万维词典

主题:Requests for verification/English


Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, 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/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

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 moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5


This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
  • Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”

Templates:

Shortcut:

See also:

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or "sum of parts" should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

  • Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
  • Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being "cited", or after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.

In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed" (for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:non-lemma, Talk:accident-blackspot.

Oldest tagged RFVs


February 2019

axonotrophy

Appears in 1 paper. "Axonotrophic" is much more common. DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a second. The two quotes are on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

regenerome

DTLHS (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

synkaryophyte

DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites, but could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

gelicolous

DTLHS (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Found only 2 cites. Not even sure they are independent (may be by same author). DCDuring (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

recc

To recommend (informal). Cites given are reccing and recced, so might easily be for rec (a more intuitive spelling to me). Equinox 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, rec lists only recing and reced as forms. I suppose one would need citations where the work used both rec and recced/reccing to show that the latter could be forms of the former. I can find examples of recc (uninflected) online (search for e.g. "recc the series", suggesting that it does exist, even if the durable hits of it are all of inflected forms. (As an aside, "micced" seems to be attested but I haven't found it used in the same books as either mic or *micc to tell which it's a form of.) - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I finally managed to find three citations of the infinitive recc on Usenet. I also added and cited a noun recc. I made both into altforms of rec. This is cited. - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

CMNF

Neither of the alleged senses exist.2600:1000:B124:E4FF:1CD3:5F75:E5C:757B 22:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, they do. But not on durably archived media as far as I can tell. Kiwima (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I've managed to find two citations which I think are uses: Citations:CMNF. There are a few other mention-y hits on Usenet, and one that might also be a use of CMNF which I put at CFNM (because it also uses that term). - -sche (discuss) 08:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

May 2019

gossock

A remarkably specific word from @Sigehelmus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well there's 3 attestations, I'm honestly in a bit of a physical pain today and totally exhausted so if you could help cleanup the article in general I would really appreciate it.--Sigehelmus (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
All three are mentioning the word, not using it. Equinox 13:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, they do not genuinely attest the very specific meaning. It might as well mean “a gaunt, red-haired inhabitant of Kirkcudbrightshire”, or simply “an attendant” – how could one tell?  --Lambiam 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, @Equinox, @Lambiam just saw this again sorry, I honestly just copied the definition from Cumbric language. I don't know anything further beyond that.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Also see these two links: [1] [2] The second claims gossock is a synonym of "Creenie"; the definition is unclear but seems to refer to immigrants from a part of Ulster facing Galloway. I have no idea what to think.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There are attestations in the plural, but they're capitalized. It also can be found as gossok in the Scottish National Dictionary. I'm wondering whether we're dealing with mentions in English of an obsolete Scots word. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
And according to the entry in the Scottish National Dictionary it is a slur, like for instance boonga and coonass. At the very least, that should be noted.  --Lambiam 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice find! Hmm, this is perplexing. I am looking further, I wonder if there are any people alive in the area who still use or at least know of the term. And considering the cultural context I would be very surprised if it was used in any way but tongue-in-cheek. Edit: @Lambiam I double down on my last sentence considering that. But is this an insult that has been used sincerely in the past century? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz this dialect dictionary attests "gossok" as possibly obsolete, applied "in derision" to an "old type" of inhabitant of Galloway: [3] and this book attests the term was "still current" in 19th century and synonymous with capitalized Kreenie/Creenie: [4] --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the Scottish National Dictionary, you'll notice that it cites the same dialect dictionary as its source. I don't think Wright considered Scots as distinct from English. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahh the old debate. Should it be relisted as Scots only or both languages? And what should be the proper definition(s)? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

hypocapnically

DTLHS (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page, but we still need a third. Adverbs are so hard to cite! Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

capac

The current quote is from a television show, so I am not sure whether the spelling of the word can be attested -- is a published script available? There is a lot of noise to sift through for this one, and I imagine that if it is used it is far more often spoken, so good luck. - TheDaveRoss 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Wouldn't the pronunciation mean the plural is spelt capaces instead of capacs? Khemehekis (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The word spec as informal short for specification is pronounced /spɛk/, not /spɛs/, and its plural is specs.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is one occurrence in a book: [5]. I think, though, that in this case it is an abbreviation, usually written as capac. and easily attested in that form, but here with the final full stop omitted; if the author had been asked to reading this text aloud, they would probably have pronounced it as /kəˈpæsɪti/.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

TERFdom

Not durably archived? Equinox 15:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing on Google Books or Scholar; poking around another archive of academic papers all I saw were scannos of "-ter (FDOM)". There are two hits in one newspaper that Issuu has digitized, which are this article and a later reader response which quotes its title (so, not independent):
  • 2018 July 11, Alex Zaragoza, "No Time for TERFdom", in the San Diego CityBeat, page 8:
    [But] do one better than Chiamamanda Ngozi Adichie—whose speech was sampled for that song and who was called out for TERFdom and transphobia—and move that logic beyond the sexes.
Is there any easy place to search print copies of British papers? - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
...which I see has already been added, along with a questionably-durable Mary Sue article. Looks like this probably isn't includable now, but might be in several years. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The Mary Sue article is cited in Snopes, which is durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

terfdom

If TERFdom is deleted, presumably terfdom should also go. I mean, I don't see either capitalization... - -sche (discuss) 15:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

opotherapeutically

DTLHS (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I only managed to find one. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

anopsology

DTLHS (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page, but everything else I find looks more like a mention than a use. Kiwima (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

censually

DTLHS (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Those are citations of "inter-censually". DTLHS (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but not "intercensually", because they treat "censually" as a word. Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not in the opinion of one censor of citations. DCDuring (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there are great advantages for Wiktionary from considering hyphens to be word separators in English. The proliferation of entries for hyphenated terms could be systematically brought to an end with no reduction of meaningful semantic content.
In the case of inter-sensually it is interesting to note that there are no Google Books hits for intercensually (There are two at Scholar.) DCDuring (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see inter-censually as evidence for censually. The construction might be inter-censual + -ly for one thing. Equinox 20:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Then we only have one cite. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

forswink

DTLHS (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If we consider the language of Edmund Spenser (early) Modern English, then this is one use: [6].  --Lambiam 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

f8

Tagged by Special:Contributions/2600:1000:b100:697a:65a3:cbbb:f084:1882 but not listed. — surjection?〉 20:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

snaughle

Given citation is the only one on GB2600:1000:B119:704C:AB:BBA5:283D:7AA9 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

hysterocystic

DTLHS (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

headwark

Noun, sense 1. Tharthan (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find are mentions. this looks like a use to me, this is a bit iffy. Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

ochlophilia

DTLHS (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page - one very solid, the other a bit mention-y. Everything else I found was clearly just mentions. Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

zythepsary

Looking on Google Books, I see a few mentions, and two possible uses in the plural. Old Man Consequences (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find looks like mentions to me. I added what I could find. Kiwima (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

brennage

DTLHS (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I can find LOTS of mentions, but so far, only one use, which is on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

antisocialist

Rfv-sense "Alternative form of antisocial". Originally added by Special:Contributions/70.24.109.163 as two distinct meanings: "Not interested in meeting other people, a person averse to sociality", "Unfriendly toward others". — surjection?〉 06:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I found one cite, but that is all. Kiwima (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

/* moved from below */ verified on collins dictionary —This comment was unsigned.

There is already an RfV above. We need attestation of use, not mentions in a dictionary, though the dictionary mention would suggest that we can expect to find such attestation. DCDuring (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Name entries by IP editor

(Note to admins: Please archive this discussion to Category talk:English surnames from Japanese after the issue is resolved)

I cannot find a better place to put this, but I doubt the existence of basically all names (mostly surnames) added by Special:Contributions/24.105.160.0/19 and Special:Contributions/68.191.0.0/16, both for English and Non-English (Portuguese, French, German, Italian, etc.), since it seems that many of the names are those of fictional characters (or of Japanese emperors, etc.) and their use in the languages they are claimed to be used in is doubtful. There are simply too many to list on here. — surjection?〉 09:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If a large proportion of the names turns out to be unverifiable, I'm not wholly opposed to the idea of just deleting all of those entries, even if that may seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is also worth noting that this is possibly the same editor that was adding nonsense Egyptian entries earlier. — surjection?〉 09:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr What is your opinion on entries such as Fubuki, Masahito,Yoshihito, etc? These seem to be romanizations, rather than actual borrowings into English, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. On the other hand, there are entries such as Shinzo, Nijo, Ichijo, Shinjo that have lost the "ō". Are these considered actual borrowings? KevinUp (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh. Unless we've got verifiable examples of English speakers are using these names for their own children, I'm more of the opinion that these are romanizations -- and the dropping of the macron is not evidence of borrowing, in my view, so much as evidence of English writers and readers not understanding diacritics, or simply not bothering with them. We see the same thing with other languages, like Hawaiian humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa appearing in English contexts as humuhumunukunukuapuaa, losing both the macron and the ʻokina.
Otherwise, we may as well just romanize every name everywhere that isn't already spelled in Latin letters and dump all of that into Wiktionary as "English". Which seems to be what this anon is doing for Japanese names. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've cleaned up and removed English, Cebuano, Spanish, Tagalog, Portuguese, etc from the following entries:
@Eirikr These entries also need to be deleted:
  • Ichijo
  • Kenzou
  • Kyubee
  • Kyubei
  • Kyūbee (fixed)
  • Kyūbei
  • Nijo
  • Shinjo
  • Shinzo
  • Yohko
  • Youko
  • Yuuko
I found similar entries created by Special:Contributions/130.254.82.135 and Special:Contributions/73.182.28.179 in 2016 so I will clean those up later. KevinUp (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Surjection: you're right that the names in the boxes are lists of personal names of emperors, but also first names of Madoka characters (I don't remember a real person named Kyūbei as in the familiar in Madoka), the dropped-macron names as mentioned before, and possibly IJN battleship names (edited 吹雪 long time ago).
Isn't the romanization of 久兵衛 written as Kyūbee or Kyūbē? I would like an analysis regarding the sound shift from べいゑ → べえ... ~ POKéTalker) 10:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Kyūbee appears to be legit. I'm glad you've restored the romanization entry. KevinUp (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: After analyzing entries created by various IPs, I've identified the following 540 entries with Japanese romanizations assigned as English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Tagalog lemmas. If any of these lemmas are indeed used for names of native speakers, then citations or statistical evidence will be needed. KevinUp (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Also, these entries need to be deleted due to incorrect romanization (using "o" instead of "ō", etc):

Cleanup is in progress. Please archive this discussion to Category talk:English surnames from Japanese once the issue is resolved. KevinUp (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added RFV tags to all entries on the "small list". Note to anyone adding cites that we specifically need examples of these being used in English texts and not as romanizations (or botched romanizations) of names. — surjection?〉 07:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

parrhesia

Sense 2: “(rhetoric) the seeking of forgiveness for such [i.e. frank] speech”. Some dictionaries (e.g. Collins) have this as a second sense, but where does this come from? In the uses of the term I could find, it simply means “frank speech”, as in “speaking truth to power”, without having to say you’re sorry.  --Lambiam 10:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Isn't it where you say sorry immediately before being bold or frank in speaking to a superior? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    That is common cultural practice when criticizing someone, also in public speech, but is it a separate sense? We also do not define lecture as “1. A spoken lesson or exposition, usually delivered to a group. 2. Clearing one's throat before commencing such lesson or exposition.”  --Lambiam 12:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
According to Silva Rhetoricae:
"Either to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking. Sometimes considered a vice."
The names of rhetorical figures often cover distinguishable phenomena, so I'd hope that many of them would have multiple definitions here. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Why, yes, that is what Collins and Oxford say too, and what we find in A Glossary of Rhetorical Terms. But these are all mentions. The issue here is whether the term is actually used in this sense. Something like, “‘Forgive me for spealing so bluntly, sir, and with all due respect, ...’. After this parrhesia he paused, wiping the sweat off his brow, and then resumed, ‘with all due respect, sir, you are a veritable douche bag.’”  --Lambiam 18:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

exapoise

DTLHS (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the one paper, there is this. Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

tredecillionth, quindecillionth, quattuordecillionth

DTLHS (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I came here to say "don't bring obvious rubbish like quattuordecillionth to the RFV, just delete it" but then I found that it is in some (Google-scanned) books. Wow! But yes these do seem like "list words" like the phobias. Equinox 07:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I have added what I could find to the respective citations pages, omitting all instances that are just in lists of large or small powers. The result is one cite each for tredecillionth and quindecillionth, and two for quattuordecillionth. Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

sexvigintillion

As above. — surjection?〉 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added three citations to the citations page. Cited? - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. Short scale passes, long scale fails. Kiwima (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

septenvigintillion

As above. — surjection?〉 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Another issue is that this should theoretically be septemvigintillion, since septem is Latin for 7 and septen is a typo. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
And to that end, I added one cite to Citations:septemvigintillion. Kiwima (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I added two more citations to the n spelling. If they all attest the same sense, that sense is cited now. - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. Short scale passes, long scale fails. Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

octovigintillion

As above. — surjection?〉 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I added two more, making one sense of this cited. - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. Short scale passes, long scale fails. Kiwima (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

novemvigintillion

As above. — surjection?〉 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I've added two more citations to Citations:novemvigintillion. (One of them helpfully uses a lot of other number words.) The short scale sense is cited; the long scale sense not so much. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. Short scale passes. Long scale fails. Kiwima (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

untrigintillion

Created by the same editor as the other "large numerals" entries above, who still creates them without any citations. — surjection?〉 09:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move these to the dictionary-only terms appendix, or even give them an appendix of their own. Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
And shouldn't this be unotrigintillion, which has one citation? Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
untrigintillion is the form you’d expect, in analogy with undecillion. However, whereas undecillion is from existing Latin ūndecim + -illion, there is no Latin numeral *ūntriginta; the Latin term for XXXI is triginta (et) unus/-a/-um, literally “thirty (and) one”. Pages tretrigintillion, quattuortrigintillion, quintrigintillion, ..., were all deleted in 2006; the latter even again in 2015.  --Lambiam 22:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I've found two citations: Citations:untrigintillion. I like the idea of an appendix for the unattestable ones. (The citations at Citations:sexvigintillion can be used to attest many others.) - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

big mood

"(Internet slang, informal) Something that is deemed relatable. The way she was just lying on her bed is a big mood." The meaning is not clear to me from this. Also "deemed" seems like a weasel word: if it means something relatable then we should just say that; we don't define genius as "a person deemed very clever". Equinox 15:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Seems to be some sort of Twitter meme. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, definitely a Twitter(/Tumblr?) thing originally but since spread to other boards as well. Google Groups yields a fair amount of attestations of this usage, it's absolutely real (the definition and usexes could use some work, though). I don't think it's much older than 2017. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

limp

"Acronym of Louis XIV, James II, Queen Mary of Modena and the Prince of Wales. (a code-word among Jacobites)". I can see a couple of mentions in GBooks but no real usage. How would it be used anyway? One source seems to say that a person actually limped (walked lamely) to subtly show Jacobite support. That of course doesn't attest the word sense. Equinox 01:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not cited. You have shown that throwing the word "limp" into conversation was a code-word, along the lines of Freemasons using certain words; but it still appears to mean "limp", like "walk awkwardly". It doesn't have a separate meaning; it is just that speaking of limping (walking awkwardly) is something Jacobites did to secretly identify themselves. Usage note at best. Equinox 22:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Drinking “the health of Limp” can hardly refer to an awkward gait. Here the term explicitly refers to the acronym, but then it becomes of course a mention. But can one really expect persecuted people using a code-word to avoid prosecution to record it durably in a way in which it is recognizable as such?  --Lambiam 19:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In an anti-Jacobite engraving, entitled “The Triumphs of Providence over Hell, France & Rome, In the Defeating & Discovering of the late Hellish and Barbarous Plott, for Aſſaſſinating his Royall Majesty King William Middle English the.svg III”, seen here, the word LIMP appears, as well as in the accompanying text.  --Lambiam 20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks like that gives us two, but we still need a third.
Macaulay refers to a letter of L’Hermitage (to the States General?) of September 5/15 1695, and Narcissus Luttrell‘s Parliamentary Diary, of which I can’t find an accessible online copy.  --Lambiam 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

revocationism

DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

convocationism

DTLHS (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

ou

I hate to RFV something like this (an obsolete dialectal word), but the only evidence of this I can find is a mention in William H. Marshall (1789 / 1796)'s work on the dialect of Gloucester. It's not in the EDD, the OED, or Century (in the EDD I checked under not just ou but also a, he, and she). (For the record, if the entry can't be verified and is deleted, it was a pronoun meaning "he, she, it" indiscriminately, a falling-together of reduced forms of he or she, like also the better-attested a (pronoun).) I've no idea where our suggested pronunciation came from or whether it's accurate. - -sche (discuss) 07:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The pronunciation was added in this edit. It may well have been inferred by analogy of you. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

garadship

2 BGC results. — surjection?〉 18:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

unwield

Another supposed good olde Englishe worde that actually seems like a vanishingly rare nonce or mistake. I don't understand the use in the 1907 citation (a poem), and the 2007 one seems like an NNES solecism (a judge "unwields" a task?). Neither of them is at all convincing as evidence for the claimed definition. Equinox 15:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have put the verbal uses I could find on the citations page. The 1907 citation I believe to be an adjective. All the verbal uses I found (except the 2014, which I take to be a nonce that supports the supplied definition) seem to be a sort of combination of wielding and unveiling. Kiwima (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The 1907 is a misquote of this (line 66). The 2014 is indeed a nonce, but it seems to refer to making the commentary unwieldy to the point of uselessness. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Kiwima, having looked at 1907 again I agree it's an adjective, and must mean unwieldy (perhaps cut short for poetic meter, like e'en). The sense of "unwieldy" is echoed by the adjective cumbrous that follows it. I see it's a scanno for unwieldy, thus removed. Equinox 07:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed. We have enough verb citations on the citations page for an entry, but the definition is unclear. In any case, it clearly did not match the definition that I just deleted. Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus

Hot words should still be used by someone. DTLHS (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added what I could find. Most of them seem a bit mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed. A number of mentions, but not enough uses. Kiwima (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

centry

Rfv-senses

  • diminutive of the conjunction "center-right" in reference to a person with center-right beliefs
  • sometimes used in politics as a diminutive of "centrist"

surjection?〉 18:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

MERS

For sense "Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus", can it be verified if MERS is ever used without qualification to refer to the virus and not just the illness? The CDC says not.[7] -Mike (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a somewhat unfortunate and ignorant use and we should note in a usage note that this may be frowned upon, but it can be attested: “Mers is a virus that is transmitted from animals to humans”; “MERS is a coronavirus for which there is no cure”; “Because MERS is a virus, antibiotics are ineffective”.  --Lambiam 12:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

deadweight

Rfv-sense adjective: "Describes a shot with exact, precise pace to leave the balls in the perfect position. Usually just touching a cushion or very close to another ball". I'd like some evidence it's indeed an adjective. Canonicalization (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a few relevant Google results for e.g. "dead-weight shot" or "dead weight shot", in which I would consider "dead[-]weight" to be adjectival; "deadweight" seems to be a rarer spelling variant in this sense. I think, personally, that there is no problem with "dead[-]weight shot" per se, but probably there is uncertainty about how to spell it. Mihia (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

somdomite

One person's misspelling, and then a bunch of quotes referring to that one time he misspelled it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    This is a RFV, so "delete" would not usually belong here. What is sought are attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST, and given the nomination, the emphasis would be that they should not be mentions and they should be independent. (somdomite*50), sodomite at Google Ngram Viewer is interesting, showing that the mentions referring back to Wilde are numerous indeed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    Oops, must have misread the page heading. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if this is a situation like Cablinasian or Talk:cannista, where a word was coined by and is usually invoked in the context of or in reference to a specific person, but multiple people who are independent of each other (when it comes to choosing to use it) do use it. For example, contrary to the entry's assertion that the plural is not attested, here's a book that uses (not just mentions) it in a section title, even inflecting it for number (then immediately refers to Wilde and even has a photo of the calling card):
  • 1999, Andrew Prescott, Elizabeth M. Hallam, and the British Library, The British Inheritance: A Treasury of Historic Documents, page 12:
    Somdomites and Revolutionaries
    Oscar Wilde, the brilliant controversialist and playwright, []
And here's one where the plural is used (not quoted like several other words in the sentence) in a sentence about what Queensberry must've thought about multiple people:
  • 1998, The New Criterion, volume 16, issues 5-10, page 47:
    Queensberry honestly thought his son and his chum were "posing" as Somdomites—"playing silly buggers" just to wind him up. Many Britons of Wilde's background are what one might call socially homosexual: []
And here's an iffier use of the plural, in italics (but contrasted with "gentlemen" in quotation marks), which could be argued to be a mention on that account:
  • 1990, Richard Dellamora, Masculine Desire: The Sexual Politics of Victorian Aestheticism, page 195:
    [] by touching a nerve of homophobia within London's literary clubmen. During the decade, the clubs provided a semipublic space in which "gentlemen" might be discriminated from Somdomites, to use the Marquess of Queen sherry's spelling.
Here's a use next to "inverts", in a work that's referencing Wilde:
  • 2013, Doug Kirshen, Six Weeks—The New Man and the London Theatre Season of 1895: Henry James, Henry Irving, Oscar Wilde (thesis at Brandeis University):
    He evolved to connect the antifeminist ridicule of the New Woman to the growing backlash against male homosexuals, the Somdomites and inverts.
But here's a work that uses it in the plural in reference to two American gay men, not Wilde (though clearly, from the phrasing, alluding to the calling card):
  • 2004, Michigan Law Review, volume 102, issues 7-8, page 1476:
    A. Posing as Somdomites: John Lawrence and Tyron Garner
    Little is known publicly about the men whose arrest led to the most important gay civil rights decision in American history. According to the Houston attorney who handled their case at the trial court level, Mitchell Katine, "They're not out to be any more famous than they accidentally came to be."
All of these use the capitalized form, so a move seems to be necessary, but I would argue Prescott, New Criterion, and Michigan Law Review seem to attest the use of the word.
- -sche (discuss) 19:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I also found one occurrence of the singular string, but not with a relevant meaning, in a work in which The Ardent Somdomite (and [the] Somdomite for short) is the name of some kind of ship/vessel, carrying cargo, which wrecked: I can't actually see the snippet in question to tell if it's italicized and referring to the ship, but I assume from the rest of the book that it is:
  • 2009, Gary Indiana, The Shanghai Gesture: A Novel, page 29:
    "Then you swallow whole this convenient twaddle about the Somdomite spreading narcolepsy through the countryside." "There's really nothing convenient about narcolepsy," I yawned. "That's where you're mistaken," Smith leered sardonically.
- -sche (discuss) 19:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the entry to the capitalized form and will copy the citations over. - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

googlology

First of all, the sense is all wrong. It should be something along the lines of "The study of Google or of the ideology of the company", but if we put that aside, I'm still having a hard time finding durably archived quotes. One cite in "A Dictionary of Social Media" (2016), but not much else as far as I can tell. Maybe it should be capitalised, i.e. Googlology? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Other than the "Dictionary of Social Media", which is a mention rather than a use, all I could find was this, and other references to that exhibition, which also doesn't count. Kiwima (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Googlology, the latest degree option at Anytown University. Tharthan (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Molucca palm

Rfv-sense

  1. A labiate herb from Asia Moluccella laevis) with an unusual cup-shaped calyx.

This seems to be an error for "Molucca balm", which is attested (the plant is related to lemon balm). I added the sense which is in old dictionaries (a species of Asian palm tree), so I'm not rfving the whole entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think @Chuck Entz is probably right here, and it does not seem to be a common error. I could only find [one citation]. Kiwima (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like that to me too. DCDuring (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yamato-

(Old BrunoMed prefix entry I just partly cleaned up; see RFC.) I debated between RFVing and RFDing this. I can't find any evidence that it's a prefix, e.g. none of "Yamato(phobia|phobic|phobe|philia|phile|philic|centrism|centrist)" exist. There is one Google Books result for "Yamatocentric" but it's actually "Yamato-centric" and seems to be Yamato + -centric rather than this prefix (though some would argue that's an RFD question). - -sche (discuss) 05:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Islando-

Old BrunoMed entry, see also the one above. I couldn't find any hits for the search terms I tried, "Islando(phobia|phobic|phobe|philia|philic|phile|centrism|centrist|centric)" and "Islando-(Norwegian|Norse|British)", apart from one citation of Citations:Islandophile which refers to a (fictional?) place of Islandia, not Iceland. - -sche (discuss) 06:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

gayelle

A lesbian. Term proposed on a Web site that never caught on; I see no uses in Google Books. Equinox 14:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I found a couple of mentions (here and here), but no actual uses, except ones that are not durably archived, such as this and this. Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

take out

"To immobilize with force." What does that mean: e.g. pin somebody by the arms? (It's not the separate kill/destroy sense.) Equinox 19:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it might have been intended to mean something like "incapacitate" or "subdue" or "render hors de combat" (e.g. injured, restrained, disarmed, or unconscious). Basically the "kill" meaning (sense 4) but sub-lethal. Pseudomonas (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

copy-pasto

"An accidental text error caused by the incorrect copying and pasting copying and pasting of material on a computer." So basically a copy-paste typo. Couldn't find in GBooks. Equinox 00:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

One can attest it with the mailing list archives of free-and-open-source projects (which are durable, because the existence of such software is not negotiable – as the source codes of certain kernels and their main distributions and browsers etc. are kept for centuries in the future to gaze at, so are the mailing lists; they have until now just rarely been used on Wiktionary for no reason other than little tech affinity). Examples (too late for me to format now): 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7. Spelling varies between copy-pasto, copy+pasto, copy/pasto, copy&pasto – I am for taking the first and hard-redirecting the others, we don’t have copy & paste and copy + paste though we have copy and paste either. Fay Freak (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Anything durably archived? I don't buy the "software is durably archived because something something negotiable since (i) that doesn't even make sense to me and (ii) even if it made sense it isn't Wiktionary policy. We can of course create a Citations page in the interim. Equinox 15:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Equinox I mean if these software projects (Linux, GNU, Debian) do not exist anymore it is the end of the world as we know it anyway; and their disappearance is even more out of question than Wikimedia not existing anymore. Thus they are durable. It is Wiktionary policy already, without being explicitly mentioned (because it would not be easy to define: Of course not every code project hosted in public can be held durable safely but for some it must be so because the internet depends on them). Fay Freak (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
When I was 17 I made some video games for Windows. Suppose that my game has a special word in it, and today I put it on GitHub. Does it become CFI-attestable? Probably not because nobody is using, downloading, or quoting it. But how can we tell it apart from the cool popular projects like Firefox etc.? Presumably only because that speech and writing can be found elsewhere. I don't think GitHub means a damn thing. Equinox 02:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

mid

Use as preposition barely continues past Middle English to my knowledge; no reason to have a Modern English entry. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone else will have to try and dig out uses, but if it has three past the standard 1500 CE line between Middle English and English, then that's enough reason to have a Modern English entry.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe there's three post-1500 attestations, hence why I made the RFV. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that, though. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the quotations the Middle English Dictionary has and then tried to find similar collocations in modern English, to almost no avail. I tried "mid God", "(is|are|was|were|be|have|has|had) mid (him|us)", "God (is|was) mid", "deal mid" (which turns up a scanno of "deal wid", variant of "deal with"), "mid child", "mid this word", "well mid God", "mid flesh and", "accord(s|ed) mid", "well mid all", "mid eyes", "mid English", "speak mid", and "fill(ed) mid (a|the)", but all I found were reprints of Middle or Old English texts - apart from two citations which, although seemingly the right sense, represent dialectal speech and may have a different etymology (one looks like it represents a German accent and so was probably influenced by German mit, the intended dialect/accent of the other is unclear). - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I've cited the German-derived preposition, which I've added to the end of the entry like this. I moved most of the etymological content for the "native English" preposition to the Middle English section. I kept a reference to the native preposition (and its surviving derivatives, hopefully solving the question of where to mention them) in the etymology section of the German-derived preposition. IMO the first etymology section (the "native" preposition meaning "with") can be removed unless it can be cited (but, as the OED says, it seems to have died out before 1400). - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Someone bolder than me might even claim the use of mid instead of mit in the "German-accented English" examples was "possibly influenced by" the old [Middle] English preposition (e.g. perhaps to make the representations of accented speech more intelligible by using a "native" word), but given that the native word was long dead by that time and the same texts also interchange initial ps and bs where standard German does no such thing, I would not read that into the choice of -d vs -t (I wouldn't even assume the authors were referencing the fact that final -d and -t are homophonous). (AFAICT neither Plautdietsch nor Dutch, which have met, nor Pennsylvania German nor Yiddish, which have mit, are the source of a final -d.) - -sche (discuss) 06:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Christmas cake

Rfv-sense for the Japanese slang "a woman over 25 years old". Lots of cites in the entry, but they're all explaining the metaphor (thus discussing literal Christmas cakes) or blatant mentions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It may be a (dated) sense of Japanese クリスマスケーキ (kurisumasukēki), but not of the English term.  --Lambiam 16:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

opportunity engineering

A registered trademark that doesn't seem to have much usage in any running text, but lots of scannos. DCDuring (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If the term is used in the sense of the book, it should be capitalized (“Opportunity Engineering®”), and if that is the only use this lower-case version should be deleted. If it can be attested in lower case with a different sense, this sense should still be deleted from the lower-case page.  --Lambiam 07:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

confirmities

"Shakespearean nonce word". From the days when any misprint from a "well-known work" was deemed inclusion-worthy. DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

orgul, orgel

Supposedly a native-Old-English-derived word meaning "pride". I found one citation which is probably of that sense, which I put at Citations:orgul. However, beyond just attestation, the etymology also needs referencing; the MED derives the Middle English word from Old French (although the old Century agrees with deriving orgul from "A[nglo-]S[axon]"). Joseph T. Shipley's Dictionary of Early English (1955, Rowman & Littlefield, →ISBN), page 472, in defining orgulous (which does seem to have survived), says it's "from orgueil, orguil, orgul, pride. Orgueil is direct from the French (12th century), presumably from an Old High German form urguol, renowned. Orgueil has not been used since the 16th century, save as a fresh borrowing from the French." I just created orgueil with some citations and an etymology section that derives it from (Old) French. If orgul is also attested, we'll need to determine if we're dealing with two words or one, and where to lemmatize it, and what etymology it has... - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is Old English orgol (pride, arrogance), which claims this as a descendant. The -ul ending looks more like Middle English. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to add the other sense of orgel to this RFV; supposedly it's a Dutch-derived word used in Japan to mean a music box, but I can find few English citations of orgel with any meaning at all: Citations:orgel. - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

forwhore

Two senses. Can't see anything in Google Books (watch out for the obvious scannos: "[a conviction] for whoring" etc.). The given citations appear to be both from the same book (though listed as 2011 and 2012?!), and are faux-archaic fantasy speech that may have been invented for the occasion. Equinox 20:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it was invented for the book, since I found it in a number of old dictionaries - unfortunately all I found was mentions, no uses. Kiwima (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

panmnesia

Really only seeing one use in BGC, in reference to Roman Jakobson, and some are defining it as a belief rather than an ability. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if someone uses it in writing, it's a phonotactic train wreck- I doubt most English speakers would be able to say it out loud without training and/or careful practice. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I have added the one cite to the citations page. Other than that, as @Metaknowledge points out, it is only mentions rather than uses. It was apparently coined in 1896 in something called Mr. Myer's Glossary. Kiwima (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

upper

Noun: "That which is higher, contrasted with the lower. As the restless sleeper here, I'll take the lower berth. You take the upper." I think that's an adjective there (like "you have brown shoes; I have black"). Equinox 18:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In a context where someone has a pair of black shoes as well as brown shoes, they can say, "I wear the browns" ([8], [9], [10]). You can do this in many contexts with many adjectives, most commonly in the plural.  --Lambiam 21:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
At first I was totally inclined to agree, but for grins I did a search and found this [[11]]...not sure what to make of it yet Leasnam (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Found this as well, which seems eerily similar to the usex given for the sense 1. It even looks like it might be a clipping of upper berth/upper berths => upper/uppers [[12]] Leasnam (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
cited. I added a selection of meanings, including those higher in the social hierarchy and upper teeth, as well as the bunks or berths already mentioned. I could probably supply three cites for each meaning, except perhaps the ropes on the sailboat. Kiwima (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps what we should be looking for is citations where "upper" is used without explicitly giving a noun that is modified by this as an adjective. In that case, I can cite upper berths or bunks, upper teeth, and social elites. We could break these off into three separate definitions, and remove the more vague "that which is higher". Kiwima (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't many (even most) English adjectives be used this way? I found that flimsy, apico-domal, complete, quiet, unique are used this way. Some adjectives aren't attestable being used this way, but it often seems for reasons of phonology, eg. differents. DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It's been many years, but I vaguely remember upper as a partial denture (or was it orthodontia?) for the upper jaw, as in "I just got fitted for a new upper". Whatever the details, it's definitely a noun- if we can verify it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The present usage example for the generic definition, "As the restless sleeper here, I'll take the lower berth. You take the upper", is quite weak IMO, since, as DCDuring says, pretty much any adjective can be used in this pattern with the definite article and an implied noun omitted. I would lay out the relevant definitions along the broad lines of "That which is higher, or above something else, especially ..." and then list the common special cases, such as the part of the shoe. Mihia (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. I took @Mihia's suggestion and converted the entry into groupings of general meanings, which led me to group some of the other definitions as well. Kiwima (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

thy

Conjunction meaning "because". Not in the EDD or Century (which sometimes help find citations of things), and google books:"thy he" is only finding me scannos across line breaks and other chaff. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It was usually used following for as in for thy. May be Middle English Leasnam (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that hint, @Leasnam. This is now cited. Kiwima (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
If this is only found as "for-thy"/"for thy", which looks like a mere alternative form of forthy, then I think this would need to be reduced to something like {{only used in|for thy}} (with that entry defined as an alt form or synonym of forthy). - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure we can conclude that it is only found in that formation - the reason all our quotes use "for thy" is because I used that string to search on, thereby weeding out many false positives. Kiwima (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Still, the etymology section identifies thy as a short form of for-thy or forthy. The citations show an alternative form of for-thy, not a shortened form of it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Right, both the etymology and the citations suggest this only exists as for( )thy. The Middle English Dictionary also does not appear to have this except as forthy (I looked to see if they would have pointers to any other collocations). I found one source suggesting "withe thi"/"with thy" might exist, but I can find no evidence of it except with the other ("thine") since of "thy". - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I've redefined this as proposed above (as it seems to only exist as a constituent of forthy, possibly even in Middle English, since the MED only has for-thi. Someone check that the part of speech is right, though; thy says conjunction while forthy lists itself as both an adverb and a conjunction. - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

octopoid

Rfv-sense "pertaining to octopods". (I would expect octopodal to have this meaning, and it does, so I've added it there.) It would also be good to clarify which sense of octopod is meant, as that entry has three senses, "1. Any animal with eight feet or foot-like parts.", "2. Any cephalopod mollusks of the order Octopoda.", "3. A railway locomotive with eight wheels." I doubt a reference to sense 2 of octopod could be distinguished from a reference to an octopus. - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I found one citation where a spider is called octopoid, and the surrounding text suggests it is a tarantula-inspired, "normally" (non-tentacle-y AFAICT) eight-legged spider. With some other octopod words, I had luck finding citations referencing larva, or horses like Sleipnir, or collocating with the phrases "eight (legged|footed|legs|feet)", or "eight (armed|arms)", or by searching with other number-prefixed words of the same type (e.g. octopodal + hexapodal), but not here. (google books:octopoid "eight arms" turns up references to cephalopods which are octopid in having eight arms; I suppose those could be a reference to Octopoda or to octopuses.) - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Someone interested in taxonomy (Chuck Entz? DCDuring?) could take a look at google books:"octopoid" cephalopod (and related searches, e.g. google books:"octopoid" squid) and see if they feel the various scientific texts (not the fics) there are better interpreted as meaning "octopus-like" or "octopodes/Octopoda-like". - -sche (discuss) 09:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. Given the difficulty in distinguishing whether the word is used to mean "octopus-like" or "octopod-like" I have merged the two defintions. Kiwima (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

clown car

Rfv-sense: (manufacturing) A bait-and-switch car.

Hunh? DCDuring (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

After fairly extensive searching, I added a number of missing definitions, and even found one quote that could support this strange definition. However, I think the quote I found is actually using it to mean "very small car" (one of the definitions I added.) Perhaps the person who added this definition had read the book I got the quote from...Kiwima (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the manufacturing tag, perhaps prematurely, but bait and switch in predominantly retail in a human commercial context. In such retail context, it seems NISoP. DCDuring (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

manoeuvrability

Rfv-sense "(from manoeuvre + ability) The ability to perform a strategic plan or manoeuvre." as distinct from the preceding sense. I am not sure that this could, conceptually speaking, exist distinctly. - -sche (discuss) 03:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the distinction here is between things that one can manoeuvre (like the manoeuvrability of a ship) vs. the ability of the one doing the monoeuvring, or whether it is between physical manoeuvring and strategic manoeuvring, so I picked three quotes that talk of the manoeuvrability of someone who is manoeuvring strategically. Unless I am totally confused, this is cited. Kiwima (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thinking more about this, I realize that references to the manoeuvrability of a ship/bus/etc can attribute it to the ship's ability to manoeuvre or to the pilot's ability and hence to the ship's ability/capacity to be manoeuvred. So although I initially thought the "comparison with those who are better off and have greater 'manoeuvrability'" seemed to be using the word in the same way as the first sense's usex, "articulated buses were invented to improve the manoeuvrability of long buses" — the people can maneuver (through society / life / socioeconomic classes), the buses can maneuver (through the streets) — and I'm not sure we want to separate that (do we in other -abilities?), I also found and added a choppy citation which seems to refer to a pilot's "manoeuvrability" meaning "ability to manoeuvre" (although portions of the page/text seem to be cut off) and realized I'm on the fence. I await others' perspectives, both on which sense each citation is using and whether they are more sensibly kept separate or combined. - -sche (discuss) 19:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that the process whereby "verb-able/ability" can mean "able/ability to do verb" is not a regular or common one in English. In fact, the only other example I can come up with at the moment is "variable/ability", though I guess there are probably others. Is it valid to say e.g. "My manoeuvrability is limited" to mean "my ability to manoeuvre is limited"? I would say so, in which case I suppose it is a distinct sense from "ability to be manoeuvred", though I'm not sure whether we should have separate numbered definitions or just the one: "ability to manoeuvre or be manoeuvred". I'm wondering whether the "strategic vs. physical" thing is a red herring wrt the distinction in question. Mihia (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
There are some instances of "X-ability" in which X is not a verb, such as roadability and knowledgeability. (There is also an obsolete verb to knowledge, but it had a different meaning than the noun and was not the contributing stem.) Indeed, "VERB-ability" generally has a passive meaning: "ability or liability to be VERB-ed". But already in Latin, sometimes the meaning was active. Examples include amicability, peccability and sociability. One coined in English is clubbability; although club can be a noun, I think this derives from the verb to club.  --Lambiam 11:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
So do you think it is plausible that there is a sense of "manoeuvrability" in which the "manoeuvre" part does not stem from the verb? Mihia (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair point. I don't think I was familiar with this usage, but I'm persuaded that it makes sense to have a separate sense, and the "pilot's manoeuvrability", "Lusaka's manoeuvrability" and "fancied his manoeuvrability" citations seem to attest it sufficiently. (The "women [...have] greater 'manoeuvrability'" citation probably does as well, as it seems synonymous with mobility = "the ability to move".) And there are other citations at google books:"his manoeuvrability", google books:"my manoeuvrability". Btw, another example of "X-ability" meaning "ability to X" is movability. Words relating to motion seem like a good place to look for more. - -sche (discuss) 07:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

shild

This term doesn't seem to be attested beyond the 1200's; looking on Google Books only yields what seems to be dialectal versions of child. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I can also find a few uses of this to mean "shield" ("God shild it!"), but not the challenged sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Probably needs to be moved to Middle English Leasnam (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

shildy

Compare the RFV of shild, above. This too does not seem to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably needs to be moved to Middle English Leasnam (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

pootie

"(slang) A nickname between lovers. Pootie, are you coming to bed?" Might require a capital P, for one thing? BTW, compare Pookie. Equinox 15:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

weeby

Like a weeaboo. Equinox 19:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems fairly common in the gaming subculture. I have added some cites, although I suspect they are not durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

whore

Rfv-sense: “(derogatory, offensive, slang) Any woman.” --95.185.65.155 22:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Recently added by the same user who also added "A male, as opposed to a female." as a sense to nigga. That may either provide a possible collocation to search with, or a second entry to RFV... - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's in line with bitch... I would have thought that calling a woman a "whore" in a derogatory, offensive way would just be using the prostitute sense, even if it isn't literally true — a bit like how "those morons in government!" isn't really suggesting that they have subpar intellect (only that they make bad decisions). Equinox 08:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm at least familiar with "bitches be tripping"/"bitches be like ___"/etc where that word seems to be used pretty broadly, perhaps to encompass women in general; I can't call to mind examples of such a use of "whores", although it might exist. You raise a good question, at what point does "broader" application of something as an insult become a new sense? (Getting off topic,) calling every uncool thing "gay" has its own sense, whereas calling a mannish straight girl a "dyke" does not seem like a different sense, but just asserting, even if knowingly inaccurately, that she is a mannish lesbian. But should "lesbian" mention that bullies could shout "lesbian!!" at any girl who looked or dressed mannish? In that case, the "relevant" sense of "lesbian" (≈"gay woman") is not restricted to mannish women. I guess finding citations is the first step. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

dictionary

Sense 4: intransitive: "To appear in a dictionary". Presumably usage would look like: "apple dictionaries under the letter A". I did find a sentence in GBooks saying that "...headingless writer could equally be dictionaried under autobiography..." but that is transitive, and thus covered by the other sense "to add to a dictionary" — though I've seen people make the mistake where they would create a sense like this (challenged) one to try to cover such a passive-mood citation. Equinox 08:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I did manage to find one cite (by Ezra Pound, no less):
  • 1938, Ezra Pound, Culture, page 323:
    Metadidomi dictionaried also as the “giving a share”.
And I found one cite that is ambiguous (is it active or passive?}, but I have not yet found a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

die

"(intransitive) To be utterly cut off by family or friends, as if dead. The day our sister eloped, she died to our mother." No hits in GBooks for "she died to our mother" or even anything relevant for "she died to me". I've heard of someone being dead to somebody, but not "dying to somebody". Is it real? Equinox 08:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems like it should exist, but it's hard to find. All the hits I see at google books:"died to our" seem to be the "become indifferent; cease to be subject" sense or chance co-occurrences of the words, ditto "she died to her", "I died to my", and "died to (his|her|my) (father|mother)", of which the only hit that might be this sense is Bloom. Strickland seems(?) to also use the sense we want, whereas this grammatically similar Lipner cite seems to use the literal sense, just in a counterfactual(?). The sense doesn't seem to be in the old OED. Smith and Cherryh and maybe Winer seem like they may be the right sense, though. What do you think? - -sche (discuss) 09:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The usual expression is "to be dead to someone". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@-sche Thanks for looking. I don't really see why it "should" exist: you can be invisible to someone without having "disappeared to them". So, the challenged definition is: "To be utterly cut off by family or friends, as if dead." My feelings about your links (in order of appearance):
  • 2009 Bloom: "Esther ... has 'died' to her mother, in order to live again" (note scare quotes!): this seems to be a psychoanalytical statement: someone has done something akin to death in order to overcome some trauma etc. Not relevant to the challenged sense.
  • 1854 Strickland: "When Edward died all men died to me." Presumably this means "he was the only man I could care about" so again not relevant to the challenged sense.
  • 2009 Lipner: "you hadn't died to me. In my mind only you remained my wife, no one else could take your place." Presumably someone did die but remained "alive" in their partner's mind, preventing future relationships: again not relevant to challenged sense.
  • 2011, Winer: "He's died to me so many times since the last time I heard from him [...] and I've died to myself so many times because of it." Not very clear but "died to myself" suggests the friends/family sense doesn't apply...?
  • 2015, Cherryh: "There was a point I let you die to me, son of mine. I told myself you were dead, so I could think about your father." THIS ONE ALONE SEEMS RELEVANT.
  • 2018 Smith: "I know you're dying [...] You've been dying to me, a little bit, day by day, as long as I can remember. And when I started doing some digging and discovered that Niklas existed, well, you died more that day." Apparently someone is becoming detached or disliked; again not relevant.

Equinox 15:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I think our definition at die is simply insufficient, and should parallel or incorporate more of the wording from the coordinate sense of dead (which is defined as "so hated that they are absolutely ignored", without explicitly limitation to or mention of being ignored specifically by family/friends). I'm going to revise the sense, at which point it seems to me that the 2018 Smith citation probably applies — I mean, suppose it continued its statements of "you've been drying to me, a little bit, day by day [...] you died more that day" by additionally saying "you became dead to me": that would be the "so hated that they are absolutely ignored" sense of dead, wouldn't it? so I think the sense of die (which is clearly intended to be coordinate) is meant, too. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I tried searching for "died to"+"dead to", but most of what I found is a religious sense of dead that we were missing, parallel to the "become indifferent to (sin, etc)" sense of die. I did find one citation (2003 Carman) talking about one person dying to and being dead to another person, but it might just be a counterfactual (as it also involves telling people the person is dead when you know they're not). - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I think family/friends is possibly a common context but probably an unhelpful red herring. Good luck! Equinox 17:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I found one clear cite of this (2017 Hoornstra), a mother yelling at her son that when he ran away, he died to her and became dead to her. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Aha, using the string "died to (me|him|her|etc) (the|that) day" [that someone did something], I managed to find several more citations. It could be argued that many or all are just metaphorical (compare saying something "died that day as far as [X] was concerned"), but the same can be said of the corresponding sense of dead and of many other senses of die and dead, so I don't see that as necessarily grounds for removal. It could also be argued that all the citations I added have the form "die to [someone]", but I think it still breaks down as [die] [to someone] rather than [die to], just like "it seemed to me" is "[it seemed] [to me]" not "it [seemed to] [me]". The definition may also need further revision. But I think the sheer existence of a verb die with a meaning roughly coordinate to be dead to is cited. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

lusûs naturæ

A horrid creation of the author of many such, with one cite that I can't confirm. DCDuring (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I found and added one other citation (which I was able to see has this on the page; I was not able to confirm that Dickens does). But the inclusion of so much etymological information seems excessive/unusual for an inflected form, especially when the singular entry already covers the plural's etymology. And the singular lemma should itself be moved from lusus naturæ to lusus naturae (Ngrams). - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I've moved the lemma (of the singular) to the ligatureless form, at least. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Surely this is an alternative, archaic spelling of (the plural) lusus naturae, rather than a plural of lusus naturæ. Madame Blavatsky died in 1891, so her quotation of 2018 must have been channelled through occult forces.  --Lambiam 17:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Good point. (Please revise the presentation as to "form of" as you see fit.) And older editions of her work don't have the û, though that doesn't prevent this edition from being used as a citation of a work that does have û (it exists in the world as a work someone might "run across", in the words of CFI). - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Another point: I doubt that the specific form “lusûs naturae”, which is given as an alternative plural at lusus naturae, was ever used in actuality.  --Lambiam 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
If you find this entry in its challenged form objectionable, you might wish to review other contributions by the same person, distinguished by extreme pedantry. DCDuring (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I made a list of English entries using âêîôûāēīōūæœ (characters I've seen used in archaic Latinate entry titles) which aren't marked as archaic or obsolete. Many are valid, e.g. placenames, some are things that need to be marked as archaic (with content moved to another spelling), but many are other plurals, like Aramæans. Probably we should come up with a general policy on whether to present these as plurals of the ligature-using singulars or as archaic forms of the non-ligature plurals (or singulars). - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

dick print

Looks a little urban dictionary to me. - TheDaveRoss 13:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

To me, too. However, it was easily cited Kiwima (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

dick pointer

I am skeptical. - TheDaveRoss 13:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I could find mentions in plenty of dictionaries of slang (it is apparently local to Queensland, Australia), but no uses. If this does pass, I suspect it is plural only. Kiwima (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

sluggos

Lots of these created by one person who created nothing else, we should verify. - TheDaveRoss 13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

cited, but only in the plural - I think we should move it to a plural noun, unless someone can find a use in the singular. Kiwima (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed, although I have moved it to sluggos as a plural noun. Kiwima (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

thursty

surjection?〉 09:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added "eye dialect of thursty" to the preexisting, rfd'ed "(slang, sexuality) In need of sexual congress".--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Since "thirsty" itself also has the meaning "horny", the {{eye dialect of}} sense is the only one needed. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
But if an alternative form is only used for a subset of the senses? DCDuring (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It can be added as a gloss after the {{eye dialect of}} template, on the same definition line. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that "thursty" is used only for a subset of the senses; arguably the only sense I didn't cite for it is the sexual one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

diego

@DCDuring as creator. Is this term specific (meaning that there aren't a host of other common Spanish names which are also used to refer to Spanish speakers generally)? Also, is it slang? If so, is it regional? I have never heard this term, and it sure seems like slang, but right now it is treated equally with something like Latino. Other dictionaries don't seem to have this sense. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I got this from Online Etymology Dictionary. The current article:
Dago (n.)
1823, from Spanish Diego "James" (see James). Said to have been originally American English slang for "one born of Spanish parents," especially in New Orleans; it was also used of Spanish or Portuguese sailors on English or American ships. By 1900 it had broadened to include non-sailors and shifted to mean chiefly "Italian." James the Greater is the patron saint of Spain, and Diego as generic for "a Spaniard" is attested in English from 1610s.
It's not in DARE, so it may not be US.
I'll see what I can find in Google Books fiction. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
So this is like dago and should be labeled as slang, ethnic slur and offensive? - TheDaveRoss 15:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The cites don't support anything except 'slang' or 'colloquial'. I'd never heard any use of any kind. DCDuring (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I've cited the uppercase form as an altcaps form. Compare Fritz for a German or Tommy (not just in English but also e.g. German) for a Brit. I'm inclined to make some kind of coordinate-term list-template for these, ethnic terms derived from personal names. (There are edge cases: Jerry is also a personal name, but as an ethnic term is apparently just short for German.) - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, reportedly, James and Jimmy for Spaniard. DCDuring (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

color

Noun senses 4 and 5 presently read:

4. (figuratively) Richness of expression; detail or flavour that is likely to generate interest or enjoyment.
There is a great deal of colour in his writing.
a bit of local color
5. In corporate finance, details on sales, profit margins, or other financial figures, especially while reviewing quarterly results when an officer of a company is speaking to investment analysts.
Could you give me some color with regards to which products made up the mix of revenue for this quarter?

Request verification that sense 5 exists as a specific finance term, and is not merely an application of a wider sense, maybe something along the lines of sense 4. (Another editor has previously added a comment to the source asking "surely this is not so specific?") Mihia (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the HTML comment in diff while grouping or merging some senses, and indeed suspect the definition given is greatly over-specific. It may mean "details" in a way distinct from sense 4, or more likely it may be best to simply revise sense 4 a bit, but I'm sure it's never contrastively specific to details on profit margins given while reviewing quarterly results. - -sche (discuss) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

stocktake

"(British) An event in which stock is taken of something" (e.g. taking stock of one's surroundings? NOT the retail counting-up process). Not known to this Englishman. Equinox 00:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The "taking stock of one's surroundings" sense does exist, presumably as an extension of the literal inventory sense, as in e.g. "I looked around and took a quick stocktake of what was going on / who was in the room / etc.". Searches for e.g. "did a quick stocktake" may yield some citations. Sometimes hyphenated. Mihia (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems more of a process (ie, with duration) than an event (ie, a point in time). Perhaps there is confusion because the process takes stock as of a point in time, the end of a financial reporting period. But the process can take days or weeks. DCDuring (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Sense #1 calls the counting-up of stock in a store a "process", but the figurative stock-taking of one's surroundings that is the subject of this RFV can be of short duration, e.g. a few seconds or minutes, and is unlikely to last days or weeks, I think. Not that I am arguing that "An event in which ..." is the best possible choice of words -- in fact, probably it isn't. Mihia (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
cited. I have attempted to reword the definition - it is definitely not an event - but there are different senses of what it is, as you can see by the cites - sometimes it is the act of taking stock, sometimes it is the result of that act. Kiwima (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

kryptide

Does not seem to exist. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope it exists. English needs a rhyme for riptide. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
zip tied. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
It's been used, as well as xenide
  • 1933, George Glockler, Charles P. Roe, Donald L. Fuller, "Complex Formation due to Polarization. I. The System Krypton and Hydrogen Chloride"
It can be shown that the hypothetical ​chlorine kryptide would be endothermic to the extent of 165,000 calories
  • 1994, RL Asher, "Experimental and Theoretical Investigation and Characterization of Small Molecular Ions'
The binding of the xenide is expected to be higher than the argide or kryptide because the polarizability is larger and therefore the magnitude of charge induced dipole interaction as well.
  • 2020, Quizlet, Elements Flashcards [13]
Krypton Kryptide; Xenon Xenide
another cite for Xenide would be
  • 2019, Xiao Z. Yan, Yang M. Chen, Hua Y. Geng, "Prediction of the Reactivity of Argon with Xenon under High Pressures"
Crystal Structures and Electronic Properties of Cesium Xenides at High Pressures
and the alternative forms xenonide and kryptonide
  • 2017, Kathleen F. Edwards and Joel F. Liebman, "No Nobel for Noble Gases – Some Guesses Why"
Much more recently neonides (and kryptonides and xenonides) were posited.
  • 2005, IUPAC, "Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry"
krypton, kryptonide ; xenon, xenonide
  • 2020, Cofactor, "Kryptonide" [14]
A kryptonide is a chemical compound with krypton as a (formally) electronegative constituent.
-- 65.94.171.6 20:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

heliumide

DTLHS (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • 1989, M.D. Gabovich, N.N. Semashko, N.V. Pleshivtsev, "Ion and atomic beams for controlled fusion and technology"
The possibility of obtaining solid pseudosolutions of inert gases such as titanium argonide, scandium heliumide, etc., has been demonstrated
  • 2020, Quizlet, Compounds Quiz [15]
ionic: NSiHe - nitrogen silicon heliumide
-- 65.94.171.6 19:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I added one more. This is now cited Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Not cited. The 2020 cite is not durably archived. Old Man Consequences (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

argonide

DTLHS (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It's available on FR.wikt with a source from 1907 fr:argonide
  • 2017, Kathleen F. Edwards and Joel F. Liebman, "No Nobel for Noble Gases – Some Guesses Why"
Presence of nitrides, argonides, arsenides, and iodides in the crystalline rocks
  • 1985, J.B Fenn, "Where are we going with molecular beams?"
Microwave resonance spectrometry, laser induced fluorescence and mass spectrometry have identified and obtained information on the structure and energy levels of such unlikely species as KAr, HeI2, Co2C12He and aniline argonide
  • 1989, M.D. Gabovich, N.N. Semashko, N.V. Pleshivtsev, "Ion and atomic beams for controlled fusion and technology"
The possibility of obtaining solid pseudosolutions of inert gases such as titanium argonide, scandium heliumide, etc., has been demonstrated
  • 2020, Quizlet, Compounds Quiz [16]
ionic: NeMgAr - neon magnesium argonide
  • 1899, The American Journal of Science, Volume 158, "On Argon And Its Combinations"
The results obtained lead the author to suspect the existence of metallic argonides in those minerals which evolve argon under the action of acids, or even of hydrogen argonide.
-- 65.94.171.6 20:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

femtech

DTLHS (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Should be easy to cite; just look at w:Femtech#References, which is full of durably archived print media (newspapers, magazines) using the term. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

roll the pill

Masturbate the clitoris. A PaM entry. Equinox 22:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing but literal uses (rolling pills in cheese etc so dogs/cats will eat them) on Usenet. I also checked for (the inflected forms of) "roll her pill", "roll my pill" and "roll your pill", with likewise no results. - -sche (discuss) 05:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
(I found it because I was adding pill rolling, something quite different.) Equinox 07:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

face

RFV noun sense:

(computing) An interface.
  • 2003 May 14, Bart Leeten, Kris Meukens, JSR127 JavaServer Faces, VERSIE, p.1/6:
    For clarity reasons and to stress that JavaServer Faces is not only about ‘visual’ user interfaces, we propose to use the term ‘face’, to express what for visual interfaces is typically named a ‘screen’.

Request verification that this term is used generally in computing to mean "interface" as the definition implies, and not just within the one product that the citation (which is actually more of a mention anyway) refers to. Mihia (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I find the 2003 quotation terribly confusing. To paraphrase, “In order to stress that Faces is about more than visual interfaces, we use the term for a visual aspect of visual interfaces.” Huh? Whatever this is meant to mean, it is not clear that it supports the definition.
This review of a PDP8-based typesetting system from the late 70s contains the sentence, “Thus, it appears that human engineerinq considerations, such as the provision of a system which always presents one face to the user, have been met.” I think that the sense here is that of the interface between the user and the system.  --Lambiam 20:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
To "present a face" is sense 4 of face ("public image; outward appearance") and not specific to computer interfaces. Equinox 21:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it is a bit confusing. As far as I understand it, it is saying that as "screen" is to "visual interface", so "face" is to "generalised interface". Mihia (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I read it to mean "that which is called a 'screen' for visual interfaces is called a 'face' here". That would seem to be part of the interface, not the whole thing, if I'm reading it right. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
As an analogy it does make sense, but then it does indeed not mean “interface” but “that aspect of an interface that is directly presented to the user”, abstracting from the semantic aspect. Granting that face in present a face means “outward appearance”, we are down to 0 cites.  --Lambiam 18:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

vworp

Sound made by Doctor Who's TARDIS. Needs to meet WT:FICTION i.e. independent of reference to the fictional universe. Barely possible? Equinox 20:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I managed to find one cite of the interjection (the sound of any materialization) in a thread that never (AFAICT) mentions the words "Doctor" or "TARDIS", in a Pokemon Usenet group. I also found one use of the verb, but in all caps, and a couple other cites I put on the cites page. Searching Usenet (via Google Groups) for "vworp" -TARDIS -drwho may turn up enough citations to cite the interjection, maybe the verb, but probably not the noun. (Maybe my search is too narrow, and citations that mention a TARDIS but not the show are OK?)
As an aside, I poked around a bit for information on where this was coined (since FICTION only applies to terms "originating in fictional universes", not [by my reading] something coined outside of it but in reference to it, like Whovian or Superwholock; I see a book and article saying it's the term used in the comic, implying it did indeed originate there (and I haven't seen any indication otherwise).
- -sche (discuss) 06:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
It is the word used in the BBC TV subtitles on the show (difficult to add cites from that). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
It is in the subtitles because it's in the script, presumably. That is not relevant to our written policies. I mean, Death Eater is written in the Harry Potter books but that doesn't give it any magical(?) inclusion here. Equinox 09:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I've cited several things from DVD subtitles, and they've generally considered acceptable under CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I certainly consider TV shows or movies that are archived by libraries on DVDs (etc) "durably archived" just like the library's books. The issue is that the show is not "independent of reference to that [fictional] universe" that it depicts, in which the word was coined, which WT:FICTION requires. But that makes me realize: that's if we're defining the word as the thing from that fictional universe (the sound of the TARDIS). If we use the non-Who citations I found to define it more broadly (as I partially have already) as pertaining to any teleportion/(de)materialization (just mentioning Doctor Who as the coiners in the etymology), Doctor Who can be one of the citations for that, just like Doctor Who is among the citations for Citations:transmat alongside Star Trek and Supergirl. (Each POS/sense would still need at least two non-Who citations even then, which are hard to find in any consistent capitalization.) - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
To my surprise, I think I've cited the interjection. None of the first three posts or the pages they're from ever mentions "Doctor" or "TARDIS" AFAICT, though one is clearly alluding to it, referring to a police box. The fourth citation (Snyder's While the Black Stars Burn) is a Doctor Who book, but cf my comment above.
I'm inclined, given the small number of citations available for either, to take the potentially noun-y "a vworp" citations and the "vworp vworp noise" and "grunting sound—vworp-vworp-vworp!" citations to either all be the interjection or all be the noun, since they convey the same basic sense and there aren't enough citations to attest both parts of speech separately.
The verb is probably not cited yet: one cite is of "VWORPing sound" with odd caps and more reference to noise than teleporting per se, ditto "a 'vworping' noise". "Box vworped its way off the stage" and "vworps me all [over]" convey the sense well but both works specifically reference Doctor Who. "VWORPING all over the Summit" conveys the definition well and is independent of DW but has bad caps. - -sche (discuss) 04:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

namesake

Rfv-sense "A person with the same name as another." --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

[17], [18], [19].  --Lambiam 13:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The first two are examples of sense 1, "one who is named after another". I can't view the third. --Lvovmauro (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
[20], [21] These are not "one who is named after another". I'd say that in everyday use, this is probably the most common meaning of "namesake" nowadays. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether sessions of the European Parliament are durably archived anywhere, but here someone calls Vasco da Gama the namesake of Jaime Gama, though the latter was pretty obviously not deliberately named after the former. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
[22].  --Lambiam 15:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

victim

Rfv-sense: "A person who suffers any other injury, loss, or damage as a result of a voluntary undertaking."

This seems like a bit of a POV addition. I doubt that there are any uses in which there is not some external event or agent that is deemed the cause of the victimhood, whatever share of responsibility the victim might have (shouldn't have tried to climb Mount Everest, crossed the street without looking, lived in the floodplain, dressed 'provocatively', etc). At there very least, this def. would need to be reworded. Possibly some of the other definitions may needed to amended to suggest that victimhood is not necessarily a universally agreed fact. Better might be a usage note that states that the claim to be a victim, because it implies some kind of entitlement to or merit of aid, can be challenged. DCDuring (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Several of our definitions seem like they should be combined, but there will also need to be some rewording: consider how often you can say someone is "a victim of his own (pride, arrogance, incompetence, etc)". That person has not been "harmed by another", nor was he the aggrieved party "in a crime", and calling his pride "a disaster or other adverse circumstance" seems like an unintuitive use of those words. I'll see if I can revise this entry in a moment. - -sche (discuss) 18:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I rewrote the entry, with one main sense (plus the religious-sacrifice sense) with subsenses for common cases which other authorities tend to treat as separate senses or subsenses. See what you think of it now. Two things I'm still unhappy with: (1) I don't like combining "victim of his own pride", "victim of the townspeople's distrust of outsiders" and "victims of a racist system" into one subsense, but I'm not sure how to cleanly and sensibly split them, except by having one sense for "victim of one's own emotions, biases, etc" and one for "victim of other people's emotions, biases, etc", which seems silly. (2) I'm not sure the "narratology" sense is needed or distinct. In a book about e.g. a flood, would the victims of the flood not be considered victims in a narratological discussion of the narrative? What if there is no villain, per, only the flood? I think flood-victims would be considered victims and hence the "narratological" sense does not seem distinct. Evidence could show me to be wrong. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll see if I can learn anything from Keywords 21. DCDuring (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Keywords 21 talks a lot about the sociology of victimhood, including the notion that victimhood entitles victims to sympathy, accommodation, and even compensation from society as a whole, even when society as a whole is not responsible. They also refer to the notion being controversial. But their article on victim was a little light on lexicographically constructive information.
The fact that the Keywords Project selected the word to be one of those they thought should be added to Williams' original list could mean we should spend some time on it. I have inserted templates {{R:Keywords}} and {{R:Keywords 21st}} in our entries for the words the two works cover. I will finish adding {{R:Keywords 21st}} today. DCDuring (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Suggestions that [some people believe that] victims are entitled to sympathy seem likely to be extralexical, like also another commonly ascribed attribute I got to thinking about, the idea that a victim is passive. - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Among the sometime believers that victims deserve sympathy, aid, etc are the victims themselves, advocates, politicians, legislators, et al. Some disagree that certain types of persons claiming victimhood deserve sympathy, aid, etc. and challenge whether they are truly victims. The question of what is 'true' victimhood would seem to indeed be lexical. Does victimhood bring entitlements? Certainly it does in many cases.
Victimhood has progressed from the passivity of a person being sacrificed to a god to those who seem to actively risk victimhood by, eg, climbing Mt. Everest, etc. as I mentioned above. In criminal law, the victim is passive, one who suffers the harm from the actions of the doer.
The question is how much of the usage context we need to take into account. For a word as fraught with meaning as this, it verges on irresponsible not to wrestle with the implications, which derive from that usage context. DCDuring (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
One can be a victim of the pollution of an identifiable group of polluters. The polluters may not be criminals, but only tortfeasors.
And note that a victim in Ancient Greece was entitled to help unconditionally:
  • 2014, Robin Waterfield (translator), “Against Meidas, On the Punch”, in Selected Speeches, translation of original by Demosthenes:
    In the first place, all these laws about damages—let's start with them—stipulate a fine of double the damage for a deliberate offence, and just the single amount otherwise. This is as one would expect: the victim's entitlement to help is unconditional, but the law prescribes a different degree of condemnation of the perpetrator depending on whether of nor his actions were deliberate.
This is hardly isolated. The nexus between victimhood and entitlement to redress is clear. DCDuring (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, OK, what wording do you suggest including, and where (definitions? usage note?)? I don't see right to redress in the definitions at other dictionaries I looked at, and I see issues with making it definitional / part of the definition, but see how a usage note would have room to cover those issues. AFAICT, right to redress inheres not in the word "victim" (a "stabbing/rape/flood survivor" has as much entitlement as a "stabbing/rape/flood victim", including when "victim" is specifically avoided by some people e.g. for rape survivors due to implications of passivity), but in some conditions of being harmed; but which harms / "victims" are excluded from redress is to some extent pragmatic (a "murder victim", or a person who is called a "flood victim" or "victim of incurable illness" because they died, cannot be made whole, though perhaps heirs could be in the first and perhaps second but normally not third case) and to some extent set by culture and legal system (someone who was "a victim of his own arrogance" is not typically granted relief; whether a victim of a group's distrust is entitled to relief is nebulous; whether victims of an economic downturn are entitled to relief varies; whether victims of racism are entitled to redress becomes "political" and in racist states like Nazi Germany they may specifically legally and culturally not be entitled; etc), so trying to split definitions according to which categories are entitled to relief seems inadvisable and/or infeasible. (Also, AFAIK the term is applied mostly without regard to whether or not the person has a right to or receives redress, or redress is even on the table or in the mind of the speaker, like if I talk about victims of a 4th century outbreak of disease or war, without any thought of making them whole again. OTOH, I recognize that e.g. a would-be murderer who is stabbed by his intended target will not generally be called a victim or entitled to relief. This seems connected to the principle of equity that one must have clean hands.) I suppose usage notes could summarize the conditions of entitlement to redress. - -sche (discuss) 07:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

eche

After finding the first edition and updating {{RQ:Shakespeare Pericles}}, I'm updating the entries that reference it appropriately. (Finding page numbers, though the first quarto edition had neither explicit page numbers nor act nor scene markers.) I came across eche, meaning "to increase". In the original, it's spelled "each", and all of the incidences I found on Book Search looked to be either scanning errors or archaic spellings of "each". There's an etymology there, but I can't find the word actually being used with that spelling. Am I missing something? grendel|khan 17:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

dicktionary

A "humorous" dictionary/penis hybrid? No GBooks results for "his huge dicktionary" as given in the usage example. Equinox 20:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I can certainly cite it: (See this, this, and this). Also:
2007, Andrew De Prisco, Woof!: A Gay Man's Guide to Dogs, page 200:
... updated annually, continues to be gay men's most reliable travel "dicktionary"— always worth cruising and perusing.
which does not have a preview to link to. However, I don't really feel that these support the idea that it is a word - more, it is a deliberate misspelling (as opposed to the unintentional misspellings referred to by Etymology 2???). It does not seem a very common misspelling, so I am inclined to delete the whole entry -- but perhaps that is more a question for Requests for deletion. Should I call this cited and move it to requests for deletion? Kiwima (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK, a deliberate "misspelling" is just an {{alternative spelling of}} + usage labels or usage notes, and is includable. Something is a {{misspelling of}} if someone presumably didn't mean to spell it that way in the first place (e.g., typoed it) or presumably would've spelled it the "standard" way had they known their way was not it, but if the context makes it clear that they meant to blend dick into the word to invoke the connotations of dick, it's not a "misspelling" in any way I'm aware of this site using that term, but just e.g. a {{en|rare|nonstandard|humorous}} {{alternative spelling of}}, like Winterpeg or eggceptional (or, more generally, hugemongous or misunderestimate). - -sche (discuss) 07:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

straight

Rfv-sense "(obsolete, rare) Strait; narrow." Tagged by someone at some point by never listed. The only citation is apparently from 1360. If attested, should perhaps be in a different (new) etymology section as probably a variant of strait. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

cited. Given its similarity to the fashion sense, perhaps the entry should be rearranged to put them together. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Impressive. I've removed the 'obsolete' tag, since your cites extent into the modern period. Is it your impression that the sense is now mostly found in {{lb|en|religion}} / discussions of that narrow gate parable, or was that just an artifact of searching? - -sche (discuss) 09:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
It is my impression that modern use of the "narrow" sense is mostly (probably entirely) in Christian theology, and springs largely from the narrow gate passage in Mark. When you get to older texts (e.g. the 1814 quote), it is used more broadly. Kiwima (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

hostage

Rfv-sense: "A person seized in order to compel another party to pay a ransom or act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way, often under threat of serious physical harm to the hostage(s) if the hostage-taker's instructions are not complied with."

Call me crazy but isn't this encompassed in the first sense, "A person given as a pledge or security for the performance of the conditions of a treaty or stipulations of any kind, on the performance of which the person is to be released."? I'm personally not satisfied with the wording in either senses, but would appreciate the input. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The distinction, as I understand it, is that the first sense is someone voluntarily given as a pledge or security, while the challenged sense is someone who is taken by force. The challenged sense is closer to the more modern use of the term, while the first definition is more like the medieval practice of sending a younger son to another lord's court as security that one will uphold treaty obligations or such. Kiwima (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, I see what you're saying. Should the first sense be labelled, thinking "historical" or something like that? I'm also a bit iffy when it comes to using the term defined in the sense like in the challenged sense. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, this is now cited. In searching for quotes, I found a number of other meanings, which I have added. I also paired down the definitions a bit, because they were rather wordy. They probably could still use some tweaking. (As a side point, the "See also" section lists give hostage to fortune, which I think should probably be moved or deleted. The phrase "hostage to fortune" is pretty common, but it does not always follow the verb "give", so we could move the entry to hostage to fortune (appropriately tweaking the definition). However, even the use of "fortune" is not unique to this sense of "hostage", as you can see from one of the definitions I added, which includes cites for "hostage to fortune", "hostage to the future", and "hostage to prosperity".) Kiwima (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a good entry! Thanks Kiwima, your work is immaculate as usual :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Good job adding senses to the noun. :) I think the "adverb" is just the noun, too, though. The quotes are "kept hostage", "held hostage" and "take [someone] hostage", but one can find the same phrases with "prisoner", and in some cases also with the plural, as when multiple people "are held hostages". No other dictionaries I looked at had an adverb, and Collins has "held hostage" as a usex of the noun. (MacMillan has "take someone hostage" and "hold someone hostage" as "run-in" entries under the noun, without clearly defining what POS "hostage" has in those phrases.) Pinging @DCDuring as someone very knowledgeable of grammar. One dictionary I looked at did offer one part of speech we're missing: the verb I just took a stab at, but it seems nonstandard and many uses are nebulous, so help with the definitions is appreciated. I was tempted to split out a sense like "(sometimes with "to") To subject to constraint or control (of), as if by having hostages from, or making (someone) hostage to (the controller)." (See also google books:"hostaging".) I also added a noun sense, "the condition of being hostage". - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The first sense of the verb is one contained in Century 1911. The citation makes it fairly clear that the six departments were hostaged by the French to the Germans in 1871. The citations under the second sense could be construed as the same sense, but with it being unclear who exactly (the evil local powers that be?) is doing the hostaging. Stylistically, I would say it's a failed metaphor, but lexicographically I suppose we need to try to define it.
The sense of hold hostage, take hostage, and keep hostage are semantically equivalent to hold/take/keep as hostage. In these expanded expressions as hostage is a prepositional phrase functioning adverbially to modify the verbs. One can find expressions in which hostage can be modified by an adjective in the expanded form of expression ("held as an additional hostage"), but not commonly in the abbreviated form without as (*"held additional hostage"). However I looked for and found a few cases of the as-less expression in which hostage was modified by determiner or an adjective and found numerous instances of "hold/take/keep him/her|me|you a hostage" and a few instance of adjectives "... who held me virtual hostage" and "holding me in financial hostage", "holding her a mental hostage"). One can also find instances of "hold/take them|you|us hostages". I could find it only once modified by an adverb ("she can hold you emotionally hostage"). The weight of these examples suggests hostage retains its membership in the word class noun. DCDuring (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I also see citations of being being held psychologically hostage, or psychologically or emotionally prisoner, but I agree this is not evidence of "hostage" being at adverb, as it looks like "psychologically"/"emotionally" modifies the whole verbal phrase. - -sche (discuss) 08:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

auntness

Tagged but not listed. And now cited. Kiwima (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

auntdom

Tagged but not listed. And now cited Kiwima (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

discerptor

Tagged but not listed. And it looks to me like it is cited as well. Kiwima (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

cancel culture

This has the hot-word template. It has no citations at all. WP and Wiktionary are the only OneLook references that cover the term or phenomenon. There is a book that has the term in its title, but has no visibility for its content at Google Books. I'm sure the term is mentioned in durably archived sources. It probably is used as well, but I don't know. DCDuring (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added two cites, but they point in two directions. One is about boycotting, the other is about cancelling an invitation to speak. I haven't been following this enough to understand whether both really fit under that same definition. DCDuring (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
It is now cited (as a hotword). We will need to wait a year to see if it survives. Kiwima (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The four cites already span more than a year. I suppose we could exclude as mention those in quotation marks (Rockson and Fraser) or with explicit definitions mentions) or the last as ambiguous, but then it wouldn't be cited at all.
Are these all uses for the same definition as currently worded.DCDuring (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You have a point - the definition could use a bit of cleanup. Want to take a crack at it? Kiwima (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There's also a Tea Room discussion on this. The term is pejorative, like politically correct, so the definitions offered are by critics of the phenomena under discussion. DCDuring (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Should we try to mention that in some way beyond the "pejorative"/"derogatory" label, that the term is mostly used by critics (and therefore may ascribe varied, nebulous, and/or inaccurate attributes)? - -sche (discuss) 17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to add that in as a usage note. Words and phrases like this can move in and out of being pejorative, often depending on who uses them. A good example is politically correct, which you mention. It started out as a vaguely self-mocking term used by the left, was adopted by the right as a strongly pejorative term, and is now either pejorative or humorous or slightly ironic, depending on who is talking. Kiwima (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, to clarify, I was envisioning any clarification longer than the current label would go in a usage note. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

scrunge

Rfv-sense "to act in which one or more scour (search) desperately for resources such as food or equipment" — surjection?〉 18:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously a variant of scrounge but I've never seen that spelling. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
"To act in which" is not grammatical so I'd wonder whether it's just a sloppy mistake for scrounge. Equinox 21:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

cited. I also found use as a noun ("on the scrunge"), but only one cite there, so I did not add it. Kiwima (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

positional

Rfv-sense: "Having a value that is mostly, or entirely, a function of its desirability." Other than in the term "positional good," is this sense of the word ever used on its own? Imetsia (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

earthly

Rfv-sense at Adverb. Definition says "in an earthy manner" but wouldn't that be earthily ? Is earthly used as an adverb ? Leasnam (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


本页面最后更新于2020-03-08 04:21,点击更新本页

本站的所有资料包括但不限于文字、图片等全部转载于维基词典(wiktionary.org),遵循 维基百科:CC BY-SA 3.0协议

万维词典为维基百科爱好者建立的公益网站,旨在为中国大陆网民提供优质内容,您还可以直接访问维基词典官方网站


顶部