Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | 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 | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{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

Requests for Verification is Wiktionary’s forum for verifying whether a definition meets our criteria for inclusion.

• See Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements WT:CDE for a full list of the codes, templates, lists, categories etc involved in the cleanup and deletion process.

Make a new nomination

A request will remain for one month after nomination. It may be removed sooner if verification has been made—generally about a week afterwards will be given to allow any disputes about the verification itself to arise.

After that time:

1. The {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} template will be removed.
2. If insufficient evidence is found, it will be archived to the talk page of the entry in question with a note saying it failed RFV, for future reference in case new evidence emerges. Then the disputed sense will be removed or the disputed entry will be sent to be deleted with a note saying it failed RFV, whichever is applicable. (If it seems to be a protologism, it will be added to the list of protologisms.)
3. The RFV discussion will then be archived.
4. Terminology note: "rfvpassed" means sufficient verification was found to retain the entry; "rfvfailed" means insufficient evidence of the word in use was found, therefore it was removed.

How does one verify a sense?

• Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a well-known work. Currently, well-known work has not been clearly defined, but good places to start from are: works that stand out in their field, works from famous authors, major motion pictures, and national television shows that have run for multiple seasons. Be aware that if a word is a nonce word that never entered widespread use, it should be marked as such.
• Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a refereed academic journal.
• 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.

  See: criteria for inclusion, format for citations, and standard entry layout.

• Advise on this page that the citations have been placed on the article page.

Note:

• RFV is generally for testing whether information can be safely deleted. Occasionally simple fact-checking questions are posted, particularly for non-English words: these queries are better suited for article talk pages or the Tea room.
• Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. If the information is not gathered, a sysop will make a decision whether to transfer the disputed word to the requests for deletion page. WARNING. If no verification is provided, the word may be deleted from this page.

See also: Wiktionary:Lists of words needing attention

Oldest tagged RFVs
No pages meet these criteria.

November 2007

sillion

Is this a nonce word? I can only find it in a single work of literature. SemperBlotto 15:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gerard Manl(e)y Hopkins coined it, but it seems to have had some take up, judging from the citation I just added. I’ll tag it as {{rare}}. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is only used in a single work. The second one just quotes the first then uses the term in quotation marks. It would be interesting if you could find another simple use. (and the original quotation would help to assign a definition) SemperBlotto 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It uses it without any special formatting in the second paragraph. There were a few other works which, from what I could tell, both used and mentioned this word; unforunately, they were “phantom” hits. I’ve invited the creating editor to cite the original work. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would call it a nonce in fairness, but clearly a noteworthy one which we ought to have. I presume he got it from French sillon...? Widsith 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I’ve added an etymology, with your suggested derivation mentioned with appropriate modality. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I’ve added two more citations. However, they probably don’t really count as independent. I’m uncertain whether this word meets our formal criteria, but judging from the fact that the line “sheer plod makes plough down sillion [s]hine” appears in over a hundred books, I’d say that this is definitely a word that “someone would come across and want to know what it means”. (The rest of the hits are for the surname Sillion and for scannos of million and such, as well as a few other things, including a verbal sense, which I’ve cited on the talk page, if anyone cares to define it.) I’d say we keep this as a notable nonce word / a hapax legomenon. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added another meaning of the word... including a reference... --BigBadBen 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this just a misspelling of zillion? Hekaheka 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

helluv

Really? bd2412 T 19:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Probably thinking of the informal adjective helluva. SemperBlotto 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently; google books:helluv has 59 hits. It seems to be a back-formation from (deprecated template usage) helluva — recognizing the (deprecated template usage) -a as reflecting the indefinite article, then diverging in interpretations of the remaining (deprecated template usage) helluv:

• in some uses, taking it to be an adverb (perhaps on the model of (deprecated template usage) quite, where you can have both "he's quite a guy" and "I quite misunderstood").
• in some uses, taking it to be the non-count counterpart (since (deprecated template usage) a is only used with count nouns).
• in some uses, simply writing (deprecated template usage) helluva as (deprecated template usage) helluv a.

All very odd.

—Ruakh_TALK 19:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more readily a back-formation from hella (primarily N CA slang), as a user of helluv may be assuming that to be the "fully pronounced" version of the contraction-sounding hella. In any case, it's the same as hella, and was likely altered from that useful intensifier. -- Thisis0 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, most, say 15, of the 20 or so usable examples of the 59 raw hits are clearly an attempt to capture the change in emphasis in informal speech between "a HELL of a" and "a helluva". There are also elisions of "the hell of" as in "helluv it" ("the hell of it") and elision of "hell have" as in "where the helluv you been" ("where the hell have you been"). I took a stab at sharpening the entry with multiple senses. I also found three quotes that I can't parse out. DCDuring 23:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I don't know how to designate the PoS for what I read as elisions of two different parts of speech combined into a phrase, especially "the hell of it" (noun?) and "hell have" (verb?). DCDuring 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have entered my readings of various elisions as senses. Maybe they should be considered parts of different (somewhat speculative) etymologies. There seem to me to be multiple elision-etymologies that end up with the same spelling and then another word, not parsable as an elision, that users seem to have taken from some of all of the other senses. I think I have all the pieces (maybe too many), but the entry may not be organized right. DCDuring 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your adjective sense 3, and adverb intensifier sense are those which came from NorCal's hella. But indeed, different writers tend to use all possible contractions to represent speech, as shown searching BGC for "where the hella you been". -- Thisis0 15:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

fuddle-duddle

Fuck? This is a synonym of dawdle or mix-up, right? (Erm, waitasec, what is in this entry, anyhow?) --Connel MacKenzie 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

google:"oh fuddle duddle" suggests this originated with, or was popularized by, an unintentionally (?) humorous utterance by late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. —Ruakh_TALK 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hey: w:Fuddle duddle. —Ruakh_TALK 03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

boondock

An anon questions this sense: “A slight rise in elevation found in vegetated sandy landscapes.” Rod (A. Smith) 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. For starters, I only know the plural, boondocks, as in "out in the boondocks", the back(wards)country, the hinterland, the worthless scrub brush land, etc. If boondock(s) has the sense of a swamp island (ie, the sense given here), then surely it is used this way to refer to the high ground in the mother of all swamps, the Florida Everglades, which has hundreds of thousands of swamp islands. A quick Google web search turns up nothing. I know those swamp islands as hummocks. --Una Smith 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

stiff

I found two RfV tags added in July 2007 without any RfV discussion now visible. Tags

Three verb senses relate to cheating:

• payment of a debt
• payment of a tip (which is NOT a debt, being somewhat discretionary on the patron's assessment of service)
• discharge of any social obligation.

Are these three sufficient or excessive for conveying this class of meanings? (There are other meanings missing, too.) DCDuring 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

para

Shortened form of "parachutist" and "paramedic". "Paratrooper" I agree with, but I don't see the other two in print dictionaries. — Paul G 14:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have frequently heard this as short form of paraprofessional: I've heard it specifically used to refer to an assistant teacher in grade school. I haven't time now to look for citations, but assuming the sense is citable, we can combine "paramedic" and other senses (but not parachutist or paratrooper, of course) into one: paraprofessional.—msh210℠ 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Protestant work ethic

The first sense is of the "value". The RfVd sense (in paraphrase) is the idea that Protestant countries work harder than others. Although I have graded papers that may use the term that way, I don't think that it is verifiable. DCDuring 15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I'd have thought that was even what we call "clearly widespread use". (Remember that we include terms like (deprecated template usage) vomitorium whose senses reflect erroneous understandings of the world; the question isn't whether Protestant countries work harder than others, but whether the term "Protestant work ethic" is an idiom or set phrase expressing this belief. I'd say that it is.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I see what you're saying: the term is used due to that notion, but doesn't itself refer to that notion. I think I agree. —Ruakh_TALK 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's sloppy thinking/naming, but it might be sloppy thinking/naming that has entered general currency. DCDuring 01:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition could be improved. This phrase has been used to refer to Anabaptists of industrializing England in a James Burke documentary series on British television. Since the Anabaptists are not Calvinists, nor were they the population of the entire country, the current definitions we have are too narrow or incomplete. --EncycloPetey 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

commodity

rfv sense: "Anything useful in daily life" DCDuring 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what is meant is consumer goods. I'll look for some quotes with this meaning. Algrif 16:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• [[1]] 2005, By William Leiss, Botterill, Jackie. Social Communication in Advertising: Consumption in the Mediated Marketplace Why do the good quotes always come from books with ultra-long titles? p.307

• Referring to the work of Bourdieu, Zukin (2004,38) notes that shopping is much more than the purchase of commodities

• [[2]]

2001, By Rachel Pain, Introducing Social Geographies. p. 26 Box 2.8

• In human geography "commodities" usually refers to goods and services which are bought and sold. The simplest commodities are those produced by the production system just before they are sold.

• [[3]]

1995, by James G. Carrier . Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism Since 1700, p.122

• If a key part of shopping is the conversion of anonymous commodities into possessions, shopping is a cultural as much as an economic activity.

Maybe I should have RfD-sense'd it instead. Sense 1: "Anything movable that is bought and sold." All of the above citations fit in that meaning. Sense 2 is the one that I don't get. I have put all of the quotations under the first sense for now. The RfV sense would include free goods, like air and acorns, as well as intangibles, like shelter and companionship. Does anyone use the word "commodity" so all-inclusively? DCDuring 17:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Whats missing then is the stocks, shares, and other tradeable items as opposed to stuff you buy for day to day living. Algrif 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stocks and shares are not commodities in stock exchange lingo. On the contrary, the term "commodity" is used to distinguish primary products (=commodities) from them. Added quote to #2. Its a rare but existing sense. Perhaps the wording could be better. Hekaheka 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

broken arrow

rfv'd sense: "(Olde English) A captured archer (who had subsequently been released or escaped) and had had his drawing fingers removed thus preventing his ability to shoot arrows, and hence was "broken". (Removal of the index finger and middle finger was a common punishment inflicted by the French on English archers throughout history, especially during medieval times."

Superficial plausibility reminds me of urban legends. No reference to this in g.b.c. or scholar. DCDuring 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The practice of cutting these two fingers is the origin of the two finger salute or V-sign commonly used in UK as a vulgar gesture. (To demonstrate to the enemy that the two fingers are still intact). But I have never heard of it referred to as broken arrow. Algrif 12:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's a myth, actually. There was never a practice of cutting off archer's fingers. --Ptcamn 11:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I read it in history books at school (15 years ago! so can't provide a reference sorry, though I'll try and pop in to the local library to see if I can get a reference). Anyway, this entry is stating that it is the archer with those fingers missing that was referred to as the "broken arrow" rather than making any claims about the act of removing of the fingers. --62.49.204.126 16:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Being a myth doesn't mean that's not a legitimate definition. We don't remove the definition of unicorn simply because it's a myth. What matters is whether the term is used that way, not whether there is a factual basis behind the use. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

sense not a straight arrow: so and so is a broken arrow Seinfeld script; if you are a broken arrow Usenet --66.167.41.146 03:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

shithouse

rfv-sense: "(Australian, vulgar, colloquial) an outside toilet. Such facilities are generally bad, and thus the term 'shithouse' was created. Unlike some conjoined words, this term does not imply a collaboration of the two terms, shit and house. Shit is used to imply the low quality or distastefullness, and house is to emphasise the large and enclosed nature of the facility. Used in situations of disgust, hatred or badness."

The psychology described above doesn't fit with my experience. I also thought that shithouse was more widely used to just mean "outhouse", perhaps conveying a pejorative sense of the condition of said facility. I will have moved the lengthy material to a usage note, but am not sure of its accuracy. DCDuring 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The pejorative sense in my experience is conveyed by describing (eg) a slum apartment as a "cesspit" or a "shit hole" (meaning the hole beneath the outhouse). --Una Smith 05:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely means an outside toilet, especially one using a can to collect waste and not connected to the sewer system. Widespread usage (although not in polite company). --Dmol 17:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To an American, in the shithouse can mean literally in the outhouse. But it also can mean you are in trouble with (eg) your wife and metaphorically you have been banned from her bed / bedroom / house. Being in the shithouse is worse than being in the doghouse. --Una Smith 05:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

snavel

Alleged Australianism. Possibly derived from regional UK to steal or pilfer. DCDuring 11:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

From snaffle, possibly? Algrif 12:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English according to Google Books, although it won't let me view the page. (I removed the usage note as probably inaccurate.) --Ptcamn 03:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English states -

(patial quote) Snavel - verb To Steal something (Australia 1892) While I got stuck in sick bay all the good hiding places got snavelled. (end patial quote)

I added a reference to a recent book and removed the verification request. I do wonder if it derives from the Dutch word. It certainly rings a bell to any Dutch speaker: its meaning is immediately recognizable. It calls up connotations like: als de kippen erbij zijn: to jump on it like the chickens (on food) etc.nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

75.178.190.190 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

cuvette

Sense 2 ?? Algrif 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost certain it's used in that way in Tristram Shandy, when Uncle Toby is talking about his fortifications. Widsith 10:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A definition would be nice. The link goes to a French word! Algrif 13:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

English section added to cunette. Widsith 13:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. But I still can't find any examples of cuvette with that meaning. Algrif 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[4] Widsith 16:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's one. I'm not denying that it could be correct, It's just the lack of supporting citations. One quote. Any others? Anything in any dictionaries? Algrif 16:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sine Tristram Shandy is "a well-known work", the one citation is sufficient under WT:CFI. However, if this is the only citation we find, we might mention that specifically in a usage note, since that could be a typo/scanno. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so, he calls it that all the way through the book. I will do some more searches, I expect it can be found in otehr works too. Bit of a nightmare to search for though.. Widsith 11:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

not in my name

Is this a set phrase? Is that meaning widespread? Dmcdevit·t 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not one I've ever encountered. --EncycloPetey 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote that gives the flavor of the would-be set phrase use:

1. • 2007, Frank Furedi, Politics of Fear, page 43

     It was fitting that one of the most prominent slogans of the movement against the 2003 invasion of Iraq was 'Not In My Name'.

It is a political slogan, usually appearing in caps and/or in quotes. I don't think that makes it an idiom and still less a proverb. DCDuring 19:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not "an idiom" but surely "idiomatic" - the phrase would be useless as a slogan if it were not understood to have a set meaning (but shouldn't it be "not in our name)? Cheers! bd2412 T 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A phrase only needs to have meaning to work as a slogan.

"I like Ike", "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?", "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion", "A chicken in every pot", "new beginning", "new deal", "fair deal", "new frontier", "morning in America", "four freedoms", "Labour's not working", "return to normalcy", "a cross of gold", "peace in our time", "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice", "never again", "vote early, vote often", "a war to end all wars". I see many, many new entry possibilities. DCDuring 04:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If a phrase can be shown to have a set meaning - a single exclusive meaning that conveys more information than the words alone - then it should be included. I doubt "vote early, vote often" or "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice" would meet that standard, because they mean just what they say (even if they are famous for who said it, in which case they belong on Wikiquote). By contrast, reference to "a cross of gold" would sound like it literally meant a cross made of gold, and not the concept that the entire country was crucified by its reliance on the gold standard. Similarly, the "war to end all wars" refers to a specific war (which didn't end all wars after all). bd2412 T 07:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with applying CFI, although I struggle with applying it to phrases of all kinds. The full sentence slogans given above probably aren't includable, but some might be. The others have more meanings, generally shared among those interested in political history. "run, romanism, and rebellion" was about US nativism. "vote early, vote often" is an encouragement to corruption. "a chicken in every pot" was about American populism. "a cross of gold" was about populist/rural hatred of "Wall Street". "peace in our time" is about appeasement. "never again" is about the Holocaust. "new frontier" was about John F. Kennedy. "morning in America" was about Reaganism. "labour's not working" is about Thatcherism. "a war to end all wars" is certainly hard to take literally. I think each political slogans has an ephemeral element also takes on durable meanings connected with the situtation that gave rise to it. DCDuring 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, is it really restricted to politics? Interesting. --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Internationalised Curriculum

Idiomatic? Caps? SemperBlotto 22:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Caps looks wrong, unless it is something official like "IB" (w:International Baccalaureate). DCDuring 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No caps found in g.b.c. or Scholar.

All the uses look distinctly non-idiomatic to me. Many have adverbs modifying international, like "more" or "thoroughly". Rarely is the phrase preceded by "the"; when it is its looks as if they are referring to one institution's curriculum. This looks like a strong candidate for RfD and deletion. It gets my Delete right now. DCDuring 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes provided show that term exists, but only support non-capitalized entry. Quotes also make it look perfectly SoP, non-idiomatic. Move to RfD. DCDuring 02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

IMHO

Honest? --Connel MacKenzie 06:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost impossible to confirm or deny this kind of thing. It could just as easily be Husband's ;-) Depends on the person who writes it. But as far as I know, all my circle use it and, more importantly, understand it to mean Humble. Algrif 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We could take all the fun out of the alternative definitions by putting the idea of such alternatives in "Usage notes" and mentioning the best examples. I wouldn't want to spend time verifying alternatives to the humble meaning. DCDuring 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Captain Planet

Is this "sarcastic" meaning widespread? Dmcdevit·t 11:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Without that sense this goes to the fictional characters list, doesn't it? DCDuring 12:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I might take off the sarcastic tag, but Captain Planet seems to be used, ironically, sarcastically, and straight, as a symbol for crusading environmentalism, often without explicit reference to the cartoon. It's going to be a keeper, I predict. DCDuring 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a cite right here; I'm trying to find more. sewnmouthsecret 16:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's used all ways. I have 3 cites that illustrate. I think the sarcasm depends on the context. Some of the quotes are funny. News has quite a few. DCDuring 16:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Only the first example illustrates the second definition. The other two are allusive uses of the first definition. --Ptcamn 06:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

An environmentalist foundation has adopted (bought?) Captain Planet as its spokes-character. And Captain Planet is one of Al Gore's nicknames; see Usenet for some instances. Sarcastic or not, the use has escaped from the cartoon universe. --Una Smith 17:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

my nigger

This recently passed RfD. I have been looking into the term a bit and believe that the sense given has not been supported. The reference to the movie Training Day certainly does not unambiguously support the sense given. I didn't remember the usage in the film that way and others writing about the film in print also viewed it differently. The term "nigger", when used by black people to each other, can be "affectionate". (I have inseerted an additional neutral sense of the term in our entry for nigger.) But "my nigger", with the notion of possession, seems to introduce more a possibility of subservience, which is how I interpreted the Training Day use. (Also, a similar use in Pulp Fiction, also said by a black man to a white man, BTW.) OTOH, I don't have any direct experience of the use of the term "my nigger". DCDuring 02:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether I can find print citations, but I can personally attest to its regular use among teens in California, at least. --EncycloPetey 03:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument you make seems to be that my nigger = my + nigger, with the latter being in the sense of "a term of address", loosely an equivalent of "friend" in AAVE. I don't belive that argument because "my" does not pragmatically restrict the meaning: "his nigger" etc. would not be analyzed the same way. In my view this would pass the Egyptian pyramid test since the second term does "not have the most general meaning attributable". In fact the literal meaning would be that stated by a slaveholder. However, if you like we can open the RFD back up for discussion. DAVilla

Any use of a personal pronoun is likely to have a different emotional content, isn't it? "My child" is warmer and nicer than "his child". Since literal slave-holding is both illegal and not involved in the fictional relationships under discussion, the word can only refer to some other kind of relationship of subservience. DCDuring 12:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The quotation listed should stay but as mention doesn't count toward verification; rather the quotation from the movie itslef should be listed. I can't find "my nigger" in Pulp Fiction but DCDuring only said it was similar. DAVilla 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A secondary source for the purported Pulp Fiction cite:

• 2000, Christine Gledhill, Linda Williams, Reinventing Film Studies, page 285

  Upon noticing Vince at the bar, Marsellus greets him jauntily as "my nigger"

I don't know what this all means. If we could get more quotes, then perhaps we could understand this a bit better. I any event, we seem to have justification for the less pejorative sense of "nigger" and another sense as figurative slave, someone who has to do someone's bidding. If "nigger" weren't so emotionally charged, the differences in tone wouldn't matter as much. DCDuring 13:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

hypo-

Two senses particular to chemistry and photography. These senses of the prefix can be verified by adding three derived terms each to the entry (each of which must itself satisfy the CFI). More work needs to be done on this entry (see WT:RFC#hypo). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The photography sense is real but should be at hypo, not hypo-. Widsith 14:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So it’s a noun which denotes that sense rather than a sense denoted by this prefix, yeah? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

'Zackly. Widsith 14:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we declare the fourth sense RFVfailed, then? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The photography sense is real and is already listed at hypo. But in hypo, it lists both sodium hyposulfite and sodium thiosulfate (which is what I remember from my chemistry days). While we are on the subject can anyone confirm or refute this, rather than me listing it as a separate entry for now. Thanks--Dmol 16:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty hypo-chemistry. Any salt in which the central atom of the complex anion is in a lower oxidation state than normal can be called that way, but the nomenclature is a bit archaic. hyposulfite and thiosulfate are not the same but they are both pretty good reducing agents. I guess either would do Jcwf 01:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here (at page 69) is IUPAC's characterization of the use of "hypo-". As I read it, Jcwf's statement that it is out of date seems supported. They further say that the term is not used consistently as a prefix to different elements. The reference seems rather useful for us, BTW. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a demonstration of why we should welcome WikiChemipedia when someone is motivated to create it. We don't have the expertise to handle any but the most basic words (which chemical nomenclaturists call "trivial") and those used in literature or the news. Similarly for taxonomic names and WikiSpecies. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ma tante

Meant to be pawnbroker (uncle) in French. It literaly means my aunt in french. No entry in Wiktionnaire either. --Rural Legend 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Tbot entries don't need to go to RfD or RfV; if they are wrong, fix the source translation entry (e.g. probably just remove it in this case, assuming "my aunt" is not slang for pawnbroker in French), and tag the Tbot entry with {delete|bad Tbot entry}. If you think Tbot misinterpreted the translations table, add a note to User talk:Tbot. (so now you are a Legend? :-) Robert Ullmann 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I added this translation. To verify it, try to google "ma tante" + pawnbroker (for example). Lmaltier 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

locera

Has a fair number of Google hits, but does not appear to mean "locker". It appears to be a name and a word for something related to ceramics. Also, the example has a wrong verb form. PierreAbbat 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably Spanish. DCDuring 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm from my Spanish dictionaries that it means "potter" (locero / locera Template:f) in Central America and Venezuela. I cannot find evidence that it means (deprecated template usage) locker in spanish. This may be someone's joke playing around in pseudo-Spanish, or it may be Spanglish. --EncycloPetey 04:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spanglish for "locker" is apparently lóquer [5] or just locker [6] (presumably pronounced the same way). Changing the /k/ to /s/ would be weird. --Ptcamn 08:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Never heard it nor seen it in Spain. lóquer and even locker, yes. Not not locera. Algrif 19:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

BFE

I would have RfD’d this had it not for the fact that the phrase “Bumfuck Egypt” yields 9,930 Google Web hits. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bumfuck, Egypt is real, but I don't know that this abbreviation is. --Ptcamn 09:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is real. However, every native (American) English speaker that I've ever known would tell you that it stands for Butt F..king Egypt. The abbreviation BFE is not quite so vulgar.

Example: I would go more often, except for the fact that it's way out in BFE.[7][8] -- A-cai 11:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Weird, and funny. I’d guessed it was a joke. I’ve never heard it before. Is it attestable? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, in America we say, "It's way out in BFE," (the "way out in" part is nearly idiomatic) and the full explanation "Butt-fuck Egypt" or "Butt-fuckin' Egypt" is reserved as sort of a punch line when someone asks, "What's BFE?" -- Thisis0 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm... holy balls. Didn't anybody notice this was RFV'ed (and passed) near the top of this page?? I was very confounded when my browser sent me to a conversation I never read after submitting my comment. I thought it was a massive edit conflict. Anyway, the other entry is "way up there in #BFE". -- Thisis0 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

㺧

Doesn't look like Mandarin character to me (but what do I know?) SemperBlotto 08:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the Mandarin section. This is not a common character, but it does have an entry in Hanyu Dacidian, which is a large Chinese character dictionary for Mandarin. -- A-cai 11:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ontop

Isn't this simply on top? Algrif 18:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete; Not in the OED compact, Webster's third, or Wikisource. --EncycloPetey 19:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it stay in in some way. There are about 7 37 fiction g.b.c hits for it that aren't scannos. (10,000 for "on top") Common misspelling? Alternate spelling? proscribed? DCDuring 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not alternat(iv)e spelling: if anything, a misspelling. A common one by definition, I suppose, if you've found three citations spanning a year. And I don't know whether it's common enough to be proscribed.  :-) —msh210℠ 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To rare a misspelling to be common. It seems to be used just like "atop"? Is it modern dress of "atop"? DCDuring 14:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly cited; not likely to do better. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

wide receiver

Rfv-sense: (vulgar slang) The one who plays the female role in a male-on-male homosexual relationship.—msh210℠ 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat popular jocular slang in that sense, printed on T-shirts, etc. Do T-shirts count as citations? Rod (A. Smith) 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as you can point to a webpage which sells them (with the term in clear view), then I’d say they should. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.cafepress.com/prideinart.29295483 shows the quote on a T-shirt, but it seems that the T-shirt quote came from a Queer as Folk episode, so I cited the original instead, along with other examples. Rod (A. Smith) 18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Now there are four citations; but (meaning no offense) I'm not sure they're good. The first is a mention. (The second seems okay.) The third (although I can't see the context) seems to be discussing football (and may be a mention anyway). The fourth uses the term as a pun: the speaker seems to be (re)inventing the term on the spot.—msh210℠ 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is well understood jocular slang in gay bars, in this courtroom, and among those who see these products, but I cannot find any additional book hits to support it. It would be weird for this to go and (deprecated template usage) wintard to stay, but I don't care enough to add non-durable citations. Rod (A. Smith) 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

social collaboration

Idiomatic, or sum of parts? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 08:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Where are the entries for "anti-social collaboration" and "asocial collaboration"? DCDuring 12:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much effort to define this. It is used as if it were SoP. It might be a label for a school of thought, but it seems less focused than most such labels. I guess "social" is an intensifier rather than a modifier of "collaboration". One footnote noted the redundancy and referred to the word "social" as being used to excess to counter individualistic intellecdtual tendencies. DCDuring 14:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

guinnel

I'm familiar with the spelling ginnel, but I've never seen this. Nothing obvious on Google Books from the brief glance I gave it... Widsith 13:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not many cites at all but I liked this one:

Okay, when was the last time you outran a cop? Group: rec.motorcycles.harley Seventy in a forty zone gets you a police escort but as I knew the area (Leeds, Alwoodley) really well, I knew where the guinels were ( a guinel is a walkway between two houses). There's a great one that runs near where my cousin now lives. There's nothing but curves to it so the cops couldn't get a straight view ... Nov 8 1999 by Adrian Merrington - 19 messages - 14 authors DCDuring 14:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting....that's yet another spelling altogether! Widsith 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

label#French

This claims to be from Frankish, but I am rather confident that the sense ‘music label’ is borrowed from English. H. (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

pluto

The neologism verb "pluto". The Dialect Society's efforts to promote this word and itself seems to have failed. The uses are almost entirely references to the Dialect Society press release. "plutoing" and "plutoed" uses are rare. It is tedious to try to extract "to pluto" and "plutos" uses from the "to Pluto" and "Plutos" uses. I hope someone has some good ideas for how to verify this. DCDuring 17:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already discussed this one. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. When? How can I get a look? Was it determined that it didn't need citations? Is there some index where I could look for discussions of a given page? DCDuring 22:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This entry was only created a month ago. DCDuring 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It was around a lot longer under Pluto but got moved a month ago. sewnmouthsecret 22:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, DCD may be right. I thought I remembered this being discussed back when Pluto was first demoted, but I could be wrong. I can't find evidence of the discussion I thought I remembered. --EncycloPetey 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw a discussion about how to handle the plutoing of Pluto; I didn't find one about the new verb, although I would be surprised if it didn't come up among such a distinguished group of language mavens. In Jan. 2007 the American Dialect Society selected "plutoed" to be their word of the year [9]. (I had thought it was earlier.) It hasn't gotten too much use yet, as charming as it may be. But it may be that I don't know how to look creatively enough. It would have to be in Groups and News, because book and scholarly articles still take a while to get into print. DCDuring 04:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: plutoed, plutoing, plutos, Plutos, Plutoing, Plutoed all need to be deleted with this. (Move to WT:LOP; passing fad that didn't stick.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found a citation.

Maxwell, Kerry. "Word of the Week Archive: Pluto." 10 Jan 2007 03 Mar 2008 <http://www.macmillandictionary.com/New-Words/070312-pluto.htm>.

I can produce others, if you'd like. Teh Rote 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we need at least three uses of the word — actual uses, mind, not just someone mentioning the word or defining it — spread over at least a full year. —Ruakh_TALK 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Wall

RFV-sense of several usages. It would be worth checking what countries use the term in (A) computer science or programming and (2) legal firms, if any, as well as getting sample quotes of such. Goldenrowley 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, someone should move Chinese walls to Chinese Walls to make the singular and plural agree with one another. Unless Chinese Wall and Chinese wall are both valid; English is not my primary language. Globish 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This part is done. As a plural of something, I moved it to Chinese Walls.Goldenrowley 04:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd; we used this term in my computer security class, but for a completely different concept; from what I remember, it was an algorithm for ensuring that read-access did not exceed write-access, or some such. —Ruakh_TALK 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The usage note says the term can be used pejoratively. I had never heard it used pejoratively in management consulting, in law firms, or in investment banking. Dismissively or ironically, sometimes. DCDuring 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A law firm quote:-

• NY Times January 3, 2006 - By BRUCE LAMBERT - Awaiting Next Word in 17-Year-Old Murder Case
• (near the end of the article) To distance himself, Mr. Spota assigned the case to Mr. Lato, who declared a Chinese wall between Mr. Spota and the case.
  I'm sure more can be found. Algrif 10:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it used quite frequently in law, particularly where an attorney changes firms, and the new firm is adverse to the old in a case. On a side note, I've met a few Chinese attorneys, and never known one to be offended by the term (since it alludes, after all, to the Great Wall, a point of national pride). Cheers! bd2412 T 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The term definitely exists in law, finance and a number of other businesses where confidentiality plays a role, but there is no fundamental difference between them which would justify keeping the definitions #2 and #4 separate. Hekaheka 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I modified slightly def #1, and I think it now covers both #2 and #4, which could be deleted together with the quotes, which seem to be argumentation from court cases. As for the computer science sense, I have never heard of it and it sounds like a complicated method for doing the job (which may be blatantly wrong, of course). Furthermore, I do not understand why this is supposed to be a pejorative term. Hekaheka 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

beso negro

--Connel MacKenzie 09:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[10] - a candy, which is formed like an ANUS, thus I would say that it is correct or at least viable... PS: dulce means sweet, candy... --BigBadBen 11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

-- See [11], rim job is correct. Is, however, Wikipedia a valid reference? Matthias Buchmeier 11:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

damnedests

No Google Scholar hits; one relevant Google Groups hit; at most two bgc hits (but I didn't check them to make sure they're real).—msh210℠ 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be really surprised if there were a plural form at all, since this originates as a substantive use of a superlative adjective. --EncycloPetey 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need three citations for each inflected form (in English) of a word (or phrase!) for which we have an entry? If the lemmaone inflected form were cited, wouldn't one cite for each inflected form be sufficient? DCDuring 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-read WT:CFI. You only need one citation if the source of the citation is "a well-known work" (e.g. Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, Dickens, etc.) or is "a refereed academic journal". Three citations otherwise. One citation shows the form exists, but for inflected forms it won't be helpful to demonstrate that it is a standard form, which can be an issue for plurals or comparatives. --EncycloPetey 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't RFV most regular plurals. But this sounded very wrong to my ears and, on checking (as I noted above), it didn't seem to exist, so I RFVed it. Perhaps the fact EP mentions (that it was originally the substantive use of a superlative adjective) is why is sounded odd to me; I don't know. In any event, I think that that fact is enough of a reason to demand three citations.—msh210℠ 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I added this entry. I could be wrong. But "damnedest" sounds plurable to me, in the sense of "best efforts" (vs. "best effort") as opposed to just "best". Cheers! bd2412 T 18:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The word (deprecated template usage) best is a good point for comparison. You can talk about "the best in the field" but not "the bests". Likewise, you can "give your best" ("noun" use of best), but they can't "give their bests". Superlative adjectives used as substantives generally cannot be made plural. --EncycloPetey 20:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you can say both "They did their best." and "They did their bests." I am a bit more sure that I have heard "They each did their bests." I am a bit surer yet that you could say "They each exceeded their personal bests." I am very sure that I would rather say "Each did his best.", but the anti-genderist push would discourage "his". DCDuring 19:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

General English grammar insists that adjectives do NOT have plural forms. What happens in the case of the best is that the noun normally suffers an ellipsis in phrases such as "the best (physicist) in the field" and "give your best (effort)". Similarly in "They each exceeded their personal bests." where best really is a noun, or "They each exceeded their personal best (efforts)." OTOH do one's best is a set phrase which assumes that best is an adjective followed by an ellipsed noun. damnedest is similarly an adjective, that may sometimes be followed by an assumed ellipsed noun. - Algrif 11:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

margkrabe

Supposedly Czech for margrave, but this does not agree with any source I've checked. --EncycloPetey 02:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I recommend someone fluent in Dutch check Special:Contributions/Fastifex for copyright violations. For what I've checked, his entries have been a mix of things that are copyvios and things that are flatly wrong. --EncycloPetey 03:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of that spelling in cs:w:Markrabě. At the very least, the "g" and "k" are in the wrong order, suggesting a typo. I don’t believe margkrabe is correct now or historically. —Stephen 16:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

magnum opus

The fourth definition:

1. Template:alchemy The act of creating or discovering the philosopher’s stone.

It points to this reference. I don’t think this is really a distinct sense, but I may be wrong. Anyone know for sure? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Great Work" or "magnum opus" of "alchemy" was the "Transmutation", for which the "philosopher's stone" was to be used. Numerous cites will be available. Some Boolean combination of the quoted words will get an efficient list of sources. DCDuring 19:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat the above- the Philospher Stone was the highest goal and life time work of Alchemists. I add this was during the era when Latin was spoken so the phrase is in their language. Aside from having 1 citation already noted, it is supported by definition 2 (the great work).Goldenrowley 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WordNet

Is this ever going to meet our CFI? Needs formatting, and probably moving to WordNet. SemperBlotto 17:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this even here? It's spam, pure and simple. It isn't even used as attributive. Delete. sewnmouthsecret 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it and cleaned it up a bit. It's referred to in discussions here. It might meet RfV. Why is it in RfD and not RfV? DCDuring 19:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. There are 600+ raw hits at g.b.c. the vast bulk of which seem to be for "WordNet" as opposed to any other orthography. Why would we delete it? DCDuring 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any cites conveying meaning, rather than mention? Would we keep dictionary.com? sewnmouthsecret 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I had not been applying CFI for proper noun. DCDuring 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary:Glossary --EncycloPetey 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, EncycloPetey. DCDuring 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. There is no special CFI for a proper noun per se. This is not a company name or a brand name. Why does it need more than ordinary CFI? It looks just like Domain Name System. It's like IMDb and Oxford English Dictionary, except it's apparently not commercial. "dictionary.com" could be includable if it met CFI for trademarks or companies, AFAIK. Straighten me out on this if I'm wrong. DCDuring 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you, in that not being commercial can't hurt its chances, but as the name of a proper entity, it is a little up in the air. DAVilla 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have cites that seem attributive to me and independent of those directly affiliated with Princeton (can't say whether they are former students of Princeton profs.). WordNet is the prototype for many wordnets. DCDuring 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks compelling. I would vote keep if it counted for anything. DAVilla 08:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

mad as a hatter

variant "mad as an atter/adder Please see Snopes.com. --64.105.65.158 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion has apparently been around for more than a century. I suppose Carroll is likely to have known the roots of English pretty well. I wonder if he had in his library an etymological dictionary, like Bailey (1737), and the 1842/3 book that is mentioned. One book using "mad as an adder" is The Lost Ship; or, The Atlantic steamer, by William Johnstoun N. Neale (1843). That might be good support. DCDuring 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the two expressions are unrelated. The etymology of mad as a hatter is well accepted. - Algrif 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Finnair

This needs cites that meet the requirements of a company or brand name, see WT:CFI DCDuring 12:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I added to the discussion page of the article some quotes of English -language books which mention Finnair. I know they are weak but not any weaker than the quotes provided for TWA or Ford, just to mention two examples. I made this entry originally to demonstrate the need for being stricter with company names. We should either allow none or all. Any attempt to draw the line somewhere else is going to be arbitrary. Hekaheka 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of it being "all or nothing". There are some obvious names that should not be included, where the name it merely the sum of its parts, such as British Airlines, Austrian Airlines, etc. Single word names such as Finnair I think should be included as it is not always obvious what they mean, even if we as regular English speakers recognise it as Finn + Air. A non-native speaker might not know this.

Acronyms and initialisms should stay, so Qantas, BWIA, TWA, etc should survive, if the airline is/was known by that name. Yes, this can be contradictory, allowing BA (as an initialism) but not British Airways (as sum of parts).

Borrowed names, such as Aer Lingus, I think should be allowed, as they are not always obvious, nor are they always literal translations. Aer Lingus is an odd example, being an Irish origin in a country were most people speak English. But what happens with a case like Aerolineas Argentinas. That is the name used in English as well as Spanish.
Hope this makes sense.--Dmol 19:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% with you on it not being all or nothing. I also share your uncertainty as to where to draw the line on obviousness of non-English-derived names. Currently operating airlines from the US, Canada, and the UK wouldn't make it. What about "Laker", "Caledonian", and "Pan Am". (I guess Pan Am would make it as an abbreviation.) Presumably an airline name should appear attributively in 3 print etc. sources. That would knock out many smaller airlines. I had to work a bit to find attributive use for Lufthansa, which is large and has a lot of history. DCDuring 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this a wider question than one of airlines. If we have brand names of airlines and car makes, shouldn't we have entries for Spick & Span, Fairy, Tampax and thousands of other extremely well-known household brands as well? And if we do, why not include Hellä Mietonen, which is a well-known shampoo brand in Finland? Hekaheka 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Many of the "airline" entries meet CFI because they are abbreviations, which only have to be in common use. I have found what I think are attributive cites to support the inclusion of Lufthansa (which could possiby be considered an abbreviation like "Avianca"). Any brand name can be included AFAIK if there are quotes illustrating its attributive use. DCDuring 17:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem to find such quotes which you've presented of Lufthansa and I of Finnair. What else would one call a Finnair flight if not a Finnair flight? To me the problem is that none of those quotes suggest that Lufthansa or Finnair had a meaning and existence independent and separate of the brand (like e.g hoover does). Hekaheka 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the idea of attributive use is that the use of the word "Finnair" is supposed to occur in such a way that it evokes the meaning "air travel" or "escape" or "foreign travel" without any explicit mention of those things. In one of the Lufthansa quotes, the word "Lufthansa" is overheard from a telephone conversation (with no prior mention of the purpose of the call or air travel) and was a clue that someone might be travelling/escaping and to where. DCDuring 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I added three quotes which to my understanding fulfil the condition. I surrender and give up my crusade against brand names. Ready to remove rfv? Hekaheka 09:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let some admin take a look. I'm going to see whether "American Airlines" has appropriate citations. I suspect not. DCDuring 12:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The first quotation is attributive (in the grammatical sense), the last out of context. Such evidence should count, in my opinion, particularly the latter, but is currently not written into WT:CFI. I'm not sure how the Nils-Aslak Valkeapää quotation adds anything. DAVilla 22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Aer Lingus

This needs cites that meet the requirements of a company or brand name, see WT:CFI DCDuring 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See general comments re airlines in Finnair section above.--Dmol 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

fascicule

Sense 2. This is fascicle I believe. - Algrif 13:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be an old spelling of it. Widsith 13:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I could only find 2 cites, from late 19th C. in English medical literature not references to a publication in the form of a fascicule (sense 1), which I have added. There are also mentions in old medical dictionaries, which I have not added. I have marked it obsolete, but some other marking might be better. DCDuring 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

apikoros

English? (Plural is surely wrong) SemperBlotto 08:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Although not from a reliable source: Apikoros is Hebrew for Epicurus, the 3rd century BCE Greek philosopher who taught a secular, atheistic understanding of reality that placed reason and the pursuit of happiness at the center of human life. The ancient rabbis feared the influence of Epicureanism and used the term apikoros (apikorsim, plural) to mean “heretic” in the same way Ann Coulter uses the word “liberal” to mean “godless and un-American.” The rabbis even added a curse upon apikorsim to their liturgy: “may all the apikorsim be destroyed in an instant” (part of the 18th benediction of the Amidah). [12]

Apikoros (perhaps from the Greek "Epicurean"), is a term designating a person who leaves the rabbinic tradition. The term first occurs in the Midrash, and is defined by Maimonides as anyone who rejects revelation and prophecy, or who insists that God has no knowledge of human activity. Currently the term is used to describe anyone holding heretical or heterodox views. A.G.H. Source: Bowker, John, The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, New York, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 80

--BigBadBen 16:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was added as an English word, but I think it's just a transliteration of a Hebrew word (with the correct plural, incidentally). I doubt anyone will be able to verify it as English (though have at it!), but perhaps it should hard-redirect to the (as yet nonexistent) Hebrew entry.—msh210℠ 17:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been had at. --Ptcamn 09:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

איל

Aramaic word.—msh210℠ 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

orientationist

Rfv noun sense. I've cited the adjective sense, but can't seem to cite the noun. Perhaps someone else can.—msh210℠ 00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't "-ist" normally form a noun referring to believers or practicioners of the corresponding "-ism"? Aren't your adjectival quotes exemplars of nouns used as adjectives? Does one need to document both noun and adjective use of a noun in English, which is rife with such usage. DCDuring 07:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally, "-ist" forms a noun, and "-ist" as an adjective would just be an attributive form of that noun. But words like racist, [[sexist], and ageist — of which the instant word is one — are exceptions in my opinion: they're really adjectives. That is, "racist joke" does not mean "joke of or about a racist" (as "lawyer joke" means "joke about a lawyer" and "comedian joke" can mean "joke of a comedian"); rather, it means "joke that is racist". (Note too that there's no adjective *"racistic" (or the others).) So, yes, we have two separate senses: noun and adjective. And the question here is whether we can document the noun sense; I haven't been able to.—msh210℠ 20:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is actually an adjective racistic: [13]. --Ptcamn 09:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the rest of what I said holds (imo).—msh210℠ 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

mundane

The noun sense here with two definitions I find most suspect. I doubt this is more than personal conjecture having originally been added in this edit. __meco 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To sharpen distinctions, I have added a low-controversy noun sense and put rfv-sense tags next to two other senses, one of which is pagan/Wiccan/esoteric, the other of which purports to be ordinary, but has the word magic in it. It would be easy to argue that we don't need any noun sense because many (most?) adjectives can be used as nouns and that there is no distinct meaning to the valid noun senses. DCDuring 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

dystmesis

The single (typo?) b.g.c. hit is a secondary source that doesn't match this definition. --Connel MacKenzie 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic Phenomena/Devices lists it... it is a variation of tmesis and dys meaning bad (break at the wrong place)... --BigBadBen 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, I have found several thread in groups that use this term. Unfortunately, they are threads on language groups that discuss the legitimacy of the term. This term may belong in the Wiktionary glossary. Any alternative name for the most common kind of "dystmesis" is "expletive infixation", an effective SoP phrase. DCDuring 11:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

robomediation

--Connel MacKenzie 06:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Zero hits for Google Book, Scholar, News, and Groups searches. However, 12 for a Google Blogue Search and 70 for a Google Web Search. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that nonsense, it appears no earlier than February of this year - clearly indicating it is a flash-in-the-pan trendy word that won't stand the test of time. (The same "article" just reposted on other blogs, offering this counter-intuitive definition. Extra-super-dubious.) "Blogue" is the funniest typo I've seen in a while. Do you have some custom skin on your Google? --Connel MacKenzie 15:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there another good word or expression for the phenomenon? If not it might still make it, at least in e-business books and article. We've gone from "eliminate the middleman", to "disintermediation", to ?. DCDuring 17:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

trapped in the closet

It's a song; but is it used in this sense? sewnmouthsecret 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1993 - Michelangelo Signorile - Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power - Page xvi

"Many of them became determined to tear the institution of the closet down entirely. This book is about the people still trapped in the closet, ..."

1997 - Daniel Balderston, Donna J. Guy - Sex and Sexuality in Latin America - Page 187

"The lesbian trapped in the "closet," the women imprisoned in prescriptive ideas of the "normal" share the pain of blocked options, broken connections, ..."

2000 - Michael P. Brown - Closet Space: Geographies of Metaphor from the Body to the Globe - Page 40

"Even though he finds ample opportunities to have sex with men, he still feels trapped in the closet, which he materialises quite explicitly in terms of not being able to tell his parents:"

though, I've lots more references that denote a generalized meaning of people in a (to borrow a word from above) conundrum --BigBadBen 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites. The def. doesn;t really reflect the cites; so I will amend the def. sewnmouthsecret 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the def. more adjectival. This looks SoP = trapped + in the closet. DCDuring 22:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, although I suppose this could have a more specific meaning particularly if there's another sense (I don't think the song was about R. Kelley being gay, maybe someone was though). Globish 07:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought this was SoP, as is "stuck in the closet", but there seems to be enough use on both to indicate a set phrase.--Dmol 10:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's questionable. DAVilla 22:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this has nothing to do with the RfV, but the cap used for the South Park episode (w:Image:South Park Xenu.jpg) along with an overview of the summary really makes me want to see it. Globish 07:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

sieg heil

I'm not familiar with this phrase; possibly a protologism, possibly not English. Dmcdevit·t 07:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia page, it is real in German, but I have no idea about the English version. The WP page does say the phrase is illegal now (I guess that's where the "don't use it in Germany or you'll be shot" part came from...), so it definitely merits coverage in some form. Globish 07:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be German, should be at Sieg Heil, and should have a WP link. (Dmcdevit: you really haven't heard of this phrase? wow. Or maybe just in writing it didn't look familiar?) Robert Ullmann 07:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

you can use it in Germany without being shot, probably due to the ban on firearms in Germany though, but it could get you thrown in jail... as it is associated to Skin Heads, Neo Nazi, etc. and Symbolisms of that era are strictly forbidden --BigBadBen 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, b.g.c. shows hundreds of English uses of the German phrase (capitalized) which I think may be sufficient to establish it as a recognized borrowing/interjection in English. Like all similar terms, in American English it is loosely used (movies/TV/news/music/etc.) offensively in any fascist/white supremacist/neo-Nazi/skinhead context. Since that wider use is probably an inaccurate extension of the German meaning, we probably should describe that, for the English borrowing. --Connel MacKenzie 15:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It’s German but it’s supposed to be capitalized. Moved to Sieg Heil. Literally, it means "super hello", but it used to be like hurrah; now it is associated with Nazis, neo-Nazis and the Third Reich. —Stephen 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sieg means "victory". Doesn't it mean something like "Hail! Victory!" or "Victory!!!"? In any event it has a life of its own in English, from movies, books about Germany and Naziism, as well as the admirers of Naziism. DCDuring 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cited I neutralized the previous sense given (for which the support was mixed). I added the historical sense, as it appears in the vast number of books of fiction and non-fiction about Nazi Germany. Comments welcome. DCDuring 22:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sieg does mean "victory" and Heil actually means as an adjective: "unscathed, free of sickness and/wounds & also absolution of the soul." As a noun it means: "as per the adjective, but also wellbeing, free and safe from danger; and it can be used (archaic) as a personal noun for someone you hold dear or a beloved one, aswell as a shortened form for Heiland (another name for Jesus in the German language)." so I am wondering where Stephen got that Super Hello from?--BigBadBen 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In any event, there can be no doubt that "heil" means something very like English "hail". Perhaps, because it is so close to "heilige" (holy), it had some religious echo that hail does not in English. I don't know that there is any warrant for keeping it in lower case in English if we have an upper case entry in English. DCDuring 20:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sieg means victory and Heil means hail. So "Hail Victory" is the literal translation. Mutante 10:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

gershayim

Tagged by Hippietrail since 23:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC), who commented “does this qualify as an English word?” — but not listed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that this is an English word that is used only for discussing certain matters of Hebrew orthography. Similar to Eszett for German, or fatha, damma, kasra, and nunation for Arabic. —Stephen 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

born on the Fourth of July

Given the definition, I accept the status of idiom, but I've never seen this before... anywhere. Anyone else? — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This has several issues. As much as I like and agree with the example sentence about Sean Hannity, it's hardly appropriate for a neutral dictionary. Also, define American spirit. As an immigrant who's lived here many years, I'm familiar with the sentiment but have a hard time giving a tangible definition. Globish 19:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine for a neutral dictionary. The definition itself is neutral, describing something that isn't neutral. But like I said, I've never seen the phrase anywhere. American spirit could just be defined as patriotism, of an American. etc. Something like that. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a more neutrally worded alternative sense and made the tag rfv-sense. Feel free to insert an rfv-sense for the added sense if it seems objectionable. I will also add the obviously appropriate "US" context. DCDuring 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, individuals shouldn't be mentioned in example sentences, nor definitions. This is a common set-phrase resulting from the song (but not necessarily the book or movie.) With the new definition, the original one given is redundant and should probably just be removed. --Connel MacKenzie 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not mentioning individuals in example sentences (not quotations) seems like a great guideline or even policy. Is it in any written guideline or policy or does it follow from one ? DCDuring 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not seeing actual citations for this - all the book hits I've seen have been references to people who actually happened to be born on July 4. bd2412 T 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

blue

1. There are two senses of "blue" relating to the Democratic party:
   1. Of states or other political entities, tending to vote for the Democratic Party.
   2. Of or pertaining to the Democratic Party.

   The second sense is the one I don't get. Could someone produce some cites or some ideas where I might find a high proportion of qualifying quotes with just that sense?

2. There is also a long-winded derivation of the sense meaning "sad" that says that it comes from a nautical practice. I don't yet found a source for that. Anyone? DCDuring 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Online Etymology Dictionary [14] blue has had the sense "low-spirited" since 1385, but it does not give any explanation. Hekaheka 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If that proves out, then we may have explained why ships had blue flags when their captain died, instead of having to accept the nautical "etymology" of the "sad" sense. Thanks. DCDuring 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

about the blue flag - it did not mean a captains death from what I have found, Quote:

The "general order" issued by the Secretary of the Navy, and date of May 18,1858, says:

"it is hereby ordered that, in lieu of the broad pendant now worn by Flag Officers in command of squadrons, they shall wear a plain blue flag," &c., &c. There can be no doubt that it was originally intended that the "plain blue flag" should be worn at the mainmast-head, where the "broad pendant" was worn, as the insignia of the rank afloat in any of the navies of the world--the flag of an Admiral; thereby placing , and very properly, too, our Commanders of Squadrons upon a footing with those of other nations.

Source: The New York Times, Published March 13, 1860.--BigBadBen 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

bejank

I can't find any evidence for this by using Google (web, book, groups or blog). Is it even a protologism? SemperBlotto 10:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Same result. I found a little for "jank up": 2 news hits, 1 b.g.c. hit, but 0 on groups. I think there may be enough for verbs "jank" or "jank up". If those are actually gaining currency, it seems natural in a way that someone would try "bejank" to elevate the concept above low slang. There seems to be some truth to the placement of this in the US upper midwest. Does it resonate well with other words from there with some Swedish or German connection? Think Fargo. DCDuring 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The infinitive form is less commonly used. However, the past tense form is, indeed used. From a Google search: "Poor LaRaine- her olfactory sense must be quite bejanked after having to live with me and after living in such a stinky hall." heartmebowels.livejournal.com. Nyteraine 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A second example: "Who decided to bejank upload/download clocks? ... Instead, it seems as if the correction factor is randomly generated, making the clock completely unreliable." ha.ckthepla.net Nyteraine 18:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

raison d’être

Invariant plural sense. Not supported by the COED. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of research and it looks like the two plurals raison d'êtres and raison d'être are both common enough, even in academic papers, to be attested, though they are by far less common and should get whatever "rare" or "non-standard" label that is most appropriate (I can never tell the difference). Dmcdevit·t 10:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There’s quite a considerable difference: {{rare}} simply means that a word is rare, whereas {{non-standard}} means, for all intents and purposes, “wrong” (though, technically, it means “not conforming to the various rules of usage, word formation, et cetera of the standard form of a given language”). It’s rather worrying to think that if even an experienced editor can mix up such distinct terms, what are the misinterpretations of our readers…

Let’s take this term apart: (deprecated template usage) raison = (deprecated template usage) reason ; (deprecated template usage) d’ = (deprecated template usage) de = (deprecated template usage) of ≅ (in this context) (deprecated template usage) for or — ; (deprecated template usage) être = (deprecated template usage) being or (deprecated template usage) to be. Thus, (deprecated template usage) raison d’être = (deprecated template usage) reason for being or (deprecated template usage) reason to be ; the standard plural forms of which would be (deprecated template usage) reasons for being and (deprecated template usage) reasons to be, respectively (and not (deprecated template usage) reason for beings or somesuch). By that reasoning, (deprecated template usage) raisons d’être is the correct plural form, whereas both (deprecated template usage) raison d’êtres and (deprecated template usage) raison d’être are incorrect and warrant {{non-standard}} tags. Nota bene, however, that I can’t speak French, so my interpretation may be flawed; I welcome corrections from more informed editors. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if the qualification for being informed is poor knowledge of French, I'm qualified. Though I have become enormously accepting of actual usage, I think we can indicate some usage as being less-preferred. This particular case has a simple analog in the pluralization of English hyphenated nouns where the noun is not the last component. An example is "officer-of-the-day", pl= "officers-of-the-day", not "officer-of-the-days". If my imagination has failed to provide the right example, sorry, but the phenomenon is real. It would be reasonable to expect even my fellow Americans to manage to get the "s" in the right place. I'm not sure that I would hold them to the standard if the plural were formed in a more complex way and the words less close to English. (See "accusatrixes") DCDuring 19:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Using the French (or is that European?) rules for plural formation seem inappropriate to me. The borrowed phrase is a cohesive unit, naturalized into English as a single inseparable term. As with other terms successfully "borrowed" it naturally takes the regular English plural: raison d'êtres - [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] plus myriads of others on the web, news, etc. The French plural could perhaps be marked "dated" or "nonstandard." --Connel MacKenzie 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems hard to justify marking the entry that uses the accent grave as non-standard for using the French plural formation. In the no-diacritics spelling, one could make a case for a marking or a usage note that in many contexts in the US it might be deemed affected, just as one could make a case for such a marking for this entry in its entirety. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

accusatrixes

Plural form of (deprecated template usage) accusatrix. Zero Google Book Search Hits. Non-standard if extant. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No scholar hits, no news hits, no groups hits. Books would have been the best shot. OTOH, MW3 shows it. DCDuring 05:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

MW3? Remember that secondary sources do not count towards attestation. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird, the MW website doesn't seem to recognise it. For that matter they don't recognise accusatrices either. It is possible no one before has ever tried to use the plural form, but if they did I think accusatrices would have to be the word. Widsith 14:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for the Latin approach, but I took 4 years of it and have used the words "matrices" and "codices" in spoken sentences. I was using an old print edition of MW3. I may have misinterpreted their notation. Maybe they assumed that their readers understood pluralization morphology or had read some appendix on it.

[finds entry; reads "Plurals" section.]

The entry has "pl -ES", the source of my statement above. The "Plurals" section mentions the rule (#4 in their sequence) that words ending in s, z, x, ch, sh form plurals by adding -es. Rule #18.1 mentions Latin plurals and gives six "x" examples, which of course have the "-ces" endings. They do not present a good algorithm for how to apply their rules. Furthermore the opening paragraph says, more or less, that you can get away with -s and -es. No wonder so many were scandalized when MW3 came out. Of course, they have a disclaimer about the completeness of the 23 "rules" that they present.

I think MW3 must have been attempting to reflect the practices of a population of American English speakers (and English teachers!), very few of whom had or would have much education in any foreign language, let alone the Classics. Of course, such a population would be unlikely to use a word that required and unconventional plural and gender specification when a shorter word conventinally pluralized, gender-neutral word like "accuser" was available. DCDuring 15:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In any event, the facts of usage seem to say that the few folks who have ever used the word form the plural "-ices" in accord with a good Classical education. DCDuring 15:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume “MW3” means “Merriam–Webster [Third Edition]” or somesuch… I maintain that the use of (deprecated template usage) accusatrixes would be wrong. MW3 are prescribing ignorance. The (deprecated template usage) -rix → (deprecated template usage) -rices rule is one of the easy ones — it’s not like (deprecated template usage) ceilidhean, (deprecated template usage) nexūs, (deprecated template usage) corgwn, (deprecated template usage) imprimantur, (deprecated template usage) fiaschi, (deprecated template usage) sögur, or (deprecated template usage) mujtahidūn. One does not need a Classical education to be familiar with the -x → -ces rule — it’s fairly common in well-formed, formal English. (I don’t have a Classical education.) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1993) is a handy source for ways in which US English may have differed and still differ from UK English. In this case, I think their editorial work was sloppy in that they only showed one plural form. They show both "apexes" and "apices", "appendixes" and "appendices", "codex" and "codices", "executrixes" and "executrices", "indexes" and "indices", "matrixes" and "matrices. DCDuring 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the solution that my fellow Americans have found is to simply not use -ix nouns. A female executing a will in most legal documents will be an executor. They'll avoid plurals that make them uncomfortable. And they will impose their will on words they may want, like apex, appendix, and index. DCDuring 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

• Putting aside the colorful xenophobia of all the comments above, I think all that has been established so far, is that "accusatrix" is not a word. Certainly, the word you are looking for in Modern English is accuser. The first error above, is in the twisted thinking that suggests accusator is a word at all - in modern usage, it is not. The second fallacy is that gender could (in Modern English) be then applied in an even more archaic fashion to the more archaic variant or that obsolete term, in modern usage - it is not. It is perhaps reasonable to think that if it is a word, a plural could be formed from that. A devoted historic linguist might, at that point look to the etymology. But mere mortals do no such thing, choosing instead the nearest rule that applies in their language. The fact that it doesn't appear to be a word comes as no surprise then. But it is nothing short of erroneous, at that point, to then take a pluralization rule, not from the language it was borrowed from, no, no, from yet another language...then to suggest - at that painfully stretched point - that the end result is Modern English. Well, it's not.
• It is far and beyond, a disservice to our readers to mislead them into thinking that accusator is a word in modern use. Of course we should tell readers what language it is and what the Modern English translation of it, is. Asserting then, that the derivative term accusatrix is a word, is the error; not the prescription of a normalized plural (should the word somehow resurface by other means.) If you would remove the normalized plural formation from our already misleading entries, it would be very reasonable to demand that the two-languages hop-skip-and-a-jump plural accusatrices be removed at the same time. But perhaps it is more important to not list those variants as ==English==. Certainly, attestation can be found from obscure tomes if one digs deep enough - but the only purpose for doing so is to mislead readers? Why not simply identify what the language really is? ==Middle English== almost certainly saw those terms in regular use...obviously in greater proportion than they occur today. None of the three errors, compounded to arrive at accusatrices, are productive in Modern English - why mislead readers into thinking they are? --Connel MacKenzie 14:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This form looks like it will fail RfV. The words accusator, accusatrix, and accusatrices would all seem to be able to meet RfV. They are occasionally used in works of history and legal history and more rarely in fiction. Their usage seems to be declining. Do we have objective criteria for marking such entries appropriately? I don't think that many of our users are likely to use WT to help them select a word. IMHO, they are more likely to use WT to understand something they've read. IMHO, they might also even look for whether a given usage is "correct" to help them assess the overall quality and credibility of the work they are reading. It would be interesting, albeit time-consuming, to also mark all senses and all inflections of all entries that are no longer used in current writing. Sadly, we seem to have no way of knowing whether doing so would be of much value to our users. DCDuring TALK 16:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Missingness

Apart from the capitalisation, is there any substance in this entry? - Algrif 13:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Does seem to be real. Corrected plural, removed encyclopedic stuff, added reference, moved to lowercase. SemperBlotto 15:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

cited 2 new senses, one "absence", in theology, philosophy, etc. Cited statistics sense is incompatible with "missing data" sense. "Missingness" seems to be about the way in which data is missing. It is not the missing data itself or the holes in the data set. DCDuring 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence on the existence of the plural is thin. The word is awkward to begin with and still often appears in quotes. The pluralization seems to worsen the awkwardness. OTOH, there was one good g.b.c. hit (statistics sense), 2 groups (absence sense)(0 scholar, news). The statisticians do seem to compare one type of missingness with another pretty regularly, so you would expect them to compare "missingnesses" eventually. DCDuring 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work, O Citer, and thanks, but doesn't the stats sense just mean "absence" (and not "the way things are absent")? Seems that way from the quotations. (If so, and the "missing data" sense is trashable, then this word would definitely seem to be uncountable.)—msh210℠ 21:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The overall context for the "missingness" citations shows that the mathematicians are discussing alternative probability models to characterize the way in which the data are missing. (I should make it a practice of including links to the overall context where available.)

"uncountable" seems so prescriptive for Wiktionary. I find that 80-90% of the uncountability claims (at entry level, not sense level) in Wiktionary entries are contradicted by the facts of usage. The ease of saying "uncountable" at the entry level (2 keystrokes) relative to doing so at the sense level (13 keystrokes per sense) seems to serve as a persistent bias toward such claims. A better label would be "rarely plural" even for most of the senses that are claimed to be "uncountable". BP? DCDuring 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got a better idea: why don't we just have a bot go through and delete all the entries for words that are taggeed as uncountable and then you can go through and enter them correctly. That would be much more efficient. It's not like this is a wiki project where we expect other people to work on articles and add data if they can think of an obscure countable use. (Please pardon my sarcasm.) And by the way: you are being prescriptive in interpreting uncountable to mean "you may NOT use this as a countable word, it is prohibited" when it was entered as the descriptive "we don't have a citation as a countable word and haven't thought of a countable use yet and but we'll change it when we find some".) RJFJR 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to.

• I am relating a summary of what I have found in reviewing entries.
• I have made some changes to uncountability claims that I would be prepared to cite in response to an RfV for the plural forms or whatever other procedure would be appropriate at the sense level.
• I have stated my belief that there is a template-caused bias in the process.
• I have stated an objection to an aspect of terminology.

Where have I gone wrong? DCDuring 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

quaggle

Not in any of my dictionaries. SemperBlotto 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On b.g.c. it shows many various cites but the part of speech seems to always differ; some show it as noun, some as verb, some as adjective; it's apparently provincial or dialectal English.. it also could be a group of something: hence, from b.g.c., "That company, squadron, covey, herd, quaggle, or whatever it may be called, of Tanks" and "Some years ago a Foreign Service officer took a quaggle of American tourists in Paris to the Crillon Grill for lunch." Then we have this: "PYC put the rest of the warnings through on the telephone, trying not to quaggle and even to sound reassuring to the equally excited hiccups on the other...". Anyway, I can;t sort it out. sewnmouthsecret 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

portmanteau ?? Something like quiver + wiggle or waddle ?? Just an idea. No proof. - Algrif 12:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

possible derived or meant to be gaggle --BigBadBen 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

samey

--Connel MacKenzie 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Partridge's has it. One g.b.c.:

1. • 2004, Kate Cann, Spanish Holiday: Or, How I Transformed the Worst Vacation Ever Into the Best ..., page 48

     “Samey,” hisses Tom. “Course it's samey. It's flicking Spain, isn't it. You can't expect it to turn into fucking Italy halfway through.

Omigod, there's like a million hits. Well, anyway 240K on the web, 1900 total in news, 26 current; thousands @ groups. I'm down with keeping it. Above quote is just one word away from being the one I would have chosen to insert in the article. DCDuring 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Very common in UK. Widsith 09:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it written before, but I've heard (and used) it many times. RobbieG 08:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Widespread where I come from (UK). Appears in Collins English Dictionary, defined as "monotonous; repetitive; unvaried" (informal). Definitely should not be removed. Matt 21:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

embarge

The OED has quite a different definition (to lay an embargo, or to sequestrate etc). SemperBlotto 08:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From g.b.c. it also means (1) to get on a barge, in parallel to getting on a bark (?) "embark", at least in the 19th C. It also means (2) embargo. It is also used as a synonym for (3) embark. In g.b.c., restricting the search to fiction yielded 1 invisible hit and 1 non-English hit. Similarly meager results for drama. The sense given should appear in such works if it is real and older. I found one hit on groups for embarging in on a conversation. Why not make this rfv-sense, check the etymology, and get the 3 correct senses in? DCDuring 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aboves'd executed except: general sense of embark is questionable. 2 other senses now entered with one quote each. Support for embargo sense is plentiful. Other sense has a different etymology and appears rare, though it is likely to meet RfV. No support for rfv'd senses. DCDuring 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find the book cited for the disputed senses: 1990, Ekaterina Sin, Upon Golden Fields, page 105, on Amazon or Google. I will try LoC and OCLC. DCDuring 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

drider

Either the first or the substituted definition (seems to be from Dungeons and Dragons). SemperBlotto 08:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... it is. In D&D it's a drow (dark elf) / spider mix, and the name is a portmanteau of that. --EncycloPetey 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They show up in lots of those dungeons and dragons related books, particularly Forgotten Realms, and most particularly the "Drizzt" series by R.A. Salvatore, which includes a NY times bestseller (Siege of Darkness) and a NY times honorable mention (Starless Night). These books don't show up in b.g.c. searches (the books are there but the contents are not). As for the particular details (original definition or newly substituted one), I don't remember since I haven't read those books since junior high.

• 2004 - Roby Ward, Heroes of Watussin, p 202 [25],

  The man did not start wishing that the half-spider would start attacking his friend, but only hoping that no spell would be cast. He thus pressed the drider to assure that the creature would be making a mistake if it paused to concentrate on working arcane power.

  (Wow, that's some marvelously painful writing, there!)

• 2007 - "Various players", Cerea - Adventures in an Online World, p 157 [26]

  We killed off the last few drow and the last remaining drider and headed back to Gohem to report. I'll be glad to never again see a drider in my life!

  (Unfortunately the surrounding pages are unavailable on b.g.c. so we might never know whether the author gives any more detailed hints about what the drider *are*)

These, together with the R.A. Salvatore stuff which is unsearchable on b.g.c., should be enough. Language Lover 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go, one of the Salvatore books is searchable at Amazon: [27]

No dates for these? Well, hmmm... looks like I still have the old D&D module if which this first appeared (one of a small number I didn't give away when I grew up):

• 1980 - David C. Sutherland III & Gary Gygax, Queen of the Demonweb Pits, page 28 (ISBN 0-935696-20-2)

  A drider appears to be a cross between a giant spider and a Drow.

And if you really want painful writing, go track down a copy of The Eye of Argon; it's legendary for the...er..."quality" of its writing. --EncycloPetey 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I propose that we relegate this creature and its Dungeons & Dragons kin to some manner of appendix or concordance (and have prepped a vote on this at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Proposed vote on fiction concordances.). bd2412 T 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that WT:CFI#Fictional universes has passed, the current Dungeons & Dragons citations would seem insufficient. Can it be attested in accordance with the current policy? Dmcdevit·t 03:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

miniatory

Can't be what it claims. According to Google search it seems to be a valid Polish word? Only English hits seem to be misspellings of "miniature".--Jyril 16:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't be a verb. Must be a misspelling of minatory, which has same sense. Not a "common" misspelling, it seems. DCDuring 18:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually a valid {{obsolete spelling of}} minatory, in use in the 16th century. Widsith 18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Made changes in accord with above. Don't know about Polish. DCDuring 20:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

pull a Homer

Made up for the Simpsons. Nothing relevant on bgc, three possible on google scholar. Probably nonse term--Keene 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you brought it here because you think we will find supporting citations? If you thnk it's a nonce term, you should recommedn it for RFD, not RFV. --EncycloPetey 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Maybe yous have other ways of supporting citations outside Google though. --Keene 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cited, all Usenet. The articles on scholar hardly look any more legit. DAVilla 18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

bear

In the sense: "A market in which prices are falling." DAVilla 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A bull market vs. a bear market - clearly in widespread use, I'd think. What exactly is the complaint? --Connel MacKenzie 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the word "bear" (as noun) alone does not mean "bear market" AFAIK. As a noun it does refer to investors who take the "bear" position of shorting securities. Let's make sure that we have an adequate adjectival sense and, perhaps, a usage example containing "bear market". DCDuring 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete A "bear" in a financial market is a person or other actor who believes that the stock prices will be falling and acts accordingly. This sense is covered in #3. "Bear" is also used as adjective in expressions like "bear market" or "bear sentiment". This sense is also covered in the entry. As far as I know, the word "bear" alone does not mean the same as "bear market", and unless appropriate quotes are provided, sense #4 should be deleted. Hekaheka 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

ensmallening

Seems someone has been entering neologisms as base forms, then errantly propagating unattested (perhaps impossible - certainly unlikely) forms? Zero groups.g.c as well as zero b.g.c. (of course.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, sure — all I can find are four Google Blogue hits, spanning four months (so, even if they were durably archived, they still wouldn’t satisfy the spanning-at-least-one-year requirement). Nevertheless, do you not see the absurdity of requiring independent attestation, to the same standard, for a conjugated form of an already-attested lemma? –Particularly for present participles, which, without exception, are formed by suffixation with (deprecated template usage) -ing? In the context of the existence of (deprecated template usage) ensmallen, there’s nothing “unlikely” about (deprecated template usage) ensmallening, and certainly nothing “impossible”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 06:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of dictionary writing? Sorry, but for really oblique terms, Eclecticology set the precedent that each form should be attested, or not entered. The base form entry might barely pass CFI - that does not imply that all inflections of it do. --Connel MacKenzie 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For this to be considered normal, proper English, yes, is absurd and impossible. It is just a joke entry to begin with, used only in a comedy context. Is this a word you'd expect to use in a formal context without garnering guffaws? --Connel MacKenzie 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Eye-talian

I just came across this entry and note that it recently passed an rfd after limited discussion, but I think it bears a little more discussing. As I see it, this term is simply a crude phonetic spelling, intended to mimic an accent or mispronunciation, and the quotations bear this out. Should the Wiktionary door really be opened to this sort of thing? Seems to me it's a bottomless pit. -- WikiPedant 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Without digging much, it has over 600 b.g.c. hits, 14,000 raw google hits, 66 Scholar, etc. Seems fine to me. sewnmouthsecret 21:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure and you can get Google hits for "Austr-eye-lian", "Eye-tralian" (and "Itralian"), or George Bush's "newkyoolar" or "newcular" too. This is just silly phonetic mimicry. Does every variant in use really belong in a dictionary? -- WikiPedant 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if it stays or goes, just pointing it out. Your examples found minimal usage, as well; it's apples-to-oranges. I personally think a variant with heavy usage should belong in a dictionary; but I'm moderately liberal as far as what should be included. sewnmouthsecret 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have opened a Tea Room discussion for hmph which may illuatrate another side of the issue, perhaps better than this case, which has a large amount of usage. Wiktionary does seem to want to be inclusive, to take advantage of not being much affected by the limits that dictionaries with print components have. DCDuring 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually maybe this is more of a beer parlor discussion as the issue has been framed. This particular entry has been cited, so RfV is not really the forum. It passed RfD. The grounds that you raise are policy-level and worth discussion. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but, even so, it may be worth discussing again or differently. DCDuring 22:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, DC. I should have put it under Beer Parlour. I'm more concerned about the precedent than the particular entry. I just don't do enough discussing, or maybe I'm too old, to get used to the different fora. -- WikiPedant 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that there is a "neologism" tag, which refers to standardized WT criteria for same. The page on neologisms does not mention any such standardized criteria other than the normal citation criteria and newness. "Eye-talian" is certainly not new.

It also bears a tag saying it is uncommon. 600+ g.b.c. hits with this spelling; 600+ g.b.c. hits for "Eyetalian"; 600 for "I-talian". And that's before we get plural forms and the various spellings of "Eye-tye". Are folks offended by the existence of ethnic slurs? DCDuring 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

colloquy

The present definition is “A formal conversation or conference”. I agree that this word exists, but I’m unsure about the way it is defined. Dictionary.com and the American Heritage Dictionary suggest that there are three distinct senses to this word. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So add the def.'s, old boy. Then you can become bold boy!  :) -- Thisis0 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I’ll leave this for others to cite — I’m off! † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 09:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from #Found in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (1996) hereinafter:

Found in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1996)

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary states “Colloquy: 1. a conversational exchage; dialogue. 2. a conference.” Admittedly, this is only 2 distinct definitions, but supports the hypothesis that there is more than one. Good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ansylhein (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can attest to widespread use of the legal sense. bd2412 T 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

tokhes

Is it romanized Yiddish or has it entered English from Yiddish? Pistachio 13:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Has definitely entered English, although not with this spelling. --Ptcamn 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

how else is it spelt? Pistachio 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, tookus is one popular way. —Stephen 04:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm astonished that this isn't in Merriam-Webster or American Heritage, but I can't find it in either one. The commonest spellings I can find online are tuchas and tokhes, the latter being the "official" YIVO transliteration of תּחת. If anyone out there has Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish, it would be interesting to know how he spells it. Angr 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, it's in the OED, though I don't have access to the OED to verify it. The spelling tuchas gets 313 bgc hits, tochis gets 304, tuchis gets 228 while tokhes gets only 95. (The spellings toches, tuches, tuchos, tochos and tochas are also found but get too much interference from other languages to determine how common they are.) Stephen's suggested spelling tookus gets only 88 gbc hits, which includes some scannos for "took us". I also notice that the -ch- spellings are most likely to be used in contexts where the word has clearly entered English from Yiddish, while the tokhes spelling is used in contexts where it's really romanized Yiddish. I'd suggest moving the entry to tuchas, with a host of alternative spellings (probably almost anything of the form tXchYs where X = o or u and Y = any of a e i o u has been used in print somewhere to spell this word). Angr 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The OED takes (deprecated template usage) tochus as the headword, with the following Pronunciation/Spellings section:

(ˈtəʊxəs, ˈtɒxəs) Also tochas (-ess, etc.), tuchus (ˈtʊxəs), -as; anglicized tokus (ˈtəʊkəs), tocus, etc.

Its quotes give the spellings tookis, tukis, tochess, tocus, tochas, tochis, tokus (in two quotes), tuchus, and tuchas, though some of those are only mentioned, not used.

—Ruakh_TALK 01:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One spelling I see hasn't been mentioned yet in this discussion is (deprecated template usage) tuches, which I think is pretty popular.—msh210℠ 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I did mention that spelling, but its popularity on b.g.c is difficult to gauge because Tuches is also a German word (genitive of Tuch). Angr 09:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• See also #tuches below. --Connel MacKenzie 08:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

congregates

Plural noun sense. We do not have the singular as a noun, and I can't find it it any of my dictionaries. SemperBlotto 10:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks so plausible, except that you would think it would be in the singular as well. If it were real, it would be pronunced to rhyme with the noun "aggregate", presumably. I couldn't find anything with the sense given searching for "crystal" and ("congregates" or "congregate") on g.b.c. and Scholar. DCDuring 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunelmensis

Tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Although this is an adjective, it is used in ecclesiastical circles as a noun (proper noun?) to refer to the bishop of Durham. There are similar words for the archbishops of York and Canterbury and possibly other bishops. SemperBlotto 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • p.s. It was listed above, but in lowercase. SemperBlotto 23:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

mebibyte

Does anybody actually use this apart from telling people not to use megabyte? It didn't seem so after a cursory glance at bgc. I'd like to see some citations. Cynewulf 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

technotainment

If kept, this really needs the handful of citations from b.g.c. --Connel MacKenzie 21:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

black-on-black crime

A real term, although I'm not very familiar with it. Sense being checked is "The crime which occurs when the poorest, weakest members of a population turn on each other out of desperation" - I can see where it would come from based on the literal meaning, but I think we need something to back it up. Globish 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• POV sense removed. More general definition added. SemperBlotto 08:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a set phrase, with a large literature and little agreement about the subject. SB's def is much less PoV: Crime, especially violent crime in an inner city, carried out by black people against their peers. Let me propose an even simpler one: "Crime carried out by black people against peers and neighbors who are black." Crimes like burglary, theft, vandalism are not inherently violent, but are included. No theory or limits needed. Any objections? DCDuring 11:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any topical essay would describe the incongruity and senselessness of such inner divisiveness, but I don't see how a dictionary definition can hope to cover that adequately. While it covers non-violent crime as well, it is being called a noun of its own (despite being sum-of-parts) to disparage the entire concept. I think your removal of "especially crime in an inner city" would detract from the sense significantly (but perhaps removing the single word "violent" is more of what your were trying to say?) --Connel MacKenzie 21:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

AGF. The topical essays cover a wide variety of points of view and theories. I was trying to remove the implicit and conjectural theories and isolate the common element, which is IMO something like what I have proposed. I saw no reason for my own suburban city and our three neighboring suburban cities to be excluded from the definition, nor the neighboring suburban towns with significant black populations, nor the outer boroughs of New York, which include some very crime-ridden places, but don't fit most definitions of inner city (or inner + city). The meaning of BoBC is largely SoP, once you have a def. for "black-on-black" {which WT does not), but it is certainly a set phrase. It seems possible to say "violent black on black crime", but not "black on black violent crime". I called it a "noun" solely because it functions as a noun grammatically, including having a plural form. I have been operating under the assumption that, per WT documentation, the list of valid English PoSs does not include "Phrase", "Verb Form", "Idiom", "Transitive verb", and "Intransitive Verb", but does include "Proverb", which this is certainly not. DCDuring 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you cry "AGF" above. I don't see anything untoward I wrote (nor any way that what I wrote could be misconstrued as such.) I don't think that "inner city" in any way excludes any other region, but it does round the context out to typical uses of the phrase. Are you suggesting the set-phrase is used especially in suburban references? That is news to me (and frankly can't see how that could have evolved that way, linguistically, as it seem to have started out as a term exclusively classifying inner city crime.)

About headings, yes, I've for several years used ===Phrase=== as a heading; in this case I think ===Noun=== fits a little better, but don't care too much which heading is chosen (at this point in time.)

--Connel MacKenzie 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you want to delete this because the person who added it was black.

How is this idiomatic? It's crime. Committed by black people, on black people. "White-on-white crime" or "hispanic-on-Asian" crime would be equally instantly understood. bd2412 T 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

unfilled

Verb sense: past of unfill. But is unfilled a verb or just an adjective? RJFJR 05:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a rare or obsolete verb:

• 1606 - Thomas Midleton, The Revenger's Tragedy, act ii, scene 2

  I'll pierce him to his face; he shall die looking upon me. Thy veins are swell'd with lust; this shall unfill 'em

--EncycloPetey 20:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

UN

I would want to add that "bluewashing" is often connected to the standards or politics of the United Nations Organization (connected to its blue flag). Therefore companies which start campaigns to promote their example of corporate identity according to UN-initiatives try to "bluewash" their otherwise bad image.

So what entry are you asking to have verified? The section header says UN, but that doesn't seem to be the entry you're asking about. --EncycloPetey 02:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

arthrophyte

Supposed to be a plant of the taxon Arthrophyta. This taxon is not in Wikispecies. My dictionary gives a totally different definition - an abnromal growth in the cavity of a joint. SemperBlotto 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthrophyta is an obsolete descriptive name for Equisetophyta, which has been reduced to the rank of class as Equisetopsida under the Pteridophyta. It is a collective term for the plants known as horsetails and scouring rushes, as well as their fossil relatives.

• 1987 - Harold C. Bold, C. J. Alexopoulos, & T. Delevoryas, Morphology of Plants and Fungi, 5th edition, page 514

  Arthrophytes, like members of the Microphyllophyta, were important components of Carboniferous and Permian forests.

You won't find the taxon Arthrophyta on Wikispecies because that name is no longer used. --EncycloPetey 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But as someone may well come across the term in a relatively modern text, it should be included, but with some sort of usage note, or an obsolete tag, wouldn't you say? - Algrif 20:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about (deprecated template usage) arthrophyte, then no it isn't obsolete. Just because the scientific name changes does not always mean the common term does. The word (deprecated template usage) arthrophyte still used. On the other hand, the problem with Arthrophyta is that it's the name applied to a scientific taxon, and not a word ever used as part of a living language. While the taxon is obsolete, the name technically never goes away, and could be resurrected with the publication of a single paper on plant systematics. Those usage categories generally do not apply to scientific names the way that we apply them to words in a language. --EncycloPetey 01:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

insipid

Sense 1 - utterly lacking in intelligence or depth; foolish. Not a sense I know, and I cannot find it in dictionaries of contemporary English. OED lists it as obsolete. -- WikiPedant 02:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh. That is the only sense I've ever been aware of, though on examining many quotes, the second sense is clearl meant in many of them. The problem I'm finding is that it often isn't possible to tell from context which of these two senses was meant. Here is one that means "foolish", rather than "lacking in character":

• 1926 - H. P. Lovecraft, Cats and Dogs

  This heritage, ironically foisted on us when Roman politics raised the faith of a whipped and broken people to supremacy in the later empire, has naturally kept a strong hold over the weak and sentimentally thoughtless; and perhaps reached its culmination in the insipid nineteenth century, when people were wont to praise dogs "because they are so human" (as if humanity were any valid standard of merit!), and honest Edwin Landseer painted hundreds of smug Fidoes and Carlos and Rovers with all the anthropoid triviality, pettiness, and "cuteness" of eminent Victorians.

--EncycloPetey 06:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Petey, even that quotation strikes me as probably invoking the sense 2, which is articulated at greater length in the Random House Dictionary: "without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid." -- WikiPedant 06:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not if you read the entire essay. Lovecraft is railing against dogs and people's fondness for them; he was a cat person. --EncycloPetey 06:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

MW3 provides 3 senses: in summary paraphrase, 1., flavorless, 2., dull, 3., cloyngly sweet. Of these, the third sense seems most consistent with the Lovecraft quote. It also seems a closer fit than the RfVd sense. Least important, the RfVd senses disagrees with my understanding of the word. MW3 also includes insipient, which they say is archaic, as meaning "foolish" or "stupid". DCDuring 11:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, but that sense wasn't in the entry at all! Obviously, the entry needs more than just verification, we may need a complete rewrite of the definitions from the ground up. --EncycloPetey 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite from the ground up, but rewritten with 3 senses + kept RfVd sense; made other small changes.

countdown

I don't think that this is used as a verb. It might be an alternate spelling of misspelling of infinitive and 1st, 2nd, 3rd pl. present forms of "count down". But my thinking is mostly based on the implausiblity of the inflected forms, wherever the inflecting morphemes are placed. DCDuring 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely inclined to agree. Countdowning...hah. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. But don't laugh too soon. I had an ugly surprise when I questioned strikethrough a few months back!! - Algrif 19:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove. I just double-checked "countdown" in every dictionary entry turned up by Onelook and in the OED as well. None of them recognizes a verb sense. -- WikiPedant 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

abstinence only

Doesn't really look like a noun to me. The adjective form seems to exist, but only hyphenated. SemperBlotto 08:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, not a noun. But even as a noun the definition is silly. It is not a form of education, it is a lifestyle choice, and there is no such thing as a Puritan country.--Dmol 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be used as a noun as well as an adjective, judging from Google News. It's the kind of term I would put in quotes because it can be misread with the "only" read as modifying some other word. Unfortunately said quotes are called "scare quotes" and are deemed a kind of pejorative editorial commentary on the words quoted. It clearly refers to one approach to sex ed. Since schools like to think that they teach about life, it should not be too surprising that a name for a curriculum component is the same as the name for a "lifestyle choice", a "manifestation of God's will", a "moral choice", or what have you. Other than the clause about the "Puritan country", the definition seems minimally adequate. Do we really want to do a full RfV for this, both noun and adj., with and without hyphen for each ? Why not limit it to the noun, both hyphenated and not? I guess that we do have to establish that it's been in use for more than a year, though that should be easy. DCDuring 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cited noun sense (non-hyphenated), all from g.b.c. Plenty more available, mostly from News. DCDuring 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but can we get rid of the first definition as it is meaningless.--Dmol 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it ought to be removed. The RfV process is supposed to run 30 days (or longer). I can't see anyone supporting the gratuitous clause about Puritanism. I am not sure on what grounds we would do a radical edit of something during the 30-day period without a broad consensus. As I am not an admin, I don't undertake deletions or even much subtractive editing. I expect that there will be some kind of clean-up shortly. DCDuring 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

above-board

RfVd sense: "(nautical) Above the deck and therefore open and visible; hence the idiomatic use"

This is just wrong, isn't it? I always thought that the etymology had to do with table surfaces in selling or card-playing.DCDuring 19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I see that there are two possible etymologies for the term. Both etymologies would have converged on the sense of openness and visibility and also been apposed to "under the table". I can't detect a difference in likelihood that the hyphenated form would have come from one etymology rather than the other. Shouldn't (at least) one entry show both etymologies and no entry show just one? DCDuring 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OED gives only the card-sharp derivation of "above-board" dating from 1616 & 1628, but a 1603 usage of "above board" refers to jugglers. I suspect the nautical etymology is a later invention? Dbfirs 19:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My MW3 shows both w/o hyphen as adverb and in one word as adjective. Usage on g.b.c. suggests that hyphenated form is 25% as common as unhyphenated (with space) form. With hyphen most usage appears to be as adjective. That is about 25% of adjective use is of hyphenated form, 75% of single word form (assuming that use of two-word form is all adverbial and no adverbial use of other forms). I have found numerous refs. to the nautical ety., though I remain a bit sceptical. I'm much more accepting of Samuel Johnson's card game etymology, but that might be taken with a grain of salt as well. The correspondence of semantic implications of the etymologies may make it not matter too much. DCDuring 22:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1603 SIR C. HEYDON Jud. Astrol. ii. 67 "After the fashion of iugglers, to occupie the minde of the spectatour, while in the meane time he plaies vnder board". (sic. in original spelling.) (100 years before S. Johnson was born!) Not a direct usage of course, but clearly the concept of above- and under board were in use then.

1616 BEAUM. & FL. Cust. Country I. i. Yet if you play not fair play, and above-board too....

1628 EARLE Microcosm. lxxvi. 157 One that..does it fair and above-board without legerdemain ....

(Sources pinched from OED.) I would take the nautical etymology with a grain of salt, (or a sea!) Dbfirs 18:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That settles it for me. DCDuring 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

tainterian

The 6 google hits don't impress me much :D — [ ric ] opiaterein — 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

0 @ g.b.c., scholar, news. 1 @ groups. Why not RfD? DCDuring 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I must recognise I am not sure that the word really exists as such in any dictionary, but I read it in the forum I posted and, as I could not understand its meaning, I did some research through google and wikipedia. The only explanation i could find was to relate it to Joseph Tainter, I think that fits the uses I have read for the word. Alquezar

back water

Both verb senses: are these regional or obsolete or something? --Connel MacKenzie 04:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The first sense, when propoerly defined, refers to rowing a boat aftward as part of a retreat, escape, docking, or turning maneuver. To stop a boat you would drag the oars in the water, increasing the portion of the oar in the water until the speed was very slow, whereupon backing water would be practical. It is discussed in translations of Thuydides and in contemporary articles about competitive rowing. I could certainly cite it.

The second, figurative, sense may exist, but back-pedalling would be much more widely understood.

Second sense seems to be closer to meaning "retreat". DCDuring 06:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

addeetional

Language is listed as Scots. RJFJR 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Appears legit, surprisingly enough. See b.g.c. hits (including a Kipling story of some sort), and also -- for whatever it's worth -- the hits from SCO WP. Still looks like bad eye dialect to me, but what do I know... -- Visviva 11:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

homophobia

Are the first two senses real: #1: pathological fear of mankind, and #2: fear of sameness? I tried to find quotes, but did not encounter anything reasonable. In fact, one article first claimed that homosexuals invented the term homophobia, but that actually it should mean "fear of mankind", because "homo" means a man. The explanations provided for "fear of sameness" weren't any better. Hekaheka 11:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• These both seem highly bogus, although the second has a veneer of plausibility. The proper terms for these meanings would appear to be anthropophobia and homoiophobia, respectively. It's possible that someone somewhere has also used homophobia in these senses, but that seems rather unlikely, at least in recent times when the antipathy-for-homosexuals sense has become so dominant. BTW, do we have a coinage date for the primary sense? -- Visviva 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There's one date and author mentioned in the etymology section. I bumped in the same reference during my search for quotes. Hekaheka 12:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Doh! You'd think I could have seen that. Well, that gives us at least two good cites for the 'anthropophobia' sense: [28] and [29]. Not sure about this one: [30]. Expect more can be found by searching for the Japanese word.-- Visviva 12:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

bunnet

A contrib is insisting on a particular definition, which I have placed at nº 2 with the rfv tag. Can this be confirmed? - Algrif 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I can find various uses for bunnet, unfortunately not many cites for any very precise one. It seems to include many kinds of headgear, including bonnets, helmets, and some kind of man's tweed cap worn by men in novels who speak with heavy Scots accents. The Essential Scots Dictionary defines it more or less as the stubborn contributor does, but more tersely. A picture would be useful. It is also spelled "bannet". Who's our best man for Scots usage? DCDuring 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See w:Flat cap. DCDuring 20:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Added a pic. Hekaheka 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the pic. DCDuring 01:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to save. Should look better now. Hekaheka 05:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A tam o'shanter is apparently a toorie bunnet. A bunnet is more typically a flat cap. DCDuring 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Information

rfv sense: a type of legal filing. On g.b.c., such filings are capitalized only when part of a title. (I only searched for the plural form to avoid the 4600 hits on the word "information".) I have added and amended the (countable) sense to information. DCDuring 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I searched for "file an information" on Google Books - almost all of the 910 hits returned are lowercase. This is most definitely a legal term, defined in Black's Law 6th as "An accusation exhibited against a person for some criminal offense, without an indictment". However, even Black's uses the lowercase when it goes on to discuss the history and function of an information. bd2412 T 02:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nehruvian-Stalinism

Fails attestation. Google Books: no hits. Google Scholar: no hits. Google for web pages: a handful of hits, with Wiktionary as #1. Seems to me like Wiktionary is being used to spam this neologism. On English Wikipedia, it has been repeatedly spammed and deleted. Apparently, it was coined by some guy on a blog and his friends are trying to get it wider currency by inserting it into Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Unless someone can provide evidence of a prominent use somewhere, it should be deleted. 76.97.163.77 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If so, it might be a good candidate for speedy delete. I will verify. DCDuring 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2 groups hits. 0 on g.b.c., scholar, news. ~5 independent blog hits. Normal process seems appropriate. Close proximity wouldn't count, would it? I'd never seen Nehruvian before, but it gets hundreds of g.b.c. hits. DCDuring 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nehruvian socialism" is a common collocation (150+ g.b.c. hits), but I don't know it is SoP. DCDuring 00:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

facebook

Verb form. --Connel MacKenzie 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well worth citing. An M-W Word of the Year finalist. lots more on news than g.b.c. for "facebooking" and "facebooked". DCDuring 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

biannual

Second sense - the opposite of what this word means. --Connel MacKenzie 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mia culpa! I added the sense without checking primary sources, because American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Online and Dictionary.com had it listed. I wonder where they have got that idea. A quick search through Google hits lends little support to this usage. I found only a German research institution that used biannual in the sense biennial. As far as I'm concerned, delete. As biannual and biennial are easily confused by non-natives, and obviously also by presumably native online dictionary writers, a word of warning might be justified in the "Usage notes". Hekaheka 09:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all of our "semi-" (1/2 x) and "bi-" (2 x) terms would do much better with explicit warnings, rather than deletion. Since this directly opposes that "rule," it makes sense that it is often confusing (to native speakers and learners alike.) The just-added usage note for this entry seems good to me. --Connel MacKenzie 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Now cited and marked as proscribed.—msh210℠ 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A similar situation apparently exists with triannual. Dictionary.com gives senses "3 times a year" and "every 3 years". We only have the first of them. Hekaheka 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

preggers

Usage Note: Is it really true that this term is "mildly offensive"? In my experience, it is more likely to be used as a mildly humorous, rather delicate, child-talk version of "pregnant". Can any UK-based editors comment on this? -- WikiPedant 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely not offensive. Just informal. SemperBlotto 08:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Another Wonderfool-ism from back in the day. There's probably dozens more out there, still not found. --Myspaceshipmentnothing 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Slang, for sure, and sometimes intended to be humorous; hence it may seem disrespectful (and hence mildly offensive), but the same can be said of many slang words and phrases, such as "kick the bucket" for "die". I think that it is obvious that slang expressions used in an inappropriate context have the potential to cause offence, and so we don't need to mention this. — Paul G 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree not primarily offensive except as mentioned by Paul G. Commonly used in some circles, and understood by nearly all in UK, I would think; but definitely slang, of course. Dbfirs 09:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

concordance

Sense 5, "a topical index or orderly analysis of the contents of a book." Never heard of a topical concordance; if this sense exists, it must be used somewhere outside the usual fields of linguistics and exegesis. Anyone? -- Visviva 04:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't sense 5 just another formulation of sense 3, (or perhaps just a detailed index or table of contents)? I've never heard the word used in this sense. Dbfirs 09:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sense 5 seems to say that concepts are arranged by topic rather than alphabetically. -- Visviva 13:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps that you apply it to the surface? :-) —Ruakh_TALK 17:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A table of contents is often arranged by topic, but I have never heard it called a concordance. Has anyone else? ( - and it tends to be inside the front cover, not topical!) Dbfirs 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in many continental European countries, the table of contents is placed at the back of the book. It's not always called "Contents" but I can't remember whether I've ever seen it called a "Concordance". I don't think so, but I'm not sure. --EncycloPetey 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

DNIYM

Any citations? Dmcdevit·t 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No support that I can find in the usual sources, even groups. DCDuring 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

minge

Sense - cat. Any takers? SemperBlotto 17:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Supportable from groups. An excellent application of the new citations namespace, because the quotations I saw are not great usage examples, though useful for attestation. DCDuring 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

melikee

Citations are for "me likee". DAVilla 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not readily veriable at usual sources. 1 good (6 raw) g.b.c. quote vs 200 raw gbc for "me likee". 0 at news, scholar, 55 groups (0 English).

1. • 1940, Irene Dwen Andrews, Latitude 18 South: A Sojourn in Tahiti, page 68

     "[...] Melikee bad money — pay 'em bye and bye. Use dat smokes, drinks, fun."

DCDuring 18:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

tetraspace

—msh210℠ 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

jump the couch

Does this meet CFI? Google Scholar and Book searches don't pull up any uses. —Ruakh_TALK 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

According to w:Tom Cruise: "It enjoyed a short-lived popularity, being chosen by the editors of the Historical Dictionary of American Slang as the 'slang term of the year' in 2005 and by the nonprofit group Global Language Monitor as one of its top phrases for the year." Circeus 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

hotel bedding

Sum of parts? Or just encyclopedic? SemperBlotto 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be both. --EncycloPetey 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

fumfer

Quite possibly correct, but before reorganising it, can anyone confirm the details and meaning? - Algrif 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Note from an anonymous user: On 1/30/07, popular radio host Howard Stern used the word "fumfer" several times, as it is defined here. Stern's parents speak Yiddish; he often uses Yiddishisms he learned from them. Within his same rant - about Julien Schnabel - Stern used another apparent Yiddishism, something like "shpilkus. — This unsigned comment was added by 67.100.227.80 (talk).

yippie yai yay

Dubious --79.75.117.49 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Spelling may be a little off. Showing my age, I remember a strange song called "Ghost Riders in the Sky" - there, the spelling seems to be "Yippee-yi-ya" [31] SemperBlotto 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That song's not that old is it? The Doors are still popular today among the kids though, surely? --79.75.117.49 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ooops. Websearch showed "yai" way more common than "kai" but I haven't even checked "yi". Fixes welcome. --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

yippie kai-yay

made up for w:Die Hard

I’ve heard this for many, many years, although the spelling I know is yippie-ki-yay. —Stephen 00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as spam. Independent sources surely impossible (and what meaning would they ascribe, anyhow? That it is an intentional misspelling?) --Connel MacKenzie 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

nonology

Nonology is one of several nonce words created by analogy with trilogy (along with duology, heptalogy and other [Greek number prefix]+logy constructions). One problem with this word is that it doesn't exist, (Google Books Search brings up a handful of examples of such a word but none of them obviously means "a book in nine parts"). A much more serious problem is that it is erroneously formed and couldn't possibly exist. "Nono-" is not a Greek suffix. That would be "ennea-".[32] I think "nono-" is supposed to be from Latin nonus, "ninth" but even this suffix is pure invention.--86.26.252.142 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Compare quadrilogy, which was invented by the makers of the Alien films, who, if they had bothered to check, would have discovered that the perfectly adequate and correctly formed tetralogy already exists. (Interestingly, the Wikipedia article for "tetralogy" mentions that the even more abominable [my opinion, not Wikipedia's] "quadtology" has been used in an attempt to create a successor to "trilogy".) As "quadrilogy" has come about as part of popular culture, we're probably stuck with it now. Combining Greek and Latin affixes in this way is by no means new, and probably should not be considered incorrect (and perhaps should just be deprecated where Greek can just as well be combined with Greek, or Latin with Latin) - the best-known example is "television" (prefix of Greek origin, ending of Latin origin). (Interestingly, the Modern Greek word for television is formed from the Greek equivalent of "tele-" and the Greek word for "vision"; if we had done the same in English, we might be watching a "teleorase" [which would probably pronounced "tel-ee-O-rass-ee"]).

"Nonology" is incorrectly formed by that criterion (and all the more so because the correct prefix is "nona-", as in "nonagon", and the correct suffix is "-logy", not "-ology", so, if anything, it should be "nonalogy" - after all, we don't say "triology") but if valid citations can be found for it, then it must stay. English is littered with incorrect formations, but they are part of the language. — Paul G 08:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you've said; certainly I wasn't proposing the removal of words on the grounds of etymological impurity. My point really was that the fact that the word is so very poorly constructed makes it very unlikely that any citations could exist. Although "nonology" yields a small number of results from Google, they seem to be separate coinings that do not have the same meaning as our "nonology". I'd be interested to know where the a in non-a-gon came from actually. My suspicion is that it may not be a part of the suffix but an aid to pronunciation. After all, "hexagon" exists but "hexa-" isn't a prefix. Perhaps we should be looking for "nonilogy" with an -i- theme vowel that is common to quadr-i-lateral--86.26.252.142 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

semsemia

A harp? Really? --Connel MacKenzie 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems so. [33] -- Visviva 09:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

alphabetism

Suspect. I wavered between RFD and RFV, but have given it the benefit of the doubt and gone for RFV.

1. The definition contradicts definitions given elsewhere (Wikipedia, the OED, dictionary.com).
2. No citations are given to support the definition.
3. If this is a neologism/protologism, then Latin is unlikely to have had a word for it, so the Latin translation is highly unlikely, unless this is a Recent Latin coinage.

— Paul G 08:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a cite (minimal because NewspaperArchive is having server problems) and filled in some other definitions. Usage in this sense appears to date to the Carter administration in the US, but not to have been picked up much elsewhere; thus I am very suspicious of all the translations given, although I have left them for now. -- Visviva 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

olookolombooka

Unlikely this "Wonderfool" character can be trusted with Igbo entries. --Knight on a shining llama 14:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are quite right, especially since it was labelled as Ibu originally. You wouldn't know where to find him would you? Robert Ullmann 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Word is (s)he's on holiday in South Africa at the moment. --Knight on a shining llama 14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I tracked all of Wonderfool's butterfly translations to a site that listed many words for butterfly in many languages, with the same language name typo. --EncycloPetey 16:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

open one's big mouth

Dubious. --Spainiard 15:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's in common widespread use. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly common use. That said, it may be a sum of parts with big mouth.—msh210℠ 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, having thought about it some more, I say delete for that reason.—msh210℠ 17:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedurally, shouldn't we just be looking for attestation in RfV? I guess it's obvious to most of us that it would meet RfV. Shouldn't this be an RfD? There is at present no template at the entry.

Substantively, big mouth seems to merit entry because the figurative use of the terms could be a bit obscure to some. The various verb phrases that use this noun phrase seem to me to not be very obscure if the user thinks to look up "big mouth". "big mouth shows up high on the list of entries if one enters a phrase that includes "big mouth". Accordingly, treating this as an RfD, I would vote to delete, on the grounds of it adding to value to a user beyond the entry for "big mouth". A fuller usage note at "big mouth" might be useful. DCDuring 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedurally, attestation may be met by consensus that the word is in "clearly widespread use" per CFI (albeit in a sloppy sort of way). --EncycloPetey 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

badonkadonk

curvaceous female buttocks? --Spainiard 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's even being used in American television commercials. --EncycloPetey 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Easily cited using Google Groups (though to avoid all the mentions (as opposed to uses), you may wish to search for her-badonkadonk or your-badonkadonk); one bgc cite that I see.—msh210℠ 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

scuddick

Template:nosecondary. --Connel MacKenzie 06:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly more popular in secondary sources than in primary, but some primary sources do exist on b.g.c.:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=d8gGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA496&dq=scuddick
• http://books.google.com/books?id=6rMBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA175&dq=scuddick
• http://books.google.com/books?id=r3UCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA242&dq=scuddick
• http://books.google.com/books?id=LWqjWdOAOjEC&pg=RA1-PA245&dq=scuddick
• http://books.google.com/books?id=Nu8DAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA315&dq=scuddick
• http://books.google.com/books?id=8mQGHsfLeAsC&q=scuddick
• http://books.google.com/books?id=sFpAAAAAIAAJ&q=scuddick

—Ruakh_TALK 14:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

clusterfuck

Missing/lost discussion. Citations do not support sense they are listed under. --Connel MacKenzie 15:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The third definition seems accurate.--Dmol 16:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/June_2007#clusterfuck for those of you who don't know about "what links here" button Cynewulf 16:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ideal

Sense: An unattainable state/process in a given time/space but endlessly approachable.—msh210℠ 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this differs from sense 1 of the noun. --EncycloPetey 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

cunning

Adjective sense 3. # Cute, appealing. (Rarely used., mostly in New England, pronounced by dropping the g: "cunnin") - Algrif 13:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That is a lot of redundant senses! Is there really more than one? --Connel MacKenzie 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely old-fashioned American slang to use "cunning" in the sense of "cute", as in "what a cunning dress/baby/puppy!". Finding this usage on the Internet is difficult (it helps if you eliminate the words "linguist" and "stunt" from the search field), but see for example [34], [35], [36]. The bit about "mostly in New England, pronounced by dropping the g" is probably unverifiable original research and ought to be eliminated. Angr 17:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I searched g.b.c. for "cunnin" and found many cites. A few were of poems about babies. A couple were very explicitly about the "cunning" selfishness of babies. I didn't find any instance that was unambiguously about "cute" (but my search was not very thorough). I wonder whether any somewhat positive adjective applied to babies, puppies, or kittens comes to mean "cute". DCDuring 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Pan

I've never heard this used generically. b.g.c. shows zero independent mentions. (Move to RFD?) --Connel MacKenzie 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

These are suggestive: [37],[38], [39]. It's hard to say where allusion ends and genericity begins, but there are quite a few uses like this out there. -- Visviva 14:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See entry for a cite from Huxley's Island. Well-known work? DCDuring 15:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cliff Richard is frequently called the "Peter Pan of pop" because of his youthful looks, so this is an example of a transferred sense, albeit a different one from the one given. I would define it here as "a person of advanced years who remains youthful in spite of their age" or something like that — Paul G 18:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

oh my Goddess

All the hits I can find are either from some manga series, or from books where someone's actually speaking to a goddess. Widsith 11:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was frequently used in Heather Woodbury's spoken-word epic What Ever, but the characters always said it like this: "Oh my God-d-d-d-d-d-d-dess." Not sure if that would be considered permanently archived anyway. -- Visviva 14:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: If deleted, the link from w:Oh My Goddess needs to go too. -- Visviva 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(That seems to be a broken link anyway..?) Widsith 15:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, fixed. -- Visviva 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not found this one myself but the use of the word Goddess is so common in modern paganism that it would only be a matter of time until references were found. I will add it to my own word hunt. It sounds like one of those phrases which is often said but seldom writen down - probably most likely to occur in novels and comics. Happy hunting! Thorskegga 11:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

bow

The verb sense:- To become bent or curved.

1. The shelf bowed under the weight of the books.
   

Isn't this Pronunciation 1 Etymology 1. The saved talk page also shows this. The shelf bent into an arched shape (like a bow). - Algrif 14:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Come to that, sense 3 could also be suspect for the same reson. - Algrif 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, on both counts. DCDuring 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

zone I

See below. bd2412 T 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

zone II

See below. bd2412 T 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

zone III

What is the source for these definitions? bd2412 T 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is one of the many definitions from User:CORNELIUSSEON - he has access to several US military manuals and gets very annoyed if you question them. SemperBlotto 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

These are ridiculous without context tags at the very least. US, military, nuclear? It would not surprise me it the user believed it deserved to be an entry because it had an "official" definition. I've been willing to cite some military defs, but not these. DCDuring 16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia

I am not sure about the meaning given. Conrad.Irwin 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

unit designation list

I don't think it is in lexicon. 2 g.b.c., 1 invisible. I doubt it is used by veterans. It must be used in the armed services, but doesn't even reach Congressional testimony, apparently. DCDuring 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

unit commitment status

Not in lexicon. Hits are ref works and for other sense relating to regulated electric utilities (US). DCDuring 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Class S

Or should this be RFD? --Connel MacKenzie 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be here, but the def also needs to be rendered less encyclopedic. It was better when it was first entered and certainly better before the latest anon addition. It might merit a two-line definition. DCDuring 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

rear gunner

I have never heard it used as someone defending an organisation. Conrad.Irwin 09:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither have I. The nearest was something like "We were fighting a rear-guard action" used in a non-military sense.--Dmol 13:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

tail gunner is slightly more common, so I created an entry for it with the RfVd sense. I think it is a colloquial sense that has less and less currency with the death of the WWII generation and the departure of their children from the workplace. DCDuring 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I misread the definition. The sense given should read somewhat more generally as someone who defends the organization from attackers. "Insults" are just one kind of weapon. I will take a run at a better sense at tail gunner. DCDuring 15:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

finance

The sense given is restrictive and is based on an unspecified translation of Aristotle so it does not reflect Aristotle but some translator's efforts. DCDuring 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrote more general definitions. Does this really require quotes? Hekaheka 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

triplatform

Protologism? Zero Google book hits. SemperBlotto 16:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

squeaky bum time

The current quotation is a definition not a usage. Kappa 02:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

macho queen

This seems SoP. Also context restrictions don't seem right. DCDuring 05:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem SoP to me at all, since the primary gay sense of (deprecated template usage) queen is "effeminate gay man" rather than "gay man who dresses in women's clothes". (And even that's only relevant if there's some context, since the general primary sense of (deprecated template usage) queen isn't gay-related at all.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that the rule? That the more obscure the sense used in a collocation, the more accommodating of inclusion of the collocation we should be? It wouldn't be a bad guideline, though it would be a difficult drafting job to make it a rule. Also how does one attest collocation, probably colloquial, from the "Chinese" gay community? Send a research team to Shanghai or to some Chinatowns? Thanks for finishing the cleanup, R. DCDuring 13:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If it really has the specific meaning our entry claims, then it's not a collocation so much as an idiom: a phrase with a specific meaning that can't be discerned from its parts (in this case because those parts have lots of meanings, and the idiom has only one). As for attestation — no clue. We'll wait a month, and see if anyone manages. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that I was sure that it was not an idiom. I just wanted to leave the matter open. I thought that idioms are a subset of collocations. Some collocations that are not really idioms can also meet CFI, right? DCDuring 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I see what you're saying. I think of "collocation" as "sequence of words that for no particular reason happen to go together even though you could replace each with a synonym and have the same meaning", but I guess much of that is due to Q-based narrowing and isn't part of the word's actual definition. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So that's what they call the phenomenon. I was hoping that we could keep collocation as a way of referring to terms whose status is not yet settled and which may or may not even be entries. If some other term exists for the purpose, that would be fine too. DCDuring 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shreddies

This is a brand name and according to Wiktionary:CFI#Brand_names it is missing citations. Mutante 08:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quite a task sifting through the gb hits for "Shreddies" to find the useful quotes for an item like this. Someone else (the original contrib, perhaps?) can find some more. I've placed an American one from google.books. I've also placed a UK cite from Guardian Unlimited. It is (perhaps was) fairly common to hear some say something like; Why don't you eat your Shreddies and keep quite? thus indicating that what the other person had said was a childish comment in a sort of important situation. - Algrif 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

americanismus

This strikes me as unlikely, and possible anachronistic. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently a word in Czech and, with a capital A, in German. It could exist in Latin too - there's some institution in Vatican City that creates new words in Latin for modern concepts like airplane or DVD-player, so no reason why it should be anachronistic. There's a talk page at Latin Wikipedia where the word is used, but again with a capital A. See http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Ion Paul Willocx 10:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the capitalization comes from cross-contamination from English Americanism. I don’t believe that Latin orthographical rules call for capitalization of any -ismus words. French, Portuguese and Spanish américanisme/americanismo, for example, are not capitalized. —Stephen 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In German its Amerikanismus though. Mutante 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the German is, but that’s because it’s a noun. German capitalizes all nouns. —Stephen 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Latin is still used today (though not as much as 100 years ago). I have no good resources for Latin after about 1650, and have few for Latin of the medieval and Renaissance periods, but Latin continued to acquire new vocabulary through those periods and beyond. --EncycloPetey 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But to pass RFV, we have to show that the word is used in Latin, not merely that it's a possible Latin word. As for Czech, I strongly doubt this is the spelling that would be used. It would almost certainly have a "k" in place of the "c", and possibly an acute accent on the second "a". Angr 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was used in a Church encyclical named "Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae", but only the English translation is available online. —Stephen 12:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

gonnegtion

Slang used in a single book? SemperBlotto 09:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fitzgerald ain't Shakespeare, but Gatsby's a well-known work. I cleaned up the entry and got the original quote. I think the anti-Semitism (or whatever it is) speaks for itself without comment being required. DCDuring 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it a nonce? RJFJR 18:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of independent cites and a goodly amount of critical discussion of the term. DCDuring 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

surf

RfVd-sense: The part of the coast where waves break. The quote doesn't support it. I'd not heard that sense. MW3 doesn't support it. I thought it referred to the waves themselves. DCDuring 17:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dropped in some cites which seem to support it, although the point could be argued. -- Visviva 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Snook are fish, so that is certainly about the water. The others are just vague. The Alaska book is also about fishing. Shore birds can often be found floating on waves just before they break. I had a lot of trouble with infralittoral, too. Dictionary defs. focus on the swell, the break of the wave, the sound and spray, all about the water, not about the land. DCDuring 15:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't thought of the definition as implying that it had to be land; perhaps it could be rewritten as "the area where waves break"? The cites certainly don't belong with the other sense; they don't seem to refer to waves in the process of breaking as the Stevenson quote does. -- Visviva 10:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should just substitute another word for shore, which we define specifically about "land" in the two relavant senses. Other dictionaries are similar. DCDuring 11:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sony

Previously discussed on RFD; see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/07#Sony. Some good work has been done here, so it seemed a shame to delete the entry out of hand. Can the required citations be found? -- Visviva 15:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Found a few for both brand and company. Let me know if more are required. DAVilla 07:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

-let

rfv-sense: the young of an animal, e.g., piglet. I can't at the moment think of any other examples in this sense. I thought this is just a variant of the diminutive suffix -et, which sense I have added, as well as an inflection line. I can't characterize the occasions for its use off the top of my head. DCDuring 22:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a regular diminutive ending...e.g., booklet, ringlet, bracelet, leaflet, hamlet, circlet, roundlet, annulet, armlet, chaplet, tablet, caplet, goblet, applet. —Stephen 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to nitpick: not caplet, which is a portmanteau rather than cap (or capsule) plus diminutive suffix. Q.v.—msh210℠ 16:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A friend from Shoreham-in-Kent referred to his diminutive wife as wifelet with no one missing his meaning, so it's still a morphologically productive suffix. DCDuring 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

bullshot

Protologism or valid entry? --EncycloPetey 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I’ve never heard the meaning given. To me, bullshot is an alcoholic beverage similar to a bloody Mary, except that you use beef bouillon instead of tomato juice. Supposed to be good for hangovers. —Stephen 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

wifelet

rfv-sense: mistress. I thought it was just a diminutive. DCDuring 19:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a quote. Hekaheka 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting... it seems to be used almost exclusively in reference to the current Marquess of Bath. A personal coinage of his, possibly? -- Visviva 14:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wifelet gets 114 bgc hits, and in the cited books it has several meanings. The mistress sense is not the privilege of our Marquess, but as wifelet is grammatically a diminutive of wife, it has also been used of a wife that is small in size, as a synonym of darling (also wifie, wifeling), and of any woman a man has had a sexual relationship with. A truly versatile word! Hekaheka 08:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

swinge

Adjective sense. I believe this is correctly covered at swingeing. SemperBlotto 17:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What I could see of the on-line slang and dialect dictionaries don't have this as an adjective. Can't find it in written use either. DCDuring 12:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

tucker fucker

Ocker: for cook. Plausible, yes; real ? DCDuring 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found 1 real g.b.c. cite. Length, rhyming, vulgarity make me think this is mostly unwritten. DCDuring 11:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Commonly said in rough company, but not likely to be written. Books lists two printed slang dictionaries with the term.--Dmol 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be OK with me with right contexts, but I wouldn't cry were it gone. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few false positive results on Google Groups, so I've sorted through the Google Groups and come up with the following true positives (some better than others, though). [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. I'm afraid I haven't the time now to format them into citation style.—msh210℠ 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

kittywompus

Is this a US word? (similar to US catercorner and variations) SemperBlotto 08:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Southern, I believe. --Connel MacKenzie 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it a cutesy variant of (deprecated template usage) catawampus? —Ruakh_TALK 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. I'm not sure this spelling can be attested. (As per Ruakh's clarification.) Searching groups.google.com seems to return items related to the website with this spelling. --Connel MacKenzie 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But I'm sure I've never heard of the "bogeyman" sense at (deprecated template usage) catawampus. Can anyone verify this? Also, where are the "askew" and "catercorner" senses? (present currently in (deprecated template usage) cattywampus, and (deprecated template usage) kittywompus for that matter. -- Thisis0 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mommy made me mash my M&M's

Is this a USism? SemperBlotto 11:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No. --Connel MacKenzie 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a vocal excercise - I'm not sure that it should be included in a dictionary. Conrad.Irwin 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And if so, then what about "Nancy, thank the man for the candy" or the like?—msh210℠ 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess these vocal exercises are just easy tongue twisters, right?--Keene 12:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's real, then I'd say so, per park the car in Harvard Yard and others. DAVilla 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

不法利润

• Moved to WT:RFD#不法利润. DAVilla 16:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

taffrail

Third sense. Hekaheka 13:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I've found no support for use of 'taffrail' to indicate the aft, uppermost deck. However, I also find no evidence supporting the first, restrictive, sense, in my nautical dictionaries:

• Taffrail, or taffarel. The upper part of a ship's stern, a curved railing, the ends of which unite to the quarter-pieces. (1867, The Sailor's Word Book, Admiral W.H. Smyth)
• Taffrail, or taffarel. The rail round a ship's stern. (1879, The Seaman's Friend, Richard Henry Dana, jr.)
• Taffrail. The rail across or round the stern. (1965, Cruising Under Sail, Eric C. Hiscock)

- Amgine/^talk 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen this used (in the Aubrey novels) as the area near the taffrail. The OED has the quote "1823 SCORESBY Jrnl. Whale Fish. 39, I stood on the taffrail as the ship was turned before the wind." SemperBlotto 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

<nod> That may be the case. The taffrail could be a substantial piece of wood, often a moulded 12x12 in teak. (A nautical "rail" is not traditionally a "railing", but a structural member tying vertical members together.) Technically one would be standing on the cap, which would be wider than the taffrail, although I don't actually know what the construction of a dutch east indiaman would be. "Standing on the taffrail" was a poetic use, indicating the narrator or observed is focused on the point of departure, looking back, etc. - Amgine/^talk 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

-dar

Is this used anywhere else but in gaydar?--Keene 10:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't think of any. Besides gaydar isn't gay + -dar, it is a blend of gay and radar. There isn't any productive suffix here. Robert Ullmann 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is quite interesting. Robert Ullmann 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty interesting. I remember some utterances of this now. --Keene 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

see also this list of nonces collected by Wordlustitude. It's not a big neologism producer, but it's certainly used for jocular nonces (as the context label makes clear). Circeus 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

autopsy

rfv-sense: To carry out a personal inspection; to see for one's self.

I am not familiar with this sense, nor is MW3. DCDuring 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither am I, nor is the OED or the Random House Dictionary. I'll believe that this sense is valid when I see three quotations, but I doubt that it's worth the search. -- WikiPedant 02:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

plime

Entered in anecdote form as a newbie's first edit. Google shows some uses of the word, a website by that name, and an Urban Dictionary entry, but none of them in the first three pages confirm this meaning. PierreAbbat 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Eye dialect for "plain"? DCDuring 10:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears in DARE, also in a Caribbean (?) creole. Many different possible senses, including the entry's. DCDuring 10:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

nonology

nonology (and others)

All the Google book hits seem to be OCR errors (for "demonology" and so on). SemperBlotto 23:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. and no legitimate hits on Amazon books for this allegedly book-related term. There is a discussion above. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

UMOC

—Ruakh_TALK 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For more than enough cites, search Google News for "UMOC" "contest". Perhaps US and college tags on the entry, too. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

concisify

No bgc, scholar, news support. Not enough Groups support. Protologism? DCDuring TALK 10:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a joke entry that got a well-meaning but misguided cleanup. I would delete it. SemperBlotto 11:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites look as good as we're going to get. non-standard tag certainly warranted. Looks like it would be a good use of citations space with less ugly usage example. Is citation space ready for prime time? DCDuring TALK 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ready, Freddy! DAVilla 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

trapezoid

[UK usage]

The last usage in the obsolete sense given in the definition is in 1851. I am compiling a list of modern citations. France, Spain, and Italy may use similar words with this meaning, but not the UK or Australia. Can anyone else confirm this? Dbfirs 13:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taught in the US, where we say "trapezoid" and in AU where we say "trapezium". I don't know about GB. It's a quadrilateral, which has one pair of opposite sides that are parallel to each other and another that aren't (usually). I mean both rhombi/rhombuses & rectangles are parallelograms & may be squares, but squares are always rectangular rhombi. Do you say "flying trapeze"? :)--Thecurran 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sense one is obsolete in the UK, although current in the US. In Britain we call it a trapezium now. No idea why. Widsith 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

From my research so far (about 20 independent definitions clearly implied) the UK and Commonwealth usage of trapezoid is very close to the US usage, with an extension to 3-D. Has anyone ever heard a modern usage of trapezoid to mean a general quadrilateral with no special properties? Dbfirs 10:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A trapezoid (in UK) does have special properties: specifically, no two of its sides are parallel. Widsith 10:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So a kite is a trapezoid? Dbfirs 19:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the OED's fascinating note on how the terms came about (subbed down slightly): Widsith 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

With Euclid, Template:polytonic included all quadrilateral figures except the square, rectangle, rhombus, and rhomboid; into the varieties of trapezia he did not enter. But Proclus retained the name Template:polytonic only for quadrilaterals having two sides parallel, subdividing these into the Template:polytonic "isosceles trapezium", having the two non-parallel sides (and the angles at their bases) equal, and Template:polytonic "scalene trapezium", in which these sides and angles are unequal. For quadrilaterals having no sides parallel, Proclus introduced the name Template:polytonic = trapezoid. This nomenclature is retained in all the continental languages, and was universal in England till late in the 18th century, when the application of the terms was transposed, so that the figure which Proclus and modern geometers of other nations call specifically a trapezium (F. trapèze, Ger. Trapez, Du. trapezium, It. trapezio) became with most English writers a trapezoid, and the trapezoid of Proclus and other nations a trapezium. This changed sense of trapezoid is given in Hutton's Mathematical Dictionary, 1795, as ‘sometimes’ used – he does not say by whom; but he himself unfortunately adopted and used it, and his Dictionary was doubtless the chief agent in its diffusion. Some geometers however continued to use the terms in their original senses, and since c 1875 this is the prevalent use.

Thanks for the clarification. We obviously must blame Proclus for introducing another word to add to the confusion. As far as I can see, almost everyone except the French use trapezoid in modern usage (as opposed to definitions in old dictionaries) in the US sense of a quadrilateral with exactly two sides parallel, or to refer to one of two solids with some faces having this property (trapezoidal prism or frustrum of right sqare-based pyramid). I am collecting citations specific to the UK for this modern usage. Only the word trapezium currently has a different meaning in the US. Have you come across any modern usage of trapezoid to mean a quadrilateral with no sides parallel (e.g. a kite????) Dbfirs 19:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

defututus

Seems dubious - would Caligula have said this or something? --Connel MacKenzie 03:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in Lewis & Short's dictionary, cited from the works of Catullus. --EncycloPetey 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

polyspaston

Not in any Latin dictionary I have access to. SemperBlotto 07:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears in the works of Vitruvius (De architectura), and in some early modern texts such as this one [47]. Not confident enough in my fragmentary Latin to verify the sense. -- Visviva 09:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. It is nicely formatted - perhaps the contributor could concentrate on the very many ordinary Latin words that we are missing (not that we can tell people what they should do!). SemperBlotto 09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we all come here for different reasons. Myself, I spent a great deal of time creating entries for things like the Korean name for the red-crested pochard before deciding that I should probably make sure we had an entry for "red" first. :-) -- Visviva 06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It also appears in Lewis & Short's Dictionary, with approximately the same definition. --EncycloPetey 05:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

weapons of mass destruction

Object of a futile search. DAVilla 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I added that sense. At the time I recall it was being thrown around in pretty much in the manner of the Mel Gibson quote. Apparently it didn't catch as it seemed, so delete. bd2412 T 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

douchebaggeries

This is an RFV for an inflected form. It would seem to me that the root is uncountable. Nothing on Google Books, only two Usenet hits. DAVilla 20:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

categorize

rfv-sense: to characterize—msh210℠ 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in my MW3, which has but one sense, like ours, for the word. Characterize is not even a synonym. Categorization is one way of characterizing. What kind of a -nym is that again ? DCDuring TALK 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a hyponym. Problem with hyponyms of abstract terms is it's hard to draw the line between the term being used as such and being used to refer to its superordinate. "I categorized him as an idiot" -- did I really place him in a mental/linguistic category of idiots, or do I mean "characterize"? -- Visviva 06:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it as the former.—msh210℠ 17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it used that way many times. I've always considered it a simple error, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include it (though it does mean we might want to consider tagging it {{context|perhaps|nonstandard}} or something). —Ruakh_TALK 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

gynotikolobomassophile

--Connel MacKenzie 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a single use of the term, despite lots of secondary sources. If we keep it as "Wiktionary humor" it should be tagged as such. --Connel MacKenzie 20:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

colly

alt. spelling of collie (dog). Mentions, yes. Usage ??? DCDuring TALK 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well cited as dated spelling. DCDuring TALK 04:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

caru

rfv-sense English: deer-like animal. Possibly in Breton. Can't find in English. DCDuring TALK 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I can find the word in Welsh and Old English, but not with this meaning:

• Welsh: "Deck the Halls with Boughs of Holly" ("Oer yw'r gŵr sy'n methu caru")
• Old English: cearu (cearo, caru) f care [48]

--EncycloPetey 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

-um

Is this really an English suffix? Seems to me that this is a Latin suffix, and we've inherited a lot of Latin words. This does not make it an English suffix. I rooted through the Derived terms, and removed all the words which I could determine to have definitely acquired the Latin suffix -um. The rest I could not find evidence on either way, and so they have been left. However, I feel fairly confident that they should go the way of their kin. Can anyone demonstrate this to be a productive English suffix? Atelaes 04:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The only potential candidates I can think of are fictional elements ending in -ium that show up in science fiction works. However, I'd say that those are formed from -ium rather then -um. --EncycloPetey 05:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't think of any examples of productivity in English. Dump it, I reckon. Widsith 09:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Even if it only survives in Latin borrowings (which strikes me as unlikely — surely there exist dog-Latinisms in -um, and Greek terms in -on that have been borrowed directly into English using Latin -um, and so on), it's worth having this entry for etymology, inflection information, and usage notes. —Ruakh_TALK 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that we are currently lacking the pseudo-American-Indian use of this suffix (talkum, makeum, thinkum), found in [49] and regrettably many other sources. -- Visviva 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Many varieties of historical usage. My favorite bunkum. Or is there another ety? Also, I wouldn't have thought that it was important to us whether of not it was currently productive. If it has ever been productive in English, wouldn't it deserve an English language entry? If a 19th C. Englishman coined a Latinate term, used in an English sentence, with a non-Latin root and an -um ending, wouldn't we consider that to have been a productive use in English? DCDuring TALK 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That etymology on bunkum was bunkum. It has been corrected. This is not RFD, it is RFV. So, if someone can find three cites, it passes. Find three instances where -um was appended in English. Mind you, there would be nothing wrong with having a Latin section at this entry, which would indeed be useful for etymologies and such. Atelaes 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been to Buncombe County (Asheville, NC). I thought that that was folk etymology put out by the Chamber of Commerce, but I see that my MW3 bought off on it. Along the same lines how about noseeum or no-see-um? (It seems kind of dumb not to be able to search for a word ending. regular expressions, anyone?) I'll keep looking. DCDuring TALK 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the Latin entry would be useful anyway and would capture the spirit of much of the kind of use we are discussing, except possibly for application of the suffix to non-Latin/non-Greek stems.

As examples of the kind of formations that might fit the bill for the English entry (if only I had some dates and languages for first use) are conundrum (probably a jesting formation by English students, 18th C.), abandum, abandonum, abatamentum (legal Latin). Perhaps there are similar formations in the medical field (or other professions or academic disciplines) that became English words, at least for a time. The formations I have in mind are very likely to appear on a list of words that classicists find outrageous, annoying, and/or bogus. They might be (erroneously?) classifed as Late Latin. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

eeny

Meant to mean miniscule. eeny-weeny may be the more common variation though.--Keene 11:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing senses: eye-dialect/uk dialect for "any", "only", "eeny most" = "almost".

The minuscule sense is something you might hear from a child or someone who spends a lot of time with children. I certainly have. My bgc searches have yet to turn up a cite for the use in print. Is it "clearly widespread"? DCDuring TALK 11:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd expect more in combinations like "eeny little" or "eeny wee", which get one g.b.c hit each [50]. Also "eeny teeny" gets at least one google news hit. [51] Kappa 12:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find very many stand-alone uses of "eeny", except as a name for a child or a pet. I inserted my two best cites, as well as all the other senses that I found. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

jouser

Claims to be French slang or regionalism - couldn't find any evidence of it--Keene 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Quebec French slang, but I had a few references at the time implying it was also regional european French. Random Quotes found in five minutes for one form ("jousait"):

• [52] "quelqu'un serait c'était quoi la toune qui jousait à l'entrée de Infected Mushrooms à l'université Laval... "
• [53] Le testeur jousait le cul enfoncé dans son fauteil, il bougeait à peine le poignet
• [54] [...] alors nous avons recruté un gars qui jousait de la bass.
• [55] un détective (Brody) essaye de trouver qui est le michant qui a fait la peau à l’acteur qui jousait Superman (Affleck) dans les années 1950.

Circeus 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but these sources aren't considered durably archived, so not valid for RFV (I think). Forums and blogs don't count. --Keene 00:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems plausible. --Connel MacKenzie 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in at least one paper source I can dig up if you insist. Circeus 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have isolated several citations for "overmarked forms" (in wiktionary lingo, alternative forms), especially "jousent" in Canadian French. "Jouser" is reported as a full verb, but I'm not sure it's actually used (or it might have coalesced with jouer) as such, because future forms are not attested: only forms that would result in /u/+vowel or /u/+nothing; /u/+consonant is always regular (past historic and imperfect subjubctive are never found in informal conversation when you'll hear these forms). "Jouser" is listed in at least 3 different Quebec French dictionaries (Léandre Bergeron, La langue québécoise; Lionel Meney Dictionnaire Québécois-Français and Glossaire du parler français au Canada), one of which actually notes the same usage tendencies I observed, so I should probably add the set of forms (present, imperfect, subjunctive) as alternative forms instead of full verb, what do you think? Circeus 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There ought to be a way in which the various inflected forms provide support for each other in terms of attestation for our purposes. I wouldn't want to have to attest to the existence of superlatives for most polysyllabic English adjectives, but the existence of a comparative makes me feel much more comfortable that the superlative exists even in the absence of specific attestation. It would have to be different for irregular inflections. I thought EncycloPetey was working on this front. DCDuring TALK 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point about whether certain forms are actually used - I did searches for chiassiez (imperfect subjunctive form of chier, a very popular slang verb) and vous chiassiez (how it would be written in a sentence), but the only hits were for French conjugation websites and dictionaries. Would that mean we should remove "chiassiez" from the conjugation table at chier because it would fail RFV? It doesn't seem right to me. So if these Quebec French dicitonaries say it's a fully-conjugated verb, let's take their word for it and add {{fr-conj-er}} to it. --Keene 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think with enough work I can turn up permanently archived (blogs or paper quotes) attestation for most of the relevant forms (It's not attested for 1st person plural either because this has been replaced with on+3rd singular). That, combined with extra scholarly references should do the trick. Circeus 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kuil

This is supposed to be a Dutch surname but this Dutch speaker has never met anybody with this rather undesirable name. 75.178.190.190 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC) nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

Actually yes it does exist, but usually as van der Kuil

It's listed in Huizinga's Encyclopedie van Namen as a Dutch surname. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

staphylo

Listed as an adjective, defined as a noun, and probably just a Latin prefix from the scientific name. Does this appear as an English word anywhere? --EncycloPetey 04:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well the prefix staphylo- comes from Greek (bunch of grapes?) but I have never seen the word by itself. SemperBlotto 08:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it might possibly be considered a medical English prefix as well a Translingual. The few instances in bgc where it appears as a stand-alone word (incorrectly?) were Translingual/Latin. It appears both in hyphenated formations and as a true prefix. Have these details of technical vocabulary been dealt with? It seems an area where presecriptivism might be much appreciated by users. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

debate

Verification of etymology needed - seems strange to me. I would have thought it was via French <= Italian dibattere <= Latin batuere SemperBlotto 11:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You'd be right. Now corrected. Widsith 11:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Kent

Sense: a one-pence piece, "named after the cheapest property on a Monopoly board". Anyone? Widsith 12:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ascension

Religious sense - shouldn't this be capitalized? SemperBlotto 12:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a new entry with that sense and the day of its celebration. Should this now become rfd-redundant? DCDuring TALK 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be capitalized, and often is, but there is a lot of lower case also. Without counting specifically, "The Ascension" on its own is usually upper case, but "the ascension into heaven" is lower.
But I think there is enough mileage to keep the separate upper case entry, and remove (or make some reference) to the lower case. Ascension is a religious sense is idiomatic, as the sense of heaven being "up there" is purely symbolic.--Dmol 13:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

rockihominy

Is this a nonce word? Seems to be used in just one book (from the few Google hits). SemperBlotto 12:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

greenbody

Also needs cleanup. --EncycloPetey 00:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of irrelevant hits. Closest thing is an Indian organization that might be an envirinmentl advocacy group. Most common meaning seems to refer to shaped ceramic material before firing. DCDuring TALK 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ice nine fusion

Is this salvagable? Also, I note that the "definition" consistently uses a different written form that the entry name. I am thus wondering what the attested written form actually is. --EncycloPetey 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is one; Google pulls up no Books, Scholar, Groups, or Web hits for any of the three plausible spellings ("ice 9 fusion", "ice nine fusion", "ice ix fusion"), except for four Wikipedia-descended Web hits. I recommend speedy deletion. —Ruakh_TALK 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

strangelet, yes. ice nine, maybe. ice nine fusion, no. Someone has a bee in his bonnet about this at WP, too. DCDuring TALK 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per lack of any CFI-valid cites and discussion at w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ice-nine_fusion. -- Visviva 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(Corrected link.) Wikipedia has different standards from us. I would cite as ice-nine. DAVilla 13:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, but not in this sense, I assume. -- Visviva 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate, it doesn't have to be sound physics to be a concept, and it doesn't have to be the most appropriate accepted term to be a headword. If it's citable even in science fiction, then it flies, correctly defined of course. DAVilla 07:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

dis-

Sense 3. Given that gruntled is a back-formation, are there any cases where this is used productively in modern English? -- Visviva 02:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the dis- words in my concordance to Shakespeare. I didn't spot any uses that used the "intensifying" sense you've asked about. --EncycloPetey 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymonline: "from dis- "entirely, very" + obs. gruntle "to grumble," frequentative of grunt (q.v.)." Circeus 03:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Saith the OED:

With verbs having already a sense of division, solution, separation, or undoing, the addition of dis- was naturally intensive, ‘away, out and out, utterly, exceedingly’, as in disperīre to perish utterly, dispudēre to be utterly ashamed, distædēre to be utterly wearied or disgusted; hence it became an intensive in some other verbs, as dīlaudāre to praise exceedingly, discup&ebreve;re to desire vehemently, dissuavīrī to kiss ardently. In the same way, English has several verbs in which dis- adds intensity to words having already a sense of undoing, as in disalter, disaltern, disannul.

[link — requires subscription]

And the OED agrees with Etymonline that (deprecated template usage) disgruntle comes from this sense of (deprecated template usage) dis-, plus the frequentative of (deprecated template usage) grunt. Even so, our definition isn't terribly helpful: until I read the OED's explanation, I had no idea what it meant. It needs a rewrite.

—Ruakh_TALK 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

trout

Strange anon-added Adjective sense. --Connel MacKenzie 07:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No adjective sense in MW3. Nothing like this even in Urban dictionary. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edigbe

Any takers? We don't even have an entry for the underlying religion Igbe, or the people Urhobo. SemperBlotto 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

noncommunication

So strange it must be real. Any takers? SemperBlotto 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Google books suggests a real word under a definition like "a failure of communication" or "a lack of communication" between two parties. bd2412 T 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SB: This is one I'd have been sorely tempted to speedy. It looks like something dreamt up by some Parisian student-artist-philosophers. I guess we need to give cruft a chance. BD: Is it worth the time to clean it up? Wait a month, delete, put in the kind of def. you want. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If there's a legit word behind the nonsense, we should include it. Why wait to do that? bd2412 T 06:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting (and somewhat disturbing) to see people respond so negatively to something they have clearly not taken the time to try and understand. — This unsigned comment was added by 70.18.19.139 (talk) at 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

Parisian? Hardly. German, maybe, perhaps British - but it's American. (DK) — This unsigned comment was added by 70.18.19.139 (talk) at 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

I would humbly like to invite Mr. SemperBlotto, bd2412 and DCDuring to participate in the discussion I've initiated regarding this term, Noncommunication, in the interest of creating some substantive dialog around its usefulness and meaning. Thank you. — This unsigned comment was added by TFL (talk • contribs) at 12:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

discrete

Rfv-sense: (mathematics, of a set) Countable; being either finite or countably infinite. I've never heard of this. MathWorld doesn't seem to support it. The WP article w:discrete says "a discrete set is a countable set" (and that seems to be where we got it from: see our edit history), but I don't believe WP on this point. (That definition was added by w:user:Patrick, who is (currently at least) an admin there; I have asked him for details on this word.)—msh210℠ 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged that info, but it was already there.[56]--Patrick 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry: I should have seen that. It was actually added by w:user:Nixdorf, also currently a WP admin, whom I've now asked for details.—msh210℠ 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard it, either. Actually, I'm not sure why I didn't RFV-sense it myself! —Ruakh_TALK 03:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Aren't discrete quantities what discrete math studies? DAVilla 06:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems absolutely right and not worded badly. The concept is fundamental and in "clearly widespread use" in mathematics, if that isn't an oxymoron for our purposes. MW3 contains a sense very similar to the one challenged. The sense is even linguistically important, connecting to the notion of countability in pluralization. Something must be considered discrete to be countable. Do we have to cite this? DCDuring TALK 11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But it should be noted that it is restricted to certain branches of mathematics - "discreteness" and "countability" are certainly not synonyms in topology, for example. (It is easy to construct uncountable, topologically discrete sets - just add the discrete topology to *any* uncountable set). Wp mentions that this sense is used in "finite mathematics" aka "discrete mathematics" aka "decision mathematics", so I'll add that. \Mike 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know topology better than any other branch of math, and can assure you all that discrete means something totally different from countable in topology; moreover, I've never heard discrete meaning "countable" in any math course that I took before I started in on topology, as far I recall. (Discrete, as far as I know, means having points separated from one another by empty space (that's in lay terms, of course). Note that the set of rational numbers (fractions), a subset of the real line, while countable, is not discrete; on the other hand, the well-ordered set of ordinal type ω₂ is uncountable but discrete.) Moreover, I just checked the two discrete-math textbooks that I own: one, ISBN 0030032784, does not have "discrete" in its index, nor any obvious section to look up the word in; the other, ISBN 0534944469, writes (page 76):

The set of real numbers is ordinarily pictured as the set of all points on a line. This line is called continuous because it is imagined to have no holes. The set of integers is the pictured as a collection of points located at intervals one unit apart along the line. These points are called discrete because each is separated from the others.

(Boldfacing mine. Italicization in the original: note that italics are used in math texts to indicate a word being defined.) This conforms to my understanding of the word discrete, not with our entry's sense under discussion here.—msh210℠ 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly the countability of the set of all rational numbers is a challenge to the use of the word "discrete" in this sense. Would any normal person use the word "discrete" to characterize the set of all fractions (integer numerator and denominator)? Influenced by early exposure to the mathematics of countability/uncountability (but not to topology) I think of the set of all fractions as discrete. So I would, but the question stands: would a normal person? DCDuring TALK 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(I noted that the set of rational numbers, as a subset of the real line, is countable but not discrete. I should have said what it looks like as a subset of the real line: Between any two rationals is another. Thus, any small interval of the real line has infinitely many rationals.)—msh210℠ 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another quote from ISBN 0534944469 (meaning, in addition to the one I quoted above). It's from her Preface, where she's outlining the general subject matter of the book:

Discrete mathematical structures are made of finite or countable infinite collections of objects that satisfy certain properties.

(Boldfacing mine.) This seems to be saying that, in discrete math, discrete means "finite or countably infinite, and also satisfying [some properties to be indicated later]". That is, "finite or countably infinite" as a definition of "discrete" is wrong even within discrete math, according to this.—msh210℠ 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have read the boldfaced clause as ambiguously modifying either objects or structures rather than restricting "discrete". DCDuring TALK 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have striken my earlier statement that the term is in widespread use in mathematics. I had that impression but can't find evidence. Few of my math books (mostly pop math, decision math, statistics) include discrete in the index. Those that do don't use the word discrete technically, limiting it to introductory exposition and using "countable" exclusively thereafter. The MW3 equates the terms, declaring "countable" a synonym for "discrete". Their def. is as follows: "capable of assuming, containing, or involving only s finite or countably infinite number of values, items, or objects." Mathematics pushes our intuitive concepts to their paradoxical limits so we shouldn't be too surprised at this kind of awkwardness. But if integers, the paradigm of countability, are not also a paradigm of discreteness, what are they? DCDuring TALK 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Like you, I had thought initially that it was a good mathematical definition, but also like you I have not found this to be supported in mathematical works. I couldn't find anything useful in my books on functions and analysis. My topology books define (deprecated template usage) discrete quite differently; in that subfield it seems to be applied only to the "power set" of all subsets of a topology. I have yet to look through my statistics books, but my own gut feeling is that (deprecated template usage) discrete is only applied to elements or members of sets, never to the sets themselves. --EncycloPetey 05:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

skite

rfv-sense: to splatter. Not in MW3. I haven't heard it. There are also other, mostly dialect, senses not entered. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

decaplet

Google has mention, but any useage? (decuplet would be OK - different meaning) SemperBlotto 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Found three OK-looking cites (all for the plural though). Most occurrences actually seem to be variant/erroneous spellings of decuplet. -- Visviva 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly rare to see any of those as singulars anyway, except as attributive (even triplet, which is more common, is fairly rare as a singular in that sense, it seems to have more specialized senses in electronics, though, which skew the results when searching for "a triplet"). Circeus 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

successor

Does this word have a meaning of 'A person or thing that immediately replaces another' ? --Eveningmist 11:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have worded it that way, but it certainly means one who follows another in holding any kind of title, or office. There seems to be some diminished likelihood of using it for more generic roles or positions. For example, I could see it used for a one of the top roles in a play, but not for an extra or someone with a small role. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your check. I seemed to mistake the meaning; I thought the one , who release somebody from the guy's role and give the role to another guy, like a producer who manages actors in a play. --Eveningmist 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the ambiguity in the main sense of the word. See if my changes would have avoided the confusion. DCDuring TALK 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your changing works! Example is also nice and it leads easy understanding. I just changed president names because recent presidents are better example for young generation and the reader outside U.S.
By the way, I suppose your edited sense and the definition #3 of the current article has the same meaning. I'll delete #3 if you and other guys agree. --Eveningmist 03:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We have procedures for deleting words designed to prevent removal of good content. We have found that what seems obviously wrong to one person is obviously right to others. We research meanings. In this case, it may seem obvious that the inheritor is the successor, but what about the case of a prince, not yet of age, inheriting a kingdom upon the demise of parents. Is a regent the successor to the deceased King or is the prince the successor with the Regent merely serving in a fiduciary role? Until we are sure of the answers to such questions we don't make changes. We mark them as requests for deletion or requests for verification. DCDuring TALK 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. If not outright deleted, I would merge the second and third sense. This has been exemplified to satisfaction of the nominator. DAVilla 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel something wrong in the case of the young king. If he is a successor, I think it means he inherits the kingdom. The kingdom will be governed by the young king, and the regent's roll will be just supporting the young king.

However, I still agree what you, DCDuring, say. I guess the keys are who say a person or thing is a successor, like one says he is a successor, and when the person or thing inherits, which is already shown as the difference of sense #1 and #2. I tried to explain, but I couldn't because of my poor English skill.

Now I'd like to cancel my previous claim merging #1 and #3. Sorry of my poor explanation. --Eveningmist 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing {{rfv}} template at the article -- one month has been passed after nomination, and the verification already seems to have been made. --Eveningmist 06:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

rock up

Sense 2. Turn up unexpectedly. -- Algrif 13:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this many times. It might pass CFI but as it is colloquial there might not be too many cites available.--Dmol 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Plenty at google news: [57] Kappa 16:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

TV Guide

Formerly on RFD. Seeking cites as a brand name, out-of-context per WT:CFI, or of clearly generic use, however that could be judged, for capitalized form. DAVilla 20:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

vagsh

As an English word. Apparently in the movie "superbad" per creator. DAVilla 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

alimony

Second sense. --Connel MacKenzie 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In Black's as specific to English law; no luck finding clear citations, though. -- Visviva 07:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

amnesiphobia

--Connel MacKenzie 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

anemophobia

—Ruakh_TALK 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

goede dag

The Dutch greeting for goodday is goedendag. See the official spelling list

And yet goede dag seems to be fairly common. What is the explanation? —Stephen 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of times it's simply sum of parts (a good day). There's also the expression op een goede dag, which is somewhat comparable to "one fine day" in English and has nothing to do with the normal meaning of "goed". But yeah, it's used occasionally as alternative for goedendag, too, even if it officially shouldn't be. Paul Willocx 19:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So how is it now? —Stephen 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to make it a 'common misspelling' for goedendag. In de sum-of-parts sense it does not really warrant its own lemma.

Jcwf 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/zonar

This is actually a two part rfv. One for the listed English noun, and one for the Spanish verb which isn't listed, but has a bunch of forms from The DaveBot.

Spanish Verb

Is 'zonar' a real Spanish verb? I could not find it in any dictionaries. If it isn't all of the conjugated forms need to be deleted. Nadando 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be Spanglish. I do get a fair number of reasonable-looking Google hits for forms like "zonaste" and "zonamos". I will sometimes catch a surprising word in some Spanish language program on television like this. However, I can't say I've ever heard that one and it doesn't show up in my dictionaries either. --EncycloPetey 05:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

English noun

I found one reference to "zonar" as something similar to what's described in the entry in a masonic terms book of some sort. Are there any more? Atelaes 04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

cartifact

The "Reference" is a 404. The protolo would more naturally be car + artifact, for messy car owners. --Connel MacKenzie 06:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

3-year-old spam? [cartifact.com] DCDuring TALK 15:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

gurgitator

Still finding more wonderfoolisms. At least this one is funny. --Connel MacKenzie 08:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Two uses on Google Book Search (the very first two hits), and maybe a dozen on Google News Archive Search. —Ruakh_TALK 12:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A neologism for competitors in organizations like the IFOCE, but gaining ground in its use:

• 2006 — Ryan Nerz, Eat This Book: A Year of Gorging and Glory on the Competitive Eating Circuit, page 11

  He described one of his favorite "gurgitators," Eric "Badlands" Booker...who trained by meditating and eating huge portions of cabbage.

--EncycloPetey 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw, reminded me of the grindcore band called regurgitate. And if there is regurgitation, one could expect there is also gurgitation, and therefore a gurgitator. ? Mutante 11:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

postal code

rfv-sense: zip code. The ZIP code or zip code is the postal code for US addresses, an example of a postal code, not the definition of postal code. US speakers may use zip code to refer to non-US postal codes. I have what I think is the right sense of "postal code", the same as "post code". I am not familiar with the English names (if any) for each nation's postal code system. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In the UK it is a postcode (all one word). SemperBlotto 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How do UK speakers refer to non-UK postal codes? Is there a generic term (like "postal code") or do they just use the term for UK addresses to refer to any country's system, including the US ZIP code ? US speakers are carelessly chauvinistic about it, often using ZIP code or zip code for all. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the result of chauvanism, just blithe ignorance. --EncycloPetey 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete this as a redundant (viz, included in the other sense) sense.—msh210℠ 17:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Zip code is mentioned as a synonym, as is correct. Hekaheka 19:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the entry to show zip code, ZIP code, and postcode as hyponyms (God help us!) for "postal code". I will make the corresponding changes for zip code entries, but leave postcode and post code alone until this is all settled. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is a hyponym of what, depends on point of view. Americans probably think that all postal/zip codes are zip codes but the term postal code may be used of the foreign zip codes. The Brits probably have an opposite view. Any good reason why they cannot be synonyms? Hekaheka 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speakers in each country probably refer to all postal codes by the local name or a shortening thereof. Each entry should have that sense. I am not sure that you could call ZIP Code and postcode synonyms because they are not - for the same speaker. They are some kind of coordinate terms. I've been waiting for some simplification to strike me or some other contributor. DCDuring TALK 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

zork

Sense - an unfinished computer game. The second definition is probably not dictionary material anyway. SemperBlotto 15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the second sense passed RFD about a billion internet years ago (2004?) The new "first" sense I see no evidence for. --Connel MacKenzie 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

secondje

The Dutch word seconde does not have diminutive according to the official spelling list. If you insist upon creating one it would be secondetje. Please scrap this entry Jcwf 15:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one could say it's colloquial, but it's still in wide use, not so much as real diminutive of "second" but as indication of a short amount of time - as the definition already says. Certainly no reason to delete it. I'm not sure how to do the Google books linking thing, but I found three separate occurrences easily enough. Paul Willocx 16:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

..in wide use..? -- This mothertongue speaker had never heard of it, but that can be a regional thing. Is this Brabants?, Vlaams? I'm from above the rivers and would say minuutje or momentje, not second(et)je. Without the '-et-' it actually sounds like a wrongly formed diminutive to me. (again: regional?)

Jcwf 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the three first examples I came across in the Google books search were respectively from Felix Timmermans, Hugo Claus and Herman Brusselmans, all three of which are Flemish authors. And if you just Google the word, most sites seem to be Belgian. So it's possible that it's a Flemish thing, yeah... never really thought about it. Paul Willocx 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

fall in

These senses:

1. to join
2. to grow deferent
3. to be charmed

I suspect these may be for "fall in with" or something similar, but they don't seem to be for "fall in". — Paul G 17:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sense you ask about is as in "he fell in with a bad crowd". Yes, it's with with, but I don't know whether that's part of the verb.—msh210℠ 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added fall in with as it is an accepted phrasal verb in most dictionaries. The two meanings join and defer are in that entry and should, I believe, be eliminated from fall in. I have no idea about charmed, it doesn't seem to fit anywhere. -- Algrif 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

amazon

Is this an adjective in its own right, just part of the phrase amazon physique, an attributive use of the noun, or nothing worthy of note? Conrad.Irwin 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's an attributive form of the noun, that it should be capitalised and that it is not comparable. — Paul G 18:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding any usage of this in comparative form, with or without caps. If a word that is a noun, but used as an adjective without other change of meaning, has no attestable comparative form, does that mean that its entry should not show an adjective PoS. If so, we have a lot of clean-up to do. Such entries are numerous. The lower case attributive use of the noun seems likely to be attestable. If the comparative is not attested, would the adjective PoS be deleted anyway as Conrad.Irwin seems to suggest? DCDuring TALK 18:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all adjectives have comparative forms, but there are other constructions where adjectives are preferred, e.g. "as...as" and in parallel with another adjective like "feminine". DAVilla 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is my belief that there is no such adjective form of the word amazon. In the example given, to say one has an "amazon physique" is simply combining two separate nouns to make a description, as opposed to using the legitimate adjective form amazonian. It is the combination of two nouns to create a description; for example, the word car in car driver is not an adjective, it remains a noun, even though it describes the kind of vehicle being driven. Another example can be found in the sentence "She has a supermodel figure". Supermodel is not an adjective, it is a noun combined with a second noun (figure) to describe the person in question's physicality. I think that to present amazon as an adjective is erroneous and misleading. 194.73.217.242 00:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't especially disagree with you, but many such nouns, after being strictly nouns for a period, come to be used as adjectives, and then form comparatives. Do they become adjectives only when they start to form comparatives? Are the people who do this wrong? Is it important to pronounce the two extra syllables in amazonian? Or is that Amazonian? Is the capitalization important? (What about the K in kleenex and the S in sandwich?) Do you think this evolutionary process should be discouraged? What do you think are the results of trying to discourage this kind of usage evolution?

Have you considered opening an account here? (It's free and anonymous.) It is fascinating to observe and memorialize the evolution of English worldwide and to preserve for posterity some expressions and usages that will be lost. DCDuring TALK 01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this is not so much an issue of linguistic evolution as a matter of truth or falsity. Is amazon an adjective? Answer: No. Therefore it should not be presented as such - the only purpose this could serve is to ill-educate people. A word evolving into another generally accepted form is one thing - e.g. the noun access developing a verb form in recent years - but amazon hasn't and isn't as of yet. Using it to describe a physique, temperament etc. makes it an attributive noun, not an adjective. 194.73.217.242 01:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question: If this could be cited predicatively, in sentences such as "Her physique was amazon," would that be considered sufficient proof of adjective-ness for our purposes? -- Visviva 02:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have found some citations that are of adjectival use of amazon, but not particularly limited to the physical characteristics of women. I have added a sense that encompasses the whole range. DCDuring TALK 03:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Having read the quotations provided, in my opinion the majority of them appear to be attributive nouns, specifically in quotations 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Attributive nouns combine with secondary nouns to create such phrases as "amazon costume", "amazon culture", "amazon foremothers", "amazon women" and the title "amazon girl". However, quotations 2 and 3 do seem to present the word amazon in an adjectival form, though to me this is not enough to declare to the entire English-speaking world that the word amazon has now officially become an adjective. However, do as you wish. 194.73.217.242 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with 194.73; I only find the second quotation to be compellingly adjectival. This is certainly a case that bears further study, though. -- Visviva 11:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If adjectival use requires such strong evidence (a point on which I'm agnostic), then we have a great deal of clean-up to do on the many entries for nouns that also have adjective PoS headings. I originally would have been inclined to delete those headings, but they were so common that I just assumed that WT had a policy that favored them. They are particularly silly with nouns that have numerous senses. In such cases we have either low-value-added rewordings of all the noun entries or an incomplete listing of adjective senses. In preparation for the coming removal, I'm going to move the quotes to Citation space. DCDuring TALK 11:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I see entries like this every now and then, and correct or nominate them, but for the majority of entries where an adjective derives from the noun or verb form, the adjective definition is necessary. For instance, compare the two mammoth examples at frozen, where the only distinction is the timeframe. If you have doubts, check any of the standard dictionaries until the distinction becomes more clear. DAVilla 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The relatively easy cases are those where I can readily find (or hear in my head) a comparative form. Then the participle or noun merits an Adjective heading too. There are numerous cases where the person who entered the Adjective heading also presents the adjective as not having a comparative, which certainly diminishes the likelihood that it really is an adjective as well as making it harder to find evidence even if it truly is an adjective. "amazon" is tough because the "ear" test doesn't work to differentiate the capitalized from the uncapitalized forms! DCDuring TALK 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

fallout

Sense:

1. A pollution dust, the non-radioactive airborne particles that fall to the ground.

   Air pollution return to the ground in the form of acid rain and soot fallout.

Does this exist? If so, the definition and example need to be cleaned up so as to make sense. — Paul G 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

According to major dictionaries it does. Radioactive fallout is just a special case of a fallout. Reworded the defs from this starting point and added examples. Hekaheka 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

patriclan

rfv sense: "A group which claims common ancestry through the male line, but cannot prove the lineage."

I have already added the sense that seems to be the common one according to references: a patrilineal clan. The RfVed sense is taken from a single source which has added the qualifier of provable lineage. I doubt that many many antropologists use the term that way - though evidence could prove that doubt misplaced. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of the senses given look highly fictional to me, and they may be based on computer games. For the original meaning of the word, look patrician. From that the word has become to mean an aristocrat in general. More details can be found in any good dictionary. Hekaheka 19:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

patriclan is abundantly used in anthropology - not that I knew that before b.g.c. search. The author of the cite seems to have taken the usual sense and specialized it so he could distinguish between patrilineal clans with certain descent and those without, apparently meaningful in the societies he was studying. If someone who knows anthropology happens to know that this has been done at least two additional times, then we can include the more specialized sense. If not, then we stick with only the more general sense, which seems to be how dictionaries and works of anthropology usually define it. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

smurf

Interjection: A substitute for any word. (This must be cited independently of the Smurf Universe.)

Noun: One who hides identity or true potential.

Verb: To hide identity or true potential.

DAVilla 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

smurfy

Conveying meaning. Edit: Any meaning. I can almost support "small and blue". DAVilla 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the primary meaning "universally loathed" or "obnoxiously childish" or something? I think most attestation to be found is in a very, very negative context. --Connel MacKenzie 04:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. The primary use has no meaning, kind of like rhubarb rhubarb. That's probably enough to pass CFI except that case is covered just as well with the interjection at smurf. I'd like to know if there's better reason than that to keep this entry though. If it's derogatory then sure, that'd be fine with me. Whatever can be cited. DAVilla 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

offend

Senses 4,5 and 6. Do they exist in current usage or should they be labeled "archaic"? Hekaheka 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about senses 4 and 5, but sense 6 appears in several current Bible translations including the King James. It's still is use today because it appears in Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5:29-30). --EncycloPetey 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a bible scholar, but the meanings in the King James bible seem to me to be included in senses 1, 2 and 3. I agree that most people seem to interpret some of the New Testament usages more along the lines of sense 6, so perhaps "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" could be quoted with a note that this is mainly a biblical sense. I think sense 2 is mainly archaic, and senses 4 & 5 are long obsolete -- we would have to scour ancient texts to find citations. I vote to keep 1 & 3 as main senses; combine 2 & 6 as biblical (archaic), and delete the others (or at least mark them obsolete). Dbfirs 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

maltheism

As requested in section above. --Connel MacKenzie 09:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not much out there, but there is some. One straightforward book hit:

1. 2001, Nicholas C. Prata, Dream of Fire, page 68:

   There's so much evil, in fact, that if your God lives, he himself must be wicked. Maltheism, I think they call it.

Dozens of hits in Google groups - here's a batch of discussions from 1985-86 (which seems to be the earliest time frame for use of the word), and a few dozen blog posts starting in 2005. bd2412 T 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is a similar level of support for maltheist (which would make no sense outside of there being a concept of maltheism), and a few groups hits (but no book hits) for maltheistic. bd2412 T 08:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

America

verify etymology. I was taught the Amerigo Vespuci story in school, however a recent theory has caught my attention. That america actually derives from the arabic word for the evening star. This seems historically viable, Columbus may have told his navigator to set course by this star and the Moors ruled all of Spain and Portugal until shortly before the expedition. I would like to see this settled. Does any wiktionarian speak Arabic? — This comment was unsigned.

• My understanding is that Vespuci had nothing to do with America. However, Richard Ap Meryck, a major figure in Bristol who often signed his name as Americk, was part of a fishing family that brought back cod from the Newfoundland coast. SemperBlotto 08:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• I added the two other possibles from Wikipedia, still no reference on the requested translation though.User:TRKritzer

I don’t believe that Arabic story at all. For one thing, the Arabic for evening star is Template:Arab (an-nájmu-l-masā’). I don’t see "America" being squeezed out of that. The German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller named the continent America after Amerigo in 1507 after his two voyages to South America were widely publicized in 1502 and 1504. There were also several fictitious accounts published around that time, allegedly by Vespucci, but which were later found to have been the fabrications of other individuals and published without Vespucci’s knowledge or involvement. —Stephen 15:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Vespucci was originally creditted with discovering America, and this is why the continent was named after him. In fact, during the later years of Columbus' life, Spanish schools taught the Vespucci was the one who had organized the voyages and made the discovery. Columbus' role was forgotten. Only later was the contribution of Columbus rediscovered and put back into the history texts. --EncycloPetey 04:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Winamp

Yet another product name. Any qualifying use? DCDuring TALK 15:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

geo-content

Protologism? Spam? SemperBlotto 17:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

unmessable

Looks like tosh to me. Supposed to be an adjective, but the definition is for a noun. SemperBlotto 19:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Slang in this sense. Would depend entirely on Groups attestation (18 raw hits there). Use in News (1 hit) and Books (1 hit) in different sense ("can't be messed up", of a carpet). There is a whole family of "mess" derivatives using the sense of "mess" used here. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

easy peasy lemon squeezy

I remember something like this from when I was younger, but I think it was the name of a song or part thereof. See also easy peasy pumpkin peasy. --Keene 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Google books has citable examples [58] , but there's a variety of punctuations. Kappa 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have easy peasy. Is thsi entry really necessary? -- Algrif 17:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The version I’ve heard is something like easy peasy Japanesey. —Stephen 05:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

One of my work collegues has just used this expression - exactly as stated. I know it well but I dont know where from. Possibly from advertising? Thorskegga 11:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

easy peasy pumpkin peasy

as above--Keene 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As above. We already have easy peasy. Is this entry really necessary? -- Algrif 17:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

lecherous

rfv-sense: given to a lustful craving of sexually deviant activities. I dispute that it is mere "craving" and that "deviance" is an essential part of the def. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the new definition given. I surprised it didn't just replace the very poorly worded sense to begin with. --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad it's satisfactory. I take a conservative approach. My thought is that I might be missing something. I nobody objects, then it'll be gone in early/mid March. If someone does and produces a little evidence, then the entry will almost certainly be better. For a more obscure entry, one with clearer error, or one closer to an area I know something about [&;-))], I would be a bit bolder. DCDuring TALK 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

haet

Second sense. I see no evidence of this spelling of have/hast. The quotation offered seems to actually be "hast," not "haet." Atelaes 02:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

b.g.c. agrees with you; on our linked page it doesn't highlight anything, but if you change dq=haet to dq=hast in the URI, it highlights the right word. —Ruakh_TALK 02:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking closer, all the b.g.c. hits seem to be scanning errors. --Connel MacKenzie 05:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to jump the gun a bit and remove the sense. If anyone can actually find cites for this, by all means feel free to reinstate it. Sense removed Atelaes 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

textual harassment

Specifically the sense meaning "harassment with text messages." Genuine usage in context is needed; Google News and Groups turn up a lot of mentions and headline-writer cleverness, but not much else. -- Visviva 03:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in Macmillan with quotes dating it all the way back to 2001: [59]. Circeus 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, one quote, which suffers from the same drawback as many others I found: "so-called textual harassment." I think there are implied quotation marks there, which makes this less than satisfactory. -- Visviva 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the Macmillan def. and the news snippets for this sense, I am convinced both that the sense is real and that we will not readily find clear and convincing attestation (yet) for the specific sense under challenge. I wonder whether we should just modernize or broaden the first sense to make it less tied to writing and more to, say, "any form of textual communication". DCDuring TALK 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good notion; the senses are somewhat distinct, but not unmergeable. -- Visviva 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a bad sign, in fact quite the opposite. Pawley's #20 states "Where there is a written tradition these may provide clues to perceived status as a unit. […] Quotation marks may […] indicate unitary status: he was considered a ‘bad boy’. Orally, some speakers use so-called or a preceding pause to mark an equivalent to quote marks." DAVilla 08:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If in genuine use, this is definitely idiomatic. But while quotation marks may be a good sign for idiomaticity, in this case they also suggest that the author was not actually using the phrase, but merely suggesting that someone else does. Which just isn't quite enough, IMO. -- Visviva 16:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

V: Taking what you just said literally (and perhaps out of context), how would we then ever allow use in quoted dialogue from a non-fiction work in attestation? Are you saying that the quotation would have to provide enough context to show that the purported speaker was using the phrase meaningfully? DCDuring TALK 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this were presented as a quotation, I think it could be presumed valid. What concerns me is the use of quotation marks (similarly to italics) to distance the author from a specific word or phrase. I mean, we wouldn't accept something like this: I was suddenly afflicted by "hooblescooblemooblephobia," an irrational fear of self-rhyming words. ... would we? -- Visviva 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A word can be simultaneously used and mentioned. Sometimes it's more use-y ("I was suddenly afflicted by hooblescooblemooblephobia, which is a polite way of saying that self-rhyming words would now make me wet my pants. Pee-wee Herman and Bozo the Clown scared me almost as much as they had when I was seven." — there's a bit of mention, in that the word is commented on and loosely defined, but the main clause is using the word, not mentioning it, and it's not set off with quotes or a "so-called" or italics or anything), sometimes more mention-y ("I was suddenly afflicted by what the Crips call 'hooblescooblemooblephobia' and the Bloods call the 'heebie-jeebies'." — there's a bit of use, in that the writer doesn't explain what the word means and really is relying on the reader understanding the quoted words in order to understand the sentence, but it's framed as a mention). There are also other difficult cases, like when a word is genuinely used, but after defining it and due to having defined it, as here. The CFI do say that we accept use+mention quotes, but I think we can all agree they're not A-1. —Ruakh_TALK 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

throwing signs

Isn't this called throwing up ? SemperBlotto 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrase looks very real from gang world and seems to have been around for more than 10 years in print. The lemma entry should be for the idiomatic verb throw signs. I found 47 raw b.g.c. hits for the lemma form, suggestive that it should be citable. I'll start with some clean up. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To throw signs is cited. I have inserted the present participle template in throwing signs. I don't think the text of the original entry has too much value, but perhaps it will give someone some ideas for how to improve throw signs. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For me, throwing signs means the same as throwing hints or give hints or drop a hint or even hint at. e.g. I was throwing signs at him to ask me out on a date.--Keene 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It also may have a meaning in semiological-type scholarship, but I don't know how to interpret that kind of text. The sense that I have cited seems very well-defined and is attestable in good sources. Any phrase that combines common words like this must have other senses. The one cited doesn't seem at least to be SoP, but is clearly derived from the ordinary meaning of the words. DCDuring TALK 02:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

assbutt

I can find a couple of so-so hits. Is this verifiable? -- Algrif 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should go in an appendix on the morphology of vulgarity. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a Simpsons neologism. Circeus 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

perpetual child

This entry was deleted from Wikipedia as the only sources we could find were the article on WP and this article on Wiktionary, plus one GHit in a dictionary that skims from Wiktionary. Appears to be a word made up by the creator of the article to describe his own home situation.

There are a lot of terms for the concept of adults being reluctant to age (or, from the PoV of older generations, mature): adultescent, adulescent, kidult, mid youth (in the case of the baby boomers themselves), boomeranger (boomerang child, boomerang baby)...

However, "perpetual"/"lifelong" parent or children seem little more than the sum of parts. Circeus 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Recommend deletion as merely sum of parts. There is nothing idiomatic about the phrase. --EncycloPetey 22:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

5555

Oh? --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete We already have this under 555 -- Algrif 18:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Any attestable or known uptake into English (under 555)? DCDuring TALK 18:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

redirect. I guess it's similar to hahaha or mmmmm. A Thai speaker would be beneficial in this case, but if (s)he is not around, redirect this to 555. --Keene 01:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Civilocity

Protologism, citations given don't seem to exist. --Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• So-called definition is pretty crap - makes no sense to me - I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

With the extra help, you can put this stuff up for RfV. If (when?) it fails and we actually clean it out in a month, we can all feel very open-minded at low cost. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

agyrophobia

Plenty of mentions, but I'm seeing no use. Atelaes 02:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a typical dictionary word: someone included it in a "list of phobias", and it's been shambling along in dictionaries ever since. Circeus 03:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

rag

• (Can we [[#Requests for verification|verify]]^{([{{fullurl:|action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:rfv-sense/preload$1&preloadparams%5B%5D=%3Cstrong+class%3D%22error%22%3E%3Cspan+class%3D%22scribunto-error%22+id%3D%22mw-scribunto-error-5a00f139%22%3ELua+error+in+Module%3Alanguages%2Ftemplates+at+%5B%5BModule%3Alanguages%2Ftemplates%23L-18%7Cline+18%5D%5D%3A+Parameter+1+is+required.%3C%2Fspan%3E%3C%2Fstrong%3E&preloadtitle=%5B%5BWiktionary%3ARequests+for+verification%23rfv-sense-notice-{{{1}}}-%7cWiktionary%3ARequests+for+verification%5D%5D}} +])} this sense?) (slang) To drive a car or another vehicle in a hard, fast or unsympathetic manner.

Rod (A. Smith) 07:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've heard it used in UK - "He was ragging down the motorway at 110 mph"--Keene 23:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  Would you Ukogbanians say it has clearly widespread use?—msh210℠ 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  It's in use. It's not clear to me how widespread. Kappa 22:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  I've never heard it (but I'm getting on a bit). SemperBlotto 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  I added the definition- if it helps here are 2 uses of 'ragging' by motoring journalists; http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/car_news_article.aspx?cp-documentid=953723 "the sight of Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May ragging a car to within an inch of its life", http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/62605/toyota_corolla_compressor.html "Hot hatch antics in the Compressor feel rather like ragging a hire car - engine screaming, chassis surprised and not entirely happy with the pace it's finding". 'Ragging' can also be used as an activity in itself- one can "go out for a rag"; that is, to leave with the intention of driving in a 'sporty' manner for the pleasure of the experience. 'Ragging' would always include an element of the unusual, 'testing' in some way the qualities (speed/acceleration/reliability) of the vehicle, or the skill of the driver. For example, driving an original Mini at 90mph would be considered 'ragging'. Driving a modern BMW at the same speed would not. 'Ragging' could also include faster than normal cornering, or indeed driving a car harshly at low speeds, eg using high revs or short bursts of hard acceleration. Low speed pleasure cruising, or normal journeys driven in a 'normal' manner would NOT be 'ragging'. Conversely, ragging would not necessarily involve driving in a reckless or inconsiderate manner- hard driving on a test track under controlled conditions would still be considered 'ragging'. Hope this helps.

  Yes that does help. This looks like another one: [60] The Independent Mar 5, 2005 "By the time we climbed back on the skidoos I was getting pretty cocky, ragging the thing around at 70 miles an hour." Kappa 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

hottle

Tagged but unlisted forever. --Connel MacKenzie 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that this is real, but can't find attestation cites. The word seems to have little future because people now know the word carafe. I can find mentions but not real usage. It may once have been a trademark. Maybe we should get eBay to store their auction ads (without prices) in durably recorded media. There are lots of real, specialized words that would thereby become attestable potentially. (It would be in their interests because it would facilitate the listing process and advertise their name.)

Is it worth putting the mentions in citations space? DCDuring TALK 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be worth including some mentions, especially if we expect them to antedate or postdate any uses we might find in the future, or if they're in particularly reputable sources. Mentions can give a lot of information about a word. —Ruakh_TALK 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Occupational slang and informal jargon in general is poorly recorded: we know a lot about a few of them (radio amateurs, gamers, soldiers, hackers...) but very little about most others (e.g. florists, metalworkers, architects, emergency physicians, civilian pilots, travel agents...). To make matters worse, google books is useless here because b->h is an extremely frequent mistake. Circeus 02:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Found one more-or-less valid cite, added to Citations:hottle. Also added a cite there for the brand name -- not for inclusion, of course, but just to keep track of. (If anyone can figure out the date on that issue of Railway Purchases and Stores, that would be great.) This seems to be a brand name which was genericized and then quickly forgotten. -- Visviva 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

cancel

Music sense - I've only ever heard this called a natural. --Connel MacKenzie 09:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The mark is only described as a natural in Grove Music Online. SemperBlotto 10:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

nala

Tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 09:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wonderfool. See also the edit summary, where he cites The Lion King.—msh210℠ 22:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

thorpe

Tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 09:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Cleaned up, marked as archaic and untagged. SemperBlotto 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hef

--Connel MacKenzie 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Really belongs on RFD as the word is used for Hugh Heffner and is thus verified. But personal nicknames don't belong in a dictionary. I don't recall us allowing any but this one certainly falls short of widespread usage.--Dmol 10:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? A lot of famous people are known by their last names only, for instance the U.S. presidents. I can't tell people to use real names and not nicknames, but anyways that's not the job of a lexicographer. DAVilla 07:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Jacko recently had the Michael Jackson sense removed as per RFD. While Hef is well known, I'm not sure notablility has anything to do with it. Hef only names a person, it is not part of a wider attribute such as would be the case for something like Texecutioner which would identify Bush but also mean his liking for capital punishment. I don't want a hard and fast rule against nicknames, but they should mean something other than just a person's name.--Dmol 17:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

gronke

Tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 09:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

fruitique

Tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 09:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• This UK native has never heard of it. SemperBlotto 10:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• The cite listed seems to be saying that the word is unusual or perhaps made up.--Dmol 10:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to have possibly been someone who tried to have a franchise businsses for greengrocers under this name in the UK. There are some surviving shop names around the world. There is a also a popsicle brand in the US. There are hits in French which I did not examine. I found exactly one good b.g.c. hit for the lower case word. The quote that the contributor provided is a mention. DCDuring TALK 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

sadcore

Tagged, not listed? --Connel MacKenzie 13:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

bluesnarf

Tagged, not listed? Meme seems to have come and gone. --Connel MacKenzie 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

thizzle

Tagged, not listed? --Connel MacKenzie 13:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

poptext

Tagged, not listed. See also: Talk:poptext then move to the list. --Connel MacKenzie 13:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

may

Tagged, not listed. Etym 3: verb. --Connel MacKenzie 13:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The legitimate entry would be for a-Maying, possibly in Middle English. Chaucerian. Not sure what the lemma form would be. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

anti-truth quark

This does not seem to be in attestable use. truth quark is a a nickname for top quark. There is an anti-top quark, but only 1 g.b.c. and 0 scholar hits for the RfVd term. DCDuring TALK 12:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

reacharound

Previously deleted without discussion, but I think this is real. (Though RFD would be more appropriate? It definitely satisfies RFV; I guess the question is whether we'd consider it a misspelling of reach-around or reach around, in which case it probably doesn't meet the comparatively high standard needed for a misspelling-of entry.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be an alternate spelling? DCDuring TALK 02:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

1. 1987, Full Metal Jacket:

   Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: I'll bet you're the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around!

Cheers! bd2412 T 01:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, this is spoken in the film, so whether people perceive it as a single word is another matter. bd2412 T 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A few more citations (for the variations):

1. 1994, Tim Willocks, Green River Rising, p. 181:

   From one end to the other, she'd said. Goddamn. This time, he resolved, he'd even try to remember to give her a reach around.

   2002, John E Douglas, David Terrenoire, Man Down: A Broken Wings Thriller, p. 282:

   • It's the part that goes around your buddy's dick when you give him a reach-around, that's your palm, and I want you sitting on it.

   2006, N. Frank Daniels, Futureproof, p. 111:

   • ...Which means that your people, the people of Appalachia, have been getting fucked in the ass without even the common courtesy of a reach-around for years.

Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

cheese and rice

The first 50 Google hits were either urbandictionaries or recipe sites. After that I got bored. --Keene 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

google:"cheese and rice how" has 16 hits, all apparently in this sense; google:"holy cheese and rice" gets 27, nearly all apparently in this sense. For that matter, google groups:"holy cheese and rice" gets a few, maybe enough to meet CFI. This hit suggests to me a possible origin. —Ruakh_TALK 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

fixer-upper

I always thought this to mean someone who fixes stuff. --Keene 15:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Widespread use in US, anyway, for houses and cars and, occasionally, furniture, appliances, etc.. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Word. —Ruakh_TALK 16:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Very widespread. Atelaes 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it used more commonly for the person who does the fixing, but the "to be fixed" definition seems right also.--Dmol 17:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't clearly recollect hearing agent sense, but it wouldn't surprise me. Is this only US ? DCDuring TALK 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In the UK this means a person good at fixing things, but never to a thing that needs fixing. SemperBlotto 17:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Both are common in the US. --Connel MacKenzie 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

tonotron

—Ruakh_TALK 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though this is either a brand or trademark manufactured by Hughes Aircraft. --EncycloPetey 22:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

onlinestore

Is it real? All Google books hits appear to be: 1. URLs, 2. references to some sort of programming thing called OnlineStore, or 3. German books containing the valid German noun Onlinestore. -- Visviva 14:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pyrus malus

From what I can tell, Pyrus is pear, and Malus is apple, both genus names. However, google and gbc shows a lot of cites. It seems like this should exist, but I'm at a loss as to what form it should take. Any ideas? Atelaes 07:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, it's the old (Linnaean) term for a species which is now regarded as two, viz. Malus domesticus and Malus sylvestris (the domestic apple and the crabapple). Should be listed as ==Translingual== and {{obsolete}}, unless we have a more specific template for obsolete scientific names. EncycloPetey can probably shed more light on this. -- Visviva 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've converted it into such an entry as advised. SemperBlotto 10:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

USDA Plants database reports it as synonym for Malus sylvestris, European crab apple. DCDuring TALK 02:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that should be regarded as a separate sense; then again I'm not really sure how we ought to treat taxonomic synonyms at all, since they are rather distinct from ordinary garden-variety synonyms. -- Visviva 09:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

pictograph sense 3

Is pictograph used to describe graphs in which pictures represent the data? I am having trouble finding examples of such usage, I have found them referred to as picture graphs] though. - [The]DaveRoss 01:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is used that way. --EncycloPetey 02:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

phallocentrism

rfv-sense: "Male potency, as symbolised by the phallus and its manliness". Perhaps, but not lately. Other sense is more like how it is used in "feminist theory". DCDuring TALK 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

fugo

Contributor meant fugly? --Connel MacKenzie 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only fugo I know is the Latin verb meaning to chase away, put to flight, drive into exile. —Stephen 19:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not even doing too well on UD. DCDuring TALK 11:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

heathen

Someone with a not-so-neutral POV seems to have it out for this entry. Is it OK to revert back to Ruakh's June 2007 version of this page? --Connel MacKenzie 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe this much better reflect actual usage: only Abrahamic religions (particularly the proselytic branches) really made any significant use of the word AFAIK, although there is still room for improvement; "not believing in god" is at best improper: for several centuries the Arabs were called "heathens" (besides, atheist are usually called "heretics", not heathens). This entry will probably need several obsolete defs to account for the range of meanings historically ascribed to it though. Circeus 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, Merriam Webster online has "an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible". Circeus 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems very inappropriate to have 'heathen' as derogitory in the sense of not Abrahamic. The second meaning of the word already covers its usage as an insult. Thorskegga 11:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

bear walker

--Connel MacKenzie 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at b.g.com and there is some mention of a witch or similar spirit in the native legends of the northern USA. But that would seem to be either a badly worded definition or maybe it should be a proper noun.--Dmol 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is one of a number of submissions from a supposedly new user (that I think is a sockpuppet). They are all very poorly written and need work by other users (in the cases that are worth keeping). SemperBlotto 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems real. It is documented native american folklore. His entries are basic, but formatted, suggesting prior experience. DCDuring TALK 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

brownball

--Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

whisper in the wind

--Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can be found in newspaper articles about wrestling and, perhaps, books. If we are really going to be a people's dictionary, this kind of thing will have to be in. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But is it a general term, or a "signature" move used by a specific wrestler? If it's associated with a particular individual only, then I don't think it really meets the independence criterion. --EncycloPetey 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems general. But perhaps it is only used in one of the wrestling entertainment businesses. I wish we had a wrestling fan for this kind of thing. It was probably originally used ironically, like "poetry in motion" in reference to the way someone walked or a car race. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All uses I can find are specific to Jeff Hardy, and frequently capitalized; this does suggest it is a signature move only. -- Visviva 09:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That would make it easier. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

mandible claw

--Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

lavistown

--Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as spam. Just the name of a local cheese, not a type. It would be capitalised anyway if we were going to keep it.--Dmol 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't almost all cheeses and wines, even plant cultivars and dog breeds like that? What about New York strip steak? French fries? In any event the request is for verification. This may not make it because it is a small brand, not used attributively, unlike "Medoc", "Camembert", or "Stilton", not especially because it is any more or less spam than those older and larger brands. DCDuring TALK 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

she-devil

Witch sense. Found some scattered demonological use, but am not sure it has exactly this meaning. -- Visviva 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

lout

rfv-sense: Template:slang a maggot. Maggot may be a generalized insult, like "worm". But it seems a long way from "lout" to "maggot". DCDuring TALK 02:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Same source as she-devil, lummox, FWIW. also other reverted material and articles that needed heavy editing, but also some probable keepers. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have heard lout used synonymously with louse, maybe it's not so far a stretch to maggot.

pansentience

I only found one b.g.c. hit (same as sole reference in Scholar). DCDuring TALK 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Omnisentience is considerably better-attested. Score one for etymological purity! (The score is now 15,456,259 to 1). -- Visviva 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Two legit independent Google groups hits (three if you count pan-sentience). No blog hits, but two for pan-sentience. A slightly larger number of groups and blog hits for the derived form, pansentient (or pan-sentient). bd2412 T 06:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

lummox

Goon sense. -- Visviva 02:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any support. --EncycloPetey 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

leech

Heathenry sense. There are a lot of books related to modern Paganism on b.g.c., but I wasn't able to find any obvious corroboration. -- Visviva 09:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have given three references on the leech page. Thorskegga 13:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

metaphrase and calque

I was just wondering if they qualify as synonyms? --BiT 18:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Metaphrase is about translating texts word-by-word (such as using original idioms in translated literary works), while calque is about adding to the vocabulary of a language by adopting word-by-word translations of another language as new lexical items. Malhonen 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah ok, maybe the pages require to be disambiguated about this? From the page I gathered that the word "metaphrase" suggested one word translated, but not a text translated verbatim. --BiT 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they'd need to be fixed. Actually, metaphrasing can refer to translating just a single idiom or phrase word-by-word, not necessarily the rest of text. The crucial difference is that metaphrases are ad-hoc translations of something in another language, while calques have become part of the native speakers' vocabulary. Neogrammarian is a literal translation of German Junggrammatiker, but it has been adopted in general usage, so it's a calque. Now, if somebody translates German aus einer Mücke einen Elefanten machen as make an elephant out of a mosquito and not make a mountain out of a mole hill, it's a metaphrase, since native speakers of English wouldn't normally say anything about elephants and mosquitoes in this context. Malhonen 12:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

grognard

rfv-sense: A wargamer. Not in MW3. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly can't verify this myself, not having copies of the magazine, but a search online reveals this webpage that claims that the coin was termed (in this sense of the word) in the 1970s. [61] 87.113.28.166 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation that it exists and some idea as to the time frame. A borrowed term from early 19th century France applied to a fictional word. There is plenty of science fiction that borrows terms from 19th century and earlier in the same way (English nautical is a favorite source). We still need some signs of use in durably archived sources or print (that we can find somewhere). DCDuring TALK 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

reconstruct

If it does have such a connotation in the South, it should be reworded coherently. Perhaps even, into an actual definition. --Connel MacKenzie 05:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

reconstruction has stronger connotations of that sort. I dunno about the verb. It would at least warrant a usage note and perhaps a request for a definition. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconstruction has its own entry. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The word is found in the song I'm a Good Ol' Rebel, sung by former Confederate soldiers after the American Civil War, but seems to be used in a different sense there...

I hate the Constitution,

This Great Republic too,

I hate the Freedman's Bureau,

And uniforms of blue;

[...]

And I don't want no pardon

For what I was and am,

I won't be reconstructed

And I don't give a damn.

— Beobach972 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I had always assumed that that was indeed a direct reference to Reconstruction. Suspect that other such references can be found in period literature. Certainly {{dated}} if not {{obsolete}}. -- Visviva 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, particularly in the form unreconstructed meaning someone who is (still) a Southern racist. But not dated or obsolete; quite current. Robert Ullmann 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find plenty of quotes after 2000, plus a derived sense (e.g.) "unreconstructed communist"; in general, an unreformed adherent of a deprecated ideology. Robert Ullmann 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

One could be an "unreconstructed idealist" without it necessarily implying that idealism was deprecated, I think, though the deprecated implication is fairly common. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FBI FD-302

Is this dictionary material? (needs proper formatting) SemperBlotto 09:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly has hits on b.g.c. (~150). I wonder about whether our search engine will help folks find it. Some form names (for example, US IRS "1040") are in widespread common use. In the context of literature (testimony, etc.) about US crime and other subject in which the FBI gets involved, I suppose this is somewhat important. My expereience in reading that kind of document is that those testifying mention things that they assume "everyone" knows, like form names, without explaining them. Those building the record don't always include explanatory definitions, though they seem to try to. DCDuring TALK 10:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it a word in the news, or something? Move to RFD. --Connel MacKenzie 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The b.g.c. usage is over a fairly long period of time. I would be surprised if there were more than a hundred forms worldwide that could meet RfV. Would we exclude congressional testimony because it was not independent? DCDuring TALK 19:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I came across this term when I was reading dossiers prepared for Guantanamo captives Combatant Status Review Tribunals, and later published in response to FOIA requests. The DoD has published 179 dossiers of unclassified documents prepared for the Tribunals. About half of these dossiers, in addition to containing unclassified documents, list the classified documents in the corresponding, much longer, classified dossiers. "FBI FD-302" was one of the secret documents with a cryptic name. So was "CITF form 40". So they are just official forms for recording what is learned in an interview or interrogation. That might not seem important. But it was an annoying amount of work to determine that. And I think taking steps to free other readers of this burden is worthwhile.

Is there any way you regulars could avoid using opaque jargon -- like RFD, or b.g.c.?

Cheers! Geo Swan 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry; we've tried but it's just not possible. :-) However, we do have a glossary. -- Visviva 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point concerning usability; however this text would remain web-accessible if it was moved to an appendix (Appendix:FBI glossary or some such), which might be the best solution if it is not in common use. -- Visviva 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking the regulars to avoid using jargon is asking us to use longer, time-consuming language. Every field and every group develops jargon for the purposes of speeding communication among members. Instead of asking us not to use our communication time-savers, you could ask about what they mean, and learn the jargon yourself. We actually don't have a very large number of internal jargon terms that are used often, and the most common are usually abbreviations of the names of discussion pages. It's much easier to say RFD instead of Requests for Deletion. And the link WT:RFD is much faster to type than Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. --EncycloPetey 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo Romeo Delta

Two hits on Google Books, neither appears to be for this sense. Possible gunk from some sort of Cold War nostalgia game. (Can you imagine being nostalgic for the Cold War? Me neither.) -- Visviva 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

lady-killer sunglasses

Elvis-cruft? Or a decent term? --Keene 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One Google books hit. Circeus 17:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

frictant

Zero b.g.c. hits, not in other dictionaries. --Connel MacKenzie 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

only 3 total Web hits in English. 1 Patent hit. Plausible, but not likely. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

automysophobia

Appears to be another dictionary word. Note that if this were really in use, the adjective "automysophobic" should be attested as well; however, that scores only one parenthetical mention in a dictionary on Google Books, and nothing on Scholar. -- Visviva 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yomp

As opposed to yomp. --Keene 14:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that's what I assumed it meant before I looked at the article. But I don't know if it meets our CFI. SemperBlotto 18:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

nouse

? —Ruakh_TALK 01:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Technology neologism (dates to the early 2000, probably not very widespread for obvious reasons): I can find several references to this in Google books and scholar: [62], [63]. Circeus 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

3DO

Name of a video game company, and a defunct video game console developed by the company. I don't think this meets the inclusion criteria for a brand name. Trivialist 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

entrepreneur

Senses 2 and 3. Hekaheka 20:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a more generic sense for non-commercial entrepreneurship that ought to pass muster. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wild Turkey

From WT:RFD#Wild Turkey. Needs citations as a brand name. DAVilla 04:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cited IMHO. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited after rethinking: The Bird cite clearly does not qualify, imo. The Sawyer cite also specifies that it's a drink, and implies that it's strong. The Atkins cite specifies that it's a drink also. The Hill cite implies it's ingestible, without specifying whether it's a food or a drink; that's okay, I suppose, and is a first cite which does not suffice. The Dreyer cite is a good one, a second one, imo. (Re Connel's request, by the way, that's 4+4=8 points.)—msh210℠ 21:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)—msh210℠ 01:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Note that the CFI say "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent.".)—msh210℠ 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is retarded. Of course citations of drinks will imply they are being drunk. Kappa 05:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not enough that they be drunk if it's necessary, as it would likely be, to understand that it's specifically an alcoholic drink. DAVilla 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In Atkins, the men raise a little hell. I'm not familiar with the expression, but it seems pretty common. Is it a direct conclusion that the drink is alcoholic? I was able to find one example (Into Africa page 278) where it is not. Otherwise the expression connects fairly solidly to the consumption of alcohol. DAVilla 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Drinking and raising hell are intersecting sets, one not being a subset of the other. DCDuring TALK 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, they just seem strongly correlated. If they're raising a little hell and drinking something, what do you reckon they'd be drinking? DAVilla 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A distingished on-line dictionary defines raise hell without reference to alcohol consumption. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Sawyer quote does not specify that it is a drink until after the first mention. DCDuring TALK 11:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it follows right after that, on the same page. DAVilla 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Food, drink, and medicine are all ingested. The fact that it's ingested does not alone distinguish the type of product. The brand name examples give pain reliever and breakfast food as even more specific types than those, when such specificity has relevance.

In the Hill quote, the purpose of the Wild Turkey seems clear, but the type of product is not, to the extent that it can be said the two concepts are distinct. One would wonder if, in comparison to stomach herbs, Wild Turkey really had the medicinal effect of settling innards. One interpretation is that Tante Lulu felt Beau was playing a trick on her, attributing his own request to Granny's wishes. Her response is difficult to interpret without understanding that the request is for alcohol.

Regardless, the quotations from Wesley, Block, and Dreyer don't state that Wild Turkey is ingested at all, so would you agree that this should pass? (DeBerry doesn't either, but I wonder about the relevance. By the way, the Wozencraft quote isn't the first mention, where the product is already identified.) DAVilla 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay.—msh210℠ 17:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because almost no attestation quotes that meet the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names make for very good usage examples, the quotes that don't help attestation can be deleted as far as I am concerned, unless we want to use this as an illustration of the kind of arguments that are needed for brand names to be included.

The criteria are so burdensome that we will almost certainly fail to take advantage of an opportunity to constructively differentiate ourselves from other dictionaries by including culturally meaningful words from our commercial culture.

It seems patently obvious that "Wild Turkey" is often used to convey information about smell and about people's behavior. It is used to convey the fact of hard liquor consumption (as opposed to wine/beer or non-alcoholic beverages) and alcoholism-related behaviors by its mention. That there are some other indirect and remote situational priming to these same things hardly matters. It is quite apparent that writers feel that "Wild Turkey" both fits with the situations they are writing about and conveys in its concreteness abstract ideas and associations. But, if these quotes don't suggest widespread attributive use, I can find more. DCDuring TALK 12:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that I should be the one to remove the RfV tag and strike this. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Viz

Moved from WT:RFD#Viz. Cite as brand name per WT:CFI#Brand names. DAVilla 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

flop

Last sense - a group of hippies or gypsies sleeping in a pile. Send to WT:BJAODN? --Keene 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actirasty

Long tagged. to be sexually aroused by the sun's rays. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• The only two books.google.com results and the only two news.google.com results are mentions. Google Groups has 27 results, of which only one seems to be a true use (but with very little usable context to show what the writer meant).—msh210℠ 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, re Connel's request, that's three points for the durably archived work neither old nor in print.—msh210℠ 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

squiloth

Added by same anon as next listed.—msh210℠ 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

shiquolt

Added by same anon as previous listed.—msh210℠ 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

nomenclator

Doesn't match the general sense given in other dictionaries. --Connel MacKenzie 21:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Does need extra senses, ety is good. Sense given is almost identical to Latin etymon meaning, except in Rome they were slaves. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Extra senses added, cites for RfV'd sense. Other sources seem to let the etymology carry the RfVd sense. DCDuring TALK 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

!xobile

Supposed to be English. Somehow, I don't think so. SemperBlotto 22:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Youtube/UD crud.[64] [65] Might be a legitimate name, but if so that will be purely coincidental. -- Visviva 17:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

chilling effect

Meteorological sense. Judging from the example sentence provided, even the editor who added the sense doesn't really agree with it, since apparently you need to include "of the wind" explicitly if that's what you mean. —Ruakh_TALK 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The entry itself includes a link to wind chill, which is what this is. I think this would need some good quotes which do NOT mention the wind for it to be considered valid. -- Algrif 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

tapestry

rfv-sense: both/all verb senses. DCDuring TALK 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sense 2 cited, possibly obsolete.-- Visviva 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian

For the senses of:

• A contemporary and alternative name of Koine Greek.
• The West-Bulgarian dialect.

There were wikipedia-style references provided inline which I removed. The second sense is based on some silly interpretation from some German page which locates language of one of the texts of OCS canon (Codex Zographensis) corresponding it to dialect spoken (back then) in what is nowadays modern Macedonia and western Bulgaria, but the first one seems more puzzling. WP article on w:Koine Greek lists several names ("Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, or New Testament Greek."), none of which is 'Macedonian'. --Ivan Štambuk 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• The term Macedonian for Koine is ~ 3th.BC/3th AD contemporary and historically documented term (Athenaeus 3.122.a)[66]-[67]

Most of the other referred terms are actually Neologisms of Modern Ages

Your first link, on the page just prior to the one you're linking, says that it was called: "common (koine), Hellenic and Macedonic" - note that it does not say 'Macedonian'. On the next page it's used synonymously with the phrase "Macedonian dialect". The second resource you're providing, as far as I can see, uses word 'Macedonian' and 'Macedonian dialect' in sense "Ancient Macedonian"; I can't see any other way to understand this snippet from page 436: Thus of the some 6300 texts which have been recovered to date in Macedonia, within the boundaries described in 1.1., perhaps 99% is written in Koine, with just a tiny minority written in the Macedonian dialect or that of the colonies. So how can it be that Koine=Macedonian when they are so clearly

distinguished here?

second link page 436c ..the term makedonizein meant to speak in Koine..the same word is described by Atticists as Macedonian or inferior, used by uneducated -Macedonian meant Koine in the so called Hellenistic period. It was the original name NOT Hellenistic NOT Alexandrian NOT New Testament.. is it so difficult? Maqedonskata 20:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But makedonizein is not really English, is Ancient Greek, and not a noun, but a verb. What I'm RfV-ing here is not English "translation" of Ancient Greek noun in it's meaning attested 2k years ago, but of English word today. Of course, in lots of cases such "translations" end up as semantic borrowing, so the foreign-language term's meaning gets overloaded in that particular sense, but I have reason to believe this is not the case here, and that "Macedonian" was never used in anglophonic literature as a synonyms for Koine. Of course, I might be wrong, and would be glad to be proved unambiguously otherwise :) --Ivan Štambuk 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

With the same logic, Roman should not be referred as an alternative and contemporary name of Byzantine Maqedonskata 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The important difference is that one can find plenty of evidence where (deprecated template usage) Roman is used in the sense of 'Byzantine', not mentioned as a translation of it's usage in another language. Here it appears that you're trying to push some obscure nowhere-to-be-found meanings of (deprecated template usage) Macedonian to lessen the importance of the most common of it's meaning today. --Ivan Štambuk 15:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

About the first link: it says both Macedonian and Macedonic just like one can say Macedonian and Makedonski for the modern Macedonian language.Maqedonskata 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not necessarily the same. Your quote makes quite clear distinction, never speaking about "Macedonian" alone - it's either "Macedonian dialect" (=language of Ancient Macedons, it's meaning already present at (deprecated template usage) Macedonian), or "Macedonic". It would be good if the latter term was more popular, like in modern Croatian where we distinguish modern/ancient Macedonian as makedonski/macedonski respectively. Your assumption on what the author thinks is equivalent in meaning is not satisfactory argument. --Ivan Štambuk 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Macedonian dialect or common Macedonian dialect indeed means Koine language of Alexandria NOT XMK

please read it again page 152

• 2. He clearly mentions XMK as Ancient Macedonic in parallel to Macedonic (Koine) (page 151 see note on Macedonic)
• 3. Macedonic and Macedonian are different?? just see -> Polish, Croatian, Serbian and Macedonic poetry[68]

is it the Ancient one??.. Maqedonskata 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1) In that sentence, "Macedonian" is used attributively (as an adjective), meaning "dialect of Macedons", and may I remind you that we're discussing noun sense here, and solely noun sense. You still haven't provided any evidence where 'Macedonian' is used as an unambiguous synonyms for Koine in English language.

2) You're 1) citing the term 'Macedonic' 2) presuming it's synonymous to 'Macedonian' and then decide to use it as a basis for verification of 'Macedonian'. Not gonna work. Try building Macedonic.

3) Their meanings could overlap, since they both have multiple meanings. That doesn't mean that they're completely synonymous. Your again making logical fallacy by extrapolating submeaning ('Macedonic' designating Slavic language in your quote) and then applying it to 'Macedonic=Macedonian' logic of Greek Koine. Not gonna work. --Ivan Štambuk 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Makedonien - Der Text stammt aus dem westbulgarischen (makedonischen) Raum[69] Maqedonskata 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how exactly does that particular sentence interpret the word 'Macedonian' meaning 'West-Bulgarian dialect' ? As I remarked on your talk page, it says that the language of the text written in Old Church Slavonic a millennium ago dialectally corresponds "to the area of West Bulgaria (Macedonia)". Do you have any contemporary resource on Slavic dialectology that uses the term 'Macedonian' in sense of 'West Bulgarian dialect', apart from those written by Bulgarian lingusits? --Ivan Štambuk 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bulgarian and its Macedonian dialects

Congress of Arts and Science: Universal Exposition, St. Louis, 1904 - Page 521 by Howard Jason Rogers, Hugo Münsterburg [70] Maqedonskata 19:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete. Anything newer, say in the last 20 years, written by a Westerner? Need I to cite my own resources elucidating such propaganda? --Ivan Štambuk 19:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• mid.19th / Quote/ Partenij Zografski was probably the first one to question this assumption (the establishment of East-Bulgarian dialect as Bulgarian language) He decided to promote the cause of Macedonian dialect as the one better suited as a common Bulgarian language

Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (2006)[71] By Balázs Trencsényi and Michal Kopeček Maqedonskata 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it is also used exclusively inside the phrase 'Macedonian dialect', meaning "dialect spoken in Macedonia". Since Macedonian and Bulgarian form dialect continuum, and the Macedonian was the last Slavic language to be codified (just ~50 years ago; the first grammar written by an American - what an embarrass for Slavistics ^_^), it's reasonably to speak about it as a dialect. What you're doing here is extrapolating this sense out of context, speaking of 'Macedonian' as a standard name for dialects spoken in Western Bulgaria. I highly doubt that that's the name in standard reference literature (either Bulgarian or Western), or that any Bulgarian living there would say that he speaks "Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian language" :) --Ivan Štambuk 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Partenij Zografski clearly mentions Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian language. There are numerous examples of people who declared

and declared as Macedonians meaning Bulgarian. Just see this http://www.macedonian.org/ [72] and it was founded by Macedonian diaspora in early 1900s Maqedonskata 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some nationalist pro-Bulgarian movement site? A sentence from your second link: The MPO, which publishes the weekly 'Macedonian tribune' claims that all Macedonians are Bulgarians and supports the idea of a united and independent Macedonia made up of parts of present-day Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece. So you're trying to incorporate a definition of some minority nationalistic stance. Imagine would it would look like if I put into the definition of Earth a line which says "central point in Universe created by Allmighty, around which stars and Sun rotate", defending it with some stupid modern geocentrism religion? --Ivan Štambuk 16:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You just asked if there are Bulgarians who declare their identity as Macedonian ....you want more?? ..Major figures of Macedonians who felt and feel Pro-bulgarian?? Ljubčo Georgievski 4 years Prime Minister of RoM Maqedonskata 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How some Bulgarian political fractions declare themselves is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Please keep politics out of this. --Ivan Štambuk 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not they declare Macedonians as proper noun Maqedonskata 18:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You have missed the point: We don't talk here about OCS and if Macedonian is a Bulgarian dialect but just simply if Bulgarian language has Macedonian dialects Maqedonskata 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the point. The question is Is the English word Macedonian used with this meaning (considered as distinct from the first sense)?. The question of Macedonian/West Bulgarian is so sensitive in both countries that I first felt that it could be a political edit, but the objective would not be clear. Lmaltier 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is used and has been used in the past in various and different definitions Maqedonskata 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the text you're quoting is directly about OCS text, and taking that sentence diachronically out of context would be a logical fallacy. I've read on several places (university books written in English) that Bulgarian linguist call Macedonian their dialect. However, the rest of the world might not share that particular opinion. I'll dig up more on this issue tomorrow and promise to return here. --Ivan Štambuk 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Western Bulgarian/Macedonian: It has indeed been regarded by some (including non-Bulgarian scholars) as Bulgarian dialect

Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe[73] By Glanville Price 1998 Maqedonskata 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Than why doesn't on page 45 in the separations list of 2 Bulgarian dialects says just "western Bulgarian", not "Western Bulgarian aka Macedonian" ?

• apart from linguistics the terms WEST BULGARIAN/MACEDONIAN are connected in various ways

Final defeat of the western Bulgarian, or Macedonian, realm under Samuel (Samuil) by the Byzantine Emperor, Basil II.by 3 different western books 1992,2001,2002 [74] Maqedonskata 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of 11th century? Macedonian/Bulgarian are intelligible today, what do you think the differences would be 1000 years ago? :) Those quotations you're providing refer to different times. --Ivan Štambuk 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

it's not about linguistics here but Macedonian as term for the Medieval Bulgarian empire ..btw this idea of a separate West Bulgarian kingdom of Samuil started in Yugoslavia and as you see it is used now by western scholars after 1990 Maqedonskata 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The sense in dispute is "The West-Bulgarian dialect." How can this possibly not be a question of linguistics?? It doesn't matter if 1) there is non-mainstream view of people who classify modern Slavic Macedonian as a "West Bulgarian" dialect 2) Slavic Macedonian language was being referred to as "West Bulgarian" dialect prior to formation of the Republic of Macedonia and it's codification. Please don't mix usages of terms diachronically. If indeed "Macedonian" is modern term in English language for a branch of West Bulgarian dialect (beside denoting codified language of the Republic of Macedonia), than I'm sure it'll be trivial to find such references. This short out-of-context quotations from non-linguistic literature are barely any evidence at all. --Ivan Štambuk 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK as you agree that it was used in the past, the term historical can be added to West Bulgarian dialect Maqedonskata 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More appropriate would be (deprecated template usage) obsolete. --Ivan Štambuk 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem for obsolete and more scientific would be the period of usage to be mentioned Maqedonskata 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

trape

rfv meaning: traipse Certainly plausible. Not in MW3, obsolete?, UK? DCDuring TALK 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

uphasp

DCDuring TALK 17:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Only cites on b.g.c. and s.g.c. are from Stanyhurst's translation of the Aeneid. Stanyhurst seems to have been uncommonly fond of compounds of this sort; the usage is quite possibly original with him. 5/10; 1/3. -- Visviva 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

upbind

DCDuring TALK 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fairly common in older literature. Added two cites, putting this at 10/10 on the proposed criteria or 2/3 according to standard practice. (it would be trivial to provide a third cite.) -- Visviva 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

undertaking

Meaning 'To overtake a vehicle on the wrong side', eg in the UK where one normally drives on the left, overtaking another vehicle to its left hand side would be undertaking. There are several examples found from Googling 'undertaking motorway', including this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3574334.stm "They stay in the same lane, people drive closer together and there's a lot more undertaking [overtaking on inside lanes] than on a linear motorway". Anyone find anything better? Midlandstoday 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are two cites; interestingly, both are from books published in 2004: [75] [76] . More are certainly out there, but it is difficult to filter out the more common meanings of undertaking/undertake . -- Visviva 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

when it's at home

--Connel MacKenzie 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it, have no idea how common it is though Midlandstoday 22:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite common in the UK - most often to question a person's idea of his own importance. "Who does he think he is, when he's at home?" - I've no idea of the etymology. SemperBlotto 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it often in the UK. --Dmol 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Decidedly sum-of-parts with pretty much the opposite meaning over here. [77]. --Connel MacKenzie 23:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The sum of parts term is used in the UK as normal - The difference with the idiomatic form is that the emphasis is placed on "it's", "he's" etc rather than on "home". SemperBlotto 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How strange. DAVilla 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In Partridge's. Fairly long history. Looks like fun to cite. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cited Hope you have as much fun reading them as I had finding them. DCDuring TALK 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they exactly support the sense given. "When it's at home" might mean something like "in plain language", "in reality", "in fact". It seems to often be used with an intensifier, not that two intensifiers would be too bloody damned many anyhow. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

holy crap this thing is interesting. I've never heard it, and I'm not quite getting how these words convey the definition. Where does it come from (is it Cockney?), and can someone please explain the sense of how something "being at home" conveys the meaning given? Maybe such information can be added to the entry. Thanks in advance. -- Thisis0 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm starting to get it. I do see a slight difference between "when it's at home" and "when he/she's at home". The first implies a self-conscious cutesy ignorance, and might be synonymous with "in plain English". (What's XHTML when it's at home?) But the second often has a strong implication of incredulity or scoffing, as "who does he think he is, anyway." (Who the hell is he when he's at home?) The first seems to self-deprecate the speaker, whereas the second carries a minor derision for the subject. Is this the case? -- Thisis0 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It can do and I've heard it used with that implication, but I often use it in the same way I use "when it's at home". I really like the phrase "self-conscious cutesy ignorance" - it sums it up nicely. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RFV passed and a better definition to boot. DAVilla 06:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's currently marked as U.K.; and I was O.K. with that, as it's not a term I was familiar with and it being U.K. would explain that; but this suggests that it might be used in parts of the U.S. as well. —Ruakh_TALK 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but here in NYC suburbs, my small sample check: only those who've spent time in UK know it. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keith number

--Connel MacKenzie 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a brand spanking neologism MSNBC 2/14/2008 DCDuring TALK 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in the OED

I just looked this up in the Oxford English Dictionary, and the exact same definition appears there, also with Shakespeare as the earliest recorded user. — This unsigned comment was added by Apotheot (talk • contribs).

What are you referring to? DCDuring TALK 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

shitetastic

"of very poor quality or construction." Never reached my ears in US. UK? Oz? DCDuring TALK 14:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Google shitetastic (Books • Groups • Scholar) — only 58 Web hits (after duplicate-filtering), no other hits. Further, the Web hits don't support the given sense; rather, it seems this is a straightforward variant of (deprecated template usage) shittastic/(deprecated template usage) shitastic ((deprecated template usage) shite being a variant of (deprecated template usage) shit). —Ruakh_TALK 15:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We show shite as being pronounced differently from shit. Wouldn't that make shitetastic likely regional, coextensive with shite? DCDuring TALK 18:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I see no evidence of that, and I don't take it as a given that (deprecated template usage) -tastic is formative everywhere as a sarcastic intensifier. If regions with (deprecated template usage) shite are generally without (deprecated template usage) -tastic in that sense, then (deprecated template usage) shitetastic would presumably be quite rare, and likely would never meet CFI. —Ruakh_TALK 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

shittastic (or -tastic) does have enough hits IMHO, though. Circeus 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect that it does. We should have it, I suppose. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

mollipilosity

4 web hits, 1 dictionary entry on b.g.c. Is on the Hotlist, so possibly in the OED, possibly with cites. -- Visviva 10:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the OED has "Fleeciness of fluffiness in a pelage or plumage.", but its only citation is from another (1890) dictionary. Ditto mollipilose the adjective. SemperBlotto 11:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for this; I had somehow assumed the adjective would be *mollipilous, which of course does not exist. -- Visviva 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• mollipilose is in Webster's 1913. As SB says, the -ity form is only in the 1890 dictionary. So might be hard to cite (the -ity form), but is a real word. (nice find by someone) Robert Ullmann 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be excessively pedantic, but it's not a real word unless it is really used. :-) -- Visviva 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• From Google Books and Google Scholar, the only clear cases of use (for mollipilose) all seem to be from the works of a single ornithologist, Elliott Coues. Coues is certainly a notable figure in American ornithology, but this only makes the lack of uptake all the more telling. At any rate, based on the Books and Scholar corpora, the term would score 5/10 under the proposed criteria, or 1/3 according to our traditional practice. I have started Citations:mollipilose in the hope that additional citations can be found. (I'm not sure what if any effect the full attestation of mollipilose would have on mollipilosity.) -- Visviva 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

dock

rfv-senses:

1. a male given name. Is there a male given name "Dock"?
2. a documentary. I thought it was just spelled "doc". DCDuring TALK 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, it appears so, both as a nickname and a real given name. [78] -- Visviva 05:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• That would be Dock. US 1930 census has 9,843 hits, but England 1901 census only gives 18 hits. So I think a US tag would be appropriate. SemperBlotto 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

bling bling

In the sense, "A celebration of success through ostentatious spending habits." I'm having a hard time even imagining how this could be used. DAVilla 04:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

porch monkey

Is the second sense used in real life? The "etymology" makes me wonder. —Ruakh_TALK 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this mention (defining it as a "mischievous child") is interesting, but probably represents only an isolated misunderstanding. Uses on b.g.c. seem to be uniformly racial, or at best ambiguous. -- Visviva 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

carbon charity

Does he mean carbon trading? SemperBlotto 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is gaining some currency in the blogosphere to refer to a charitable organization that engages in carbon trading (i.e. not the definition given), but nothing much even on news sources yet. -- Visviva 02:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

midgetist

—msh210℠ 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tosh. Not in the OED. Zero Google book hits. SemperBlotto 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Does get a handful of Usenet hits. DAVilla 01:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

midgetism

Rfv sesne. Added by same anon as midgetist, immed. above.—msh210℠ 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• The word exists - but its meaning is the opposite of gigantism - a deficiency in growth. SemperBlotto 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

vault-worthy

[ vaultworthy ]

—msh210℠ 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Zero Google books hits. Some blogs - so is probably a protologism (we delete those). SemperBlotto 22:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, silly amateur journalists. Why don't they have enough sense to stop changing the language until we're done documenting it?

Oh, cited by the way. The Detroit News, The Hook, Time Magazine. DAVilla 02:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

This entry has been changed 3 times in 10 days by anon contributors claiming that Kosovo is only a region or area of Serbia. These edits seem like POV. I've added it here so that we can get a definitive consensus of it being a country. Its parliament has declared independence and it is recognised by many countries, so I think 'country' is correct. But I don't have an connection with the place, so whatever we agree on is fine with me.--Dmol 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky. It isn't really a country until it is recognised by the UN (I suppose). Wikipedia still calls it a "region", but explains the current situation. Perhaps we need a usage note. (and temporary semi-protection) SemperBlotto 10:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? Who died and made the U.N. boss?—msh210℠ 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that the lack of UN support is a valid arguement for or against. I don't claim to be any sort of expert, but doesn't Russia have a veto and will (presumably) use it against Kosovo in favour of Serbia. Just a thought.--Dmol 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Do any other countries recognize it officially? --Connel MacKenzie 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The US, most of the EU, a number of Muslim countries. Australia, Turkey, Taiwan, Switzerland. More every day. Robert Ullmann 18:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mention some sort of protection, as all reverted edits were anons.--Dmol 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But the anon edits were correct, no? How is protection going to keep us from reverting updates and blocking the editors who make them? DAVilla 14:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see you get three independent, durably archived cites, spanning at least year, using the name (deprecated template usage) Kosovo to refer to the country. :-)   (In some sense, past uses of the name are referring to the same entity that is now a country, so I'm not saying we can't mention its current countrihood; but it seems inaccurate to give only the "country" definition.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "A region in the Balkans formerly (...) that has now declared independence" ? Cynewulf 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cites are easy. Lots of news stories. Robert Ullmann 18:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And why didn't see this coming, and just protect it and leave it alone for a month or so? Robert Ullmann 18:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The three independent, durably archived cites, spanning at least year applies to whether the word should exist at all, not for a definition that has change due to a new political situation. Compare with say Bern which would have been "the capital of Germany", but could now be called "The former capital of Germany". As there is widespread international acceptance of Kososvo being a country, I think we should follow that line. But this has only happened in the last few weeks, so we most likely won't get the 1 year span, but it does not change the reality of Kosovo being recognised by many other countries, albiet without the UN following suit. It is the "region" definition that is POV.--Dmol 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to say which one is right; we're here to say what people mean when they use the term "Kosovo". For me that says that the definition shouldn't be "changed", but a new one should probably be added. It may be appropriate to mark one or both meanings as disputed usage and/or add a usage note. We need to be able to account for both current and past usage in our definitions and changing it to say "country" muddles the meaning of citations from before the unilateral declaration. Mike Dillon 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo is a fact whether some Serbs accept it or not (most ordinary people in Serbia do, politicians and radicals which happen to generate most of the hype and are responsible for vandalising this entry are entirely different category.). Russia's and China's stance to Kosovo is more related to their own little "Kosovas" their imperialistic claw suppresses in their backyard. --Ivan Štambuk 20:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Živaja

(Note that there's no en.wikipedia entry, for whatever that's worth.)—msh210℠ 22:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be real; see hr:w:Živaja for example. However, if this were RfD I would vote to delete as unsuitable for dictionary coverage. -- Visviva 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Some obscure Croatian village in the middle of nowhere with population < 500 --Ivan Štambuk 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

pimp

RfV's sense: "When the attending physician asks a resident or medical student to answer an impossible question" Could be, but it could stand some verification to allow rewording DCDuring TALK 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm all for deleting any definition that starts with "when" or "is when". SemperBlotto 08:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  That certainly made me a little skeptical, but it's a big world, with lots of subcultures. DCDuring TALK 12:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

tuches

I've only ever seen this spelled tuchas, tukhas, tuchus or tukhus. I can kinda believe the transliteration tukhes but tuches is only a typo (or scanning error) of touches (as per books.google.com.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See also #tokhes above. Still more spellings are tuhkas and tuhkus. (But not tuhcas, tuhcus, tuhces, tuhcis, tuhckas, tuhchas, tuhckus, tuhchus, tuhckes, tuhches, tuhckis, tuhchis, tuhkes nor tuhkis.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "tuches" is correct, though ideally it would be written "tuḥes" (U+1E25, Latin small letter "H" with dot below). NeoAmsterdam 12:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

radar

rfv sense: "radar" as plural. It seems to me to be uncountable in one of its senses, but with countable senses "radars". DCDuring TALK 10:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem to be invariant in any sense. For example, although "radar are" gets a respectable number of b.g.c. hits, they all appear to be chance collocations ("the applications of radar are limitless.") [79] -- Visviva 11:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Tea_room#radar DCDuring TALK 13:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"The planes will scan with all their radar to find the lost ship." I think putting an "s" there would be enormously awkward and wrong. (Assuming each airplane has more than one type of radar.) Just checking - that's the use you are contesting? --Connel MacKenzie 08:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But that's not plural, is it? You couldn't say, for example, "The planes tried to scan with all their radar, but sadly, said radar were broken." —Ruakh_TALK 02:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

glype

If any proper google hits, they seem to be drowned out by references to some software and a proper name. \Mike 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I get exactly one plausible b.g.c. hit each for "glype" and "glipe," and while plausible these hits are both of deplorably low, mention-y quality. On the other hand all sources which mention this word (in either spelling) seem to agree that it is an Ulster insult having roughly the meaning given. -- Visviva 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Now cited, though I can't say I'm thrilled with the quality. This is an interesting case for the proposed criteria; the 2 Usenet and 1 print cites given would be adequate under our current practice, but would only score 9 out of 10 under the proposed system. (it would not be hard to find another Usenet use, though, which would bump us up to 11). -- Visviva 15:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Extra hits (glipe/glype +Ireland): Glipe: Uncouth person., their perfect match began when Ma answered Da’s personal ad: "Ugly glipe seeks gullible woman for 37 years of unrelenting misery"., Glype: Stupid person. Circeus 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I can safely strike this, then :) \Mike 23:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: target page glype is still tagged. --07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

motard sense 3

sense 3. Hesitating to delete, just in case. -- Algrif 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

retromingent

"Cowardly" sense. Dmcdevit·t 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added four, non-urine related, cites to Citations:retromingent, they certainly aren't conclusive when it comes to 'cowardly', but they do suggest there is a second sense. - [The]DaveRoss 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

pizza stick

Has this entered general use? Or a new ad of some pizza chain? --Connel MacKenzie 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like an Americanism (I would imagine that the contributor eats pizza with his fingers rather than with a knife and fork). SemperBlotto 08:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Out of context I would have assumed this referred to a breadstick or possibly something like a pizza puff. -- Visviva 15:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see it is 0 google books, but Tony's Pizza has a Pizza Stick product, and isn't alone in that department, these guys also have Pizza Sticks on their appetizers menu (also capped). All other references which seem usable are about pizzas which have become stuck in the appropriate tense. - [The]DaveRoss 00:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

sea rover

A pirate? Is that a historic use or something? --Connel MacKenzie 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• That is my understanding of the term. It's the "herring" that I have never heard of. SemperBlotto 08:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

tign

I don't know from Faroese, but the wordlists and such I can find online seem to indicate that this has the meaning "honor/dignity" only as a suffix, viz. -tign. -- Visviva 14:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ascii

--Connel MacKenzie 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not completely bogus; see [80] (mention only). Still, this is surely the plural of ascius, not ascian. -- Visviva 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This search turns up some fascinating stuff, but no convincing examples of use; as far as I can see, the word appears uniformly in capitals, italics, or as a dictionary headword. Even this exception is not much better. Ascius as an English word fares even worse. Clearly a lot of people have thought that this was a real word, but evidence is lacking. -- Visviva 09:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

MW3 gives it as an alternative plural to "ascian". It does seem implausible since the singular is not "ascius" and "ascius" is a Latin adjective, not a noun. Maybe it is more commonly used among the askians in Singapore et al. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There might be some citations among these 103 raw b.g.c. hits. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolute

This sounds a bit hokey to me. Could we please have some cites. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hegel strikes again! [81] -- Visviva 09:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have cited the plural form "Absolutes" as part of my continuing campaign against wanton assertion of uncountability of nouns. I would argue that there is an overwhelming a fortiori argument that the singular is thereby verified. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

scut

rfv-sense: ancillary. "Scut" actually seems to be a noun meaning drudgery or low-status work. It is often used attributively, as in "scut work" and "scut monkey". DCDuring TALK 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always supposed "scut" referred to a person responsible for cleaning scuttlebutts, similar to a kitchen drudge. --Una Smith 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that cleaning scuttlebutts or even scuttles on a ship would be done often enough to be a noteworthy example of drudgery, compared to, say, scraping barnacles or rust. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

hack

The sports sense: "To be effective at a certain position or role within a sports game without being particularly graceful or with class." I don't remember having heard this meaning (though not a sports expert) but something certainly seems wrong because the example sentence uses it as a noun, not a verb. So is it both? One or the other? Made up? Dmcdevit·t 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a definition for "hack it", which isn't specific to sports as far as I know. Mike Dillon 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the sentence seems to be an illustration of definition #6 of the noun sense. Mike Dillon 01:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an old equestrian sense, obsolete in the US but current in the UK, meaning to ride on a road or bridle path. Hacking requires only an ordinary horse, nothing special. --66.167.29.131 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

no Latin

I'd like to see a verification for the passive nor. I am swum? Three independent quotes?

Jcwf 75.178.190.190 02:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not "I am swum", but "the river is swum" makes sense, yes? That said, my sources suggest this verb has no passive. I'll make the necessary changes. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: target page no is still tagged. --06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

stevedore

I don't think the definition is correct. Dutch has both stuwadoor and dokwerker, but they are not the same. The stuwadoor is the guy responsible for the proper loading of the ship, lest it gets unbalanced and sinks. I.e. he tells the dokwerkers where to put stuff. Jcwf 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

attrition

"Policy of decruitment" sense. I'm having a difficult time seeing how this would be used to refer to the policy specifically. If an HR officer says "we are reducing personnel through attrition" I would interpret that as simply sense 2. -- Visviva 06:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sense 2 is what it means. "Decruitment" comment can be deleted. —Stephen 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

push

Noun - betting sense. Is this a US thing, or limited to certain forms of betting? SemperBlotto 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To push can mean to increase a bet. But I'm not at all clear about the tagged sense. BTW, push at an auction seems to be missing. Is this a verb, or a noun, or both, or is it already included in one of the other senses? -- Algrif 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

American casinos have different blackjack rules for occasions when the bettor and the dealer tie. It all comes down to the house rules (Vegas has different rules than Atlantic City, for example). At some tables, the bettors must beat the dealer in order to win. For example, if the dealer holds 18, the better must have 19, 20, or 21 to win. At those tables, ties lose. Some tables, however, refund the bet if the bettor ties. So if the dealer has 18 and the bettor has 18, the bettor gets his bet back. This is called a "push." (At some tables, pushes only apply when the dealer and the bettor both have blackjack.) The dealer "pushes" the bettor's chips back to him.

I don't know how to verify the usage, but I would appreciate the sense's being included in the definition, even if it is labeled as slang or as an Americanism.

Hhs335 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is legit, a hand which is a 'tie' is a 'push' in blackjack, which is a noun sense which appears to be missing, it is also an intransitive verb I pushed six hands in a row before finally winning one. non-secondary cites are getting buried by all the 'idiots guide to cards' type books, but I am adding what cites I can. - [The]DaveRoss 03:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

waterfall

Second sense (tagged, not listed.) While it may have this meaning in other languages, it doesn't in English; one must say "a waterfall of ..." to convey a meaning other than for water. --Connel MacKenzie 08:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also the verb sense could stand some citations. All I could find on b.g.c were cites related to mining engineering. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, definition #1 certainly doesn't cover uses of "a waterfall of ___". Perhaps some reworking is in order, though? —Ruakh_TALK 02:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

zamietess

Tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 08:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

livescanned

Tagged, not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 08:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

cream

"semen" sense. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't lose any sleep if this this sense fails, but we did pass creampie with that meaning already. --Dmol 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I could find a print citation, but it was standard slang when I was in elementary school. It's still used today among American middle school children. --EncycloPetey 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I love the way people use their own laziness to screw over good-faith editors and wiktionary users in general. [82] [83] [84]. Kappa 12:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, when someone lists a questionable sense that could use citations, it isn't screwing over anyone. And when the sense seems obvious to you, it's much more constructive to simply add the citations (since all meanings should have citations) without a personal attack. I do the same, and it's hardly laziness to volunteer hours of my time each day for this project. Dmcdevit·t 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is you just don't care. The only legitimacy this process has is based on people making a good-faith effort to find citations, if no-one does that all you have is "tough shit we couldn't be bothered". Kappa 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, chill out you two, or I'll cream you both. Yes, rfv maintains a tenuous existence on the good faith of rfv'ers. However, Dmcdevit puts in a great deal of time and effort into this project, so let's not accuse him of laziness. Also, vulgarities of this nature are prime for rfv'ing, lest all of Wiktionary turn into Wikisaurus. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Atelaes beat me to it, but signed. Let's play nice. - [The]DaveRoss 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically Wiktionary insists that vulgarities have citations, but its editors don't like them and can't actually bothered to look for citations so it just takes them out. A conspiracy of assholes. Kappa 09:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary insists that everything have citations if possible, and the most common form of vandalism is adding vulgar senses where they don't belong, so it is reasonable to question unfamiliar ones when they are encountered. I see no reason for the hostility. - [The]DaveRoss 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pay attention people. Obviously neither Dmcdevit, nor Dmol, nor anyone else can be bothered to look for cites. This term is going to be removed simply because no-one gives a fuck. "Questioning" a term is meaningless if there is only one possible answer. Kappa 00:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now cited in entry (as in, I added the quotations that Kappa linked to but wasn't willing to add, for whatever reasons of his/her own). —Ruakh_TALK 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DILF

Both senses. The first one, at least, seems extremely rare based on Google. Dmcdevit·t 09:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

SOL

These non-vulgar forms, "Sorry, outta luck" and "So outta luck," appear to be protologisms. Dmcdevit·t 09:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

chuck

Does this really mean "to consume wood"?! 146.169.7.93 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks like an attempted play on the children's tongue-twister: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood?" which might be the only usage example appropriate. If we had a sense of humor, we would include this. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The tongue-twister is simply using the sense of chuck meaning "to throw [out]". "eat" or "consume" is someone's imagination. Like all the dozens of silly explanations of "pop goes the weasel" by people who don't know that "pop" means "pawn", and a weasel is an iron box you put coals in to heat so as to "iron" clothes. (Still called an "iron box", not an "iron", in East Africa.)

" ... all the wood he could chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood" Robert Ullmann 00:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Eat" or "consume" is not a valid sense. There is no such sense in either the unabridged OED (2nd ed.) or the Random House Webster's Unabridged. -- WikiPedant 19:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a sense like: "A supposed action of a woodchuck directed at wood."? There is no particular sense of the word that fits the "tongue-twister", which actually suggests that it is counter-factual ("could"). It might prevent more noxious vandalism of this entry if we had this covered in some acceptable way. DCDuring TALK 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BJAODN

It is doubtful that this is used outside the Wikimedia universe or that it has really entered the language. Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And? This looks only like an invalid nomination - it already is tagged as 'wjargon'. --Connel MacKenzie 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is tagged. And it still fails CFI without proper citations. Just because someone says something on Wiktionary doesn't mean it belongs in a dictionary. Wiktionary:Glossary, sure. Dmcdevit·t 07:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dmcdevit. Wiktionary:Glossary is an appropriate place for this word. The main namespace is not. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete if it's specific to Wiktionary. Even here I've mainly seen it used as a link to a WT: page though, so how much of our lexicon is it? Certainly not in mine, as I don't remember much of anything beyond the BJ... DAVilla 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely not specific to Wiktionary; the Wikipedia version substantially antedates (or rather antedated) ours; the deletion of w:WP:BJAODN was one of the great MfD battles of 2007. See Wikipedia:Silly things#Introduction et seq. This remains in widespread use as noun and verb, even outside the WMF projects (though probably not in durably archived media). -- Visviva 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary and Wikipedia are in no way independent. Wikipedia is where the Wiktionary concept comes from, and it's because of the shared history and community. That would be like saying that some obscure mythical race or creature mentioned in both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers is somehow more a part of the language because of that. As I said, there is doubtful usage outside the Wikimedia universe that coined the term. I'd like to see citations if so. Dmcdevit·t 12:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we, in the same way as fictional languages, have Appendix:WMF slang, Appendix:MIT slang, Appendix:Military slang etc. etc., I can see that these might hava a risk of heading the Wikisaurus way, but I feel they would be a good thing overall. The only thing we would need to do then is work out a way to redirect people from the entries to the right appendix without implying that they are real words. Does anyone know how to add the Appendix: namespace to the default search for not logged in users? Conrad.Irwin 12:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wiktionary:Glossary and Appendix:Glossary, as I said in the nomination. Words that are relevant only to editors (like this one) go in the Wiktionary space, and word that are relevant to readers go in the Appendix (where plenty of jargon, like the "uncountable" or "intransitive" tags currently link already). Dmcdevit·t 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That simply is not required by the present wording of WT:CFI#Independence. In fact that section (as currently worded) indicates that citing Wikipedia is OK, as in fact it should be for WMF jargon. -- Visviva 13:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a complete misreading of the policy. Just because it says that Wikipedia can be cited, it does not mean that citations of Wikimedia projects don't need to meet the independence requirement. Indeed, the policy is using Wikipedia as an example of when something can be cited on Wikipedia and related projects, and fail CFI. Just as this does. Dmcdevit·t 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate reading of WT:CFI#Independence. I do respect that you believe the inclusion of these entries to be contrary to the interests of the project (though I don't understand why), but I think the discussion would be better served if it were framed in those terms, rather than in terms of a policy which does not actually support this. The relevant passage reads:

Where Wikipedia has an article on a given subject, and that article is mirrored by an external site the use of certain words on the mirror site would not be independent. It is quite common to find that material on one site is readily traced to another. Similarly, the same quote will often occur verbatim in separate sources. While the sources may be independent of each other, the usages in question are clearly not.

That is describing cases where a passage is mirrored or repeated verbatim from one source to another. I assume you are not claiming this to be the case here; as I'm sure you are aware, one can find thousands of mutually independent references to BJAODN across the Wikimedia projects.

To my mind the most wjargon-relevant passage is the one just following the above, viz.

The presumption is that if a term is only used in a narrow community, there is no need to refer to a general dictionary such as this one to find its meaning.

As I see it, this is precisely why we should be defining these terms here. We have no particular reason to expect that someone attempting to enter the world of Tolkien or Star Trek fandom would look for terms unique to that community on Wiktionary. On the other hand, we have every reason to think that people entering the Wikimedia community would look for common WMF terms here, and such people have every reason to expect us to define such terms. We gain nothing by denying those expectations. -- Visviva 08:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the nom has specifically requested non-Wikimedia citations, it strikes me that this is basically a request to delete (or develop grounds for deleting) all of Category:WMF jargon. As such it really belongs on WT:RFD if not WT:VOTE. For my part, I simply fail to see the how deletion is in the best interests of the project, or how such entries are anything but beneficial. I believe we should keep these entries, as we have consistently chosen to do heretofore. -- Visviva 13:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think these should go, but, like Visviva, think this is an issue for WT:VOTE, not here.—msh210℠ 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating a context tag for something that does not pass CFI is not a way to evade CFI. If you want to propose a vote to exempt Wiktionary-related jargon from CFI, you are free, but I don't see the reason this nomination doesn't belong. Dmcdevit·t 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep if that is relevant. Until such time as we use no WT jargon on pages that new users see (a meaningless clause, because that will not happen.) or have some readily accessible means for new users to figure out what we are talking about (such as a navigation link to our jargon page), we should IMHO exempt at least some of our jargon from normal standards. I would think that it would need to go to WT:VOTE. It would be a departure from some purist conception of Wiktionary, but would be a desirable enhancement to our often painfully terse communications to our newer users. As an interim step, I would hope we could keep these terms until the vote was taken or it became obvious that we will not have a vote. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I will vote to delete such entries from the 0th namespace if it comes to a vote, I can agree that we can keep until a vote is taken or it becomes likely there will be none.—msh210℠ 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that jargon is defined at wiktionary:Glossary and needn't also be in the 0th namespace.—msh210℠ 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Having that glossary one click away whenever a user was on a page that might have our jargon (talk pages, RfV, RfD, Tea Room, Beer Parlor, etc. would certainly be better than having it in principal namespace. It does not really belong there. Even if it were two clicks away (through Help), that would be an improvement.

I have inserted links to the two glossaries in the Help index and in the See also section of the initial Help page. I don't know whether that is adequate, but it is better than where they were buried, I think. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote on WMF jargon. Personally, my vote will be to delete: I think it looks unprofessional that we pointedly make exception for our own community's jargon. —Ruakh_TALK 01:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

change

I don't know much about sports, but someone who does says he hasn't ever heard this, only change-up. If anyone can vouch for it I'll withdraw the nomination, but please give an example sentence or indicate countability. DAVilla 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an uncommon shorthand, but something that would be easily understood. I'll throw up some citations in a minute; it might need a context tag of some sort. Dmcdevit·t 07:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now cited.—msh210℠ 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

rfvpassed Cynewulf 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ent

Per the new-ish CFI policy on fictional universes, this needs citations "independent of reference to that universe." Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Although the extraordinary number of scannos makes final determination difficult, I can find no indications of uptake outside Tolkiendom. The common term for this sort of entity in fantasy/RPG literature is treant. "Treant" dates back at least to the early days of Dungeons & Dragons, having possibly been introduced to avoid charges of copyvio; curiously, I can find no b.g.c. cites before the 21st century, though I first encountered it in the late 1980s. (All of the uses I could find were incredibly dull, so I have refrained from citing that entry for now). -- Visviva 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Padawan

Per the new-ish CFI policy on fictional universes, this needs citations "independent of reference to that universe." Dmcdevit·t 08:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow smile

--Connel MacKenzie 02:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

given 1 cite--Keene 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

wholetail

Old unresolved RfV Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/June_2007#wholetail.

Cited: Noun sense only. No support for any verb, adjective, or adverb. May be able to support "wholetail" (shrimp) under separate ety. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

trustseal

soft spam? DCDuring TALK 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

deleted. All usage was promotional. - [The]DaveRoss 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

bokkom

I don't think there is a Dutch word bokkem. In Dutch it is bokking. Maybe Afrikaans has bokkem? Jcwf 06:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

raddi

Hindi??? Lmaltier 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

god

Verb senses. Am I the only one who's never heard this before? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't read enough Shakespeare (Coriolanus), Spenser, and C.S. Lewis to have come across "godded". But, abundant usage. I'm too busy defending Mammonry to cite this. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Veritaserum

Seems like a rather minor part of the Harry Potter universe. Can it be cited per WT:CFI#Fictional_universes? Dmcdevit·t 07:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

preseeding

Protologism? Seems to be used in a single flavour of Linux. SemperBlotto 08:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, even in the Debian context (where this gets a couple of OK-looking book hits), this is still just the present participle of preseed, which has other less-dubious senses as well. ... Will need some C with its V. -- Visviva 10:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not as easy as on might think to attest preseed. Many more scannos for derivatives of "pressed". Necessary to keep sense very general to encompass venture capital, biotech, meteorology, and pets. I didn't come across computing uses for "preseed". Perhaps other forms? DCDuring TALK 12:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you've RFV'd the right senses? This isn't a word used outside of computing contexts. The one sense currently tagged as "computing" is admittedly too narrow. --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: in General English usage, this is one of the top 1000 common misspellings. --Connel MacKenzie 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not surprising. A query. Where does the misspelling line go? There are three parts of speech (well two, once we get rid of the "adjective" PoS which is really the attributive use of the noun). All three (or both)? First one? If it were legal, I would argue for it being close to the top, but there is no suitable heading. It is pronounced differently from "preceding" (stress on "pre") so we can't "cheat" by using the Pronunciation heading. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Side point: I don't think preseeding#Adjective is attributive use of the noun. preseeding#Noun is preseed + -ing, i.e. the activity of seeding in advance. On the other hand, preseeding#Adjective is pre- + seeding, i.e. before seeding. Thus a "preseeding analysis," for example, could be either an analysis carried out before seeding (adjective), or an analysis of one or more preseedings (attributive use of noun). A small but important distinction. -- Visviva 09:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I amended the senses to fit the citations, I noted that you seem to be correct on this. DCDuring TALK 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that preseed/ing is also a frequent spelling error for proceed/ing. Technically these are distinct etymologies, I suppose, but if we aren't being that legalistic I would favor filing them under preseeding#Verb, since they are misspellings of verb forms. -- Visviva 09:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That would give it some prominence at least. DCDuring TALK 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence on pronunciation? I would have expected the participial sense(s) to be stressed on the second syllable. -- Visviva 09:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably only the evidence embedded in our several brains. Consulting my brain, I find weak evidence against your expectation, based only on how I would stress the syllables to reduce ambiguity - weak evidence indeed. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

goddessship

Misspelling only. Bogus secondaries given instead of citations of use. --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been cleaned up. I didn't realize it was a misspelling, sorry. Teh Rote 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

uncopyrightables

Bogus secondary sources given instead of citations of use. --Connel MacKenzie 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. it's not bogus. It just is not obvious how to format a use where it is in the title of the article cited. That said, it is not often used. I can find only the two quotations (one ordinary, one title only) that indicate meaning. There are probably more in some unavailable legal works (decisions?). In a slighly more lax attestation regime, an inflected form of an attested lemma would make it, particularly since a close relative, "copyrightables", is also attested. DCDuring TALK 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out. I couldn't seem to find much else. Teh Rote 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

rat

second etymology - "damn, drat, curse ". --Keene 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED has 7 etymologically distinct defns of "rat", and not one of them corresponds to this. I think this is just a misconstruction of "Rats!" -- WikiPedant 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I also question the first etymology, final defn as English noun: "promiscuous person - often a young female - who attends sporting and other entertainment events, primarily to seek sexual liaisons with athletes, entertainers and/or others traveling with them." A synonym for "groupie"? -- WikiPedant 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

romanize

I've removed this definition from romanize (also romanise, see also romanization, romanisation): "to phonetically describe each letter of a word (i.e. Alpha, Bravo, Charlie)." Please restore if a reference can be found. —Mzajac 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: when I was in the Canadian Forces many years ago, this was simply referred to as spelling out. In correct radio voice procedure it would be preceded by the phrase "I spell". —Mzajac 21:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ringwraith

The independence of this is dubious. Needs citation per WT:CFI#Fictional_universes. Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ringbearer

(Tolkien sense only.) The independence of this is dubious. Needs citation per WT:CFI#Fictional_universes. Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

gomorrahize

Quite an interesting word. It seems to have some small usage, but no gbc hits. Any takers? I promise it won't shade my opinion of you.  :) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

found a cite for another form:

1981, William O'Rourke, Idle Hands: A Novel

Regardless, I heard lectures about the wonders of the prostate, the joy of males everywhere. I joked: "I may condone Sodomy, but this would be Gomorrahy. ...

Honestly I am afraid to do too much research on this one, someone with more tolerance for the...unusual might be more apt :p Also, many of the uses I see are apparently formed from the phrase 'Sodom and Gomorrah' + 'ize', which wouldn't cite this word alone. - [The]DaveRoss 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This user seems to think every term encountered in de Sade was invented by de Sade. If this does exist, I can't believe it has such a narrow meaning as the entry currently suggests. My impression is that it's a sort of jokey variant of sodomize. Widsith 21:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• If it was invented by de Sade then it would be French - perhaps it was invented by a translator. SemperBlotto 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

chaps

An editor on English Wikipedia maintains "chaps" is pronounced "shaps" and that "shaps" is the authentic pronunciation. It appears to be a minority, regional (Montana?) pronunciation; could someone look into this? --Una Smith 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

galactophage

rfv: I only find French and dictionary hits on g.b.c. and scholar; not in MW3. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Superior Person's Book of Words, Peter Bowler, 1985, Page 38: Galactophage could serve as a synonym for milksop. "Now listen, you sniveling galactophage"

• An Armenian-French Pocket Dictionary, Gomidas A Osgian, 1893, Page 329

• Œuvres complètes de Voltaire, Adrien Jean Quentin Beauchot and Georges Bengesco, 1877, Page 424

The word appears in some English-language medical dictionaries, which I omit. It appears to originate in French, but has entered English. --Una Smith 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Many English language conversational uses in Usenet. --Una Smith 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary mentions don't count, nor the French (except for a French entry, of course, which might be useful). Enough valid usenet uses would be OK. Care to cite it? DCDuring TALK 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Added the earliest Usenet cites; others (including other possible meanings) remain. Please fix the format. --Una Smith 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The 2 cites from Usenet may not meet the independence criterion, being by the same author. Each sense would have to be cited independently, needed (crudely speaking) 3 cites each. The senses should be combined to the most general, "milk-fed", or something similar. Does the OED include it? DCDuring TALK 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED, under galacto-, lists galactophagist and galactophagous but not this one. SemperBlotto 08:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In French, it has been used by Voltaire, but it seems there is no recent use (except for Galactophages, in reference to Homer). Lmaltier 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New French section is now cited. RfV only covers English, which depends on sparse usage in Groups. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent French usages in Usenet include this and this and this, all by the same poster. --Una Smith 00:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

up

2nd noun sense, potential customer. Thryduulf 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems plausible. "It's my turn to get up to wait on the damned customer." It seems like cant. It'll be very hard to cite. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember this from some years back. It's etymology is something like "Unqualified Potential (Client)" It meant a cold sale client as distinguished from a "Qualified Potential" who would be a client who was not a cold sale, and therefore already qualified as a potential, interested buyer. I'll see what I can find. -- Algrif 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting closer. "Unqualified Prospect" is the origin. Now to find some useable quotes. -- Algrif 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Glossary of Timeshare words & phrases. click hereand scroll down to "Unqualified Prospect" -- Algrif 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

nonsense

nonsense: to try to dismiss as nonsense. Citations? — This unsigned comment was added by RJFJR (talk • contribs) at 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC).

Some late 19th century cites on b.g.c. in this sense. You would have to try "nonsensed" and "nonsensing" and filter through a lot of irrelevancies, like meanings "non-sensing". Another possible verb sense is to "talk nonsense", a kind of small-talk or teasing talk. Ugh. Are there no nouns that can't be tortured into verbs? I beseech thee: verb me no more nouns. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

p.o.'ed

Searching for this is especially difficult, due to the punctuation marks, of whic Google isn't a bg fan — This unsigned comment was added by Keene (talk • contribs) at 06:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC).

google books:"was p.o.'ed" pulls up a number of hits in this sense, but none seem to be using this exact punctuation. —Ruakh_TALK 13:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Adjective sense now cited (though I'm not sure about the formatting for the a. 2002 cite). It turns out b.g.c. doesn't always show the right punctuation on the search page. —Ruakh_TALK 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Widespread use? It gets my vote for that. Good luck citing. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicely cited. I wouldn't bet on widespread use for the verb sense, partially because of the unnatural inflection. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And what's next, f*** or s***? Hekaheka 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. People actually say "P O'd" (I don't know phonetics) as an initialism with the "'d", so the justification for the entry is clear. I suppose it's a euphemism. Is there a word for f*** and f**k and all their relatives. Are they forbidden entry names? Would we say that they are pronounced like the underlying word or unvoiced "ffff"? Countless hours of amusement. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, OK then. Somebody should add the pronunciation. Hekaheka 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

green out

Meaning "to become sick after the use of marijuan". b.g.c search for greens-out smoke, greens-out weed, greend-out smoke and greeneed-out weed produced nothing except some books about gardening, giving a meaning of to become green, like in the spring.. --Keene 06:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Autonomous Oblast

This is capitalized, a proper noun? I can see how it would be capitalized as part of a name, like Washington State or Los Angeles County, but I similar to "state" and "county," I wouldn't expect the general word to be a capitalized. Dmcdevit·t 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Should not be capitalized. It would only be capitalized as part of a full placename, such as the w:Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Moved. —Stephen 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per SGB move as redirect to autonomous oblast for the ~10 the entries that link to it. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• 9 of the first 100 b.g.c. hits for "an autonomous oblast" were capitalized, so I would agree with keeping this as a redirect for an alternative form of a multi-word expression. -- Visviva 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Why would we keep a redirect from an incorrect spelling instead of correcting the links? Or if it is a common (enough) form, why would we leave a redirect in place instead of using a {{misspelling of}} or {{alternative form of}} article? Dmcdevit·t 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been operating under the general belief that alternative forms of multi-word expressions should simply be redirected. However, as I recall now that's somewhat more extreme than the consensus view that only inflected forms of such polywords should be redirected. Anyway, a soft-redirect as you suggest is fine by me. -- Visviva 16:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dmcdevit·t 03:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

chromography

From above

• chromography

--Connel MacKenzie 07:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another extant word that can easily be found with both Google and Google books that MacKenzie is too idle to check but just dumps here making work for others. 87.114.156.2 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. It is notaword. If attestation for it can be found, it might merit inclusion here. --Connel MacKenzie 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this quite clear.

Even if a word can be found, used in a consistent sense in three permanently archived sources, if "dictionary.com" says it isn't a word, then it can be turfed out of here.

So, Wiktionary is now subservient to dictionary.com and research by editors here can be overruled if the people there have done a less thorough job? 87.114.156.2 08:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly a word. But I am not convinced by the definition. It appears to be used in a range of different ways by different people - there are lots of scientific uses out there and I am not confident enough to try and extrapolate. Widsith 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Google book hits it seems to have two common meanings; printing with colour, and analysis using colour (which seems to be a synonym for chromatography. The current definition seems to be a rarely used extention of the 'printing with colour' meaning. House 16:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well chromo- is just a short form of chromato- anyway, so that would make sense. I suspect the current def is too specific. Widsith 07:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a bunch of cites, they seem to suggest a much different definition than the current one, Citations:chromography, someone who knows chemistry should maybe take a look. - [The]DaveRoss 17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

google out

I tried to google out google out, but it wasn't promising. If anyone think they can outgoogle me and verify this phrase, be my guest...I guess that'll mean they have out-googled out me. --Keene 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A neologism, judging on the content of the page and the username of the editor who created it. --Keene 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. According to the etymology provided by the original editor, it's a protologism. I've left a note at his talk-page explaining that we don't include those. (It did have one cite, but that cite was not for the same sense as in the entry, and was a straightforward sum of (deprecated template usage) Google and (deprecated template usage) the crap out of.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We should run a pool on some of these. How long until it can be attested at current attestation standards? DCDuring TALK 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

googleblock

Previously RFD'd without much discussion. 0 Google News/Books hits. 600ish Google webhits. Neologism. And no, I'm not on an anti-Google mission. --Keene 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably qualifies for preemptive deletion, given that a) even the original citation probably does not meet CFI as currently enforced (as a newspaper blog apparently not in the print edition), and b) the top Web hits are Wiktionary and UD. -- Visviva 06:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a well-known, permanently recorded work though (telegraph.co.uk, 3rd biggest news site in the UK) and [CFI] says nothing about print. Other references do seem to come from the blog or Wiktionary, though. I should declare an interest here, it was my blog post. 195.152.249.11 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to the discussion. :-) Although it's unlikely to effect the outcome in this case (unless more citations can be found), could you explain why you would consider this blog to be permanently recorded? The arguments against using blogs for citations have generally turned on their lack of permanency; i.e. posts that are accessible today may disappear permanently next week. This is a problem which seems to afflict even those blogs cached by Google News Archive. I'd love to have some counter-arguments... -- Visviva 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

bulldada

Is this used outside of the Church of the SubGenius? Trivialist 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

poten

Need a Dutch speaker to look into this, source is a strange character. - [The]DaveRoss 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also geil.

Checked geil. Is what it is, sorry

Jcwf 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the verb, but poot does mean 'fag'.

Jcwf 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

boi

The English BDSM sense has been created by Fastifex/Arcarius/Matricularius and has been removed restored by him repeatedly. I would not be surprised if the definition is actually accurate and written by someone who has -how should I say- considerable knowledge of the subject. That certainly would explain all the obsession with spanking and the like. Jcwf 05:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to check out; cited (could be improved). -- Visviva 06:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

However, I would like to see verification for sense 1 (alternative spelling of "boy"); I didn't come across much for this except scannos and random misspellings. -- Visviva 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added cites for this to the entry. Can someone check the syntax of the second cite though (the book) as there is a blank line appearing from somewhere and I can't spot where. Thryduulf 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

full motion video

This was discussed at RFD; the consensus was to keep it, but DCDuring questioned whether our definition was even correct. —Ruakh_TALK 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

disintering and disintered

disinter says disintering and disintered, Shoudl that be disinterring and disinterred? RJFJR 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Existing spelling is not even an alternative in MW3. Etymologically it should certainly be doubled. I'll check to see if it might be a common misspelling. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oddly it is more frequent in b.g.c. (7%) than on the Web (2-3%). I will enter them as common misspellings for now, but wouldn't object to their deletion. On raw counts (not relative frequency) there are 2000 single-"r" spellings of these forms. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

disintering and disintered are now misspelling entries. disinter refers to disinterring and disinterred. Does we need citations? Are there any dictionaries that disagree? DCDuring TALK 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

keeper

(Harry Potter sense.) WT:CFI#Fictional universes requires that this word, as coined for a fictional universe, have "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" to establish independence. I don't think this one passes. Dmcdevit·t 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguably it's redundant, included in the (real) sports sense. WP lists 10 sports that have keepers or goal-keepers. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; this isn't a separate meaning, merely a specific application of the general meaning in sports. --EncycloPetey 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ash Pepsi

— This unsigned comment was added by Mutante (talk • contribs) at 01:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, meant to shoot this on sight. No google support at all, except for one odd coincidental use. Someone named "Ash" (person or group) did make a Pepsi add. All other mentions are derived from the wikt entry ;-( Robert Ullmann 14:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

D−

I doubt that the "−" is part of the word at all; it seems like nothing more than a connector between, e.g., D and CA. We have no corresponding R−. bd2412 T 01:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a valid prefix, it should be at D- (currently a redirect) rather than the current entry. However, I don't think it is; depending on context one might just use "(R)", "(D)", or "(I)" to indicate political affiliation. The hyphen, as you say, is just a connector here. Not strictly an RfV question. :-) -- Visviva 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholely agree. Not really RfV. The "suffix" sense given is an abbreviation D plus connecting punctuation and ought to be Deleted or moved to RfD. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Visviva (03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)).—msh210℠ 17:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Prefix sense summarily deleted. bd2412 T 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum, there is a different prefix use in chemistry for optical isomers. I have created that as an entry at D-, as well as its antonym L-. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

yak shaving

some quotes would be nice to start shaving this yak I think Jcwf 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly mentions. Maybe should go in our glossary and neologism file. Alternative definition: "negative net productivity through excessive tool-building"? DCDuring TALK 14:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

the definition given seems oddly self-referential ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's one use-following-mention: [85]. Usenet has a fair number of genuine uses: [86], though as usual these are less than ideal. -- Visviva 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: if this is deleted the incoming links from w:Yak Shaving Day and w:Yak shaving will need to be removed. -- Visviva 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

democracy

Third sense. Previously tagged, but not listed. This is a bit confusing because this particular sense was tagged while an rfv conversation was taking place concerning other senses of the same entry, but this particular sense was not covered in the previous conversation. The sense does have a number of cites, but I'm not sure if they really prove its existence, or rather simply apply to the preceding two. Since I really don't have a knack for sorting out definitions, I'll leave this to others to decide. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion can be seen here [87] Cynewulf 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say the senses are distinct, though not all the quotations are entirely clear (how long before we need a "Quotations to be checked" header?) Rule by the people does not entail respect for civil liberties; indeed, from ancient Athens to modern times it has often had the opposite effect. -- Visviva 07:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

gimp

A number of senses. This entry was previously rfv'd but did not acquire the requisite cites. One sense has two cites and the rest have none. The editor has asked for an extension and this is that extension. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this better classified at Level 2 as Scots? DCDuring TALK 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of any clear division between Scots, "Scottish English", and the northern dialects, that's a seriously messy can of worms that I for one would prefer to leave unopened. But yes, probably. -- Visviva 12:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gold star to anyone who can show any use at all for the uncited senses. -- Visviva 12:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean only etymology #3, don't you? Many of the others are cited even in other dictionaries. Hekaheka 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant to mean.  :-) -- Visviva 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And the "notch, indent, jag" sense (Etym 2) -- Thisis0 09:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

club house guy

—msh210℠ 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

doghouse

• Template:nautical a difficult or demoralizing situation.

Needs citations. (There is a nautical sense for doghouse, that structure over the main hatch which resembles a doghouse in form and providing more weather-proof egress and ingress, or more generally the entire above-decks cabin structure, both increasingly rare.) - Amgine/^talk 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical about the etymology advanced for the "in the doghouse" sense. It has the aroma of folk etymology advanced by someone who likes the idea of nautical origins for landlubber terms. According to online etymolgy dictionary, the "in the doghouse" sense is attested only in 1932, by which time slavery and nautical doghouses seem an implausible source. Also even if the nautical etymology is correct, I also doubt that the usage is currently especially nautical. It seems more like a slightly out of fashion term in general colloquial use, but almnst exclusively in the idiom "in the doghouse". DCDuring TALK 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring. I find the explanation of Freedictionary more plausible:

in the doghouse

In a situation in which someone is annoyed with you because of something you did. The president's aide is in the doghouse over remarks she made to the press. The opposite is out of the doghouse: She won't be out of the doghouse until she apologizes. Etymology: based on the idea of being punished like a dog who is forced to stay in a doghouse (= a shelter used by a dog), away from people.

I propose 1) deletion of Etymology 2 -section (keeping "See also") 2) inclusion of the nautical meaning cited by Amgine, although the sense "entire above-decks cabin structure would require citations. Hekaheka 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Above-decks cabin structure

• Dictionary of Prince Edward Island English: "A doghouse is a shelter amidships. You are in out of the rain and spray while you are steaming."
• The Illustrated Dictionary of Boating Terms: "A shelter forward of the cockpit or over a hatch."
• Chris-Craft Boats: This view of the 40 foot Challenger shows the unique doghouse that provided the headroom for this roomy and private aft stateroom with its own lavatory."

— This unsigned comment was added by Amgine (talk • contribs) at 02:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but of those, only the third seems to represent a use of the term: the first and second both seem to be mentions, which we don't count toward verifying a word or sense. (See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have provided citations for the nautical doghouse (under ety 1), which doesn't really seem terribly different from non-hautical, non-dog doghouses. What I can't find at all is support for the particular sense that is in question. There may be other senses that are attestable: an engine compartment in a truck or car, something to do with blues (music), inferior accommodations (bunkhouse). Also see in the doghouse for a early 1900s usage that supports the other etymology for the rfv-sense rarely found apart from a phrase like in the doghouse, into the doghouse, or out of the doghouse. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dixon citation refers very concretely to a physical doghouse, and is not an example of a usage it is claimed to represent. In it a woman shows a man out of the house and says he can sleep e.g. in a barn or a doghouse. Hekaheka 10:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

i.e.

I removed the phrase "in essence" from the defn a few months ago and Connel MacKenzie unceremoniously reverted me the same day, putting one of his trademarked in-your-face messages on the talk page. He seems to think that "in essence" is close enough and has the merit of being a mnemonic.

I think that this is sloppy, and dictionaries are no place to be sloppy. The abbreviation "i.e." stands for the Latin phrase "id est" (literally, "that is"). "In essence" is the literal translation of another Latin phrase, "in essentia," which also exists and which was used especially by medieval philosophers like Aquinas. "Id est" and "in essentia" do not mean the same thing in Latin nor do they have the same meaning for a philosopher or for anyone else paying strict attention. So I say:

Delete the phrase "in essence." -- WikiPedant 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think RFV is the place for this, but agree with you, WikiPedant. "Foo (in essence, bar) is baz" means that foo isn't quite bar, but is, for the most part, bar. Thus, "The Bell System was in essence a regulated monopoly, very well run, and very well regulated. Bell Labs was its research arm: a superb, immensely wide ranging, equally well run, university quality research lab, supported, along with BSTJ, by in essence a tiny tax on every phone bill in the Bell System."[88] I.e., on the other hand, means that the second thing is precisely the first. (If it also means "in essence", that the second thing is not quite the first, then we need to split the senses. But I don't know that meaning.)—msh210℠ 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ie is defined solely as that is (ety. id est) in MW3. I never heard of any other meaning. I'm not expecting any verification in this decade. DCDuring TALK 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't fit the accepted, educated meaning does not mean that it isn't used nonetheless. Some terms' meaning in common parlance may even be close to the opposite of their literary meanings. In this case, even Connel's original claim was only that "in essence" is used as a mnemonic since it matches the acronym in English rather than Latin. Not only does this make sense (sure there is a subtle difference in meaning, but as a memory trick for distinguishing from "e.g." it seems sensible) it is borne out by a Google search (e.g. [89] and [90]). I realize those are mentions rather than uses, but I'm not sure how else to cite this acronym, where we usually can't really know even if an author means "in essence" or "that is" except when someone writes "'i.e.' can mean 'in essence.'" Dmcdevit·t 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with this reasoning is that i.e. is (as far as I know) only used in the academic register (and school kids trying to mimic that style). Here, I would argue that the accepted meaning might be more important than "common parlance" (which I don't think is as common as you say). Alan Trick 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. It is just one step from the slightly misleading mnemonic to the slightly off meaning. Usage note? {{proscribed}} seems a little strong. Is {{nonstandard}} stronger or weaker? DCDuring TALK 14:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say {{nonstandard}} is weaker, as to me it just means its generally accepted that it isn't standard, but people don't see it as too much of a problem as it isn't necessarily wrong (in meaning), just not quite right. Proscribed, on the other hand, implies to me that it is being used to mean something that it doesn't and that it should not be used in this manner. Thryduulf 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete both "id est" (which is etymology, not definition) and "in essence" (which is neither etymology nor definition) from sense line, and add separate sense "{{proscribed}} For example" or something to that effect. —Ruakh_TALK 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Is i.e. ever used for that? That's what e.g. means, not i.e.. --EncycloPetey 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Very frequently. I don't think anyone in the entire Upper Midwest knows the difference anymore. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me why the Latin was removed?? This entered English because it was already a common and standard Latin abbreviation. --EncycloPetey 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that in modern usage these two abbreviations are starting to muddle (i.e. people are using them interchangeably). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Petey, this was my mistake. I think that I must have been looking at the last version from Dec 20/07 and then forgot and added the {{rfv-sense}} template to that earlier version. I didn't intend to make any "silent" content changes. -- WikiPedant 04:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've almost always seen this used as an abbreviation for "that is". Once or twice, I've seen people confuse it with e.g. That might be an issue of different registers. The academic setting is the only place I ever see it frequently used though. — This unsigned comment was added by Alan Trick (talk • contribs) at 03:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC).

ABCC11

Just checking - do the names of genes meet our CFI (there are very very many of them)? SemperBlotto 23:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This one gets well over 300 hits on Google Scholar. "A single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the ABCC11 gene determines the type of earwax people have". D Douglas, Polymorphism Determines Earwax Type (2006). Exactly how many of these are there? Thousands? Millions? That would make the difference to me. bd2412 T 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest count was around 30,000. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that that's just for humans. Although, it isn't uncommon for the same name to be used for a homologous gene in other organisms. All the same, it's not uncommon to use a different term either. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are these translingual, or will we need to worry about translations as well? bd2412 T 23:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not positive on this, I believe these would be translingual. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a good transwiki to WikiGene, when as and if there is one. Isn't some part of the human genome project open source? Why would we do this rather than work on user interface and quality for real words ? Should this be an RfD, a BP discussion, a vote? DCDuring TALK 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would we need a WikiGene when we've already got our own general-purpose dumping ground encyclopedia? Their ABCC11 is much better than ours already, anyway. Dmcdevit·t 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As with many technical fields there is a great deal of specialized structure, spacialized sources, specialized expertise. Chemical names, taxonomic names, genes all have those characteristic. I would even argue that fictional characters, trademarks, product names, organization names, geographic locations, buidings also share them. What's more, we don't even seem to want many of them, let alone be in a position to do them justice. DCDuring TALK 03:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the balance, I don't think we should allow "names" of genes in Wiktionary. First of all, they're not words in any language; they're labels of convenience for a particular region of a genome. The "name" frequently applies to a genetic region whose product function is unknown. Further, each of these labels applies to DNA in different organisms where the genetic content is variable. That is, the "gene" will have a slightly different sequence in different individuals of the same species, so the precise "meaning" will differ from individual to individual. The same label may (or may not) be applied to the same gene when it appears in another species. If there is ever a WikiGene, then that would be the place for such entries. Otherwise, there are already many nice databases on the internet handling this information much better than we could hope to. In the meantime, genes with known functions can be set up as entries on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - I won't add any more (for now). Perhaps, though, we need an Appendix to describe the nomenclature of genes and related bioinformatics terms. SemperBlotto 08:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Galadriel

A Tolkienism. WT:CFI#Fictional universes requires that this word, as coined for a fictional universe, have "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" to establish independence. I don't think this one passes. Dmcdevit·t 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We can get three citations from different works in the same universe, so this entry (and the following ones) might go into some sort of Tolkien appendix per our vote. --EncycloPetey 04:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Arwen

A Tolkienism. WT:CFI#Fictional universes requires that this word, as coined for a fictional universe, have "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" to establish independence. I don't think this one passes. Dmcdevit·t 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aragorn

A Tolkienism. WT:CFI#Fictional universes requires that this word, as coined for a fictional universe, have "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" to establish independence. I don't think this one passes. Dmcdevit·t 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This one might be able to generate three such references, just as I expect Gandalf might do. --EncycloPetey 04:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

harr

Not in the OED. No citations given. SemperBlotto 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See haar#Scots, and possibly hoar. DCDuring TALK 10:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also har#Old English DCDuring TALK 11:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have provided references to this as a dialect term. I cannot find usage directly, though the references seem to have usage cites. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncaught 3rd strike

An uncaught 3rd strike with runners on 1st & 2nd stealing and 1 out, is the batter able to advance to 1st base.

This looks more like a question for Wikipedia's Entertainment Reference Desk (which includes sport) - see w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Thryduulf 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If he avoids the tag and beats the throw to first. Isn't that a "passed ball"? DCDuring TALK 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

frillion

This was recently added as "an unspecified large number", and the citation given is from a Dilbert cartoon. Are there two more citations? --EncycloPetey 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this DERI technical report qualifies, but it disturbs me. Particularly the part where Urban Dictionary is cited in a footnote. -- Visviva 15:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

birk

Senses 3-5:

3. Somebody who studies at night and sleeps during the day.

4. An evening class student

5. Participant in late night student debates.

I combined the 5 entries added in this edit into the above three, but I'm not completely sure either that they're valid or that they are three distinct senses. Thryduulf 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note that the senses were added by an anon from University College London, at 23:19 London time, and that Birk is a name. I suspect, therefore, that this is tosh. Googling birk study night doesn't show support either (at a quick glance: I didn't look extensively). Perhaps, though, someone can verify it.—msh210℠ 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

spoinked

Only definition is as tense of the undefined spoink. RJFJR 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoink is a Pokemon "character". 0 hits for spoinked in b.g.c., scholar, and news. 2 independent Groups hits, but couldn't infer a meaning. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

sausage party

Cites please. DCDuring TALK 15:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cited you're welcome. And surprisingly, I didn't even have to dip into Google Groups for this. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rfv passed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised. Thanks for the work. I was sorta hoping it wouldn't make it, but cites is cites. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

tin-pot

An anon contributor added a noun sense of "A tin, especially one which is reused." Is the hyphenated spelling ever used to mean this? --EncycloPetey 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

tincidunt

This does not appear in my Classical dictionaries, but that does not mean it isn't a word in New Latin. The problem is that many of the 206 Google cites (linked on the page) are dubious. One of the cites I looked at was otherwise in German, with (deprecated template usage) tincidunt in the middle of it. Many others I looked at seem to be books about software packages, but written in Latin!? I am very confused by all this. Do we have a neologism here? A protologism? Or soomething else? --EncycloPetey 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not in my Latin dictionary either - and I can't even figure out what verb is might be a form of. SemperBlotto 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Every bgc result (IINM) is in a lorem ipsum. (There must be some software used by all these authors that generates a lorem ipsum including the word tincidunt.)—msh210℠ 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

physic finger

Any citations for physic finger as the third finger? RJFJR 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Added two, can't seem to find a good third one though. -- Visviva 05:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Kan je Engels?

Yikes... 'Kan' je wel Nederlands?

Maybe Flanders? But this hurts my ears.. First of all 'kan je' is rather colloquial for 'kun je'. Secondly one would use 'spreek' or in a pinch 'ken' not kan/kun. Please delete Jcwf 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is correct (I'm a native Dutch speaker) — This unsigned comment was added by 118.170.42.95 (talk).

Maybe it’s from Overijsel or Gelderland, because it sounds like it has German influence. —Stephen 14:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

battology

A quick google search reveals plenty of mentions, but no obvious uses. Thryduulf 22:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time now, but a Google Scholar search seems to turn up uses.—msh210℠ 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivially easy to cite. Could find cites spanning 4 centuries! DCDuring TALK 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RFV passed, moved to RFE. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

buy the farm

RfV for forms other than the past. I haven't found evidence that this is ever used except in the past tense (simple, past participle, and past perfect). Accordingly, I think the only entry we should have is for it in the past temse. There has been an RfD opened on bought the farm, which I hope will be held open pending the resolution of this RfV. DCDuring TALK 04:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lemma form cited. -- Visviva 14:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Teleri (and Teler)

Tolkienism. WT:CFI#Fictional universes requires that this word, as coined for a fictional universe, have "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" to establish independence. I don't think this one passes. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Maiar (and Maia)

Tolkienism. WT:CFI#Fictional universes requires that this word, as coined for a fictional universe, have "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" to establish independence. I don't think this one passes. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

glob

Sense: "A nearly globular mass taken from a larger supply of a viscous liquid, and no larger than can easily be handled." If actually used in this way, must be in a very specific field. Painting? Pottery? -- Visviva 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If it does have such a specific definition in some field, my guess would be glassblowing. --EncycloPetey 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, the technical term for such a glob in glassblowing is Template:en-term. -- Visviva 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

brick

Maning: "a term of endearment for someone who did you a favor". At the least it require some tag, but I have no idea whatsoever which one. Circeus 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, searching for "you're a brick" should bring citable results (I'll look momentarily). As for the tag, it's certainly {{informal}} and {{dated}}, I don't know whether it needs a {{UK}} as well though? Thryduulf 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and quite old. --Dmol 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's enough for me, thank you people. Circeus 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

peg the suckometer

Has quotes, but not sufficient quotes. --Keenebot2 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

baiter

"Flamer" and "troll" are clearly in widespread use, but "baiter" I've not heard (although its probably at least 10 years since I was last active on usenet). Thryduulf 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Various compounds such as troll baiter, flame baiter, race baiter and Jew baiter (!), with or without hyphen, are fairly common, but "baiter" alone seems quite rare. Circeus 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

bundle

"A prank where many people jump (from ground level) on top of their victim(s)" ? Circeus 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: http://books.google.co.uk/books?spell=1&q=bundle+%22for+the+first+time+since+you+left+middle+school+and+%22 Kappa 22:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Inundation

User:Mutante tagged Inundation in February with the comment: "I suspect this doesnt exist in German, or must be very rare, common translations of inundation appear to be Überflutung and Überschwemmung." It isn't in my dictionary either but I can't find the rfv here so I'm listing it so we can finish. RJFJR 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be real, though uncommon: [91]. -- Visviva 05:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

kudo

I was under the impression that kudos was the singular. While I have to imagine that people occasionally make the mistake of thinking otherwise, I can't say that I've ever experienced this particular faux pas. In any case, I think it should have some kind of a {non-standard} or the like and some cites please (or perhaps simply a delete). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fun reading from the Merriam-Webster folks: [92]. Looks like it's here to stay (and I have heard it multiple times, although IMX it is generally used in jest). I would support marking this as "nonstandard." -- Visviva 09:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cited. Although most uses qua noun are somewhat jocular, attributive use is common and apparently irony-free, in phrases like "kudo letter" and "kudo Ph.D." (as in the 1929 cite). -- Visviva 14:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

plonker

http://www.oed.com/bbcwords/plonker-new.html

per nocte

I was only able to find one cite (scholar) which was not Latin. Anyone know? - [The]DaveRoss 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I put a couple more cites on citations:.—msh210℠ 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

abut on

apparently a synonym of border on, but not one I'm familiar with. Thryduulf 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is clearly widespread use, but I'll see about citing it anyway. google books:"(abut OR abuts OR abutting OR abutted) on" gets a few thousand hits, so it shouldn't be difficult. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 22:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now cited. —Ruakh_TALK 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

monogon

Since a polygon is (by our own definition) a plane figure with straight sides, the definition for monogon is an impossibility even as a theoretical construct. Is this word citable? --EncycloPetey 01:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It gets a fair number of b.g.c. hits, but I'm having a lot of difficulty making anything of them. They do all seem to mean roughly (deprecated template usage) mono- + (deprecated template usage) -gon, but as you say, a strictly interpreted "monogon" could not exist, and indeed, most of the cites have a twist of some sort. —Ruakh_TALK 02:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is only used within mathematics, and only has physical reality in spherical geometry - but is a real word. SemperBlotto 08:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has cited the math sense; and I can assure you it's a real word.—msh210℠ 16:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

tables

rfv-senses:

1. A board game.
2. A class of board game which include trictrac, irish and backgammon

Not in MW3. Only plural sense has to do with the parts of a backgammon board. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

shitbitch

This word definitely has a number of Usenet cites, but it's hard to tell the meaning.—msh210℠ 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

bitchface

As previous.—msh210℠ 18:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ICQ

rfv-sense: To IM using ICQ. Spam. ICQ does seem to be used as a noun. The form ICQing is used (albeit rarely AFAIK) as if it were a verb part, not a noun. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

r3h

—Ruakh_TALK 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)