Wiktionary:Tea room/2024/August

aufruf

Pronunciation is given as /ˈʊfˌɹʊf/: really, with the same vowel for both au (Yiddish oy) and u? - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Subsequent discussion here and on Talk:aufruf.) - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Portuguese verb arruinar

The vowel sequence ⟨ui⟩ is considered a hiatus in that case, therefore the forms where the stress fall on the root of the verb should have an acute accent: arruíno, arruína, arruínes (/-uˈi-/), and not arruino, arruina and arruino (/-ˈuj-/). Can someone please fix this (I don't know how to)? OweOwnAwe (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labels: Transgender Slang, Gay Slang, & 4chan /lgbt/ Slang

Topic added per @Ioaxxere’s suggestion. I began making the changes I will shortly detail and defend concerning labels for transgender slang, gay slang, and 4chan /lgbt/ slang (or /tttt/ slang, if you like). These changes were inspired by a topic on @Whoop whoop pull up’s talk-page started by @-sche and replied to by @WordyAndNerdy. I made these changes without prior consensus following the be-bold policy, but stopped following @Ioaxxere’s request—“Why are you mass-replacing transgender slang with LGBT in labels, even for clearly transgender-related terms like egg and T*?”

I argue that using the LGBT label rather than transgender slang, gay slang, or 4chan /lgbt/ slang is better. To be clear, these are all labels that currently exist. Firstly, as the G and T in LGBT stand for gay and transgender respectively, it is entirely accurate to use LBGT to describe that which is gay or transgender. Secondly, although it may seem more precise to use the more specific labels, it is actually confusing or inaccurate to do so, as virtually all—and probably entirely all—of the terms see usage within a broader, LGBT context, and do not solely refer to gay or trans phænomena. Giving an exhaustive list here is not plausible, but I will attempt to give examples, and I could defend my rationale over other, given terms if necessary: a nonbinary person may transition, boymode or girlmode (as it is called), or receive gender-affirming surgery; LGBT people other than gay men (and to a significant degree greater than straight or cisgender people) use the terms breeder, bug-chaser, and twink; LGBT people other than gay men can be bottoms or tops (even ignoring the BDSM-senses); people on 4chan outside of /lgbt/ indeed use terms like pooner, hon, or passoid; etc. pp.

It may be counterargued that such terms should have both the LGBT label and the more specific label. This, however, will only create an odious redundancy in the vast majority—or probably entirety—of the cases to which this attempted compromise would be applied: Again, LGBT is already inclusive of the meanings these more specific labels may carry. There may be rare exceptions, of course, where such auxiliary labels may be tolerable as such, but I argue here for a general, not an absolute.

On the matter of /lgbt/, there is even less cause for use of a label indicating a specific board on 4chan. There is simply no reason or præcedence for such an ultraspecific label. There are plenty of terms originating on /pol/: Are we to go about labeling them as such, rather than—or in addition to—a simple explanation in the term’s etymology? Shall we create labels for every subreddit or Tumblr which happens to beget a few words? It surely must be reconsidered. A simple combination of the 4chan and LGBT labels, when appropriate, perfectly suffices, methinks.

In conclusion, for the sake of simplicity, accuracy, and concision, I propose the total subsumption—except where may be absolutely necessary for the sake of clarity—of the labels transgender slang, gay slang, and 4chan /lgbt/ slang within LGBT as appropriate, with the 4chan label used to signify the origin where necessary. Anything more detailed or specific should go in the definition, etymology, usage-notes, etc., and not in the labels. Please deliberate and discuss this.

Vex-Vectoꝛ 20:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree, and partially disagree.

I would argue that trans-specific slang originating in the trans community itself and (currently or formerly) widely used by trans people when referring to themselves, such as egg or boymode, should keep the specific transgender slang label, as these terms (at least in the trans-related senses) are highly trans-specific, used originally (and, in many cases, still primarily) by trans people about themselves (as for "a nonbinary person may transition, boymode or girlmode (as it is called), or receive gender-affirming surgery", that still falls under the transgender umbrella).

For trans-specific 4chan /lgbt/ slang, which is generally at least somewhat derogatory of trans people and is not, nor has ever been, widely used by the greater trans community (or, indeed, by any part of the greater queer community) about ourselves, such as pooner, hon, or passoid, the 4chan slang label is probably best, as these terms originate externally to most or all of the queer community and are overwhelmingly used by those external to it to attack or mock trans people. (I would not be opposed to the creation of a specific 4chan /lgbt/ slang label to specifically identify this category of slang in contrast to other varieties of 4chan slang, however.)

Slang which is not trans-specific, but is LGBT-specific, and which is widely used by queer folks, such as bottom, breeder, or twink, should go under the umbrella LGBT slang label, as no significant part of this category of slang is specific to a particular subcategory of the queer community. The subcategory that probably comes closest are those slang terms often seen as specific to gay men, but even these aren't actually specific to gay men; all or nearly all of these terms are, at the very least, very widely used by trans women, as even the somewhat-specific terms are queer-people-with-penises-specific rather than gay-men-specific (as someone who falls into the former category but not the latter, I am intimately acquainted with the distinction between the two), the vast majority are also used by bi/pan men (and bi/pan trans women!), and many, such as top and bottom, have spread throughout the LGBT community as a whole. As such, I support the subsumption of the gay slang label by the LGBT slang label. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whoop whoop pull up: I object to the ftm/non-binary erasure perpetuated at boymode and girlmode. Only egg as in egg_irl is trans-specific. "Anyone who is switching their presentation can be in girl or boy mode". Labeling it as "transgender slang" ignores the semantic distinction between gender identity and expression. "originating" belongs in the Etymology section.

The logical label is {{lb|en|genderfluid slang}}. Claiming it's trans-specific because r/asktransgender and r/trans predominate Googling girlmode boymode site:reddit.com is erasure like saying "I'm pregnant" is exclusive to a hypothetical feminine register of English. These terms are also attested on r/NonBinary and r/feminineboys. Furthermore, quotations on those very entries contradict the trans-specific assumption:

Before I came out as trans I was in boymode at work
cis girls posting that they're boymoding

I doubt the "widely used by queer folks, such as bottom, breeder, or twink" part. AFAB community members systematically discriminate against AMAB and masc individuals by gatekeeping queer spaces, thus pushing them into GNC spaces. I predict these words are more widely used by non-queer folks.

'trans people about themselves (as for "a nonbinary person may transition, boymode or girlmode (as it is called), or receive gender-affirming surgery"': An enby who transitions or receives surgery is trans. An enby who girlmodes and boymodes isn't necessarily trans. Nonbinary falls under the trans umbrella but not all nonbinary ppl want to be labelled as trans

@Ioaxxere: The question "Is there really language shared between gay, lesbian, transgender, asexual, etc. individuals?" is a synonym of LGB. The LGBT community will not be divided. 142.113.140.146 16:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I doubt the "widely used by queer folks, such as bottom, breeder, or twink" part. AFAB community members systematically discriminate against AMAB and masc individuals by gatekeeping queer spaces, thus pushing them into GNC spaces. I predict these words are more widely used by non-queer folks." citation needed, having never observed this sort of systematic discrimination as an AMAB trans gal; everything I've seen indicates that such discrimination is limited to a small (albeit vocal) minority of the queer community. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 18:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IP, re "Anyone [...] can be in girl or boy mode", and the examples where (trans?) people speculate about cis women being about to talk about being in boymode/girlmode: aye, but a label like "trans slang" is about who uses it, rather than who they describe with it. If so substantial a portion of cis people use these words as to make saying it's chiefly trans slang wrong, that remains to be demonstrated. I did remove the "especially of a trans man" part of the definition of girlmode since a lot of the cites seem to be rather trans women using it to describe themselves, rather than trans men using it (and removed the "especially of a..." from boymode for similar reasons). BTW I notice we have boymode, manmode, and girlmode, but not womanmode if anyone feels like rustling up some cites. - -sche (discuss) 20:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like your edit's wording {{lb|en|especially|in|_|trans slang}}. It acknowledges broader usage while giving due credit to the trans community for the primary use. 142.113.140.146 14:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the changes you were making, which were to trans slang, AFAICT many of those changes should be undone, because many of the trans slang terms you changed are more specific than just "LGBT". The 4chan-/tttt/-specific terms you suggest changing are notably not in general use among LGBT people, and the "LGBT" label would be incorrect and misleading for them, but we could just put them in the general "4chan slang" category, iff people want to be less specific.
Regarding the gay slang category you raise here now, many terms in that category are indeed broader. In an ideal world, Wiktionary would separate "LGBT slang" from "LGBT topic"; at present we just have one "LGBT" label which different people use for either or both; before anyone embarks on a mass recategorization, we should decide whether to do anything about this: do we want a "Category:English LGBT slang" to exist alongside the "Category:en:LGBT [topic]" category? Terms like twink are indeed not only used by gay people but also bi people, so IMO we should consider creating and moving terms to an "English LGBT slang" category, or (specifically with twink, and e.g. butch) even just forgoing a label if enough straight people also use it (but I'm not sure how to deduce and quantify this). - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. Slang like titty skittle or boymode are very specific to the trans community, and I simply don't buy the argument that they all "do not solely refer to gay or trans phænomena", because some of them quite clearly do. Now, you can argue that they might be used by other people in the LGBT scene when referring to trans people, which may be true within certain contexts, but they still only see use within a very specific domain.

I also have no idea why the rationale for this is based on the 4chan boards /lgbt/ and /tttt/. The majority of people who use these terms have never even heard of them, so what people may or may not say there isn't necessarily very relevant. Ignore this second part - I didn't realise there was a specific label for 4chan /lgbt/ slang. Theknightwho (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that we lack a wider LGBT slang category (and label) that includes terms used specifically by LGBT people (but not necessarily related to LGBT people). As for the more specific categories, I also think that some terms do belong to more distinct sublexicons used by smaller communities. (See also Polari, which is a subcategory of English gay slang, as brought up in the linked discussion.) While the correct placement of entries in subcategories may sometimes be a challenge, I think the existence of a separate transgender and gay male slang subcategory is justified.

Regarding your recent edits, the {{lb|en|LGBT}} label places entries in the en:LGBT category, which collects terms related to the LGBT community, and is not a subcategory of Category:English slang. Therefore, I think every [X] slang → LGBT label change should be undone. Einstein2 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "LGBT slang" makes much sense as a label. Is there really language shared between gay, lesbian, transgender, asexual, etc. individuals? I think our labels should be specific as to which communities a term is mainly used in. I'll defer to the editors above, though. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Einstein2 OK, to avoid a second discussion about an LGBT(Q) slang label petering out without action, I added the label. To Ioaxxere's concern, I acknowledge it's not perfect (nor are most of our categories) but I think it's a good balance between "have a category where 100% of the people named in the title use 100% of the terms", "have something people recognize as a category", and "have a category where the people named in the title are who uses the terms". Certainly, it's better at "have a category where 100% of the people named in the title use 100% of the terms" than many categories, like "American English", a mix of some terms that most (but not all) Americans use, and some terms I'd be surprised if even 20% of Americans knew, like some of the restaurant or military slang (but the terms are rare outside America and there's no narrower category, so there they sit). And it seems better at "have a category where the people named in the title are who uses the terms" than e.g. "gay slang" (a lot of which is also used by e.g. bi/pan men, not to even mention e.g. homoromantic aces or certain nonbinary people). So "LGBTQ slang" seems reasonable to me (but we should always revisit this if we find that in practice it's not maintained / maintainable). - -sche (discuss) 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche Thank you! I integrated "LGBTQ slang" into the category tree and classififed "gay slang", "transgender slang" and "4chan /lgbt/ slang" as its subcategories. We are certainly far from perfect categorization of all LGBTQ slang terms but I guess this is a step in the right direction.

I wonder whether we should rename LGBT to LGBTQ (for the sake of consistency), and English gay slang to gay male slang (as suggested by User:Benwing2 last year in the BP). Einstein2 (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oleandrine and oleandrin

Same thing? I'm useless at chemistry, don't even know if a glycoside is a glucoside or alkaloid. Anyone interested? Phacromallus (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

olivin

and olivite - same as oleuropein? Phacromallus (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

master

WRT meaning #2: The owner of an animal or slave I agree that a slave owner could be classified as a master since they control their slaves, but does master imply ownership? I'm no expert, but I think not. And, if not, then instead of a definition/meaning, it's an example.

Consider, a slave owner might not be the master in a controlling sense. The owner might hire someone and delegate the responsibility. That person would have the role and even the title of master.

The word master in the context of slavery is of course triggering. But, if master does not imply ownership then defining it to mean slavery is not only incorrect but stoking a fire that does not need it. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between a master and a slave and between a master and an animal is the same, regardless of how you define it. That's part of the ugliness of slavery. You can't erase that by playing with the definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how we define it? This is a dictionary which is primarily about definition. You miss my point and I don't like the implication you make with erase that by playing with the definitions. We all agree that slavery is ugly. We all agree that a slave has a master. What I'm wondering is whether master implies ownership. If not, then I'd say defining master to mean owner is playing with the definition. We certainly should say that the word master is associated with slavery, but to define it as such is another matter. For example, I have autism. But I do not define myself as such. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevebroshar: There is a point to think about, which I would too have considered, whether the master–slave relationship implies ownership, but then again there is likely not enough data within the language community, that had slavery, to support a distinction between the person that gave commands or exerted force, perhaps a sweater, and an implied owner, on whose account the slavework also happens. It has to do with most slaves having to be neurotypical, as well as with them not being as otiose as the leisure class to make progressive legal arguments about social relations, which cannot successfully be challenged without automatic cognitive defence mechanisms to counterargue and reinforce social relations, which you intuitively don’t if you have autism. So the slave just stayed a person with little to no rights, somebody else in control, legally and factually. Wasn’t questioned, they just used a generic word for an overlord, and the legal implications of a case are always later than and optional to the fact when you have mechanisms exploiting human psychology (theory of mind assuring you how other people will behave) to ignore the laws. Jurists are dastard about what anything implies since they can only do so much to shape reality.

You are confused by the peculiarity of the English language having a word for “owner” only used in a particular field, but at the same time particularly in meanings outside any possible legal implication, which per se is not logical but reinforced as a dictionary meaning by a chain of perception biases.

Language comparison—as well as the currently somewhat esoteric knowledge about the automated simplification in the neurotypical mind serving social cohesion but making them inept to see “embedded figures”—confirms the correct position. Latin dominus (“owner”) is the word used by the Romans for, you guess it, the master or owner of a slave. On the other hand words like master and German Brotherr and German Dienstherr from Herr (“master, lord, generic term for any overlord, ruler or Herrscher”) also mean employer, as does Verleger (literally “one who bears the costs”), but not Schwitzer (“sweater”).

If we explain like you are five than there is a certain class of words tending to mean “a person who has the best relation to a thing or person, who makes its life decisions”. No worries yet when you are five given that all is provided, legal distinctions are barely known and for most people they stay more or less so. Technical meanings of words are added later to one’s individual lexicon as well as to that of a whole national language, as a function of them legal distinctions. Which means that vagueness can be perceived differently according to one’s background and social roles defined by them will stay equivocal, the uglier the limits of knowledge determining a topic are or were, but contextualized by us through employment of implicit similia. Fay Freak (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That clears it up :) sweater? slaves are neurotypical? otiose? automatic cognitive defence mechanisms? counterargue? Jurists are dastard about what anything implies since they can only do so much to shape reality? ... We don't speak Roman (etymology is interesting but not always relevant). We don't use the word dominus, but it's nice to know that the Romans had a word for ownership that was specific to slavery. So what? We're talking about master. ... Yes, master is another word for boss. You are making my point. ... The first two paragraphs make little sense. The last less. ... If you are trying to talk to me like I'm 5, then use smaller words, shorter sentences and most importantly make sense. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the question "Who is your master?", asked of a (putative) slave, as asking who their owner is. This ownership sense is explicit in this snippet from a dialogue in Melville’s The Confidence-Man:

Who is your master, pray; or are you owned by a company?^[1]

--Lambiam 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? I think the first question (who is your master) means: who gives you orders; who controls your life? We can be controlled without being a slave. It's similar to: who's your boss? ... As for that quote (2nd question), it is out of context. It might be asking whether the person is free vs. slave. Or maybe they are referring to ownership without meaning slavery. People often say they are owned even though they are not slaves. I might say I'm owned by my wife or by boss or my company. I can be owned by an idea. It's a manner of speaking (hyperbole) that does not imply actual slavery. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

coronis

IMO definition three would benefit from an example of a word which has such a coronis. - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An example is found in καλός κἀγαθός, in which κἀγαθός is a contraction of καί ἀγαθός. --Lambiam 23:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stringed

The entry stringed says it's an informal past tense and passive participle of "string". But according to w:Germanic strong verb "string" as a verb used to be weak. I think that's true. Can anyone confirm this? 13:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At OED there is confirmation. OED at Etymology for string (v.) discusses this aspect. At Forms it reports (from attestation data) that weak and strong coexisted in the past, and at Use its earliest quotations show the weak form. At Etymology it explains that the verb came from the noun (i.e., a case of conversion, specifically, denominal verbing) and that it was originally weak but then the strong form displaced the weak form. This is interesting in light of a comparison with ring#Verb (ring, ringed, ringed) and ring#Verb_2 (ring, rang, rung). If you think about it hard enough in this light, the shift to string being strong (by being strung) feels like a mistake. It would be like if "a blinged-out car" became *"a blung-out car". A misapprehension at heart, but one that could not be disabused if it took hold among enough speakers, because it brings another logic of its own. (A different logic has been brung.) But I'll never call a ringed plover (which has a stripy neck) a *rung plover (which has a wrung neck). Quercus solaris (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le Pen

in the article on this surname it states that it is a French surname meaning the head. Pen does not mean head in any era of French language.Pen does mean head in native Briton language though,which has place names like Penzance meaning saints head.Le is not the definite article in native Briton language it means place or location in Breton,Cornish and Welsh . Modern Welsh has adopted the double l spelling giving LLE as the modern version but having the same meaning and use. 2A00:23C5:A09:8C01:1D4D:42F:879D:820B 19:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the semantics are the only issue. Perhaps what they mean when they say "a French surname meaning 'head'" is, evidently, more precisely, "a French-language surname used by French people that comes from a Breton word meaning 'head'." Much like Massachusetts is an English-language American placename that comes from a Wampanoag word for 'big hill'. You could say that Massachusetts is "an English-language placename that means 'big hill'," and you wouldn't be wrong. That's natural language for ya — it's a peelable onion with a taut surface. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency for entries about the multi-word translations of certain entries

Is it me or is it that I find it annoying that some multi-word translations of a single English word have linked to seperate entries instead of a single entry, while some are?

an example is from the entry for suck (disparagment sense):

Czech: být na houby, být na dvě věci Split by seperate entries? NO

Dutch: klote zijn Split by seperate entries? NO

Finnish: olla syvältä Split by seperate entries? NO

French: être chiant, être nul Split by seperate entries? YES (as être chiant, être nul)

German: mies sein, zum Kotzen sein, Scheiße sein Split by seperate entries? NO

Greek: άστα να πάνε, είμαι μαλάκας Split by seperate entries? NO

Italian: essere una schiappa, fare schifo Split by seperate entries? NO

Polish: być do bani Split by seperate entries? YES (as być do bani)

Portuguese: ser um saco, ser uma droga, ser uma bosta Split by seperate entries? YES (as ser um saco, ser uma droga, ser uma bosta))

Spanish: ser un asco, dar asco Split by seperate entries? NO

Swedish: vara skit, vara botten, vara värdelös Split by seperate entries? NO

Turkish: berbat olmak Split by seperate entries? NO

Maybe we should change this... probably show them as one entry in the translations because you could already have the seperate entries in those potential entries, and it lets people check declensions of those multiword translations without having to do much work on figuring them out themselves, in my opinion. Adamnewwikipedianaccount (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are tugging at the yarns in the sweater that comprises both WT:SOP and WT:THUB. It is a fuzzy sweater indeed. This challenge is not specific to Wiktionary. It is of the nature of language. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, if the translated term is idiomatic in the target language and ought to have an entry by itself (e.g. zum Kotzen sein), the link should not be split. But if it is a transparent sum of parts in the target language, the separate parts should be linked separately. --Lambiam 22:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That is how I have added and edited translations into Mandarin over the years. It makes no sense to red-link sum-of-parts entries that are not dictionary material. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doony

Doony, noun. A place. A name. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_townlands_of_the_barony_of_Orrery_and_Kilmore 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(Barth_novel) 3. https://www.names.org/n/doony/about

doony, adjective. Maybe related to "doon". Said in S05E06 of "Sons of Anarchy": https://web.archive.org/web/20230429142646/https://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?t=7357 - "CHIBS: What is your problem, you doony bastard." --2601:281:D87E:D6E0:D04E:1FF8:30F8:15A 05:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unique terms for specific plants' (especially trees') leaves

In languages I know of, terms for a plant and its leaf are usually the same, or one is built on the other: Haida skʼíihl is a salal plant or leaf, in English you add leaf so a pear [tree] has pear leaves, a walnut has walnut leaves; a German Eiche has Eichen blätter (Eichen laub); etc. The same is usually true for fruit/nuts (a pear [fruit] grows on a pear [tree], etc), but there are exceptions: nuts of oaks have the unrelated, unpredictable, unique term acorns. Are there unrelated/unpredictable/unique terms for leaves of particular plants, especially trees? Fern leaves being fronds (def. 1) is in the vicinity of what I'm interested in. - -sche (discuss) 15:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some terms for the betel leaf, in so far as distinct from the name of the betel pepper.

سِوَاك (siwāk) is the name of the leafless twig of the toothbrush tree (أَرَاك (ʔarāk)), its fruits are called كَبَاث (kabāṯ) (where synonyms are already given).

Then there are various terms for parts of a palm-tree, كَافُور (kāfūr, “bract of the inflorescence of the date palm”), جُمَّار (jummār, “heart of palm”), سَعَف (saʕaf, “palm leaves or palm branches with leaves”), جَرِيد (jarīd, “branch stripped of leaves”), ضَرَمَة (ḍarama, “a palm-branch kindled in its extremity”), عَرْجُون (ʕarjūn, “palm-twig with dates”), خُوص (ḵūṣ, “palm-leaves”), Coptic ⲃⲏⲧ (bēt, “palm-leaf”), and more which I don’t remember uncued.

You have to search the languages of islands were the coconut is a daily beater. Fay Freak (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. And a palm tree considered in its entirety is a نَخْلَة (naḵla)? I wonder if we should be linking the words for the parts from there (or some other central entry), as meronyms (or see alsos). - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We can also have a picture dictionary as (South) Levantine Arabic already has often, but leading terms vary between dialects so it is kind of contentious and also a bit specific, like I won’t collect the terms for date varieties I don’t even have access to and still no one has dumped the names of apple varieties in European languages. Behnstedt, Peter, Woidich, Manfred (2010) Wortatlas der arabischen Dialekte – Band I: Mensch, Natur, Fauna und Flora (Handbook of Oriental Studies – Handbuch der Orientalistik; 100) (in German), Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, →DOI, →ISBN in the last chapters asked terms for the date-palm, (date-)palm-fronds, palm-leaves, infructescences, palm-trunks and date-pits. Fay Freak (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—

Agreed. Interesting to ponder. In quizzing my brain about the (OP) question, I found myself on a detour through the aspect that when humans use the leaves of a certain plant for multiple specific purposes, specific terms for them tend to develop naturally. Thus there are various terms for various types of tobacco leaf depending on the grade and use (e.g., wrapping, filling), although the only people who know them well are ones who are tobacco growers, tobacco brokers, or tobacco product manufacturers; thus they are jargon-ish. I suspect that the same phenomenon probably has happened for palm and plantain leaves in some languages, and it's not classifiable as jargon if it's part and parcel of the common folks' bread and butter. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some 1800s Marathi dictionaries, like the 1831 Dictionary Murathee–English by Molesworth and Candy, list a variety of terms for parts of plantain leaves ("the further portion, or portion near the extremity, of a plantain leaf divided crosswise"; "the half of a plantain leaf slit lengthwise"; "a piece torn from a side of a plantain leaf"), as well as two words for "a plantain-leaf", but I have not yet found them in more modern works to ascertain whether they're correct / common. (Hindi dictionaries from that time only list a word for "plantain leaf" that looks closely related to the word for "plantain (plant)".)
Olay refers to palm leaves prepared for writing, which is close, but I'm hoping to find words for the leaves as they'd exist in nature or in general. Malabathrum is a perfume made from the leaves of the cinnamon or cassia, also not quite what I'm after. Merriam-Webster says pine-cheat refers to the leaf of the common spurry, but AFAICT this is mistaken: the scarcely-attested word seems to denote the plant itself, the name is just etymologically based on what the leaves look like. (I guess bay leaves technically count inasmuch as they're not bay laurel leaves, but I think we can do better.) Elatē (if correct) and spatha get some kind of honorable mention for referring to either a tree, or part of the leaf of a different tree. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For an amateur ethnobotanist like me, this has been interesting to think about- but I'm having trouble coming up with good examples. Usually a plant has one name and is known for the most notable aspect. The names for other aspects and the parts associated with them are modifications of the same name. Thus you have turnips, which are best known for the edible roots but are also known for the edible leaves, turnip "greens". Maples are known as a tree, which has characteristic maple "leaves" and produces maple "syrup". The main source of different names for the same plant is borrowing from other languages, so you have rocket, roquette and arugula.

In some cases, different cultures have different uses, as in the horseradish tree or moringa, which is used in India mostly for the edible pods and called the drumstick tree, but used for its edible leaves in the Philippines, which are sold in the markets as malunggay. I suspect, though, that the pods would also be known there as malunggay, since that's the name for the tree.

Then there's the pandanus tree, also known as the screw pine because of the spiral arrangement of the leaves in new shoots and the pinecone-like fruits. This is the hala or lauhala that's used to weave mats in Polynesia. The fragrant male flowers have a different name in Polynesian languages (hīnano in Hawaiian), and there's a flavoring used in Southeast Asia called kewra distilled from them (though the species used for kewra is not the main one used for mat weaving). That doesn't quite fit what you asked for, though, since hala or pandanus refers to the plant in general (lauhala literally means "hala leaf" in Hawaiian).

Citrus have edible fruits (oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit, etc.), edible leaves (the kaffir lime or makrut), and have fragrant blossoms that yield oils such as neroli. The problem is that the different named parts are from different species. Neroli comes from the bitter orange, which is different from the orange grown for its fruit, and the fruits of the kaffir lime are more of a curiosity than an agricultural product. That's not to say that you couldn't distill orange blossoms to produce things like orange blossom water (they smell wonderful), but that wouldn't be called neroli.

The only clearcut example I could find is bread-and-cheese, which is a dialectal name in England for hawthorn leaves eaten as a vegetable. There are probably a few more, perhaps from cases like crocus and saffron where the plant is known locally but a crop made from it is imported- but I haven't been able to think of any. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

brat

We have a new noun subsense of brat, "a proudly hedonistic young woman", apparently related to the recent hype around the Charlie XCX album. Is the term really being used with such a connotation (as opposed to "a child who is regarded as mischievous")? The popularity of the term may be worth documenting, but based on its sole citation, I am not sure a distinct subsense is justified (or at least not with such a narrow definition). Note that an adjective sense ("fierce and authentic") was also added with quotes discussing the album's impact. The Einstein2 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it used by young women of themselves in a positive way. I'm not sure if this is a different sense from the new one you mention. The location on the spectrum between go-getting and selfish is unclear. Nor do I have any nice attestations for you. Rich Farmbrough, 09:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I'm guessing that people who grew up with Bratz dolls find the newer sense intuitive. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for verification, using {{rfv-sense|en}}. It may be a hot sense, not cool enough yet for inclusion. --Lambiam 19:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hammerhead ribozyme

Don't understand why this is categorised as a pleonasm. Rich Farmbrough, 09:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Nor do I. It was a Wonderfool edit that was resposible for this strange categorisation though (under the 'Simplificationiser' alias), so I suggest simply removing it from the category - I'll hold fire for now though and give others a chance to voice their opinions here. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trivially, the category membership is because one of the definitions of hammerhead is "hammerhead ribozyme". By this reasoning, because one of the definitions of oak could be "oak tree" (not at enwikt), oak tree could be in the same category (not at enwikt). Wordnet 3.0 does say that oak and oak tree are synonyms, so that even without our defining oak as "oak tree", for consistency we could so categorize it.

This approach says that pleonasm is a lexical feature of hammerhead ribozyme. This seems wrong to me because most instances of pleonasm are characteristics of an utterance in context, not of the bare term. I expect that hammerhead ribozyme is only rarely pleonastic in context. For example, the first time it is used or mentioned, the full term links the shape with the hypernym, using the shape to differentiate it from other ribozymes. Were some other entity (not a ribozyme) also referred to as a hammerhead, eg, a shark, use of the full term would not be pleonastic. If the full term came up after a sufficient number of pages had passed, repeating the full expression would be an accommodation of the limits of readers' memories.

If pleonasm is never lexical, then we should not have the category. If pleonasm is lexical in the case of some definitions of some words, I wonder whether we should have the definitions. DCDuring (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German kostenpflichtig / gebührenpflichtig

@Mahagaja, Jberkel, Fay Freak: Is there a difference between the two? P U C – 17:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PUC Yes, mainly because Gebühr only means a fee imposed for a public service, see w:de:Abgabe, but then again both terms are untechnical breviloquences because a legal object cannot have a Pflicht (“obligation”), so e.g. you find zahlungspflichtig applied to a party and at the same time the thing that would have to be paid, and even "gebührenpflichtige Person" appears often, against expectation built from its frequent non-legal use. Fay Freak (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyabinghi

per @AG202's suggestion, the following info is mostly from wikipedia: The best I can find is that the name meaning "mother of abundance" seems to be attestable via the PDF sourced, but doesn't seem to state what language it actually comes from, and given that an Ugandan IP changed it from being from the Nande language(the reason i'm posting this in this channel) to the "Mpororo" language(which seems to be part of Nilo-Saharan) who the hell knows.

from what i have seen though i would take a total stab at whatever language this being from having the word "`nya/niya`" for `mother` and that the word for `abundance` has some inflection of `binghi` Akaibu (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could the name simply be made up? If it was coined in the 1920s i dont think the creator would've had access to material on modern African languages. —Soap— 08:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I found this, which starts out spelling the name Nyabingyi, which at least looks more traditionally Bantu, but then changes to Nyabinghi. I'm still skeptical that this name existed with any meaning in the 1800s as claimed, however. —Soap— 10:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if it's real, it may be using the infix -nya- (“pertaining to”), which is used in Tooro, a language of Uganda, so the placing is right. It would just be without the usual classifier prefix. The part that means mother could be this omitted classifier prefix, or it could be that the mother meaning is metaphorical. —Soap— 11:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Swahili has a term wingi meaning "plenty; abundance" so this might be real after all. Also it occurred to me that the unusual ngh cluster may be a way to transcribe /ŋg/ to distinguish it from /ŋ/, which has fallen out of use. —Soap— 13:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added etymology for now saying we don't know the source language but that we have a pretty good guess. —Soap— 23:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues at devil

I noticed a missing sense that's listed in some other dictionaries (a verb for the shredding of fabric as part of a recycling process) so I added it, with an appropriate quote. I'm still learning the ropes so hopefully I've done that correctly. I also came across a few issues I'm not sure how to resolve.

As a noun, there is a sense of a cycling elimination race, commonly called "the devil". This use derives from the phrase "devil take the hindmost" but I don't know how to show this as the derivation. I suspect there's a template? That phrase can itself be used as a noun to refer to such an elimination race, which is a missing sense on its page: moreover, cursory search results suggest "devil take the hindmost" is used not just in cycling, but also to refer to a less common event in other sports like athletics and karting. I don't know whether "devil" alone is used outside of cycling.
Arguably there's a missing derived term, devil race. Note that elimination race (to which it refers) doesn't have a page so I'm not sure if devil race deserves one either, but the current definition at "devil" doesn't make clear that "devil race" would be a valid formulation. It's quite common to see a cycling article about an omnium, in which this is one of the events, refer to a race as both "the devil" and "the devil race", which sounds redundant if you were to define "devil" to refer to the race itself. I don't know whether this sense of "devil" is in fact an ellipsis of "devil race" — or perhaps an ellipsis of "devil take the hindmost". I'm also unsure whether "devil race" is used outside cycling, whereas "devil take the hindmost" certainly is.
The derived terms for the verb don't all look right to me. For example, "between the devil and the deep blue sea" and "devil to pay" (itself an ellipsis of the devil to pay and no pitch hot or ready, no idea whether than deserves to be a blue link) seem to derive from devil as a noun not a verb.

LeadingTheLifeOfRiley (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has this "devil and sea" phrase something to do with European versions of the Lilith legend? Like, in all the stories about a Christian saint/prophet/angel/guy going for a walk on a beach and meets a demon/troll? Tollef Salemann (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bridge with railway span and automobile spans on separate (?)estacades(?)

w:Bridges_in_Kyiv#Metro_Bridge says "The Metro bridge consists of two spans [...] The larger span consists of an elevated central Metro span and side automobile spans on separate, lower estacades. Both the Metro and automobile paths have a distinct arched contour. [...] The smaller span [...] is a more conventional level estacade [...]." Is estacade the correct word for that, or was some other word meant? Our definition of estacade does not seem to fit well; are we missing a sense? - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche The conventional term for this is span, but if the span has multiple levels they are called decks. In this case, I suspect it's a (mis?)translation of Ukrainian естакада (estakada), from French estacade, as the Ukrainian term seems to mean something like "flyover" or "overpass"; compare Russian эстакада (estakada). In terms of the WP article, a mix of span and deck looks to be appropriate in this case. That being said, maybe it's technical jargon in bridge engineering, but the OED doesn't have a sense that fits. Theknightwho (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edo#Etymology 2

Shouldn't this say that it is from -do#Latin rather than from do#Latin, considering its forms? And then be added to the list of derived terms of "-do"? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compounds of -do#Latin and do#Latin have the same forms: since vowel weakening turned non-initial short -a- into -e- or -i-, dare became -dere in compounds, and the conjugation generally became third-conjugation. The distinction from -do#Latin is purely a matter of etymology, which makes things difficult, since the meanings of "give" and "put" are fairly close. De Vaan lists ēdere 'to eject, emit' among the derivatives of dō, dare.--Urszag (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urszag Interesting, but then why didn't that happen with conflo? It may be a question of where the accent goes, but then why was that different in "edo" and in "conflo"? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not caused by accent. The stem of flō ends in ā, seen forms like flāre, flāmus, flātis (contrast dare, damus, datis). Long vowels were not affected by archaic Latin vowel weakening. This can be seen pretty clearly in the inflection of compounds such as īnfringō where the supine stem īnfrāct- has a vowel that is long and therefore retains its original quality. Short vowels in compounds were sometimes affected and sometimes not: nobody has come up with a comprehensive explanation for when they are weakened vs. when they stay the same, although there are hypotheses.--Urszag (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urszag All right. But I think it is a question of accent. "Editus" is accented on the first syllable, whereas "conflātus" is accented on the second syllable. When the "a" is accented it doesn't get reduced to an "i". But then that is due to the long "ā" in "conflātus". And how do you explain "cognitus"? The root has a long "ō". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Latin accent, as assigned by the penultimate rule, is thought to have been a relatively recent development, postdating the process of vowel weakening. We can see that weakening affected short vowels in non-initial syllables regardless of whether they ended up accented or unaccented in Classical Latin: e.g. īnfringō, cōnficiō, dīmidius, inermis all show a reduced vowel in a syllable that ended up accented. So we can't say that Classical Latin accent prevented vowel weakening. Since Classical Latin stress is affected by syllable length, long vowels are often accented. But this is not the case in all forms; e.g. the stem-final vowel of flō, flāre remained unreduced in forms such as cōnflāvērunt, cōnflātūrus, cōnflābāmus where the Classical Latin accent is on a later syllable. Cognitus is a case where the variation in the length of the vowel must be old (earlier than the Classical Latin accent rule): there are some such cases, but they often don't have simple explanations. De Vaan's dictionary suggests several competing explanations going back to different formations from the PIE root.--Urszag (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urszag That's clear. Thanks for the explanations! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My new page publishment Issue

why you delete my created page ?? Thomas Dennis Raymond (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give me any Reason for deletion my Page?? Thomas Dennis Raymond (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person who reverted your edit wrote an edit comment. See here.

I'm not sure which page you're talking about. Technically, no page of yours has been deleted. Your edits to the existing page chronological age were reverted because you tried to change it into an article on the subject of chronological age, rather than a dictionary entry about the phrase "chronological age". See our Entry layout page and What Wiktionary is not.

As an admin, I can see in the logs that your creation of a page called matrix multiplication was stopped by an abuse filter because it wasn't formatted like a dictionary entry. While that could be resolved, I can see that it was an article explaining the subject of matrix multiplication in the field of mathematics. If you had succeded in publishing it, it probably would have been deleted for several reasons:

It was probably SOP: we have entries for matrix and multiplication. When you combine them into the phrase "matrix multiplication", there is nothing about the phrase itself that can't be explained by looking at those entries- it is the sum of its parts. We don't include entries for such phrases even if they're in common use.
It was about a topic rather than the phrase itself. A dictionary entry defines the term: what does it mean? It gives information about other forms: does it have a plural? Are there other spellings?. It gives information of the etymology. Where did it come from? What is the history of the words that make it up? It give examples of usage. What it doesn't do is explain how to multiply matrices, nor does it discuss the importance of matrix multiplication in mathematics or in various other disciplines like physics and chemistry.
It had a lot that didn't fit the standard formatting. A dictionary entry is very streamlined, and has standard sections in a standard order, so readers can quickly find the information they're looking for without having to figure out a new arrangement every time. We have over 8 million entries for terms in over 4 thousand languages, so consistency is important. You had the language header and the part of speech header, but you also had "The Process of Multiplication". You had a headword template, but no definition line.
It didn't help that you had a link to another non-wiki website.

To sum it all up: you're trying to make Wiktionary into something other than a dictionary. Wiktionary isn't for hosting non-dictionary content- good or bad. You might try one of the other projects like Wikibooks or Wikiversity. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deletion log for matrix multiplication I think it could be edited down to a good entry which isn't sum-of-parts, I like the bit which says "combine two matrices to form a third one that describes the composite effect of the original pair’s linear transformations" Justin the Just (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/time#Alternative_forms

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chronological_age

These two page are good according to your rules?? Thomas Dennis Raymond (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

query vs doubt

Am I correct to perceive the following distinction in Indian English?

A doubt is a true or false problem. Etymologically, it's "2" + "have", so the binary nature makes sense.
I have two doubts about SQL. 1. Can I type in lower-case? 2. Does null equal null?
A query is a short or long answer problem. A SQL query response usually contains varchar columns
queries are more technical and exact: You send a query, you get a result

However, I am having this doubt because I don't speak Indian English. I am trying to analyze this usage. 142.113.140.146 12:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In English as a natural language, in just about any variety (Indian or otherwise), the nouns question, query, doubt, uncertainty, and others are fuzzily fungible to a large degree. One cannot much stop them from being so, although one might try. But when it comes to database queries (including SQL queries), the only applicable word is query, not the others, because that's an idiomatic fact in English. The key thing to understand is that the word query, like many words in natural language, is polysemic. Someone can say that they have a query about writing SQL queries, and they are simply using two senses of the word. Even if their query about that topic is a yes-or-no question, one cannot say that they used the word invalidly. They might say that they have a doubt about whether X is Y or Z, or they might say that they have a query about whether X is Y or Z. In AmE we idiomatically don't usually say query in that case, as we'd usually say question, but when we hear or read our South Asian colleagues use query in that context, we obviously know exactly what they mean. HTH. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: TLDR: In other words, mapping such verbs to data types has inherent limits (i.e., is inherently weak, not powerful) when you switch from (1) a context of technical jargon taxonomies or ontologies to (2) the context of natural language in general registers. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we now agree queries include doubts. Are doubts restricted to yes-or-no questions or can they be short answer questions? 142.113.140.146 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely onto something — there's some kernel of dichotomy (i.e., whether, yes/no) that doubt is tied to a bit tighter whereas question and query are not bound to it as tightly. But I think it's difficult to nail down nonfuzzy rules. One can have a ton of doubt (mass noun sense) about the whole situation, which is not a dichotomizing thing. But you're right that doubt used in its count noun sense (e.g., a doubt) usually is tied to whether in concept. I have a doubt about whether X [is true] or [will happen]. One says I have a question for you: what were the causes of X, whereas one does not say I have a doubt for you: what were the causes of X. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added this in diff. I used your broader definition. 142.113.140.146 18:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quercus solaris:, are you sure "I have a doubt for you" is not used in Indian English? The IP is asking about usage that is specific to Indian English, which simply sounds like a mistake to most English speakers. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think an Indian speaker would not say "I have a doubt for you", but I'm pretty sure many would say, "I have a doubt: [insert question here]". I'm fairly sure I've heard usage like that. Most speakers of English would find that incorrect. Now, I'm not sure whether the question that would usually follow would be of a certain type. The IP may be right about them usually being yes/no questions. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I have a doubt for you": About 90,400 results (but only 2 Google pages). "have a doubt" and "doubt for you" exist on Ngrams.

I think it can be a multiple choice, not just a "whether" question. The quote "There was some doubt as to who the child's real father was." implies that. So I think "doubt" will chose from a (potentially implied) set of choices enumerated beforehand, while "query" might allow any (textual or otherwise definite) response. 142.113.140.146 19:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formation of English verbs from Latin passive participles

I would like to know why there are so many English verbs that are formed by taking the past passive participle of a verb in Latin and (usually) replacing the ending with "e". Such as "calculate" (1st conjugation), "supervise" (2nd conjugation), "induct" (3rd conjugation, along side "induce"), "unite" (4th conjugation). It seems a very peculiar way to form a verb! I can't find anything on the subject. I asked this question at w:Talk:Word formation and someone going by Tamfang replied,

I read somewhere or other (my favorite source!) that Early Modern English had constructions like do him nominate, meaning "make him nominatus"; and a bit later, the meaning of do shifted so that in such constructions it was understood as a mere intensifier, leaving the participle to be understood as the principal verb.

That sounds like a good explanation. Can someone confirm it and give a reference? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat different explanation from Online Etymology Dictionary:

for -ate:

"as the inflections wore off English words in late Old and early Middle English, there came to be no difference between the adjective and the verb in dry, empty, warm, etc. Thus accustomed to the identity of adjectival and verbal forms of a word, the English, when they began to expand their Latin-based vocabulary after c. 1500, simply made verbs from Latin past-participial adjectives without changing their form (such as aggravate, substantiate) and it became the custom that Latin verbs were Englished from their past participle stems." DCDuring (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language:

... never been widely ... English adjectives. ... The vast majority of verbs in -ate ... Latin forms ... those words ... English bases are frequently, ... either back-formations from nouns in -ation, (orientate, vaccinate) or based on Latin (captivate, domesticate). ... few verbs ... as in fixate or prolongate; ... arise by ... back-formation from the nouns fixation and prolongation.

142.113.140.146 17:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to use an adjective as a verb, but we can apply the theory mentioned by Tamfang. It could be that people would say "to do him/her/it" and then some adjective, and then this was understood as "do" with a verb, and thus the adjective turned into a verb. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite strange for you to enquire on this subject when I just updated the -ate page as it was (and is) very poor. It's still in progress, feel free to give your views about it all. Tim Utikal (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim Utikal: Thanks for doing that. I've had a look. Glad to have a reference (-ate in the OED). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

術力口 should have its entry in Simplified Chinese

术力口 is an orthographic borrowing from Japanese ボカロ into Simplified Chinese. It makes sense only when it's in Simplified Chinese. Traditional form 術力口 is barely used. It should be considered a "variant" of 术力口 instead of being the "proper form" of it just because the character is traditional. 列维劳德 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@列维劳德: That makes sense. I would call 術力口 a hypercorrection in this context. 0DF (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Ефингар & Ukrainian Єфінгар, their etymologies, and their relational adjectives

Can anyone here tell me how to stress the Russian Ефингар (Jefingar) and the Ukrainian Єфінгар (Jefinhar)? I have been unable to find a source for that datum. If it helps, the names apparently derive from a Hebrew name meaning “Beautiful River”: a plausible etymology, given that the village (since renamed Pliushchivka) was founded as a Jewish agricultural colony and is situated within a mile of the River Inhul. I assume the Hebrew compound name's constituent parts to be יפה + נהר, but I don't know enough about Hebrew to know how they'd fit together. The נָהָר (nahár, “river”) element suggests that the name was borrowed into Ukrainian first and thence into Russian, since Ukrainian г (h) = [ɦ], whereas Russian г (g) = [ɡ]. The toponyms' relational adjectives are Russian ефингарский, ефингаровский (jefingarskij, jefingarovskij) and Ukrainian єфінгарський, єфінгарівський (jefinharsʹkyj, jefinharivsʹkyj). None of those entries (proper nouns or relational adjectives) has a declension table yet, because {{ru-decl-adj}}, {{ru-noun-table}}, {{uk-adecl}}, and {{uk-ndecl}} all insist on the input having marked stress in order to decline it; I don't see why that should be necessary, given that (AFAIK) the stress of one part only affects the stress of the other parts, not their spelling. {{uk-proper noun}} has a useful |unknown_stress=1 paramater; if the stress of these words can't be discovered, that functionality should be added to the declension-table templates, to the Russian headword templates, and to any Ukrainian headword templates that would benefit from that functionality but which current lack it. 0DF (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{uk-ndecl-manual-sg}} can also take |unknown_stress=1. Voltaigne (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voltaigne: Thank you. I’ve used that for the Ukrainian Єфінгар (Jefinhar). 0DF (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry about the g-sound, it’s just a Russian thing. Ewen if a Hebrew (or any else) word with a h-sound is borrowed into Russian (directly with no OCS or Ukrainian inbetween), this h-sound is surely gonna be changed into Г. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging on the only stable letter "a", something’s telling me that stress should be on it. Otherwise, forms like Ifingar and Efengar ain't gonna be possible. But they can be just misspellings tho. Sadly, I can’t find no stress examples neither. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: Thanks for chiming in. Perhaps it would be worth while adding pronunciations with ultimate stress but note that they're conjectural. It would be good to have the |unknown_stress=1 solution for the headword lines and declension tables, however. 0DF (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: I tried to find the Hebrew etymon, but all I found was something I assume to be a Chinese toponym, a figure from Norse mythology, and whatever this says. I did find that, in Hebrew, ultimate stress is the most common across the board (see w:Biblical Hebrew#Stress, w:Tiberian Hebrew#Stress, and w:Modern Hebrew phonology#Stress), so that, as well as the fact that נָהָר (nahár, “river”) is stressed on the ult, corroborates your inference that the Ukrainian placename is stressed Yefinhár. We need a Hebraist's help. 0DF (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last one you found in google books is not spelled יפנחר, but some other stuff in Rashi script from a Talmudic commentary. Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: That would explain why I could make neither head nor tail of it! I'm guessing the fourth letter is the Rashi variant of aleph. I did some searching with various substitutions but could find nothing. 0DF (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the members of Category:User he-4: @Amire80, AndreRD, Aureliiuss, Deborahjay, Michael.G.Berner, Michel~enwiktionary, Namelesslinguist. 0DF (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taokailam 2A02:2121:343:68C9:452C:CA6B:90F4:5E45 16:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I tried checking some sources in Hebrew and Russian, which I also know, and couldn't find anything substantial.

There are some Russian sources that look reliable and say that it means "beautiful river", but they don't mention any more details. The Hebrew words יפה נהר or יפי נהר sound kind of plausible, but the sources don't actually mention that these are the words from which the name was taken. Also, why are they in this order? In Hebrew, נהר יפה would usually be more natural (although there are occasional exceptions, such as יפה נוף beautiful view or beautiful situation, an alias for Jerusalem in Psalms 48). Finally, נהר is usually pronounced nahár; the a sound after n may disappear in some cases, but there must be a reason for it.

A general sloppiness of the people who gave the place this name, or a Yiddish influence are both possible, but these are just my guesses. Don't use this as an actual explanation or a source.

As for the stress with which it's supposed to be pronounced in Russian or Ukrainian, I unfortunately couldn't find any sources at all. Perhaps an atlas or an encyclopedia in Russian or in Ukrainian from before 1945 could shed some light on it, but I'm not sure how to look for one. The place is mentioned in a Jewish Encyclopedia from 1913, but the stress is not marked there.

Currently, my only hope is that @Corvus, who created the article about Jewish settlements in the Kherson region in the Hebrew Wikipedia, will know something more about this. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Yiddish נהר should be pronounced as Nohor anyway. There are some videos on youtube with short interview from old women from Yefinhar speaking Yiddish, but they never say this place name in the videos. Tollef Salemann (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amir E. Aharoni: I know you said not to use what you wrote as an explanation, but I kinda did. I feel I made it fairly clear that there was no certainty about it, so I hope you're happy with the wording. If not, feel free to adjust it. Obviously, it needs referencing to do away with the "some sources" weasel-phrase. But how does it for a start? BTW, the entry in the Jewish Encyclopaedia you mentioned is the one I quoted not long after I created the entry for Russian Ефингар (Jefingar). 0DF (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@0DF Check out https://eleven.co.il/diaspora/communities/11552/, the stress is on the final syllable. Either by following Hebrew prosody (cf. Wikipedia) or by analogy to many Russian nouns ending in stressed -арь. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 02:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🎯 Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phazd: Thanks for the great find. I've cited that source in the entry for the Russian Ефинга́р (Jefingár). Apparently, Lithuanian Ashkenazim sometimes pronounce qāmeṣ gāḏôl as [ʌ]. How feasible is it, Amir E. Aharoni, that Russian and Ukrainian would simply omit an unstressed [ʌ] in a borrowing? 0DF (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not enough of an expert on Slavic linguistics Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amir E. Aharoni: OK, no problem. Thanks for your help. 0DF (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: Re Special:Diff/81376660, Special:Diff/81382740, Special:Diff/81382806, and English Bulgakov, where did you get that name? I searched for and found its Ukrainian equivalent, Bulhakiv, but that's a former name of Moshoryne, not Yefinhar. 0DF (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It stands pretty much everywhere. Just look up "Ефингар Булгаков" on Google. Named after a military guy Bulgakov, who owned the land at some point. I guess, it is w:ru:Егор Абрамович Булгаков, but not sure. Tollef Salemann (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: Right you are. This book shows that the village's names saw considerable variation. (Do you think Балгаков (Balgakov) there is real or just a typo?) What was the status of that Bulgakov((k)a) name? Does Russian второ́е назва́ние (vtoróje nazvánije, literally “second name”) mean something like "nickname"? You almost certainly have the right Lt. Gen. Е. А. Булгаков, BTW.
Re the non-occurrence of “spellings like ‘Ефингор’ or ‘Ефингур’”, one would expect Ashkenazim speaking “Southern Dialects” to pronounce Hebrew נָהָר as [nuhuʁ] (both those kamatzim occur in open syllables), but Yefinhar was founded by Lithuanian Jews, whose pronunciation of kamatz gadol “may [have] be[en] [ʌ]”. It seems that Yefinhar stood at the boundary of Lithuanian colonisation in the Ukraine, so we might expect forms hybridised from different dialects of Hebrew there. I don't think the statement “Also, pronunciation of נָהָר as nahar is not expected for Ukrainian Ashkenazi Hebrew.” does justice to the uncertainties and complexities of the situation. Could you restate that point, please? 0DF (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, второе название means just an another name for something. See also in Hebrew Wikipedia in the Geography discussions by user גארפילד, but he’s just quoting some Russian source. Yeah, Balgakov seems like a misspelling, but you never know, because the guy was maybe a Jewish recruit. About the Lithuanian kometz alef I have no idea, because even if it is close to /a/, it can still be heard as /o/ by Russian and Ukrainians? Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: I tried tracking down an authoritative pronouncement regarding this matter but could find nothing, so I expanded the sentence you added. How do you feel about the current presentation of the issues? 0DF (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: Looking again at the entry for Hebrew נָהָר (nahár), I notice it has the "singular construct" form נְהַר־ (nəhar-), which has shva and patach, respectively, pronounced Ø and [ä] in Ashkenazi Hebrew. As long as a "singular construct" form can be the ending of a Hebrew compound, that very neatly accounts for the -нгар (-nhar) element of these toponyms. Do you understand what a "singular construct" form is? Is it a combining form? Can it act as a suffix? 0DF (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the problem—the whole point of the construct form is that cannot be in the end of compound. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amir E. Aharoni: I think I understand construct forms/states well enough by now that I can comment intelligently regarding it. I know it must seem like I'm adding epicycles here, but this placename and its spelling variations finally make sense, even in the context of a Litvish pronunciation, if one assumes the etymon to have been in the construct state. In Israeli Hebrew, יָפֶה נָהָר (yafẹ́ nahár) would yield Russian *Яфенага́р (*Jafenagár), but in Ashkenazi Hebrew it would yield *Ёфеного́р (*Jofenogór); the construct form, יְפֵה־נְהַר (y’fē-n’har) yields Ефенга́р (Jefengár) or *Ифенга́р (*Ifengár), the first of which is actually attested, and the way Ashkenazim pronounce tzere as [ej] also accounts for the фен–фин (fen–fin) variation in the spelling of the second syllable. (Admittedly, I don't understand how a [j] sound could have yielded that initial Э (E) which we see in some of the spellings, but I don't think anyone's accounted for that yet.) So the phonology works, even if the grammar is problematic.

Can we suppose that this colony was originally named יְפֵה־נְהַר (y’fē-n’har, “beautiful river of”)-something? I note from this book I cited the three names that append Коло́ния (Kolónija) to a relational adjective for the colony. Two of those – Эфенгардская Колония (Efengardskaja Kolonija) and Ефенгардская Колония (Jefengardskaja Kolonija) – have what looks at first glance to be spurious д (d). I tried to account for it by searching for a Hebrew ־ד (-d) suffix, but without success; the closest I got was the Yiddish ־דיק (-dik), which I still wouldn't entirely discount. Can you make sense of that д? How plausible is this construct-state theory, in the light of the above? 0DF (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there's indeed no -d suffix in Hebrew, but other than I don't want to guess too much. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like some place from Tolkien. Probably just an analogy with some Germanic speaking colony in the area. Tollef Salemann (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amir E. Aharoni: Since it looked like we've reached the end of the road on this one, I added a note about inflecting יָפֶה נָהָר for its contract state to the entry. Are you happy with how it's written? I decided not to bother adding a note about that seemingly spurious д (d); I deemed it too tenous and speculative for the mainspace. Thoughts?

@Tollef Salemann: I imagine you're thinking of Isengard. That name indeed has a Germanic origin (Tolkien's compound of the Old English īsen-ġeard (literally “enclosure of iron”), unless I'm mistaken). The Proto-West Germanic *gard is the shared root-word. I've not come across any -гард (-gard) names in the Ukraine; could you point me to some examples, please?

0DF (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's original research, and I want to be super-careful about such things. While I can't say it's entirely wrong, I also cannot comfortably say that it's entirely right. I have a B.A. in Linguistics and in Hebrew language, and I'm a native speaker of Russian, but I'd rather comment about this as part of a proper academic etymology and toponymy research project, with guidance from Hebrew, Russian, and Ukrainian professors. If I were writing it, I wouldn't add much more than what already appears in the source that @Phazd found. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amir E. Aharoni: I understand and partially share your unease. Still, Wiktionary is not the same as Wikipedia, and I think this project would be crippled without some original research. Most of its inflection tables and IPA transcriptions, as well as many of its etymologies and translations would probably violate w:Wikipedia:No original research because of the policy's ban on “analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources” (then again, maybe some of them wouldn't, arguably falling under the policy's “routine calculations” exception). In the way I've written those etymological notes, I have specifically tried not to “reach or imply a conclusion”, but rather only to discuss problems with the etymology given by the Shorter Jewish Encyclopedia (SJE) and possible solutions to those problems, whilst leaving it an open question whether those problems discredit it or those solutions vindicate it. We could pare the etymology right back to nothing more than what the SJE entry says, yielding something like this:

From Hebrew יָפֶה נָהָר (literally “beautiful river”), Cyrillised яфе нах̄ар (jafe nax̄ar).

The irony of doing that is that the etymology would then be just a slightly more confusing version of that which I was inclined to write when I brought this matter here, before you queried the adjective's unusual prepositive position and omitted vowel from נָהָר (nahár, “river”) and Tollef Salemann objected that its kamatzim should be pronounced [ɔ] (before being subjected to which criticisms it was really just poorly informed ~~original research~~ guesswork: “I assume the Hebrew compound name's constituent parts to be יפה + נהר”). I do not object to your earlier criticisms of my hypothesised etymon, indeed I welcome them, because they were all well-informed and valid. But I ask you: are they any less valid as criticisms of the SJE’s pronouncements than they were of my initial hypothesis? I wouldn't say so.

The construct form יְפֵה־נְהַר (y’fe-n’har) addresses the missing kamatz, whereas the point about Ashkenazi pronunciation, far from undermining the plausibility of its being the Russian and Ukrainian toponyms' immediate etymon, actually supports it. I note that the Biblical Hebrew יְפֵה נוֹף (Yəp̄ē Nōp̄, “Jerusalem”, literally “beautiful view”) is also in the construct state in Psalm 48:3 (at least יְפֵה (yəp̄ē) is; the lemma and singular construct form of נוֹף (nōp̄) are apparently identical), though from reading the 1917 JPS translation quoted for that verse in w:Psalm 48#Hebrew (“Fair in situation, the joy of the whole earth; Even mount Zion, the uttermost parts of the north, The city of the great King.”), it isn't clear to me why. (The original Hebrew is יְפֵ֥ה נוֹף֮ מְשׂ֢וֹשׂ כׇּל־הָ֫אָ֥רֶץ הַר־צִ֭יּוֹן יַרְכְּתֵ֣י צָפ֑וֹן קִ֝רְיַ֗ת מֶ֣לֶךְ רָֽב׃ — Could you explain the relevant bit of grammar, please?) Perhaps the Hebrew name was borrowed into Russian from instances of macaronic usage, such as «יְפֵה־נְהַר Херсонской губерніи» (“Yefinhar of Kherson Governorate”), with both the Hebrew marked for being possessed (construct state) and the Russian marked for possessing (genitive case), but I'm just speculating. I do find postulating the construct form to be phonologically persuasive.

As it stands, I think the etymology as written is an interesting discussion with paedagogical value. However, I recognise that I have a problem with concision (this post is a case in point) and that, at four short paragraphs in length, that etymology takes up half a screen's worth of space on my computer, so I'm sure it looks extensive – perhaps excessive – on a mobile's screen. I think this could work as a minimalist presentation of what's there now:

From Hebrew יְפֵה־נְהַר (Y’fe-N’har), the construct form of יָפֶה נָהָר (Yafẹ́ Nahár, literally “beautiful river”), named by its Litvak settlers in reference to the River Inhul.^{[SJP citation]} Compare Biblical Hebrew יְפֵה נוֹף (Yəp̄ē Nōp̄, “Jerusalem”, literally “beautiful view”). Cognate with Ukrainian Єфінга́р (Jefinhár).

How would you feel about that? And since it would seem a shame to delete it, would you object to retaining the longer version of the etymology as an addendum between {{box-top}} and {{box-bottom}}, or do you feel it doesn't belong? 0DF (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short etymology looks much better! Tollef Salemann (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: Thanks for your feedback. Any thoughts on whether to retain the longer version in a collapsed box underneath the shorter version? 0DF (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, יְפֵה־נְהַר has no komets, so it is at least no need for the Ashkenazi pronunciation part. Tollef Salemann (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: Yes, I know that, but the point of the long version is that it takes the SJE’s Hebrew יָפֶה נָהָר as a starting point and addresses the problem with it as an etymon, one of which is that the kamatzim wouldn't be pronounced [a] by Ashkenazim, and therefore wouldn't yield Russian а (a) in borrowing. The discussion about Ashkenazi pronunciation is necessary in order to justify favouring the construct form. 0DF (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never use collapsed boxes on etymology, except for lists of cognates. If an etymology is complex, let it be complex. Short etymology is good for paper format dictionaries, but here it is ok (while cognates lists are not like really necessary at all, but can be very helpfull for people who learn several related languages at once). Tollef Salemann (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollef Salemann: OK. So be it. I shall wait for Amir E. Aharoni to respond to my questions before I consider this matter concluded (this has been his only contribution since then, so I assume he has been busy). I would still call this etymology uncertain. 0DF (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luva (glove)

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2024/August#luva_(glove). Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need a new word on なかみ

We need a new word called "中見" there, because the one is better than (ugly(?) for me) "○身". Why? Because "○身" often have (too many) conflicts with "中見" in subtitles on YouTube videos. So, i hate "○身" since April 2023. Frozen Bok (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your post is unfortunately unintelligible to me — @Frozen Bok, what are you talking about? There is no string "○身" anywhere on the なかみ page. Nor is there any string "○身" on the 中身 page (which already exists).

Could you please re-state what it is you want, or what problem you are trying to describe? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I censored ○身 because i hate it. Frozen Bok (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still can't understand you. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr: the original poster seems to be suggesting that なかみ should be written as 中見 instead of 中身. But that's not how language works—we don't create new ways of spelling or writing terms just because we "hate" the old ones. 中見 can only be added as an alternative way of writing なかみ if there's evidence that people can actually use that term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write this world in uncensored look because I hate it since May 2023. Do you understand you?　Frozen Bok (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frozen Bok: as I pointed out above, we do not change a dictionary entry simply because someone hates the way it looks. It is just as if I say, "I hate the way shit is spelled, so I think the dictionary entry should now be swit." Language doesn't work that way. The only reason why 中見 should appear in the dictionary is if people actually use that term. You would need to show some evidence of this usage in books, journals, websites and so on. And, in any case, even if we did create a new entry 中見, we would not delete 中身 so long as other people use it. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...

Dear @Sgconlaw, if you're gonna write that sh*t, censor it cause I saw above, I hate that, and also no matter where. OK? Frozen Bok (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frozen Bok: no, because you haven't given any reason why other than "I hate it", which is insufficient. Anyway, I don't think it's worth discussing this matter further. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

btw i got loled by the "shit-swit" spelling Frozen Bok (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"swit instead of shit" and "中見 instead of ○身"　are very different things. What do you think about that? Frozen Bok (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disfavor

This says "Joseph Wright (1855-1930) was a truly remarkable English scholar. Growing up in extreme poverty without compulsory school education and disfavored by many years of child work, he still pursued an academic career [...]". Does our definition of disfavour cover this? It seems like an awkward use of disfavor, to me. - -sche (discuss) 21:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to mean something like "disadvantaged" there, but I agree it seems like poor word choice to me.--Urszag (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100% with both thoughts that Urszag said. I'd put this particular citation down to merely being a catachresis. If Wiktionary keeps the citation rather than delete it entirely (which is OK, but, as follows), I would not include it on the entry page. Just the entry/Citations page, with an editorial comment marking it with "[catachrestic]" per the view of multiple editors. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OED has as an obsolete sense "to render ill-favoured". — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luwuk

"A luwuk is a type of short sword from the island of Java." For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwuk_(sword), https://lyuesword.com/blog/the-swords-of-southeast-asia-%E2%80%94-the-dha-amp-luwuk-208, https://atkinson-swords.com/collection-by-region/south-east-asia/the-indonesian-archipelago/java/pedang-luwuk-sanak/ FrenchFryFan (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between senses 3 and 4 of prōscrībō

The difference between the last two senses of prōscrībō isn't clear to me. Should they perhaps be combined? Arachnosuchus (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's likely a distinction, but the entry needs a clarification of the object. For instance, perhaps sense 4 is said of people and sense 3 of actions. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

anecdatum

I would like to investigate the stress on this term, as well as the plural anecdata; to me, it only seemed natural to stress it on the 'd', but it seems the pronunciation given at the plural form gives the stress as falling at the beginning of the word. I am putting this here for the record, but if I remember I will try to find some IRL usages to see whether my expected pronunciation exists or not. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

matadura

The Spanish word matadura is currently listed as meaning "callus" in English. This isn't what it means; a callus is an area of thickened skin caused by rubbing (callo in Spanish). Matadura is according to the Real Academia Española (https://dle.rae.es/matadura) a sore caused by a saddle or similar rubbing on an animal (a saddle sore in English). The translation given should be changed from "callus" to "saddle sore." 00:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Laralei (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see another dictionary that supports your position. I'm going to be WT:BOLD and edit the entry. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion for various polish entries with `{{rfeq}}`

(Notifying KamiruPL, BigDom, Hythonia, Tashi, Vininn126, Sławobóg, Silmethule, Rakso43243, Skerillion):

Apologies if I'm putting this in the wrong place but I brought this up in the discord early last month with some other examples that Vin worked on, but became too busy to look these over so I'm bringing these up here so people with a working understanding of the language can review them

idealism, perfectionism, purism
denial escapism "refusing to face reality" (this doesn't have an entry but something like it probably could?)

analizator - sensory receptor
almawiwa - raincoat, poncho (attempting to google this didn't pull up any images so yea, also the etymology section of this should probably actually list the Italian name of the show if it is named after it)
aestetyczność - tastelessness, tacky, tawdry, crass, garish
aeroboks - boxercise
adwokacja - lay investiture
adwentowość - not in a definition but if three citations can be found it's almost certainly adventitious or such

Akaibu (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite satisfied with angelologia; wishful thinking is the closest. There needs to be a sense of wallowing. Denialism for sense two of angelizm could be close. Sensory recept for for analizator seems alright. The attempts for almawiwa do not seem right at all. I have the template on aestetyczność to check if a similar lexeme/etymon exists in English, something like unaestheticness. Boxercise seems fine. Lay investiture also seems fine. The for adwentowość goes as for aestetyczność. Vininn126 (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vininn126: I have created unaestheticness. J3133 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Vininn126 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

phonicator and unused references

~90% of this entry is unused references from 2007, should this be cleaned up in some fashion? Either by actually using the references or getting rid of them I'm thinking. Akaibu (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cardiohepatic

The definition for cardiohepatic includes the heart and kidneys, but hepatic refers to the liver. Is this some kind of weird usage or just a mistake? Snowman304 (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SemperBlotto was just a little too blotto that day. I fixed it. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

θεοσεβής listed as being Ancient Greek, but example use is from Byzantine era (15th c.)

θεοσεβής is definitely attested very far back, and I'm pretty sure there are citations from like Euripides (5th BC I think?), but I note that the quote used to support the definition is from 15th c., which is definitely Byzantine. Not sure if this is a problem, or where to post it, but anyway guess I'm just noting this. Edit: I was doing a lot of work to add a correct date to the cite template, and I'm a little too tired to keep going, otherwise I might add another source. -Furicorn (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Furicorn: There is a discussion about splitting Byzantine Greek out of Ancient Greek at Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Medieval Greek from Ancient Greek if you're interested. It peetered out at the end of March but it lasted nearly three months, so there's quite a lot to read there. 0DF (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might check it out - I'm not a scholar or anything but it certainly seems like Ancient/Classical/Byzantine is the typical split for pre-modern Greek? -Furicorn (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(The discussion to which I linked has been moved to Wiktionary:Language treatment requests#Medieval Greek from Ancient Greek. 0DF (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

New sense of nah/no in "nah, that's crazy"?

To me it feels like this type of nah/no (also said in isolation) rather means something along the lines of no shot or no way. What do other people think? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah means "no". No means some of the definitions, the real ones, at no#English. As with many other word that have definite meanings, no can be used in many different ways. Recording all the possibilities takes a dictionary far beyond being a lexicon. We could use more economy in our definitions for polysemic words, rather than less. DCDuring (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unwritten sounds

Merriam-Webster has written that every letter can be pronounced ∅ (silent) in English, but in the other direction, how many sounds can be written ∅ (unwritten)? For example, /w/ is written ∅ in one, and /ə/ is written ∅ at the end of Edinburgh. Teflpedia mentions unwritten /h/ and /t/ in threshold and eighth, but these seem more debatable (because it could be argued the t and h are written with the usual letters, they're just pulling double duty and also serving in the digraphs). There's an unwritten /p/ in some pronunciations of hamster, I suppose ... - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A subclass of them that many English speakers with rhotic accents love to tease about is intrusive R as sometimes exists in nonrhotic accents. Quercus solaris (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with the topic of "silent letters", these things often aren't clear. For example, you could say that the /w/ in "one" is not written by no letter, but instead is irregularly included in the letter "o" (compare the /j/ that is often regularly included in "u"). The /ə/ in Edinburgh can be interpreted as being irregularly written as "gh".--Urszag (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian с

We are missing a sense of the Russian preposition с (s) + instrumental. A phrase "с днем ..." is translated "happy ... day" rather than the literal "with ... day". Reporting on this anniversary of the Beslan attack recounts words written on a board in the school: "С последним вас первым звонком!" Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sense is indicated under the implied verb поздравлять (pozdravljatʹ). Granted, “I congratulate you with X” isn’t idiomatic in English (in the sense intended here), so some indication on the entry с (s) would make sense, e.g. a usage note. Nicodene (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch similarly uses the (usually) comitative or instrumental preposition met in the Dutch equivalent idiom (ik feliciteer je met X). --Lambiam 21:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]