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.

Newest 10 tagged RFVs

• relationist
  rip
  prisoness
  refossion
  atuk
  cat tap
  Communications Group
  cheese up
  fos
  ratchel
  

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 100 tagged RFVs

• trema
  ↑
  ↓
  soothness
  superseminate
  poiuytrewq
  Hawai`ian
  pilk
  failscade
  failcascade
  accordion
  abstorted
  pantaphobia
  herbert
  Satan
  I'dn't
  nuke
  blag
  born
  flower
  Ames
  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
  

October 2020

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)

November 2020

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)

January 2021

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

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)

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)

April 2021

deplumation

Rfv-sense: A disease of the eyelids, attended with loss of the eyelashes. Found in a bunch of dictionaries, no more Yellow is the colour (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

sexterity

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I added one quote to the citations page. Another durably archived cite is this, although the print is to small for me to get all the words. Other than that, all I can find is stuff that is not durably archived, such as this. Kiwima (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

hunbot

J3133 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely a real thing. The problem is finding uses on accepted permanently archived sources. I added one from The Atlantic to the main page, and there are a bunch on the citations page that come from a Google news search (but do not fit into our current definition of "permanently archived"). Also, the definition is off, it is not limited to essential oils - it is any MLM recruitor who uses false endearments. Kiwima (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

i'nhe

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

high

Adj. sense 4:

(in several set phrases) Remote in distance or time.

high latitude, high antiquity

RFV "remote in distance", especially. Per Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/June#high, there is significant doubt that "high" in "high latitude" means "remote", and clearer examples seem to be needed to verify the existence of this sense. It has also been queried whether "high" in "high antiquity" means "remote" or simply something like "very great". Generally, seeking further or better examples of these "several set phrases" to put this entry on a more solid footing. Mihia (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I can find google books:"high polar areas" and google books:"high Arctic areas", google books:"high Arctic and Antarctic zones", which seems to be using the same meaning in at least some citations, namely the parts of the polar/Arctic/Antarctic zones which are most remote from the equator(?). (Century is explicit than the meaning is "remote from the equator", not just "remote in distance".) We'll be doing one better than other dictionaries—which cover high latitude under high and define it as "remote" but don't provide any other collocations—if we either find other collocations or move(?) the content to high latitude. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I can also find google books:"high longitudes", e.g. "This cutoff in the number of H₂CO clouds at high longitudes strongly suggests that the wide-line, high-velocity molecular clouds are located near the center of the Galaxy", but it is not immediately clear to me what high means here.
To This,that's point about "high antiquity" being comparable to "the height of antiquity" I would add that I can also find a few citations like google books:"the height of British history". - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that "high Arctic" can again be explained as "high" on a conventional map/globe, but "high Antarctic" is an interesting one (assuming the phrase does not refer to elevation, of course, which it seems it sometimes doesn't). Mihia (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I added some cites to the entry: "the pack ice region of the high Antarctic", "Svalbard, South Georgia and other high-polar areas", "petrels, which breed primarily in the high Antarctic [on] the Rauer Islands", "high polar areas" (which the sentence scopes as including an Antarctic sea, so not "high up" on the globe or in elevation), and "high (sub-Antarctic) latitudes"; there's also the "zones" cites linked above. I wonder if we should split the "remote from the equator" and "remote in time" senses, as the "remote in time" sense is subject to a distinct set of doubts vs the "remote from the equator" sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Certainly (regarding the Tea Room suggestion that "high antiquity" is "utmost antiquity"), on the spectrum of senses this word has, both the "distant from the equator" and "distant in time" senses seem to be near the "to the utmost extent or culmination, or [...] degree" sense, since the high latitudes, polar areas, etc are the furthest latitudes, the utmost Antarctic areas, etc. (And, appropriately, the senses are relatively near each other in the entry.) - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking for this phrase now, I realize that citations of "high future" seem to mean "lofty future", like google books:"belief in the high future of his native land", which raises the question of whether the "high past" cite (which I added a few years ago) is actually "lofty past, past when things were at their height" (connectable to the suggestion in the Tea Room that "high antiquity" could just refer to "the height of antiquity"). I.e., we may actually have more solid evidence of "remote in distance from the equator" than remote in time, now. - -sche (discuss) 15:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If the only "remote in distance" examples that we can find are the polar ones, this does in my opinion very much keep alive the possibility that all these uses stem from the ideas of "high numerical latitude" and/or "high on a globe/map, also later translated to the other end of the globe", in which case the fact that these regions are also "remote from the equator" is merely a consequence that naturally follows, and may as well be "close to one of the Poles". Like you, I did also wonder about the "high past" quote, whether it in fact the same meaning as e.g. "the High Middle Ages", which is presently listed under a different sense. Mihia (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what places other than ones remote from the equator a sense of "remote in distance from the equator" could refer to. (Maybe "South Africa is higher than Namibia"?) I think the fact that one can refer to areas low on the globe as high, in so many phrases (that specifically mean latitude / distance from the equator rather than elevation/altitude or the like, and might otherwise have to be viewed as a number of set phrases), and that so many other dictionaries accept it as a sense, shows that it exists at least as a subsense, even if we want to sort it under or near a "high/large in numbers" sense. In fact, I notice that while the (old) OED does handle it as a subsense of "of great amount, [...] or value", "c. Geog. Of latitude: Denoted by a high number; at a great distance from the equator", they have an citation just like my invented Namibian one, (a slightly different edition of what I can find at Google Books as)

• 1786, John Wesley, The Magazine of the Wesleyan Methodist Church:

  It then spread into North Britain and Ireland, and a few years after, into New York, Pennsylvania, and many other Provinces in America, even as high as Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

(An example that actually used Namibia would of course be clearer, since this could still be viewed as "high on the globe", despite the OED's interpretation otherwise.) - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The OED definition "Of latitude: Denoted by a high number" is consistent with my own feeling about this usage. The question remains for me whether "at a great distance from the equator" is actually a definition of the word "high" or just a consequence of numerically high latitudes being far from the equator, if you get my drift. In other words, as I mentioned, would "close to a Pole" be just as good an explanation? On the Wesley quote, despite what the OED might imply, I think it is likely that "high" here means "high on a map/globe". Mihia (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. Changed to refer only to lattitude, as there is insufficient evidence for remote in time. Kiwima (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked it a little further to incorporate Mihia's language (in paraphrase) about the latitude having a high number. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

betee

This is marginally more likely to have survived into ModE than fortee, but I still can't find any cites in EEBO. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 18:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

tee#Etymology 2

Unlike the last two, there's actually some miniscule chance that this may be able to survive RFV. However, don't get your hopes up; I couldn't find anything in EEBO other than scannos for "tree", and the OED says this was "lost in English by 1500". Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 18:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

theedom

The only evidence that I can find of this surviving past 1500 is its appearance in a OED cite of Wynkyn de Worde's 1522 edition of The World and the Child. However, TWaTC was possibly originally written before 1500, meaning that it would be Middle English and therefore of no evidential value. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 18:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

If this passes RFV then surely it needs some kind of gloss. Obsolete, rare, non-standard, etc. Equinox ◑ 23:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Pikmin-like

Noun: "A game with similar real-time strategy gameplay to Pikmin." (The adjective seems SoP too.) Equinox ◑ 23:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

speculaa#rfv-notice-en-|speculaa]]

This looks like someone misinterpreted speculaas as a plural. As far as I know, the singular is speculaas (compare speculoos). - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

What will we have next? Couscou?  --Lambiam 23:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, we do have "pea", and "au jus" as a noun... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

kickout

Rfv-sense "(baseball) A strikeout". Originally added on kick out in [1]. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 23:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added a bunch of cites to the citations page, but I am not conversant enough with the sports to discern the meaning. Kiwima (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

One of the baseball uses was about football. The other does not refer to a strikeout. From another book[2]: "Mel Ott and his kickout batting motion". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Although I still want someone who is sportier than I am to provide definitions for the football, basketball, and water polo meanings. Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

obby

Re-created by AntisocialRyan; one sense (i.e., “obsidian”) had failed RFV with one quotation (which AntisocialRyan re-used), thus removed. J3133 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to note here: I mentioned on my talk page that I didn't know about the failed RFV and existing citation. I did find the quotation on my own separately, just a coincidence. Nothing malicious like it sounds here. Also, the RFV for obsidian had no discussion it seems. AntisocialRyan (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I believe you meant to link to Talk:obby and not "Talk:cunt". :) AntisocialRyan (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

That was not malicious, and I suggest you read how we verify terms. J3133 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I know how we verify terms, I didn't know it was denied already. That's all, not trying to fight. Thanks for changing the talk page link. Also, I was referring to myself when saying it wasn't malicious. AntisocialRyan (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

How is this uncountable, when "obstacle course" cannot be? Equinox ◑ 15:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It was uncountable for "obby" meaning obsidian, but that sense was removed. They forgot to remove that as well. I fixed it, thanks! AntisocialRyan (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Although there are three cites on the citations page, they are for three different meanings. Clearly just a nonce. Kiwima (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

tannic

Rfv-sense "Clipping of titanic". — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

thambos

As an English word — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

grising

As synonym (or alt form?) of geringsing, a type of Indonesian motif. Equinox ◑ 16:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

checkercube

Rubik's cube variant with black and white squares. May be a brand name; may be spelled "Checker Cube". I find nothing much for this form as given. Equinox ◑ 16:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

crab

Rfv-sense: To cudgel or beat, as with a crabstick. Should be relatively easy to find, being John Fletcher and allTVdinnerless (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

deep

RFV adj sense:

Immersed, submerged (in).

deep in debt

deep in the mud

The existing examples are most likely adverbial, expressing "how far in debt / in the mud". Seeking unambiguously adjectival examples. Mihia (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if an adjectival citation is even possible without rewriting the definition. I mean, there are plenty of citations of "deep debtor", but the definition probably needs to be revised beyond "immersed, submerged [debtor]". - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would hazard an opinion that "deep debtor" is a figurative use of sense #1.7, under which we presently have the example "deep wreck". Mihia (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Is it even possible for this "immersed, submerged" sense to exist separate from that sense, then? Like, even if we accepted "deep in debt" and "deep in the mud" as adjectives for a moment, for the purposes of discussion, they'd be adequately explained by "Positioned [...] far, especially down [...] into something", wouldn't they? It seems like these are just redundant senses that could be merged. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right -- to justify a separate sense we would need uses that clearly focus only on the "immersed/submerged" aspect, not the "positioned far (down/into)" sense, i.e. almost uses that don't mean "deep", it would seem, so it is hard to see what would qualify, unless someone sees an angle that I can't at the moment. Mihia (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

za

Foreign cannabis sense. RFVing as newly added uncited slang.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

hyperactive battlefield

Links to a blog and another non-lexical website as references, but no viewable hits on Google Books. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

faith

New sense 6: "An assertion of unreasonable conviction, that is assumed without reason, that is defended against all reason." Sounds a bit judgemental and may well be covered by existing senses such as #2. Equinox ◑ 14:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding #2:

The process of forming or understanding abstractions, ideas, or beliefs, without empirical evidence, experience, or observation.

I have faith that my prayers will be answered.

I have faith in the healing power of crystals.

Is "faith" in these examples a process?? Mihia (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. But that is probably more a criticism of #2 than a support of the challenged sense (?). Equinox ◑ 06:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

smoke

RFV of the adjective, which I think is just attributive use of the noun. I couldn't find adjectival examples of "very smoke" or "smokest", for example. (cork and brass provide examples of how the translations can be moved under the noun.) - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Not all adjectives are comparable. The second definition looks like an attributive use of the noun, but I think the first is probably real, although I haven't managed to dig up examples yet. Kiwima (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"smoke" colour is used of cats. There are some uses at e.g. https://thelittlecarnivore.com/en/blog/cat-coat-silver-and-smoke-cats that could be interpreted as adjectival. Mihia (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, Kiwima, though it seems unusual(?) for a colour to not be at least gradable with "very" (etc) unless it's a noun. The only example I can find of "cat is smoke" (a la "the cat is blue", etc) is the "vapor of burning" noun and not a colour. I did find one book about "mating a smoke-bred smoke cat with [...] a silver cat, as unmarked as possible, who possesses a smoke ancestor", but cites like that are explained by the attributive noun just as well as by positing an adjective (which is what makes this so hard). I tried to see if there might be a lemming argument for an adjective, but Dictionary.com, MW and Lexico only have smoke as a noun and verb. I tried to find any books where "smoke" might take "smokier" as a suppletive comparative, but didn't spot any yet. - -sche (discuss) 01:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's a borderline or debatable case. At [3] there are examples such as "cats that [...] most likely were not smoke", "incorrectly registered as being smoke" and "not 100% sure if a specific cat was smoke or not". Cf. also slate, which we also list as an adjective, though I could not find any relevant hits for "very slate", and I would not expect "slater" or "slatest". Mihia (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

idlehead

Appears to be a one-off formation in Carew's translation of Jerusalem Delivered (as idlehed; the spelling idlehead appears to be totally unattested). The similarity to Middle English idelhed (itself a nonce formation) is most likely coincidental. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the use meaning idleness or vanity looks like a nonce, but I have managed to cite another meaning (a person who is...) Kiwima (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sense 2 seems to be a compound of idle and head (like blockhead). This is distinct from the etymology currently given, which describes idlehead as a suffixal formation from idle +‎ -head. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've went ahead and split up the two etymologies; the RFV now only covers the first. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

biotic

Rfv-sense "misspelling of biontic". Added by @SemperBlotto; I think the relationship between these words is exactly the opposite, and have added a definition to that effect at the latter entry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Blotto stopped being reliable a few years ago. There was a famous cryptic-crossword compiler who started producing crosswords that didn't make any sense. (It's quite hard to spot these because cryptic crosswords are kinda designed to look like nonsense.) Erm. Well I won't finish the story, but I can spot a pattern. Equinox ◑ 06:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not a biologist, so I am not at all sure, but I think I may have cited this one. Kiwima (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a misspelling the threshold is not three but rather enough to make the misspelling not rare. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, biontic is a relatively rare term, so even if biotic is a common misspelling, it still does not occur that often. I don't feel I can make this judgement call on my own. Kiwima (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

lame

Rfv-sense: To shine. - apparently appears in Piers Plowman, but I couldn't find it, or anything else TVdinnerless (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing any such sense recorded either by the OED or MED. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

PMV

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 12:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Searching for "PMV" "music video" I find it standing for several other things (see Talk:PMV), but not this. I also found enough citations to attest "public motor vehicle" as a sense; see Citations:PMV. - -sche (discuss) 14:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to exist. See e.g. "I hope you enjoy this PMV" [4] or "I know this song has been in other PMV's by other YouTube bronies" [5]. Searching for PMV my little pony yields more. Mihia (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I was unable to find any durably archived citations other than a single rather mentiony one. I did, however, find and add a number of other initialisms. Kiwima (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we can't claim "clearly widespread use", but I do think we can claim "clearly in use", and I hope that this might be enough to save the entry. These kinds of terms are by their nature unlikely to appear in traditional "permanently recorded media", but I don't see that as any good reason why we should not include them. This is exactly the sort of thing that someone might encounter and would want to look up. They would find it in Urban Dicktionary, and we wouldn't want to lose readers to that, right? If necessary, can we upload screenshots as a permanent record of use? (I know this has been mentioned before, probably by me.) Mihia (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

frith

No unequivocal evidence that this verb survived into ModE. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The English Dialect Dictionary has half a dozen citations under their entry for frith (verb), but in a divergent array of senses and spellings (if we were willing to play fast and loose with spelling, there might be enough to attested "to plant a hedge (around)" as a sense), and not these senses / not even this etymology, it looks like. - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I added what I could find to the citations page. We now have enough for "to enclose or fence in". There are a number of other meanings, but all with only one or two cites. Kiwima (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

tithe

Etymology 2 is another word of dubious ModE status. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

tithing

The sense of "decimation" appears to only be attested once (in a ME text). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Although this sense is fully attested for the verb "to tithe"... Kiwima (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Darya Boyi

Thanks for any help here. I already attested a variant name for this location (Tongguzbasti). As I understand Wiktionary guidelines, the Darya Boyi entry has two "durably archived"/PRM citations (as far as I can see- but I will keep looking) even though I have about six citations total. I would appreciate any help in finding a third durably archived cite (or recognizing another one of the existing cites as durably archived). Any more citations you can find that are not necessarily durably archived are welcome too. 'Darya Boyi' is a significant geographical term in the area because it is mentioned in English news reports from China and is an isolated oasis in the deep desert. See the talk page there for more details. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

For the past few months, I have been drilling down hard on making my citations for minor Asian geography more "perfected" in terms of present-day Wiktionary standards. What I'm realizing is that Wiktionary is a work in progress, and hence my request here is maybe too stringent. Yeah, on some technical level I may have failed to verify this word perfectly, but I think it's clear from the two durably archived sources and the five or six non-durably archived sources that there's probably another printed book out there that mentions this location, it's just that I don't have the patience or expertise to find it yet. Delete the entry or keep it as you see fit- I'll restore the entry once I find that third book. I am just learning and trying to fully understand the process how Wiktionary deals with situations like this, and I want to do things right (not keeping unattested stuff). Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

have butterflies in one's stomach

1. To experience a certain “fluttery” physical sensation in a person's stomach, associated with nervousness, uncertainty, anxiety, or apprehension.

   Kevin had butterflies in his stomach every time he saw Chrissy.

2. (idiomatic) To be nervous, uncertain, or anxious.

   He had butterflies in his stomach on the morning of his wedding.

   Synonym: have the collywobbles

RFV sense #2 as distinct from sense #1. While we might argue whether the definition should be "to experience a fluttery sensation associated with nervousness" or "to feel nervous in association with a fluttery sensation", in this context, #2 can, in my opinion, only be interpreted as meaning "To be nervous, uncertain, or anxious, without any association with a 'fluttery' feeling in the stomach." I think we need positive verification that one can have "butterflies in one's stomach" without an association with a stomach feeling, not simply citations that don't specifically mention the physical sensation in additional words. Noting that the present examples demonstrate no difference in meaning and could as well be interchanged. See also Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/June#butterflies_in_one's_stomach. Mihia (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

statute

Since within a month nobody has answered my concerns in the Tea Room that it appears to be nonsense, I put it to RFV. Maybe some quotes clarify it. But I assume not, since this definition does not convey discernible meaning.
I have looked into many dictionaries and legal sources. I’ve investigated and mentioned already what the definitions are which we do not cover; whereas this what we mention has been added in 2007 by someone who added little else and is suggested by nothing. Fay Freak (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Damiku

Seemingly hard to attest; see Talk:Damiku for my best attempt. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

lede

I am wondering whether lede (“a man; person; men, folk, people; a people or nation”) (etymology 1) should properly be regarded as having survived out of Middle English into modern English. (Our Middle English entry is at leod.) We have one 1650 quotation for sense 1, and the OED has one quotation for the same sense from the Percy Folio dated a. 1650 (which is the date of transcription; the original source material is older and perhaps the date is not accurately known). I suspect the two 19th-century quotations for sense 2 are actually of much older texts. All other quotations in the OED predate 1500. I don't think the 2012 quotation in our entry from Yahoo! Canada Answers can be regarded as reliable or durably archived.

I also note that sense 4 ("Tenements; holdings; possessions") does not appear in the OED. The entry has been nominated for WOTD (@Lbdñk). — SGconlaw (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

We also appear to have a duplicate ME entry at leed. IMHO, the ME entry should really be at lede; I'll move it there. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The two ME entries have been combined and moved to lede. I've investigated the two 19th c. quotes you mentioned:

• The Bosworth quote given could count as a cite; it's a translation of a 1600s Frisian song (Bosworth doesn't appear to specify what dialect). The original is given as well; I've reproduced it here:

Swíet, ja swíet is 't, oer e míete
'T Boáskien fóar 'e jonge lie

As a reminder, here's Bosworth's translation/gloss:

Sweet, yes sweet is over measure
The marrying for the young lede

However, I lean towards not counting it. lede is almost definitely used used to explain the form of (West?) Frisian lie here; there's little chance it's a genuine translational choice.

• The Morely quote is from his edition of the ME lay Sir Cleges. His edition can safely be discounted, as it appears to fundamentally be a updated-spelling edition of the ME text rather than a proper translation, despite the fact that it idiosyncratically deviates from the mss. in some places.

Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the Bosworth quote could be counted. Although it's a translation of a cognate (?) Frisian word, he could have chosen something completely different like man or person. But we'd still need at least two more genuine post-1500 quotations (and three for each of the other senses) to show that the word has survived into modern English. That seems like a big ask, though to be fair I've not attempted to do so. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

My point was that it's not really a normal translation; he used it to gloss the Frisian form, not because it was actually a current word in his vocabulary. However, in the absence of cites, this is a irrelevant issue.

I'm well aware of what WT:CFI requires; I just spent a good while trying to find more uses on EEBO. However, all the searching through hundreds of instances of leed, lede, and leod has left me empty-handed (though me missing something isn't impossible). The experience has left me firmly convinced that English lede/leed/leod isn't attestable.

It's also worth noting the circumstantial evidence. By c.1400, Middle English lede seems to've been reduced to a dialectal poetic affectation; it appears to've been basically nonexistent in ME prose. It isn't in Chaucer, Gower, Hoccleve, Lydgate, or Malory. None of this makes it likely that it would've survived into ModE (it does seem to have survived into Middle Scots, though). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Great work! — SGconlaw (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp: will you be transferring whatever is useful from the modern English sense over to the Middle English entry, or shall I just go ahead and remove the entire modern English sense? — SGconlaw (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've already put what I thought was needed at the ME entry; anything that I've forgot can be recovered through the edit history. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan shake

Supposedly a hot word, now older than a year. It is unclear if the three cites are in fact durable. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

cited. There are plenty of durably archived cites on Google scholar. Kiwima (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think a better definition would be "a viral hoax from 2020" but people have been biting for over a year. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

wokefish

Supposedly a hot word, but the cites that were used for this to pass RFV are not actually durably archived (except perhaps the NY Post and Daily Mail, which should be checked). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the NY Post and Daily Mail, I have added a book published in 2021. The hotword deadline has not even passed yet, so this challenge is a bit premature. Kiwima (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

ha

"Said as a limb is swung in attack." Equinox ◑ 19:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if we could find sufficient evidence of "Ha!" as an exclamation accompanying a blow. I don't know whether this would prove a specific limb-swinging sense or be just one example of a general-purpose instinctive exclamation. Mihia (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It made me think of hi-yah, which does have this approximate meaning (and which I've since created). I don't find the current citation at ha at all convincing, though; it just seems to be a sound of effort, like a grunt. Equinox ◑ 16:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Some martial arts disciplines like karate have (particular?) shouts that accompany strikes. Maybe "ha" is a regular shout in one? That could suggest the sense was really as narrow as it's defined as being; otherwise, various cites like this that I can find of people shouting "ha" at the same time as making a strike could just be a general exclamation, as you say. - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

When I was looking at this previously, I found "ha", along with a couple of others I think, possibly "ki" being one, mentioned in relation to karate, but unfortunately I cannot now find the source. I don't know whether these could be considered "English", or whether they mean anything in Japanese other than instinctive shouts. By the way, are we missing "Ah so!" in this sense, a sort of clichéd martial arts exclmation? We have ah so only as an "utterance of wise understanding". Mihia (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

cited. I have broadened the definition to be an exclamation accompanying any vigorous attack. Kiwima (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

ho

"Said as a limb is swung in attack." Equinox ◑ 19:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

cited. As with "ha", I broadened the definition. Kiwima (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

hee

"Said as a limb is swung in attack." Equinox ◑ 19:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC) cited. Same change to the definition as "ha" and "ho". Kiwima (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

intestine

Rfv-sense: Shut up; enclosed. Apparently a Cowper quote, but all Cowper says on the matter is "intestine war/tide/sound/fires", none of which seem to fit the definition Roger the Rodger (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

bombycinous

Rfv-sense silken. Only seems to be found in old dictionaries Roger the Rodger (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

overfall

Not sense 1 ("to fall over something", transitive; which I have cited), but the other two:

• Transitive: To attack (someone).
• Intransitive: To fall over.

Equinox ◑ 16:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

cited. I divided To fall over into two separate definitions, because the phrase is ambiguous. Kiwima (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There is overlap with these senses and citations. "To come over somebody" would work fine for most or all of the "attack" citations. Equinox ◑ 20:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with merging the two definitions if you want. There is indeed a lot of overlap. The distinction, as I see it, is that the "come over somebody" definition involves that somebody changing, while the "attack" involves some outside force causing an unwelcome change. But it is a VERY subtle distinction, and probably not worth it. I was just trying to give the definition the benefit of the doubt. Kiwima (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

kaiser

Sense 2 - "an autocrat". Currently has no citations. Tharthan (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If we keep this sense, I am inclined to put it at "Kaiser" (with a capital K), as most of what I find uses that. There are enough instances of "kaiser" with various meanings (Kaiser roll, an actual Kaiser), all of which more commonly use "Kaiser", so I think "kaiser" should just be an alt form. Anyway, I could find:

• 1915, T. P.'s Weekly - Volume 26, page 444:

  And Black Ivo is a veritable Kaiser.

• 1919, Far Eastern Political Science Review - Volume 1, page 49:

  Senator Sherman vigorously assailed the Shantung agreement, declaring that it would make the Mikado a veritable Kaiser of the Far East and alienate the sympathies of the 400,000,000 Chinese – from the people of the United States.

• 1929, Through the Leaves, page 489:

  […] which, from the banking point of view, the National City Bank is a veritable kaiser.

Kiwima (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Good finds. Especially the 1919 cite, about the Japanese emperor, merges into the "or (rarely) any emperor" sense of Kaiser, which also has a citation of "Louis XIV, the former War-Lord, the Kaiser of France". I wonder if we should split "any emperor" off from the "Germanic emperor" sense and make it part of this "autocrat" sense, like "Any emperor or autocrat or person who exercises or tries to exercise absolute authority."? (Or maybe the wording could be improved or the idea of merging them is no good.) I agree with putting all the definitions at Kaiser. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. Kiwima (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

stekheiotics

Only appears in one book? Equinox ◑ 21:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

soup

Rfv-sense To breathe out; to draw out.. Couldn't find anything from Camden, even with f instead of s to represent ſ. Roger the Rodger (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

dinumeration

Looks like another dictionary-only term Roger the Rodger (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

cited. Some of the cites are quoting earlier works. The 1930 quotes Francisco de Miranda, who lived from 1750 to 1816. The 1976 quotes Martin Luther, who was ordained in 1507. Kiwima (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Neither Miranda nor Luther wrote in English, of course, so the word is being used by translators. The spellings "tyme" and "thynges" make me suspect that Luther's translator was a contemporary, though. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

cobby

Rfv-sense: Roger the Rodger (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sense is "obstinate, headstrong". The referenced author (Brockett) must be John Trotter Brockett, and is probably a dictionary (e.g. A Glossary of North Country Words, in Use), so possibly not a real "use". Equinox ◑ 14:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The 1986 cite refers to an animal and is thus probably sense 1 ("of an animal: stocky"). Equinox ◑ 02:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed. I removed the 1986 cite as ambiguous. Kiwima (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

herbergage

Apparently a Middle English word. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 16:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

While I could find some uses in early modern English, they were all referring to texts from the Middle English period, so I am happy to treat this as Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Chasa

Hard to find cites; I plan to make the parts of Wiktionary I edit tightly conforming to all Wiktionary rules and standards and hence this one should probably be deleted until durably archived cites are found. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

straightfolk

Heterosexual people. Not in GBooks without the space. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not cited. Three quotes are required. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ooops! I was sure I had saved that edit, but I guess I didn't. Anyway, I have re-added the third cite, and actually hit save this time. Kiwima (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Bofan

Hard to cite- not enough durably archived cites or even internet cites. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

hatty

Sense 2: "of a person: fond of hats". Equinox ◑ 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:English hapax legomena

hapax legomenon (entry, appendix, category) means it was only used once. But WT:CFI + WT:WDL require three usages for English terms. --Macopre (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep the ones from Shakespeare, the others should go through the regular RFV process.--Tibidibi (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This is WT:RFVE where 3 usages are needed and not WT:RFDE on which is voted. WT:CFI has no exception for Shakespeare, and also not for KJV or any other English author, also not for any Early New English author. --Macopre (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't believe that anything from Shakespeare could be a bona fide hapax legomena and indeed, every word in the category has cites not from Shakespeare excepting manticratic (T.E. Lawrence) and sessa; put the cites on the Citations page for anything deleted so someone can get back to this when they are assembling three cites in the future. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If there are three independent usages, then the terms aren't hapax legomena and could simply be removed from the category. --Macopre (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The entries admit they are hapaxes and inform the reader about their rarity. So what Macapre suggests the editors should have lied so he could not have found them to make a request about them. Thus while I don’t know what Geographyinitiative means with bona fides, we have to conclude that Macopre acts mala fide. Also batlet already had more quotes, whereby he again shows that he does not esteem the informational content of this dictionary. It was a hapax until about 1900 perhaps then artificially revived or something from Shakespeare dictionaries or similar. In any case it needed to be kept as a translation target even if hapax, as the listed synonyms are SOP (which is not an excuse to delete them). Fay Freak (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I guessed from context that sessa would appear to be borrowed from the second-person singular imperative of either Latin cessāre or Italian cessare, and this source lists Latin and Italian but also Spanish and French as possible etyma, but is not satisfied enough to conclude. The entry also mentions "various spellings" but fails to list any others, but the source adds "sus", "ses, ses", "Sa, sa", "Cà, cà" (in a French phrase), and even "Sa, sa, sa". If these are related, we would have to assume some expressive reanalysis. But more importantly, in that case it would not be a hapax. Unfortunately it seems currently impossible to prove they are one and the same expression, but such uncertainty can be explained as a note on the page. — 69.120.64.15 21:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In olden times CFI allowed inclusion based on a single use by a very important author. That changed a few years ago. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

We now have three cites for everything except manticratic and sessa. Kiwima (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion a while ago about the "nonce" label, following the vote Vox mentions. We still have Category:English nonce terms because IIRC it was felt to still make sense to speak of repeatedly-coined nonces as nonces. I think it makes less sense to speak of repeatedly-used words as hapax legomena, or to think of the category as being for "hapax legomena in a certain author", because even common words can be hapax legomena in certain authors. I'm inclined to agree with OP that the category doesn't make sense for English; to the extent its contents meet CFI, they'd be better categorized as rare and/or nonces, or (less desirably, IMO) the category could be made an umbrella for subcategories like "hapax legomena in Shakespeare" etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

macir

Used in the gloss at Ancient Greek μάκιρ (mákir), implying it as an English word, but I can't find any sources for it. — 69.120.64.15 20:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn’t English imho. The Latin word itself is a hapax. Maybe not even Latin, therefore the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae does not include it. (Do not confuse with the bogus spice maccis, which is also a hapax.) So why did you add it in the first place? You should not add words because someone used it in a gloss. Editors make up words, and sometimes they gloss in the foreign language because keeping the term for a foreign concept as it is is the appropriate translation. Fay Freak (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hence why I only added it in comments and immediately inquired here, but yes, thank you. — 69.120.64.15 21:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is what I could find:

*

1657, Jean de Renou, “Of Nutmeg, Mace, and Macir”, in A Medicinal Dispensatory, page 278:

Now Mace and Macir differ; for Mace is the hull of a Nut, and Macir the crass slave, or as Pliny saith, red bark of a certain wood brought from Barbary, bitter to the gust, and astrictive;

• 1973, Rajaram Narayan Saletore, Early Indian Economic History, page 232:

  Another important export from India, also testified by the Periplus, was macir which, according to that work, was exported from India along with Indian copal and slaves from Berbera.

• 1997, Suomen Itämainen Seura, Studia Orientalia: - Volume 83, page 157:

  The Periplus (8) knows macir as being transported through Ethiopian ports.

• 2004, Arun Metha ·, History of Ancient India, page 127:

  Macir is mentioned by Dioscorides as an aromatic bark.

Note that they are all basically citing ancient texts that predate English. Clearly there was some export from India of this name, but I am inclined to agree that this is not an English word. Kiwima (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I had found similar cites to Kiwima, and put them at Citations:macir. I think "Now Mace and Macir differ; for Mace is the hull of a Nut, and Macir [is...]", "There can be no doubt that macir was certainly exported from India to Rome ", and one of the others would be enough for an English section; certainly, they are enough to justify using the word in glosses. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Anling

Three cites seems hard (presently). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

backwards time machine

"A time machine that can only allow travel to the past, but cannot also allow travel to the future." Equinox ◑ 06:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Backwards time travel is easily attested, but is IMO opinion SoP. If time travel means “travelling in time”, then obviously backwards time travel means “travelling backwards in time”. Isn’t backwards time machine equally SoP? A time machine means “a machine for time travel”, so a backwards time machine is simply “a machine for backwards time travel”. So what good does it do to find attestations?  --Lambiam 10:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

cited. Let's leave the question of it being NISOP (which I agree it is) for RFD. Kiwima (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

game over

"(video games, rare) To receive a game over message." I am particularly sceptical of the verb inflections. "Game overing, game overed"? And the second set: "gaming over, gamed over" (maybe even less likely)...? Equinox ◑ 06:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The recipient is the gamer, so we need (implausible) uses such as, “I wanted to play on, but unfortunately I game overed/gamed over.” (Urban Dictionary has a very different sense for gamed over.)  --Lambiam 10:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I managed to add two cites to the citations page. Perhaps there is a gaming Newsgroup someone could check for a third? Kiwima (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Both are transitive, unlike “To receive a 'game over' message”.  --Lambiam 22:39, July 22, 2021 (UTC)

True. If we find a third cite, we should change the definition to to end the game of; to give a 'game over' message to. Kiwima (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

scission

RFV-sense "cleavage". Which sense of "cleavage"? If it's only "the act of cleaving/separating", then this is just a restatement of sense 1 and not a separate sense; I kind of suspect that's what it is, because it dates to 2005, when people often put different ways of saying the same thing on different definition lines. But I don't want to just merge it if some other, non-redundant sense is attestable. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I bet we won’t find uses such as, “Wearing a hidden camera on her chest, Whitney secretly captured the fleeting glances and unabashed ogling directed at her ample scission.”^[6] “DNA strand scission” and “DNA strand cleavage” are synonymous terms. In this context, a scientist would not readily use the terms division, separation, cutting or severing, although they fit from a strictly semantic viewpoint. Sense 2 can easily be folded into sense 1 by using “The act of division, separation, cutting, cleaving or severing”. — This comment was unsigned.

I've merged the senses. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

turntables

RFV of the verb "{{lb|en|neologism}} tables have turned". I don't think this is really a verb (I don't find e.g. turntablesed), I think it may exist only in "how the turntables" or other malapropisms of phrases with "tables have turned". That might be more a matter for RfC, to determine the POS and define it in a way that better captured how it was used, except that it doesn't actually seem to be used in durably-archived media at all. (The Office is archived by libraries, but it's not clear to me that "how the turntables" as spoken in The Office attests a verb turntables as opposed to being the phrase how the turntables a la how the tables have turned.) - -sche (discuss) 07:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a few (non-durable) uses on Reddit, in joky meme posts, e.g. Ah the turntables, Oh the turntables, How the turntables??. Evidently not a verb anyhow. Equinox ◑ 12:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

garlish

"to publish" Leasnam (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Speedied as obvious bullshit. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

ungrate

All I could find were hits for ungrateful Queenofnortheast (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• OED ({{R:Oxford English Dictionary}}) has plenty of uses, the most recent by Meston in 1767. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Here's one. It helps if you limit Google Books to the 17th century, though even there I'm still mostly finding "ungrateful" divided across a line break. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • A few more: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

hot-chocolate

RFV of the verb. I found two citations where hot chocolating means "consuming hot chocolate", but none of hot-chocolate meaning "give hot chocolate to", except possibly—as I found when I googled "got hot-chocolated"—an episode of Grey's Anatomy where someone says "I got hot chocolated. The She-Shepherd hot chocolated me." (Many of the user's edits are good, but some other verbs by the creator of this one seem to exist only marginally online and not in durably-archived media.) - -sche (discuss) 09:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

evilist

An evil person. Can we get three for this? Created by a "Pass a method" sock account, it seems. Most hits are, of course, erroneous forms of "evilest" (adjective). Equinox ◑ 12:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I added a second citation though I think the date on it is probably wrong. It's also used capitalized like a faction name in:

• 2020, Yuu Tanaka, Reincarnated as a Sword (Light Novel) Vol. 5, Seven Seas Entertainment (→ISBN)

  "An Evilist fortress fell overnight? And you're saying it's the Millennium Fortress? That's the strongest fort those Evil One worshippers had."

Maybe someone can find a better third citation.

(I can also find "lesser evilists", which is of course "lesser evil"+"-ist" not "lesser"+"evilist", and reminds me of Talk:onlyer.)

The definition also needs tweaking, it seems like it's more along the lines of one who does or promotes evil, it seems (to me) to connote doing evil like an activity or promoting it like an ideology, more than just passively possessing the quality of evilness, even if these might be denotatively equivalent. - -sche (discuss) 00:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima: Note the existence of lesser evilism, for example. If balled only ever existed in big-balled and in no other form, then we shouldn't have balled alone. (In practice of course there might be two-balled, sweaty-balled, etc. ahahah forgive my bad example.) I do not think something like "lesser-evilist" can support "evilist", except possibly as a redirect, and I would even challenge that, since a search operation would find it anyway. Equinox ◑ 03:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

In a "balled" case, I might argue for {{only used in}}. I don't think any of Kiwima's citations are of "lesser evilist", though? They all seem to be of bare "evilist", except possibly "arch-evilist". Great job finding so many, btw, Kiwima. - -sche (discuss) 04:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, K's cites are extremely convincing. I'd pass this. Thanks Kiwima. Equinox ◑ 04:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You are right that lesser evilist is more common, and I was careful to avoid it. I also avoided root of all evilist. (And you may note a cite on the citations page for a nonce meaning as one who is considered bigoted for saying that those who commit evil acts are evil.) Kiwima (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

like a bowl in a china shop

Not the misspelling of "like a bull in a china shop" (which seems to exist, though I suspect it's used as a joke, or at least an eggcorn, rather than a misspelling), but the other two senses: (i) fragile; (ii) mundane. Equinox ◑ 12:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I have cited the "mundane" meaning. See [[12]]. I can find no evidence for the "fragile" sense other than some mentions in articles about the eggcorn. Kiwima (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "like a bowl in a china shop" is very unlikely to be a misspelling of "like a bull in a china shop". Either it's an intentional joke/wordplay, or else it's a correctly spelled misunderstanding of the expression. Mihia (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

USB On-The-Go

A brand (trademark of USB Implementers Forum, Inc.); WT:BRAND applies. I cannot imagine generic use. Equinox ◑ 20:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

racialized

Three of the four senses:

1. Influenced or determined by race.
2. Divided and segregated along the boundaries of race.
3. Othered; of color; considered as having a race, as contrasted with white people when considered as not having a race.

Each has only a single citation, each one being ambiguous as to whether it is correctly assigned to an adjective sense rather than a verb (past participle) sense and as to which of the four definitions offered it might belong.

Since no other OneLook dictionary has an entry for racialized (but see AHD's definitions of racialize (verb).), we should be careful to define such a potentially fraught term. DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW there are plenty of citations of "very racialized", suggested by WT:English adjectives to distinguish adjectives from nouns, and though it's not clear that this distinguishes adjectives from verbs, some do seem adjectival; it wouldn't surprise me if an adjective exists. My objection, and why I raised it in the Tea Room, is that the citations provided seem better parsed as verbs, for reasons I noted in the TR, including that most can be expanded from "racialized" to "racialized by (society, other people, etc)" without changing meaning, or can be recast in the present tense (from e.g. "racialized people" to "people who society racializes"), again suggesting that when it's unclear if racialized is an adjective or a verb, Occam's razor would suggest it's the verb. Any senses should be covered at one POS or another, of course; as I think you said in the TR, if there are senses that only exist in ambiguous-POS-racialized and not verbal-racialize, it'd be evidence they were adjectival. - -sche (discuss) 00:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

For the record, things going on in my personal life are preventing me from being as involved in this discussion and process as I would like to be. Given that, I'll be largely silent and inactive. Take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

supergargantuanly

DTLHS (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@DTLHS: We had a user years in the past (the name began with De... I think, something like Dekkan?) who created lots of silly super-, mega-, big-sounding terms. Probably this is the same person. Equinox ◑ 15:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Found it. The user was Special:Contributions/Dekoshu. Equinox ◑ 15:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Also note the user is often citing things with a two-word form like "super ferocious", which could just be super as adverb, and does not attest a single-word form. Equinox ◑ 15:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

superinstantaneously

DTLHS (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Of all of these, this was the only one I could find any cites for. We have two. Kiwima (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

superimmenseness

DTLHS (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

superimplosive

DTLHS (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

superimplosion

DTLHS (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Asianfish

(Some of this user's other creations also appear to only exist on fleeting online media.) - -sche (discuss) 12:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Eostre

Sense 3: "A putative Anglo-Saxon seasonal reference." This hardly looks like a definition. Reference to what? Equinox ◑ 15:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't find anything for "during Eostre" or "in Eostre" (a la "In spring"), which is what I would guess this was aiming at, defining "Eostre" as ~"a putative Anglo-Saxon division of the year broadly coterminous to modern springtime" or something. (I did find Citations:eostre with an entirely different meaning ) - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

chattertariat

Zero GBooks hits Chuck Entz (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

While I can't find any Gbooks hits, it is reasonably common on the internet. Kiwima (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't spot anything on e.g. Google News, either (looking only to see whether news sites used it, aware that many don't appear in print). Better attested is chatterati. - -sche (discuss) 03:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

apoxsee

Rfv-sense "tomorrow" — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(The proper noun, place name, is evidently in the wrong place too because it needs a capital A.) Equinox ◑ 21:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to move the entry to Apoxsee and drop the sense "tomorrow". Judging by Apoxsee, Florida, the sense "tomorrow" is Seminole, not English; it seems like the creator of the entry got the basic "meaning" parts right but didn't grasp the finer points of capitalization and language, since they also added an "English" "translation" to the translations table...! (PS I will say that while citations of google books:Florida Apoxsee demonstrate that capitalized "Apoxsee" is attested in relation to Florida, it would not be obvious to me from the citations whether it was a town or a surname or vague neighbourhood/region name, were it not for the Wikipedia article.) - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

loom large

Rfv-sense 2: "to pose a likely threat or danger". Was split from sense 1 in this edit. I don't see it as a different sense. PUC – 23:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I do think that #1 as presently written is somewhat lacking the sense of something ominous being in prospect. For example, if I say that the day of my exam "looms large", then yes it is of "importance, concern, etc.", as #1 says, but additionally, and importantly for the meaning, it is impending. Perhaps #2 was trying to address this, though it does seem rather too specific. Mihia (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have cited this sense into the entry. It is certainly possible to keep it as a separate entry, but I think it is just as easily moved back into the main entry as a connotative meaning ("...especially when posing a likely threat or danger"). Kiwima (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd favor the 'especially' treatment for the "threatening" connotation. DCDuring (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

wifi syndrome

Equinox ◑ 02:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Tupocracy

Awful formatting and shouldn't be capitalized, but there might be something here (there's at least one result on BGC) — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It was coined in 2006 by Godwin Amaowoh in his doctoral dissertation at the University of Nigeria NSUKKA. It can be found in a number of websites, but does not seem to have caught on yet. Amaowoh capitalized the term (apparently for emphasis). In permanently archived sources, I could only find two citations, which I put at Citations:tupocracy. Kiwima (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

confectionism

The same IP also added a bunch of other questionable -isms — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

gapple

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

spare

Rfv-sense: slow. Apparently there's a quote by Grose out there Queenofnortheast (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

season

Rfv-sense: To copulate with; to impregnate. Apparently quote by Holland is out there Queenofnortheast (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)