derived terms" (~ syndrome, ~ complex). I can find a few other less common phrases (e.g. "a reversal of the Lolita situation") but these could probably be interpreted as references to the title of the novel, along the lines of "a kind of Beatles quartet". Equinox ◑ 00:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To work as an attestation of the challenged sense, we need uses similar to “He found himself in a difficult Lolita”, or “How was he going to extricate himself from this Lolita?”  --Lambiam 14:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• See MWOnline's long note, with supporting citations, about this. DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This seems to raise the wider issue of whether such noun senses should be captured, as I suspect many nouns can be informally used in this way: “She didn’t want to find herself in a Lewinsky”, “he’s gone and done a Weinstein”, “Whatever you do, don’t put your company in an Enron”, and so on. I suppose one way of analysing such uses is that they are merely attributive uses of the noun with the word situation implied. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That may be a question for many terms, but I think Lolita/lolita is not one of them:

• The defense argued that Betty was a “Lolita,” the teenage seductress of the much older ... to rely on alleged seductive demeanor and dress to prove his point: “There are some girls who are Lolitas,” he said.
• The Lolitas of today are spoilt, but as in any case they are allowed everything they want, they have no desire to seem older than they are.
• “Yeah, they're little Lolitas,” she'd said. “Thirty-eight little Lolitas. One of these days, you're going to come home, and I'm going to have them all out on the table, all waiting to be admired and petted.”
• One of the defense attorneys described the victim as a “ Lolita ” who wanted to have sex with her attackers.

There are a lot of examples. I'll add these to the entry after I get vaccinated (today). DCDuring (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In your examples Lolita refers to a young woman, not to a "situation". Equinox ◑ 22:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the existing definition stinks. I thought I was responding to sgconlaw's point, but I read it too hastily. I think we should have a definition along the lines of MWOnline's, which also fits the citations above. I think we could rely on metonymy to cover what the existing definition has. DCDuring (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

meedfully

I have a feeling that this might not be attestable in proper Modern English (rather than in overly-literal "translations" of Middle English).Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh look it's a word nobody has used for centuries, with no gloss on it! Oh hi Leasnam, fancy meeting you here! Equinox ◑ 04:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you remember what you were doing 9 1/2 years ago? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes and I have detailed notes and journals. And what I wasn't doing was using the word "meedfully". Equinox ◑ 03:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

cited. Most of what I found was Middle English, but it seems to have persisted into the early 17th century. Kiwima (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima: From [16] it is clear that the Krapp citation is quoting the Arnold edition of John Wyclif. The spelling has clearly been regularised from the original Middle English (apparently by Krapp, since this copy of Arnold has old spelling); even so, I'm not sure if we can call this Modern English. This, that and the other (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Julian of Norwich quote is also of dubious ModE status; it's a pretty literal translation/transcription of a Middle English work:

1670, Julian (of Norwich), Revelations of Divine Love, shewed to a devout servant of our Lord, called Mother Juliana, an Anchorete of Norwich:

This light is charity, and the measuring of this light is done to us profitably by the wisdom of God: for neither the light is so large that we may see clearly our blessedful day: ne it is all speered from us; but it is such a light in which we may live meedfully with travel, reserving the worshipful thanks of God.

1373, Julian (of Norwich), chapter LXXXIV, in The Shewings of Julian of Norwich‎^[17], lines 3365-3368:

The light is charite, and the mesuring of this light is don to us profitably by the wisdam of God. For neyther the light is so large that we may seen our blisfull day, ne it is sperid fro us, but it is suich a light in which we may liven medefully with travel deservand the endless worship of God.

This light is love, and the distribution of this light is beneficially done though the wisdom of God. Because the light is neither so great that we can see our blessed day or concealed from us, it's a light that lets us live commendably through deeds deserving of God's endless glory.

That leaves us with only one solid attestation. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

balines

First discussed at Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#balines before conversation stalled. Being listed here mostly as a formality with an expectation that the term will fail to be verified. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I put what I could find on the citations page. Al Jazeera does not italicize the term, but everybody else does. It looks like code switching to me. Kiwima (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Zhuxian

@Tooironic I found an example of this word here: [18], but I would like to see some more cites on this word if at all possible. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

dupe scrub

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

pole dance

Rfv-sense "The pole around which a pole dance is performed". Really? I've searched several collocations and found nothing. Ultimateria (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• That could possibly be a "dance pole". SemperBlotto (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Adragon

Girl's name. Equinox ◑ 05:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have cited it as a boy's name, but can find no evidence that it is a girl's name. Kiwima (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

orangeade

Sense 3: orange juice (with nothing added to it!). Equinox ◑ 16:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

felon factory

Is it attested? Imetsia (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a slur used in Stormfront-like online communities. Two relevant UseNet posts from 2017, but both are by the same author ("Rick Mathers"), so they would only count as 1 for attestation purposes. One Google Books result but for an unrelated figurative use. A handful of results on Google News: one is an unrelated figurative use, and the rest appear in user-generated comments on articles. Some results in a Google web search for some very unsavory looking forums. Seems like this will only pass WT:ATTEST if we count posts from non-Usenet online forums as "durably archived". (I happen to think we should, provided a backup can be created on archive.org, but my understanding is that this is not a view that enjoys a consensus here. Given that this appears to be a very uncommon term - only 104 results indexed by Google, at least half of which are unrelated uses - I'm not going to be too sad if it ends up deleted.) Colin M (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

mald

J3133 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn't make much sense to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Ditto that -- seems nonsensical. Also, both purported etyma are adjectives, so it's not clear how this would be a verb. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Documented as "malding" on KnowYourMeme: [19]. Equinox ◑ 07:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

stroke

Rfv-sense: appetite. Apparently there's a Jonathan Swift quote with this in, but I looked at every instance of "stroke" and "strokes" in his works, and nothing was even vaguely matched Oxlade2000 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Here's the Swift quote. The term is discussed in this article, which seems to suggest there are only two known appearances in English literature (Dampier 1699 and Swift, which are the two quotes OED uses). I suppose this would technically mean that WT:CFI can't be satisfied. It does appear in some old reference works, such as in this French-English phrasebook, apparently published a couple years before the Swift quote. Colin M (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

low as a verb

Apparently has a Jonathan Swift quote in there somewhere - the last remaining one... I searched for it but got frustrated by the false positive. Oxlade2000 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Finding the Swift cite looks like a job for the OED. But we need two more. DCDuring (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The OED doesn't have a quote from Swift, but it has many others (and 2 definitions, broken into 7 subsenses, 5 of which they attest according to our standards). Here's some cites I found with their help:

• 1900, Sir John Lauder (bart., lord Fountainhall), Lord John Lauder Fountainhall, Journals of Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall, with His Observations on Public Affairs and Other Memoranda, 1665-1676:

  The design was to low him, that he might never be the head of a Protestant party, and to annex his jurisdiction to the Crown, and to parcel out his lands  […].

Note, the original is dated a.1722 by the OED, and uses more archaic spellings (like "designe"), but I couldn't find it on Google Books.

• 1998, The Gentleman's Magazine:

  In the lion, (which fec) is more clearly known, physicians have conclusion of the second commandment, god lows himself  […]

I suspect this one is also lower than the date given by Google Books...

• 1767, Robert Vansittart, Certain Ancient Tracts Concerning the Management of Landed Property Reprinted, page 41:

  I ſhall truely aſſere this courte, and high no man for no hate, ne lowe no man for noo love, but to ſet every man truly after the quantite of his treſpaſſe to my knowlege […]

The OED dates the original quote to 1523.

Hope that helps. I would add the other senses, but I don't have time. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The Gentleman's Magazine passage is definitely not from 1998 (maybe 1798), the text has been scrambled by the splicing of two columns into single lines of text, and long "ſ"es aren't all being recognized by the OCR. Here's my best attempt at rendering what's really there:

 

 

[...]In the

conclusion of the ſecond commandment, god ſhows himself,

ſay they, in the former part, as a powerful and jealous god,

but ſince the diſcovery of the Circulation,

by which the doctrine of Evacuation, Derivation, and Revul-

ſion (which ſee), is more clearly known, phyſiscians have

rarely order'd it in any other part than the arm, foot, neck,

and tongue [...]

Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As for the Vansittart text: he's quoting from sources that were already centuries old in his day, so 1523 sounds right- just barely modern English. This particular passage is an oath to be said by an affeerer, which seems to be someone with the authority to set the amounts of fines. It looks to me like the oath is to not [set the fine] high out of hate, nor [low] out of love. In other words, the high and low refers to the fine, not the person. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I added some more citations tracked down through pointers in either the EDD or the (out-of-copyright) NED. Shirrefs may actually be Scots (it is often hard to tell from just a sentence). - -sche (discuss) 05:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, this is cited (though Shirrefs and perhaps the Shetland cite might be better in a Scots section). - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

faggot

Rfv-sense "A fascist". — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If it's stated and it makes sense, then some community is apparently saying it. This is being used in the Antifa community to refer to fascists, so it is important to distinguish this usage to avoid misinterpretations. — This unsigned comment was added by MotherNamma (talk • contribs) at 04:09, 26 February 2021.

Can its use in this sense be attested in durably archived media? I find only uses as a slur uttered against Antifa protesters.  --Lambiam 12:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

jackman

Rfv-sense: meaning cream cheese. Apparently it was used by T. Elyot, but I find no evidence Oxlade2000 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Different spelling. "Chease made uppon russhes, called a fresshe cheese, or jackeman". Equinox ◑ 00:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

George Meriton (1685) uses this spelling (see citations page), but it is still a mention, not a use. Kiwima (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

katsaridaphobia

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 23:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Only a few mentions in the usual books. There seem to be uses on Google Scholar, but I don't know how independent they are. The fact that this is based on a modern Greek word certainly suggests someone made it up recently to fill a perceived hole. For what it's worth, the earliest Google hit I can find is "the Phobia List", which was posted online in 1994. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

cited. It's true that many of the articles on Google Scholar refer to the work on augmented reality systems, so I have included only one of those to be sure that the cites are independent. Kiwima (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

hermeology

@Pizza0614 This cannot be found in durably archived sources either. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added one citation to the citations page. This looks like a real word, it's just that it is hard to locate the relevant texts. Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

E

Rfv-sense abbreviation of Hubei and abbreviation of Europe --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Just now, I did find three cites for the historical state of E, but I don't know how to look for "E" as an English language abbreviation for Hubei and find quotations that could be used on Wiktionary to substantiate this usage in English. How does Wiktionary under CFI show that E is an abbreviation for Europe or Hubei? Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of search fu. A trick is to find collocations of the form "Hubei [X]" and then search for "H [X]". You would need to apply judgment to find [X]s that were not likely to yield too many spurious results. There may be other tricks known to people with better search fu than mine. DCDuring (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not have a clue how to do this. I have never done a citation for an abbreviation. To help me learn how to do citations/quotes for abbreviations, would this qualify as a cite for TPE? "Using its Boeing 787-9 ‘Dreamliner’ aircraft, Air Canada offers a direct transpacific service to Taipei Taoyuan International Airport (TPE) in northern Taiwan." [20]

Wiktionary:Quotations#Abbreviations did not help me; Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Given_and_family_names just told me that I need to do the same thing for abbreviations that I would do for any word. I think E is a protologism with reference to Hubei. Idk about E as an abbreviation for Europe. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC) (modified)

Two other suggestions: try searching for cities in the province + the abbreviation, like "Wuhan, E", or search together with other province abbreviations (e.g. if searching for "NY", search for "NY"+"IL"+"CA"). E as an abbreviation of Europe might be something to discuss whether we want at all, depending on how the citations look if any can be found; on one hand, I've tended to favor inclusion (even of things like "Talk:ylw"), on the other hand, I concede that I wouldn't want to add every name starting with M to "M": "Abbreviation of Michael", "Abbreviation of Marcus", "Abbreviation of Miguel", etc. - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Golden Triangle

Rfv-sense. The Yangtze River Delta sense was added by an IP in 2020: [21] I am vaguely familiar with it in Mandarin, but I don't think it applies in English. It would be universally misinterpreted as the drug trafficking area. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a large number of citations to the citations page, but I am not familiar enough with the geography of these areas to know which uses refer to what areas. Would someone more knowledgeable than myself please look through these quotes and sort them into groups of what locations they refer to. Kiwima (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

inasmuch

We need citations of this spelled solid, without following as to establish that it once had a separate existence. We have an entry for inasmuch as. DCDuring (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty for "inasmuch that". Mihia (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Plugging inasmuch, inasmuch as, and inasmuch that into Google NGrams we get this. Inasmuch as represents about 90% or more of the usage of inasmuch and inasmuch that is generally less than 0.1% as frequent as inasmuch as. The usage of inasmuch without as seems to be relatively high in the 19th century, declining in the 20th century. I haven't inspected the usage for the validity of the as-less usage. DCDuring (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not finding very many legitimate uses of inasmuch without as that convey to me unambiguous meaning other than "inasmuch as". I find some mentions. I also find instances in which an expression intervenes before the as, which is evidence that inasmuch as was not a fossilized idiom then. In fact, the usage seems to just show as being used as a subordinating conjunction. I'd be tempted to consider it an error or, more charitably, an ellipsis of inasmuch as. DCDuring (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

insofar

We have an entry for insofar as. We do not have any evidence for the existence of insofar, spelled solid, outside of that idiom. If it exists it would be nice to know when it was in use. The OED may provide clues. DCDuring (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of results on google/google books for "insofar there is", which seems to be an ellipsis of "insofar as there is". If you search for "insofar *" on the ngram viewer, it will show you a few of the most frequent tokens that follow it in the corpus. Colin M (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A large number of the usages are spurious due to insertion of adverbials and other phrases, eg, "insofar, at least, as", "insofar, that is, as", "insofar only as", "If I am only insofar a moral person as I am a Kantian or Aristotelian", "insofar (and only insofar) as", etc. Of the balance, many seem to be by non-native speakers, or scannos, speaking errors, typesetting errors, etc. DCDuring (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

From all of this I conclude that the most likely outcome of this RfV is that the only definition of insofar is "insofar as". The question remains whether the as-less use is {{alternative form of}} or error. BTW, that would make the PoS "Conjunction". DCDuring (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OED's 3 earliest quotations for insofar are all without "as", the latest being:

(1849, G.Grote) Insofar the latter had good reason to complain.

Colin M (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It would still be nice if we had our own evidence. From the one cite we have the OED's cite, the definition would seem to be "insofar as" in current English. We have to make sure we've broken circularity at [[insofar as]]. DCDuring (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

pirogue

Rfv-sense "style of pasta shaped as a miniature canoe folded over". Guessing someone mixed this up creatively with pierogi. – Jberkel 00:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a term used in cajun cuisine that refers to a boat-shaped whatever (bread, pasta, eggplant) that is stuffed with seafood. I suspect this is what was intended, but added it as a separate entry just in case. Kiwima (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

procraltruism

No hits that aren't traceable back to us Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

measle

mesel

Rfv-sense: a leper. The OED has this sense under the headword mesel, with only a single post-1500 cite ("mad men and mesels" in John Bale's King Johan). This, that and the other (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to closer, this can be moved to Middle English under mesel if it fails. This, that and the other (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wright's English Dialect Dictionary has a number of senses and citations but not this. - -sche (discuss) 04:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

narrative link

Google books results all seem to be SoP (and unrelated to gaming). Adding "game" to the search query turns up a few video game results, but again they don't seem to be using it with any specialized, idiomatic meaning. (Also, the current definition is pretty impenetrable.) Colin M (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

cited. Whether it is NISOP is a question for RFD. Kiwima (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

squally

Rfv-sense: unproductive field. OED has a single cite attributed to Marshall ("A crop of turneps, or of corn, which is broken by vacant unproductive patches, is said to be squally"), and our entry mentions Halliwell (don't know who or what this refers to). The Google Books results are consistent with a dictionary-only term. I suspect this is a figurative use of the weaving term that some farmers in Norfolk were in the habit of using many centuries ago, in which case it should be unciteable, but I'll bring it here anyway for completeness. This, that and the other (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: probably {{R:Halliwell Dictionary}}. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The Halliwell quote is identical to the Marshall quote above. This, that and the other (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: references to Halliwell are likely to be mere mentions. You might have a look at the {{R:English Dialect Dictionary}}; it often has brief quotations like the OED, which you may then be able to hunt down at Google Books, the HathiTrust Digital Library, or the Internet Archive. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

EDD has the same "vacant unproductive patches" definition, and references only Marshall. This, that and the other (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: looks like this will be hard to verify from written sources. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed; I expect this will be deleted in a month or so. This, that and the other (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

cited. I have tweaked the definition, because it is clear from the cites I found that the unproductive patches are due to the ground being wet with poor drainage. Kiwima (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima I am impressed - nice work! OED doesn't even acknowledge that this sense might exist, so we are outdoing them on an obsolete term, something that they seem to specialise in. This, that and the other (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

country

Rfv-sense "female genitalia", added by User:Akeosnhaoe, who left a comment on Talk:country#False Etymology. – Jberkel 09:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the disputed sense was added by a different user. Akeosnhaoe’s role was to question it, writing that it “sounds like a joke”. The lyrics of “Hey Bobby” contain phrases such as “four-wheeled beauty” (as the text makes clear, the first car owned by the speaker), “ride a little ways down 299”, and “park in the shade”. Thus, the cited snippet “Would you like to go for a ride in the country with me?” clearly refers to an invitation to join the speaker on a literal car ride. In no way does it attest this euphemistic sense.  --Lambiam 15:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

During the obligatory Shakespeare phase of English classes, a classmate remarked on what in modern English would be a pun when Hamlet asks Ophelia "Do you think I meant country matters?" Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a pun in Shakespeare's time, and he did it deliberately. But that doesn't mean that country means "cunt". —Mahāgaja · talk 18:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

racialism

Rfv-sense: "The categorization of humans in different races (not necessarily for superiority ranking)." A can of worms quite frankly. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Compare also the definitions which were present before (vs after) these changes. (The "British, dated" label got moved to an entirely different sense, but this was probably correct, because there are contemporary and American instances of "racialism" where what's meant is "racism".) As you say, a can of worms. The entry needs more attention than I have time to give it right now. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Kwame Anthony Appia made a distinction between his uses of the terms racism and racialism in his 1993 book In My Father's House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. Racialism is “the view ... that there are heritable characteristics, possessed by members of our species, that allow us to divide them into a small set of races, in such a way that all the members of these races share certain traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race.”^[22] I do not know if he was the first to give such a clear definition, but many authors that use the term cite his book. As defined, it does not imply a notion of superiority of one race over another. A similar distinction that, however, implies such a notion was made by Bulgarian-French philosopher Tzvetan Todorov in the 1993 book On Human Diversity: Nationalism, Racism and Exoticism in French Thought. (This is a translation from of Nous et les autres: La réflexion française sur la diversité humaine from 1989.) Todorov explains racialism as the belief in typological essences, called “races”, which can be rated hierarchically, while racism is not a belief but the use of racialism to promote social or political ends. This distinction is also used and cited in the literature. Used in this sense, it is a synonym of the oxymoronic term “scientific racism” – not overtly racist, but nevertheless serving to promote a racist agenda. I think we see a less charged – although opprobrious – use here, in the sentence “Yet such racialism was built upon the data of philology, inferring discrete racial groups from different speech varieties.” This is in the context of a Victorian mediaevalist view of mediaeval English as pure and indigenous.  --Lambiam 14:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have formatted your links into quotations, so this can be considered cited. Kiwima (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to give a better definition. Is the {{rfv-sense}} tag still needed?  --Lambiam 14:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

We usually let a word sit with its citations for a week before removing the tag. Kiwima (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wu-Tanger and Wu-Tangers

Is this term really in use? To be honest, I'm a big fan of the Wu-Tang Clan and I never heard anyone using a term "Wu-Tanger". I checked the NOW Corpus which contains over 12 billion words shows no evidence of this term. Google hardly mentnions it. I think it is a ephemeral term that was used once nad stop being used. Tashi (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That corpus isn't the right place to look. Try Google Books, which is full of music magazines etc. We now have 4 citations for sense 1 (member or fan). I don't know about sense 2 (Australian slang for a kind of youth). Equinox ◑ 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Struldbrug

Needs usage that meets WT:FICTION. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Such usage exists: [23], [24], [25]. The definition needs some loosening, though; it is good enough for similes, as in the last of these uses, but not for metaphorical use as when addressing an obelisk as “forlorn Struldbrug”. So we need a change that results in the extension of the loosened concept overlapping with but not including all of the denotations of the pre-loosened concept.  --Lambiam 15:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. Passed as amended. Kiwima (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

built like a shit brickhouse

Needs quotations. DonnanZ (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Cited IMHO. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

holograph

RFV-sense of "hologram". Present in M-W and AHD, but its existence is contested by an IP user on my talk page, who argues that it should not be the first definition and mentions a risk of what some call citogenesis. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

These all seem valid attestations to me: [26] [27] [28] [29] However, this usage has apparently invited disapproving comment and it might be more common in the United States than elsewhere. In any event, this meaning seems less common than the other meaning of holograph. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Added 3 cites. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

mouth

Rfv-sense: To form or cleanse with the mouth; to lick, as a bear licks her cub. Supposedly there's a Thomas Browne quote around, but I couldn't track it down. Oxlade2000 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

dumble

"(slang) A stupid person". Looking at the entry history, the creator claimed this appears in several dictionaries, but did not name them. I wonder if dumbledore is related; see its etymology. In that case this might be old UK dialect rather than slang. Equinox ◑ 11:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• It was real, mentioned by Wright, but it may not meet CFI. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

bodega

Rfv-sense: (Philippines) A warehouse.

Plausible, but is there evidence? Maybe from an English-language newspaper in the Philippines. Personally, I'd settle for lesser evidence than for well-attested flavors of English, but we have rules. DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

longfather

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 08:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

rhaphanidosis

DTLHS (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added a number of quotes to the citations page. All but one of the italicize the word. The question is, is this English, or just a transliteration of a Greek word. If we decide to keep it, the definition should be changed to include the fact that this is a punishment, not a sexual practice. Kiwima (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

fordwine

Doesn't seem to have survived past Middle English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I could only find one quote (on citations page), and that is someone who is self-consciously using obsolete words. Kiwima (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added one from Sir Torrent of Portingale, whose date of publication is uncertain, but is included in Poetry from 1505 here [[30]]. Leasnam (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

backward

Adj. sense:

Reluctant or unable to advance or act.

She certainly isn't backward in coming forward!

• 1919, W[illiam] Somerset Maugham, “chapter 51”, in The Moon and Sixpence:

  Then her eyes, always alert for the affairs of her kitchen, fell on some action of the Chinese cook which aroused her violent disapproval. She turned on him with a torrent of abuse. The Chink was not backward to defend himself, and a very lively quarrel ensued.

• 2003 August, “Media Prospecting”, in Mortgage Magazine‎^[31]:

  Don't be backward in suggesting story ideas to local media but always think of the wants, needs and desires of their readers when selling-in story ideas.

RFV "unable" only. The existing examples illustrate the "reluctant" sense, as I see it. Mihia (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

backward (2)

Adv. sense:

Toward or into the past; ago.

RFV "ago" only, which to me seems out of place. While "ago" does of course have a flavour of "into the past", I feel that we need more than that, such as a substitutable example, to justify mentioning it. Mihia (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not finding anything searching Google Books for "{months,years,hours} backward". This looked like it might be substitutable for "ago", but on further consideration, I think the author is probably saying the dry season is two months behind (i.e. it's happening two or more months later than it should), not two months ago. Here's another example with the "behind" sense. This usage, qualified with a quantity of time, should probably get a usex and/or quotation, and probably even a separate sense. Since if we say a baby is 4 months backward (behind) in walking, we mean that its walking is occurring forward in time (relative to the expected moment) which is sort of the opposite of "Toward or into the past". Colin M (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

To me, "backward" in e.g. "the dry season is two months backward" and "a baby is 4 months backward in walking" seems like an adjective. We already have an adjective definition "Late or behindhand", with example "a backward season". Mihia (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes, you're absolutely right. Though it currently lacks a usex/quote showing a quantity of time modifier, so I'll add that. Colin M (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

alvinophilia

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added two citations to the entry. In addition, there is this, which is not really interesting enough to include as a quote, being just an entry in a table which indicates the relative frequency of this fetish, but which is permanently archived, so that means this is cited. Kiwima (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

steeplehouse

An IP user persistently contests the current definition, "building in which Quakers meet for worship", and that determination appears to be justified as it seems to have been mostly used as a polemical term for the churches used by non-Quakers. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• The OED has " Used by the early Quakers (and, before them, sometimes by other scrupulous persons) instead of ‘church’, on the ground that that word ought not to be applied to a building." SemperBlotto (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I have cited the meaning as "church". I think it highly unlikely that this means the "building in which Quakers meet for worship" - that is a meetinghouse. One of the cites is from the Journal of George Fox (founder of the Quaker faith), and it clearly refers to a non-Quaker church building. Kiwima (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

stitch

Rfv-sense: furrow. Supposedly a George Chapman quote there, but I got frustrated in my search for it Oxlade2000 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

maidenhair

I can't find any source for this sense outside of people discussing the etymology of the word (and as far as I can tell, it's a folk etymology too). Em-as-in-emily (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is in regards to sense (1), "a woman's pubic hair" Em-as-in-emily (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, impressive! Thank you. Em-as-in-emily (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

dodecad

RFV of the sense "(now historical) trillion (short scale), billion (long scale), million million, myriad octad; 1,000,000,000,000 = 1012 [from 16th c.]" Added in diff. Pointed out as dubious in the Tea Room. I didn't spot anything when I searched for it + billion, trillion, or power+ten. - -sche (discuss) 01:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

abanga

Mentions and copies of the same text abound on Google Books, but independent uses are rare. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

rock

Rfv-sense: distaff. Used by Chapman, apparently in his translation of the Odyssey, according to one glossary. It's clearly in one of Chapman's books, but I couldn't dig out the quote for rock that doesn't refer to the main definition. And that'll be all of Chapman quote requests done Oxlade2000 (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

tit

Rfv-sense: A young girl, later especially a minx, hussy. Apparently has a Burton quote, but all I could find in Robert Burton's books were scannos for fit and fits. Oxlade2000 (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

cleaner-upper

Not sure this is worthy an entry though, but I just want to see if this passes and has some cites – -upper can be added to quite a few things (fixer-upper, etc.). --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is easily citable from Google Books. If you're going to create these, don't forget the Aussie versions - cleaner-upperer, fixer-upperer etc, which might well be citable too. This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection can you please undelete this? It's a good entry. This, that and the other (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone else already got around to it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

probabilisity

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I put two cites on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

These citations make perfect sense if the word probabilisity is replaced by probability; for example, a transition probability density function^[32] is obviously the probability density function of a transition probability. On the other hand, the given definitions for the two alleged senses of probabilisity do not appear to be applicable in the cited sentences. So I think these cites are typos.  --Lambiam 14:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Or errors by non-native speakers. Kiwima (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

wooden nickel

Rfv-sense: "(US, dated) The smallest amount of money imaginable."

This misses the idea that the item has not very low value, but zero value, except as a means to defraud. DCDuring (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

cited. Actually, most cites seem to stress the worthlessness rather than the fact that it is not a real nickel. When emphasizing the fake nature of a wooden nickel, the use is usally metaphoric. Given that wooden nickels (souvenir coins) are a real thing, and often collector's items,the term has only recently taken on connotations of fraud. Kiwima (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the WP article at face value when they talk about the expression. They say that wooden nickels were in use in the 1930s. Citations of don't take any wooden nickels can be found in in the 1910s. In addition, there is an expression attested earlier involving wooden nutmegs used in the same way. In American discourse there is an abundance of expressions about frauds and cons, of which this is certainly seems to be one. Other examples include hot dog (the sausage), This isn't my first rodeo which was about the sideshows which were and are a lot like carnival side shows with plenty of hucksters. I think there are more examples out of H. L. Mencken's The American Language. DCDuring (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Slavaboo, slavaboo

No results on BGC. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

browden

Seemingly not attested in Modern English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(This also goes for the following feld, storve, storven, & corven) You may see many Middle English verb tenses showing as English but marked as obsolete. This is because in the past we did not show Middle English separate from Modern English (there were no Middle English entries, or very few of them; and Middle English was not distinguished from Modern English at all). It was common practice to show Middle English as "obsolete" Modern English. This does not mean that the following should not still be checked for use in Modern times (post 1500), as some may still be dialectal in use. Leasnam (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added a number of citations in Modern English (although some are arguably Scotts) to the citations page. I am not convinced that they support the supplied definition, however. Kiwima (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of those do seem to be Scots; I've separated out those which I believe to be Scots; additionally, I've changed it to a adjective since it is better treated as one than a p.p. (except maybe in Middle Scots). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

feld

Doesn't seem to be attested in ModE either. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

storven

I don't think this survives into ModE either; the Early Modern form is starven. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of what I found was Middle English (a lot of Chaucer), but I did find a poem by Chatterton (18th century). On the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Chatterton claimed that his works were written by Thomas Rowley, a (fictional) 14th century poet, so he tried to imitate the trappings of late ME as best as he could. Therefore it's questionable that his works should count as ModE. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

storve

I'd be very surprised if this survived into ModE. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

corven

I'm skeptical as to whether this is ModE either, aside from the one pseudo-archaistic use present. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

fore

Another one (etymology 2 of course). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

forth

Rfv-sense: Thoroughly; from beginning to end. WT Citation 'Tis given as Shakespeare/Howe'er mine Googling searche 'twas uncleare Oxlade2000 (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

shoad

All senses except for the ones related to mining don't seem to have survived past Middle English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Even though this doesn't count as verification in RFV (this is just an fyi), these meanings were brought in from Century here [[33]]. shode is an alternative form of shoad. Leasnam (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

park

Rfv-sense To engage in romantic or sexual activities inside a nonmoving vehicle. Oxlade2000 (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I am familiar with this meaning, but in go parking. Leasnam (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks cited, even if you separate out the ones that use "go parking". Kiwima (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is engaging in sex in the back of a taxicab caught in a Manhattan traffic jam also parking? And what about romantic adventures while aboard a docked cruise ship? I think the sense of “vehicle” needs to be restricted to conveyances under the control of the involved actors.  --Lambiam 09:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)