万维词典

主题:Requests for verification/Non-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 any language other than English. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/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.

Tagged RFVs


March 2017

pollus

As mentioned in the Tea room, this seems to be a dead end: it's said to be an adjective, and to be an alternative form of polus. The only problem is that there's no adjective sense at polus, nor can I find a likely candidate in Lewis & Short at Perseus. There is pollulus, but that's an alternative form of polulus, a diminutive of polus. We thus have an entry and a complete set of inflected forms, but no definition and no examples of usage. Is this a complete figment of User:SemperBlotto's imagination, or is there a real word out there somewhere?

By the way, I tried searching for this, but there are scannos that mistake just about any letter with a vertical stroke for one or more ls. If it helps any, SB was apparently working on taxonomic names from User:Pengo/Latin/Most wanted at the time he created this. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Probably a cockup. If nobody can dind anything, I'll delete it all. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It is said that DMBLS, "The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources", contains "pollus v. 1 pola, 3 polus, 3 pullus". So it might be a British Mediaeval Latin spelling. -84.161.4.231 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary has "polla, fusca" (possibly a mentioning) where "polla" could be ML for pulla (from pullus).
Thus pollus could be an alt form of pullus instead of polus. Alternatively the POS of pollus could be wrong and then it could be an alt form of a noun. -84.161.43.111 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

and ????

RFV for Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

For 働, see the talk page.
For ????, I wonder if the evidence for inclusion in Unicode can be located... —suzukaze (tc) 00:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Unicode got ???? from 中國大百科全書, according to its G source (GBK-1000.40). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I know about that part; I meant specifically within the patchwork PDFs they assemble and dump into http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/. —suzukaze (tc) 00:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. That will take some fishing. As for 働, why don't we just have a {{zh-see}}? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I've traced ???? back to the extension D submission by the PRC (IRGN1262), which lists it under characters used in personal names. I don't see evidence from the original source, though. (It might be there, but I can't find it at the moment.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to verify ALL kokuji and Japanese shinjitai, which are different from Chinese simp. forms for their existence in Chinese and Korean? Unihan just does a misservice by providing reading for characters that are not used in these languages, IMO.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Assuming 勞働 exists, then it seems to me that should be sufficient for keeping in some form – either an "only in" entry the way it is now, or a {{zh-see}} the way Justinrleung suggests. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

???? RFV-failed, kept but if someone wants to change it back to an {{only used in}} entry, go ahead. - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

????

I'm pretty sure it's only used as a component of a character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a variant of 𬊇 (U+2C287, ⿱炏乂): [1]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji: any evidence though? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I mean ???? was from 𬊇. ???? is used only as a component, as you say. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji: Then I think we should just have something like {{n-g|Only used as a character component.}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Three sites on which the component ???? appears:

http://www.zdic.net/z/94/js/241FE.htm (a page exclusively devoted to ????; definition: brilliant)

https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&char=???? (another page exclusively devoted to ????; definition: brilliant)

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=鎣 (which includes the sentence: 「鎣」從「金」,「????」聲,表示一種長頸瓶。)

I am adamantly in support of retaining this page on wiktionary. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: The definition "brilliant" is ultimately from the Unihan database, which is known to be unreliable for definitions. I think it can only merit inclusion as a character component. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Yeah, I agree. I'm guessing 'brilliant' was an definition derived from 荧. My only question is- what is the ultimate source for the yìng (fourth tone) reading? Thanks for your numerous corrections to pages I have edited. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: The pronunciation also comes from the Unihan Database, but I'm not sure where they got it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&char=???? says "康熙字典: 頁671第08" but I couldn't find anything on that page in Kangxi- maybe I don't understand the system there-- https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=77415&page=0671#08 My real question is, if the Unihan people were really just making stuff up, why would they make this ying4 instead of ying2? (http://www.zdic.net/z/94/js/241FE.htm has ying4 too) There's got to be something behind "ying4"- maybe a typo? Seems strange that so many characters in this phonetic series would be pronounced ying1 or ying2 and then suddenly the phonetic component is pronounced ying4. If I were just making up pronunciations, I would say that ???? should be pronounced ying2. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Again, the Kangxi page number is from the Unihan database (0671.081). The 1 at the end indicates that it does not actually exist in the Kangxi Dictionary, but page 671, character 8 would be its hypothetical position in the dictionary if it were to be included in the Kangxi Dictionary. I don't think the people who made the database are making stuff up, but they may be using erroneous sources. I have no idea where yìng came from. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Is there a way to contact the people who complied the Unihan database and ask about the origin of the definition and pronunciation for ????? Might be fun. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently resolved, detagged and heavily edited in 2018. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

April 2017

Compounds with quis

quisquam

For the feminine quaequam and the plural.
Dictionaries and also some grammars are a bit vague about the declension and usage of compounds with qui and quis.

  • Some dictionaries mention quaequam, but as far as I saw without cite, and as far as I saw dictionaries don't mention a plural. However, dictionaries mention that quisquam is used for the feminine (in "Plaut." and "Ter."), and BTW they mention that quīvīs is also an ablative of quīvīs (in "Ter.").
    One dictionary had an example with "quaequam lab. qualitas, Cael. Aur." under the word labilis. However, in Caelius Aurelianus' text it is "aut cujusquam labilis qualitatis" (or "aut cuiusquam labilis qualitatis") and the dictionary should have changed the case from genitive to nominative (which BTW is done not rarely).
    Maybe note that the conjunction quamquam which looks like a feminine accusative is an own word.
    Maybe also note that Wiktionary's table has feminine quaequam with ablative quōquam and not *quāquam. Maybe also compare with Wiktionary's quispiam where the adjectival feminine is quaepiam with ablative quāpiam while the substantival feminine is quispiam with ablative quōpiam.
  • Allen & Greenough state this: "The indefinite pronouns quispiam, some, any, and quisquam, any at all, are used both as substantives and as adjectives. [...] Quisquam is both masculine and feminine; the neuter is quidquam (quicquam), substantive only; there is no plural."
  • Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 241-246: "Das Neutrum von quicumque ist überall quodcumque, welches gleich dem einfachen Pronomen relat. quod auch substantivisch gebraucht wird. Zu quisquam und quisquis ist nur das Neutr. quicquam oder quidquam und quicquid oder quidquid nachzuweisen, wiewohl Diom. 1 S. 321 ein quodquam und Mar. Victor. 1 S. 2460 neben quicquam und quicquid ein quocquod aufführt. [...] Quicquam facinus hat Plaut. Men. 3, 1, 2 und Merc. 1, 2, 43; suum quidquid genus talearum Cato R. R. 48, 1, quidquid solamen humandi est Verg. Aen. 10, 493, und quidquid est nomen Plaut. bei Serv. [...] Die übrigen oben angeführten Composita haben doppelte Form des Neutrum, mit quid substantivisch, mit quod adjectivisch. [....] Quivis und quisquam gestatten den Ablat. Sing. quivis und quiquam, vergl. über den Ablat. qui und aliqui unter 36 und 41. [...] Auch quisquam dient als Femin. [...] Nicht allein auf weibliche Personen wird quisquam angewandt, sondern auch [...]. Quisquam hat keinen Plur. [...] Quisquam steht gern substantivisch. Doch auch si cuiquam generi hominum und si cuiquam ordini Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam legationi Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam rei Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam incepto Suet. Cäs. 59." — i.e.: [shortend and paraphrased: quodcumque is also used substantivally.] For quisquam and quisquis only the neuter quicquam or quidquam and quicquid or quidquid are attestable, although Diom. has a quodquam and Marc. Victor. besdes quicquam and quicquid a quocquod. [...] [cites, see the quote]. [...] The other above mentioned compounds have a double form for the neuter, with quid substantivally, with quod adjectivally. [....] Quivis and quisquam can have the ablative singular quivis and quiquam, compare about the ablative qui and aliqui under 36 and 41. [cites.] [...] Quisquam serves as feminine too. [Mentioning that old grammarians declined this word through all genders and numers.] [Cites.] Quisquam is not only used for female persons, but also [cites which show quisquam used with or in reference of things]. [...] Quisquam has no plural. [...] [Mentioning of an old incorrect reading with *quibusquam which is quibusdam.] Quisquam is often used substantivally. But also [cites with adjectival use, for some cites see the quote].
    Mentionings in grammars don't attest words. The mentionings can be mentioned, but in usage notes and not in the declension table. An old misreading maybe could be mentioned too, but shouldn't attest anything and should belong into a usage note and not the declension table.
  • The masculine and feminine is used both substantivally and adjectivally.
    Plautus uses quisquam adjectivally for the feminine: "quod neque ego habeo neque quisquam alia mulier, ut perhibent viri" (Plaut. Cist.; LCL: "A mind is something I haven't got, or any other women, either, according to the men").
    The neuter dative, any maybe also the genitive or ablative, is used adjectivally too, compare with the examples in F. Neue: "Quisquam steht gern substantivisch [= Quisquam is often used substantivally]. Doch auch [= But also] si cuiquam [dat.] generi [dat. of the neuter genus] hominum [gen. pl. of homo] und [= and] si cuiquam [dat.] ordini [dat. of the masculine ordo] Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam [dat.] legationi [dat. of the feminine legatio] Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam [gen.] rei [gen. of the feminine res] Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam [abl.] incepto [abl. of the neuter inceptum(?)] Suet. Cäs. 59.". Even an adjectivally used quidquam or quicquam seems to be attested although Allen & Greenough do not mention it and the adjectivally used cuiquam could also belong to an unattested (or New Latin) *quodquam. Besides F. Neue's examples an older grammar stated that Plautus used quicquam adjectivally (in "numquam/Numquam quicquam facinus feci peius/pejus neque scelestius" in Menaechmi III. LCL has "Plus triginta annis natus sum, quom interea loci, | numquam quicquam facinus feci peius neque scelestius, | quam hodie, quom in contionem mediam me immersi miser." with "More than thirty years I've lived, and never in all that time have I done a worse or more accursed deed than to-day when I immersed myself, poor fool, in the middle of that public meeting." Well, in this English translation a word like any does not appear, but that doesn't say anything about the Latin text.
  • The ablative quīquam seems to be used substantivally in Plautus: "ne a quoquam acciperes alio mercedem annuam, nisi ab sese, nec cum quiquam limares caput" (Plaut. Bacch. at Non.; LCL: "Not to let you take a yearly fee from anyone else but him, or rub heads with anyone"). F. Neue also has examples with adjectival use. So it should be a form of both the substantival and the adjectival pronoun. The ablative quīvīs however could, by attestion, be restricted to the adjectival pronoun.
  • Doubtful forms, below in the summary table mentioned in []:
    • Dictionaries mention a masculine nominative quiquam.
      "old form QVIQVAM, S. C. Bacch." or "QVIQVAM, S. C. de Bacch." This should be senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus. www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante02/Bacchanalia/bac_orig.html once has "QVI[S]QVAM", and w:en:Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus has "QVISQVAM" (under "Text") or "qui[s]quam" (under "Transliteration into classical Latin"). As the text often has "QVISQVAM" or "quisquam", the single "QVI[S]QVAM" or "qui[s]quam" might look like an error.
      "quīquam = quisquam, Verg. georg. 4, 447.". www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/geo4.shtml and the text at perseus.tufts.edu have "Scis, Proteu, scis ipse; neque est te fallere quicquam sed tu desine velle." there; latin.packhum.org/loc/690/2/0#3 has "scis, Proteu, scis ipse, neque est te fallere quicquam:".
      So this form seems to be doubtful. With *quaequam the form *quiquam would make some sense, but as *quaequam seems to be less correct, *quiquam too seems to be less correct.
    • Older grammars have quenquam besides quemquam, and the form with n can also be found in New Latin texts and older editions of ancient authors. Maybe it's a ML or NL mistake like isthic for istic? For the conjunction quamquam dictionaries mention the form quanquam too and refer to the conjunction quamquam, where sometimes the form with n is mentioned too and sometimes not.
    • The adjectival neuter nominative quodquam/quocquam is mentioned in some older grammars.
    • The nominative *quaequam is mentioned in dictionaries and older grammars. Older grammars also mention the ablative *quāquam, and sometimes but sometimes not the accusative *quamquam (there is a conjunction of the same form: quamquam) or *quanquam (which might also be an alternative form for the conjunction).
      F. Neue has an example with feminine quemquam, but the noun was corrected, so maybe one could argue that quemquam has to be corrected too. One grammar gave the accusative quamquam with reference "Plaut. Mil. IV, 2, 68", which is also F. Neue's example, and he writes: "und quemquam porcellam Mil. 4, 2, 68 (im vet., decurt. und Vat. des Plaut. proculem, in den Hdschr. [= in the manuscripts] des Prisc. 5, 3, 13 S. 645 proculenam und porculaenam, porcellam ist eine Verbesserung [= is a correction] von Reiz)."
      After looking into more older grammars, it seems that if a grammar mentions quaequam or quamquam and if it gives a reference for it, it is Plautus' Miles gloriosus IV. As some editions have quemquam and as F. Neue mentions various forms of the substantive, it's a doubtful passage. As ATM this seems to be the only cite for the feminine quaequam, quamquam, quaquam, and as the feminine quisquam is attested, and as the substantival quidquam (quicquam) is used adjectivally too, it seems to be more likely that quemquam is the correct word.
  • With the adjectival forms feminine quisquam and doubtful quemquam and neuter quicquam, it looks like the adjectival pronoun is declined like the substantival pronoun. As Plautus is the common reference, it might however be the Old Latin declension. As dictionaries and older grammar mention forms like quaequam, quamquam, quāquam and quodquam/quocquam, these forms could exist in Medieval or New Latin, but would require a label or qualifier.

So it looks like quisquam is thus declined:

substantivally adjectivally
sg. sg.
m./f. n. m. f. n.
nom. quisquam quidquam/quicquam quisquam quisquam / [quaequam] quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
gen. cujusquam
(cuiusquam, or cûiusquam by Allen's and Greenough's notation instead of a misleading cūiusquam to denote the "consonant i")
cujusquam
(cuiusquam etc.)
dat. cuiquam cuiquam
acc. quemquam
[quenquam]
quidquam/quicquam quemquam
[quenquam]
[quemquam / quamquam]
[ [quenquam] / [quanquam] ]
quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
abl. quōquam
also quīquam
quōquam quōquam
also quīquam
[quōquam / quāquam] quōquam

BTW: Is the the feminine of the substantival pronoun quispiam attested?
-80.133.125.36 20:59, 14 April 2017 - 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

quisquis

RFV for:

  • feminine ablative singular quāquā used substantivally and not just adjectivally
  • feminine accusative singular quamquam and feminine plurals

Rationale and notes:

  • Allen and Greenough state after giving some forms: "Other cases are cited, but have no authority", which leads to the question whether or not it's correct. Are there other cites with "authority" (whatever that's supposed to mean), or for some forms even cites (and may thay be without "authority")?
  • As for quibusquibus the given cite depends on edition (see quisquis#Usage notes). There could be other cites - but are there any?
    As for quīquī some interpretations of cites should be wrong (by mistaking an ablative singular for nominative plural), and some could depend on the edition.
    There might be cites for fem. acc. sg. quamquam and fem. plurals, but the cites seem to be doubtful, i.e. they contain errors or depend on manuscript or edition.
    • If it depends on the manuscript or edition, there should be a note.
    • There could also be Medieval or New Latin cites, but then there should be a label or note.
  • Feminine ablative quāquā could, by attestation, be restricted to adjectival use (some might say that it's then not a pronoun form but an adjective form).
  • Nominative plural quīquī and plural genitive quōrumquōrum could be unattested too, but these forms make sense if there is quōsquōs, quibusquibus or neuter quaequae (for these compare the notes in quisquis).
    For the feminines it's different: As there is feminine nominative singular quisquis, one could also assume that the other feminines are or would be like the masculine too, that is, the forms could be common. From quāquā one could derive the other feminines, but that only works if quāquā is attested substantivally and then one could derive two forms, an older one from quisquis, a later one from quāquā.

References:

  • See quisquis for some citations and notes.
  • Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, edited by J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard and Benj. L. D'Ooge, 1903, p. 69:
    "In quisquis whoever, both parts are declined, but the only forms in common use are quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) and quōquō.
    Note 1.–Rare forms are quemquem and quibisquibus; an ablative quīquī is sometimes found in early Latin; the ablative feminine quāquā is both late and rare. Cuicui occurs as a genitive in the phrase cuicui modī, of whatever kind. Other cases are cited, but have no authority. In early Latin quisquis is occasionally feminine.
    Note 2.–Quisquis is usually substantive, except in the ablative quōquō, which is more commonly an adjective."
    • Maybe the late and rare feminine ablative quāquā is commonly or even only used adjectivally?
  • Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 240-241 & 245 and 246-249:
    Original: "42. [...] quisquis auch adjectivisch in quisquis color Verg. Ge. 2, 256 im Pal., im Med. und Bern. b c m. sec. und bei Serv., und Horat. Serm. 2, 1, 60, quisquis honos Verg. Aen. 10, 493, quisquis erit ventus Plin. H. N. 18, 34, 77, 339. [...]
    Der Dat. und Ablat. Plur. beinahe aller dieser Pronomina hat quibus, nicht quis. So [...] quibusquibus Liv. 41, 8, 10 [...]
    44. Quisquis [...] hatte in der guten Zeit keine eigene Form für das Femin. Quamquam rem a quoquo cognoverit ist zwar bei Cic. de orat. 1, 15, 67 in den Lag. 13 und 32 und mehreren andern, aber in mehreren Büchern quamque, statt dessen in den Ausg. [= Ausgaben] quamcumque; und quaequae in ceterae naturae suis seminibus quaequae gignuntur Cic. N. D. 2, 22, 58 ist nach dem Leid. A und Erl. in quaeque berichtigt. Die Dramatiker gebrauchen quisquis [...] mit Beziehung auf eine weibliche Person. Mulier, quisquis es Plaut. Cist. 2, 3, 66, liberalist quisquis est von der vorher erwähnten furtiva virgo Persa 4, 3, 76, quisquis es, quae parentis in tam angustum tuos locum compegeris Rud. 4, 4, 102. Dazu kommen die unter 33 nach Non. S. 197 angeführten Stellen des Liv. Andr., Cäcil. und Pacuv.
    [....]
    [...] Quaqua als Pronomen [...] ist zuerst in quaqua de re Tac. Ann. 6, 7, dann quoquo nomine quoquo ritu quaqua facie Appul. Met. 11, 2 S. 755 (in den Flor. 1, 3 quaq; in den Guelf. 1. 2 und anderen Büchern quaque); quaqua ratione C. I. L. 3, 781 Z. 19 und wahrscheinlich Z. 2, Scäv. Dig. 32, 41 § 9, Ulpian. Dig. 37, 14, 16. 40, 12, 7. 45, 3, 5. 49, 5, 5, Paul. 17, 2, 3 § 1, Marcian. 34, 4, 13, Pompej. comment. S. 74 (130); ex quaqua causa Gaius Dig. 29, 1, 17 § 1, quaqua exceptione Ulpian. 44, 4, 2 § 5; quaqua aetate Tert. de anima 56, quaqua parte Pompej. comment. S. 387 (269) und 400 (275).
    [...] Quaequae als Neutr. Scäv. Dig. 34, 3, 28 § 1 aus einem Testament: Quibusque legata in eo testamento quod incideram dedi, omnia rata esse et quaequae scripta sunt volo; und vielleicht Sen. benef. 2, 4, 1 ubi, quaequae impetrasti, rogandum est nach dem Meil. 5, in welchem queque ist (in mehreren Büchern quoque, in einzelnen quod und quid). Aber falsch ist [examples with errors and corrections]. Falsch ferner als Fem. [another example with an error and correction]. Ut in dote essent fructus quosquos percepisset Ulpian. Dig. 23, 4, 4; aber unrichtig quosquos proxumus nanctus est montes, in iis castra posuit Liv. 27, 28, 2 im Put., Med., Colb., Bamb. und in den Pal. Über quibusquibus vergl. unter 42, und über die ganze Declination von quisquis Madvig zu Cic. Fin. 3, 14, 45."
    Translation: "42. [...] quisquis also adjectivally in [cites].
    The dative and ablative plural of almost all of these pronouns (i.e. pronouns compounded from qui or quis) has quibus, not quis. So [...] quibusquibus in Liv.
    44. Quisquis [...] didn't have an own form for the feminine in the good time. [shortend and paraphrased: The feminines quamquam and quaequae in some texts are doubtful or were corrected.] The dramatists use quisquis [...] with relation to a female person. [cites.]
    [....]
    [...] Quaqua as pronoun in [cites].
    [...] Quaequae as neuter in [reference] out of an testament: [cite]. But wrong is [examples with errors and corrections]. Also wrong as feminine is [another example with an error and correction]. [cite with quosquos]; but incorrect is [an incorrect example with quosquos]. About quibusquibus see under 42, and about the whole declension of quisquis see [reference]."
    • So can one say that the feminines quamquam and quaequae do exist (that is, exist in ancient Latin)?
  • L&S: "quī-qui, pron. indef., for quisquis, whosoever (very rare): quiqui est, Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 45.", and "quis-quis, quaeque, quodquod, and subst. quicquid, quidquid". Other dictionaries mention quiqui, quaequae and quodquod too. Feminine quaequae and adjectival neuter quodquod seem to be doubtful (cp. F. Neue). For quīquī see below.
  • The given references for quīquī in various sources are:
    (a) as nom. sg.: quiqui pro quisquis in neque partem tibi ab eo quiqui est indipisces Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 44/45, is ita appellatur quiqui admittit Varro R. R. 2, 7, 8;
    (b) as abl. sg.: Pl. Men. 1159;
    (c) as nom. pl.: Plaut. Cas. 3, 1, 10, quiqui licebunt Men. 1159 = 5, 9, 97, Poen. 3, 2, 11; Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.;
    (d) without mentioning a case: esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97; quiqui licebunt, Plaut. Men. 1159 (with translation rather implying it to be abl. sg. than nom. sg. or nom. pl.).
    Plaut. Men. 5, 9, 97 and Plaut. Men. 1159 is be the same, and it is once given as a source for a ablative and once for a plural which doesn't work.
    For me it seems that Cas. "cum quiqui" and Poen. "cum quiqui" are abl., and Men. "venibunt quiqui licebunt" might be too although it might look like a pl. as the verbs are in pl.
    There are editions of Plautus' Aulularia with qui instead of quiqui, and it does depend on the edition. The rerum rusticarum de agri cultura at www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.html does not have quiqui. And looking in various books at books.google it does indeed depend on the edition.
    As for "Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.", "m. pr." should mean manu propria = by one's own hand and Put. should denote a manuscript or edition. The text at www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.29.shtml doesn't have quiqui. So it might depend on the manuscript or edition.
    F. Neue stated regarding "esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97" that it does appear in editions but not in manuscripts. At www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/sestio.shtml it does not appear but "esto igitur ut ii sint, [...], qui et integri sunt et sani [...].".
    So abl. sg quiqui should exist (and is also mentioned in A&G), while nom. sg. and nom. pl. quiqui seem to be doubtful and could be cases for A&G's "Other cases are cited, but have no authority."

From what I've seen, there could be three forms:

  • substantivally used: quisquis, quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - plurals do occur, but could be doubtful (quisquis#Usage notes)
  • adjectivally used: quisquis, *quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - the feminine could be unattested
  • adjectivally used: quisquis, *quaequae (abl. quāquā), *quodquod (quocquod) - the feminine except abl. quāquā and the neuter *quodquod could be unattested

-80.133.100.252 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
In short it is verification request for certain forms (see "For the feminine quaequam and the plural" and "RFV for [...]"). For the verification procress everything else such as references and citations can be ignored.
Discussions could then arise, if citations are found: Are the citations correct, or doubtful, from old editions or the like? Do the citations contain a selfstanding pronoun or what in English is also termed adjective (as in demonstrative adjective, indefinite adjective) or determiner (as in demonstrative determiner)? Additional problems do arise because of this BP proposal. Treating Old Latin and other Latin as different languages means that Plautus (as in quisquam#Citations, mecum#Adverb, illic#Pronoun) doesn't attest anything for the other Latin. -91.6.199.79 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Very late reply, but doesn't quamquam also mean "although"? Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Some Latin adjectives

RFV for the ablative singular and the genitive plural or neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural to determine the declension of some adjectives (abl. sg. -ī or -e, gen. pl. -ium or -um, neuter pl. -ia or -a).
Notes:

  • It could be that the declensions is unknown or that wt's declension is wrong. Well, in Medieval or New Latin some more forms could be attested, but then there should be a note and then it could be that there are multiple forms.
  • Just BTW as defence in advance: Knowing how wiktionary creates inflected forms, and seeing what grammarians write or grammars state, it's justified to question multiple entries with doubtful inflected forms.

References:

  • Allen & Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, 1903, p. 53f.:
    "121. [...] a. The Ablative Singular commonly ends in -ī, but sometimes -e. [...] The following have regularly -e:—caeles, compos, [†dēses], dīves, hospes, particeps, pauper, prīnceps, sōspes, superstes. [...]"
    b. The Genitive Plural ends commonly in -ium, but has -um in the following:1
    1. Always in compos, dīves, inops, particeps, prīnceps, supplex, and compounds of nouns which have -um: as, quadru-pēs, bi-color.
    2. Sometimes, in poetry, in participles in -ns: as, silentum concilium, a council of the silent shades (Aen. vi. 432). [...] d. Vetus (gen. -ĕris) and pūbes (gen. -ĕris) regularly have -e in the ablative singular, -a in the nominative and accusative plural, and -um in the genitive plural. For ūber, see § 119 [note: there is ūber, abl. sg. ūberī, gen. pl. ūberum, neuter plural ūbera, and the note "An ablative in -e is very rare."; but there is also vetus with abl. sg. "vetere (-ī)"]. [...]
    122. The following special points require notice:—[...] d. Many adjectives, from their signification, can be used only in the masculine and feminine. [...] Such are adulēscēns, youthful; [†dēses], -idis, slothful; inops, -opis, poor; sōspes, -itis, safe. [...]
    1 Forms in -um sometimes occur in a few others."
    • Stating that sōstes has abl. sg. -e, but not stating that it has gen. pl. -um could mean that the gen. pl. is -ium or unattested. If it is -ium, there could be more declensions than just abl. sg. -ī, gen. pl. -ium (like i-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e, gen. pl. -um (like consonant-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e or -ī, gen. pl. -ium (poetically sometimes -um) (participles, with forms depending on the way of usage). In fact, with ūber, abl. sg. -ī (very rare -e), gen. pl. -um, neuter plural -a A&G have another declension form.
  • 21st century grammars (Pons, Klett, Duden and others) mention the following adjectives with abl. -e and gen. pl. -um: vetus, dīves, pauper, prīnceps, compos, superstes, sōspes, particeps, although many grammars just mention a few of them.
  • William Smith & Theophilus D. Hall, The student's Latin grammar. A grammar of the Latin language, 2nd edition, London, 1867, p. 18 had this: "The following Adjectives have [Ablative Singular in] ĕ only: paupĕr, pūbēs, dēsĕs, compŏs, impŏs, caelebs, princeps and sŭperstĕs."
  • Just BTW: An 18th century grammar noted that several adjectives, such as "ales, bipes, bicolor, cicur, compos, concolor, degener, deses, dives, impos, inops, immemor, memor, locuples, paper, particeps, praeceps, redux, superstes, sospes, teres, anceps, biceps, triceps &c." don't have a neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural, which would mean that e.g. *sospitia or *sospita is unattested (or was so centuries ago, or at least was uncommon or proscribed). An 19th century grammar mentioned something similar; namely that some adjectives such as "vigil, memor, compos, impos, pauper, dives, sospes, superstes, redux, supplex, particeps, princeps" are often used of persons, thus are often used in masculine and feminine gender, although they are sometimes also with neuters, but it's avoided to use them in the neuter plural cases in -a; for example one can say numen nemor, but not numina memora. So it could be more complicated to attest or verify the correct declension of caelebs or sospes for example.

-80.133.100.252 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

sospes

See A&G cited above, and compare with superstes.

particeps

See A&G cited above.
Georges: "particeps, cipis, Abl. cipe"

princeps

See A&G cited above, and compare with particeps.

deses

See A&G cited above.

caeles

See A&G cited above.
L&S mentions this example: "sub caelite mensa, Paul. Nol. Carm. 24, 9 al.", though it is Late Latin.
Also RFV for the nominative singular as L&S states "but not found in nom. sing.", as Gaffiot states "(inus. au nominatif)" and as Georges states "Nomin. caeles nicht nachweisbar." (nom. [sg.] caeles not attestable).
BTW: A&G mention defective adjectives too. From the defectives A&G mention, exlex and seminex/semineci here are mentioned without any note, while primoris has one.

caelebs

Compare: caelebs#Citations
Though it's an poetic example with abl. sg. caelibe (used out of metrical reasons?).
Also: GBS has results with caelibum like "[...] vt inprimis de Collegiis caelibum virginum ita constituatur [...]" (with should be: of the unmarried virgins), but for caelibium there is only one GBS result found thrice (in "[...] quam Senior Augustus post Julius rogationes incitandis caelibium poenis & augendo aerario sanxerat [...]") and that could be something else.

pubes

See A&G cited above.
Compare: Talk:pubes#Latin
www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/ gives some more results with puberum, and some with pubere and puberi, but none with puberium or puberia or pubera.

impubes

Compare with pubes.
Note: Pliny might have impubium but that would be a form of impubis and not of impubes (gen. pl. impuberum or impuberium?)

redux

  • L&S: "rĕdux (rēdux, Plaut. Rud. 4, 2, 4; id. Capt. 5, 1, 2), dŭcis (abl. reduce, Liv. 21, 50: reduci, Ov. H. 6, 1), adj."
  • Lewis: "redux ducis (abl. reduce; poet. also reducī, O.)"
  • Georges: "Abl. Sing. bei Dichtern auch reduci"
This implies that the abl. sg. is usually reduce and poetically (out of metrical reasons?) also reducī. The questioned plural forms however could be unattested (in ancient Latin).

supplex

  • See A&G cited above, for gen. pl.
  • L&S: "supplex (subpl-), ĭcis (abl. supplĭci, but also -ĭce freq. in dactyl. and anap. verse [...] As subst.: supplex , ĭcis, m."
  • Lewis: "supplex (subpl-) icis (abl. icī or ice; gen plur. -icum, rarely -icium), adj. [...] As subst m."
  • Georges: "supplex, plicis, Abl. gew. supplice, doch auch supplicī, Genet. Plur. supplicum u. (selten) supplicium"
This could mean that the adjective has both forms. However, this is more complicated as the dictionaries maybe don't properly differ between the inflection of the adj. and the subst., and it get's more complicated as there is also a noun supplicium.
Gen. pl. supplicum for the subst. should be attested (Cic. Mur. 4, 9: "repudiatio supplicum"). supplice and supplici for the adj. should be attested too (see supplex). Though as for now, supplice could be a poetic form (out of metrical reasons?). How about the gen. pl. or neuter pl. of the adj.?

uber

For the doubtful plural forms.
  • A&G has abl. sg. -ī, "very rare" -e, gen. pl. -um, neuter pl. -a
  • Dictionaries have abl. sg. -ī and one reference or cite with -e, but often they don't mention the doubftul plural forms.
  • Note that there is a also a noun uber which also has gen. sg. uberis, so just attesting the word forms uberum or ubera, doesn't mean anything.

-//-

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, KoreanQuoter Another creation by User:D1gggg. Is this real? If so, can this entry be fixed up? Thanks. Benwing2 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's vertical lines, not slashes and more hyphens. I doubt I've seen it in print, it's usually handwritten.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I generally agree with Anatoli that it is much more common in handwriting. However, I believe I have seen it reproduced with a typewriter (!) in the form -"-. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess there are various ways to write this: --!!--, ==||==, --//--, ==="===. Not sure how to go about this RFV. I don't care either way, to be honest, whether it is kept or deleted. This set of symbols seems similar to the way character substitution works, you can use *** or ####, any number of them, with no particular rules. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I am leaning towards delete. I suppose this nomination is different from the one archived at "Talk:---" because that discussion was about line patterns that were not regarded as language, whereas in this case we are talking about a symbol that represents the word ditto. However, I think the fact that there is no consistent way of representing this symbol in print (unlike, for example, the @ symbol) means that it may not be verifiable. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I assumed this was translingual; in any case, it is quite common in Danish, although I've only seen it in handwriting. As Atitarev says, the lines are vertical, nor slanted. When I see it, it is written just below what it replicates, as in
The cat has a velocity of 3 m/s.
The dog ------||--------  5 m/s.

where the length of the (solid, not dashed) horizontal lines are appropriately adjusted. I have never heard anyone regard this as nonstandard.__Gamren (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Russian but in German something like " should be attestable. But I can't think of any good way to search for it on Google. Maybe one could attest Unterführungszeichen (compare de:w:Unterführungszeichen) and find reference works, and then claim that " is in "clearly widespread use" (WT:CFI). Maybe the same can be done for Russian?
" and do already exist and are Translingual. Maybe Russian uses one of these? -84.161.43.47 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here (14:40) is an example of what I was talking about that I happened to stumble upon (searching for it is obviously impractical).__Gamren (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I've made Unsupported titles/Hyphen vertical line vertical line hyphen.__Gamren (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

彼女

Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 09:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like a mistake, if Japanese people follow the western custom and refer to a ship as "kanojo", that would be pronoun sense #1. Siuenti (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
彼女 is used in this sense in Japanese. Japanese also has the expression, 処女航海 (maiden voyage). See http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kyosaku/19kan/idacho.htm where you will find "彼女の処女航海". See also, http://whalingmuseum-arcticvisions.org/captain-john-bartlett-of-the-panther/?lang=ja . I also agree that this sense should be listed under Pronoun. 馬太阿房 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently that website looks made from machine-translation. Japanese custom don't treat ship as female.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Move it to the pronoun section and mark it as rare. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If the sense is real, the definition should also change from "Western custom" to "English custom" (re treating ships as females). English is not the only "Western" language, LOL. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Nor is English the only language that does this.__Gamren (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

pentaphyllus

“Used as a specific epithet in the taxonomic names of plants to mean ‘having five leaves’.” — Latin or Translingual? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It exist translingually in taxonomic names like "Botryosicyos pentaphyllus", "Hibiscus pentaphyllus", "Phyllanthus pentaphyllus", "Pileus pentaphyllus", "Fragaria pentaphylla", "Manihot pentaphylla".
In Fragmenta phytographiae australiae, contulit Ferdinandus Mueller. Vol. II. (Melborne, 1860-1861, page 13) "Hibiscus pentaphyllus." is the title of a section and the text is in Latin. So one could argue that it appears in a Latin text. But as it is in italics and as it is just a section title and no sentence, it could be a mentioning and no usage. Anyway, "Hibiscus pentaphyllus" is a translingual and Translingual* taxonomic term and so is pentaphyllus.
pentaphyllam (fem. acc. sg.) does occur in Latin texts. Often it could be in Latin texts and yet be Translingual taxonomics (unlike English, Latin might decline taxonomic terms in a Latin way). It seems that there are also real Latin non-Translingual usages:
  • Ernsti H. F. Meyer commentariorum de plantis africae australioris [...] Vol. I. Fascic. I, Leipzig, 1835, page 193: "Celeberrimus hujus ordinis conditor coronam stamineam non solum modo monophyllam modo pentaphyllam dixit, sed hoc discrimine quoque in generibus disponendis usus est. [...] Quae discriminis illius ambiguitas nec ipsum Brownium fugisse exinde colligo, quod Xysmalobio suo in conspectu generum coronam pentaphyllam, in generis ipsius charactere monophyllam seu partitam tribuit, et vice cersa Metaplexidi suae coronam hic pentaphyllam, ibi quinquepartitam." "coronam stamineam" could be a species name spelled differently than in modern taxonomics (w:Corona (gastropod)) or it could be a corona consisting of threads (w:Perianth). By the spelling it could be that genera are spelled with a capital letter, so corona could be a normal noun and pentaphyllus could be a normal adjective.
  • Joannes or Joannis Raius [abl. sg. Joanne Raio], Historia plantarum [...] Tomus primus.", London, 1686, page 468: "Caulis bipedalis est, alis divisus, rotundus, striatus ut angulosis videatur, asper albâ hirsutie, umbellas edens, ut in penultima trifidas, sed breviori petiolo & crassiori impositas, basin habentes trifoliam, sed juxta flores pentaphyllam."
But by the version history, it was created as a Translingual entry (on 21 September 2014 someone changed Translingual into Latin), and by the meaning it is about the meaning used in translingual and Translingual taxonomic names ("Used as a specific epithet in the taxonomic names"). So the easiest and safest way would be to change it back into Translingual and maybe add some derived terms (like Botryosicyos pentaphyllus etc.). If a non-Translingual Latin word can undoubtly be attested, it could still be added later.
* translingual and Translingual isn't the same: By attestation some Translingual terms could at the moment be monolingual (e.g. only English), although hypothetically they could be used in other languages as well. pentaphyllus is used in more than one language, so it's used translingually and is Translangual (WT:About Translingual#Accepted: "taxonomic names").
-84.161.48.43 13:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

aeglefinus

RFV for the Latin adjective / Translingual taxonomic epithet. It's defined as “Used as a specific epithet; shining, gleaming.”, but I don't see on what usage that definition is based. The etymology given reads “From Ancient Greek αἴγλη (aíglē, sunlight, gleam), possibly from an Epic Greek genitive and dative form, or possibly via Latin Aegle (any of three mythological figures)”, but that doesn't explain the -fīnus element. Compare Aeglefinus, which I think derives from the French églefin (haddock), which appears to be attested since circa 1300 as the Middle French egreffin. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't find what source I might have used for the etymology. I fear there may not have been one. The derivation that Robert shows for églefin does not include any Greek or Latin. DCDuring (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The meaning is likely based on the presumed etymology, and the "usage" likely is the one in taxonomic names.
  • David H. McNicoll, Dictionary of Natural History Terms with their derivations, including the various orders, genera, and species, London, 1863, page 9 gives this etymology: "Ægle'finus (Ichth.) αἰγλοφανής [aiglophanḗs], brilliant, lustrous". It contains a change of ο to e and of a to e - and the only explanation for that that I can think of is English mispronunciation or French or English deformation. Alternatively, the given etymology could be incorrect.
  • Dictionaries and other books mention French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (by Frenchies) or eglefin (by non-Frenchies or in caps as EGLEFIN) and English eglefinus as names for haddock. The origin is once said to be Dutch (14th century, so likely Middle Dutch) eschlevis which is said to literally mean shell-fish (from Why is an Apple a Pomme? A Journey with Words by Denis Dunstone, 2014, e-books version at books.google, which also mentions Spanish eglefino, Portuguese eglefim, Italian eglefino). A German book mentioned a Dutch schelvis (which looks more like Schellfisch) and says there was a "Umbildung". In another context a French aigle fin with the meaning "clever person" (schlauer Mensch) and the literal meaning "fine eagle" (feiner Adler) was mentioned.
    So maybe the etymology is like this: some Dutch word, likely for the haddock -> French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (French caps, maybe in older typography, EGLEFIN), maybe by folketymological deforming of the Dutch to resemble aigle fin and then maybe to deform it as it's no eagle (aigle) -> maybe English or some other European language -> Translingual aeglefinus. Maybe one can find more and better references for this.
BTW: The long e (Wiktionary: "aeglēfīnus") is likely from one of the two presumed etymologies. So if the etymology is a guess, the length likely is too, and if it is a guess, then it shouldn't be "aeglēfīnus" without any note.
BTW 2: By connecting aeglefinus with the French noun aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin, aeglefinus could be a noun too (in taxonomics used in apposition), so it's almost like an alternative form of Aeglefinus except that modern taxonomic uses capitalisation in a special way.
-84.161.35.194 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
In the sense "haddock", it's obviously from the French or some close relative thereof and is a noun. The waspfish, however, is in a different order, so aeglefinus may be an adjective in Neocentropogon aeglefinus. If so, it should be listed as two etymologies. PierreAbbat (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • According to etyfish.org "apparently a latinization of “Egrefin” and “Eglefin,” its vernacular names in France and England, respectively, according to Pierre Belon, De aquatilibus (1553)" DCDuring (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I've deleted the etymology (quoted above for reference) and removed the disputed definition, but left it defined as "used in specific epithets", since it has three derived terms / examples proving that. Resolved? - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I've added other defined terms, all taxonomic names for haddock. I made the etymology "cognate with French églefin". The source(s) of the églefin and the specific epithet may not be discoverable, but the fact of their relationship is obvious. DCDuring (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

????歌

Shinjitai form of 謳歌. —suzukaze (tc) 03:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Character ???? is part of Extended shinjitai, "unofficial characters". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

camus

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

L&S: "Perh. a kind of collar for the neck, Non. p. 200, 16 (Trag. Rel. v. 302 Rib.)." Maybe that's the source for it, and maybe in another dictionary it's without the "Perh.", or maybe it's coming from L&S but with ignoring the "Perh." which should abbreviate "Perhaps". -84.161.7.226 21:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"Perh." means perhaps in L&S.
Dictionaries:
  • L&S: "Perh. [= perhaps] a kind of collar for the neck, Non. p. 200, 16 (Trag. Rel. v. 302 Rib.)."
  • L w/o S: "a curb, used as an instrument of torture: civīs tradere camo, H. dub. [= doubtful]"
  • Gaffiot: "carcan : *Acc. Tr. 302."
  • Georges: "Strafwerkzeug für Sklaven u. Verbrecher, Acc. tr. 302. Hor. sat. 1, 6, 39."
Based on this it should rather be a yoke (frame around the neck) than a necklace (jewelry worn around the neck).
As for Horatius, it does depend on the edition and camo could be less common than Cadmo.
The works mentioned by the dictionaries:
  • Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina, page 200, line 16f. In: Noni Marcelli compendiosa doctrina. Emendavit et adnotavit Lucianus Mueller. Pars I, Leipzig, 1888, p. 295f.:
    Collus masculino Accius Epigonis:
    quid césso ire ad eam? em, praésto est camo† collúm gravem.
    16 Epigonis Me; epigono C. – 17 equidem illud camo idem quod κάμπτω olim putaveram. sed ne sic quidem sententia satis facilis et commoda. vulgo ita explicatur, ut camus sit κημός, et significet, quod exemplo caret, vinculum collare. propius a vero existimo catellae (cf. pg. 199 l. catellae) vocabulum latere et hausta quaedam, quibus octon. iamb. impleretur, ut puta: quid césso ire ad eam? eam praéstost. et catélla (ablat.) habet collúm gravem. nam interdum in hoc metro caesuram neglegi notum. illa quin de Eriphyla dicta esse videantur non intercedo. at pessime puto factum, quod Epigonos Accii eandem cum Eriphyla habuit fabulam Ribbeckius duasque res diversissimas Thebarum expugnationem et Eriphylae caedem una tragoedia contineri existimavit.
  • Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina, page 200, line 16f. In: Nonii Marcelli de conpendiosa doctrina libros XX onionsianis copiis usus edidit Wallace M. Lindsay. Volumen I. LL. I–III, argumentum, indicem siglorum et praefationem continens, Leipzig, 1903, p. 294:
    Collus masculino Accius Epigonis (302):
    . quid cesso ire ád eam? em, praesto ést: camo collúm gravem.
    16 epigono (etiam F3)
  • Otto Ribbeck, Tragicorum latinorum reliquiae, Leipzig, 1852, p. 148 (L. Attius [= Lucius Accius], Epigoni, XIII (9), verse 302):
    Iám quid cesso ire ád eam? en praesto est: én camo collúm grauem!
    302 iam om. libri   em praesto est camo libri hem praesto est: camo en Vossius hem praesto est: en camo Grotius Bibl. crit. nou. IV
  • Otto Ribbeck, Tragicorum latinorum reliquiae. Secundis curis. Volumen I., Leipzig, 1871, p. LV and p. 176 (L. Attius, Epigoni, XIII (9), verse 302) (similary at wikisource):
    [p. VII and IX]  PRAEFATIO
    [...] eis
    ADNOTATIONUM COROLLARIUM
    quod infra sequitur contexui.
    [p. XLIX]  Attium et debebam et volebam ACCIVM scribere. Nam hoc fuisse poetae nostri nomen fidem facit cum frequentia, immo constantia huius potissimum scripturae in testimoniis, tum Pisaurensium titulorum auctoritas, ubi A c c i i apparent, maximi illa momenti, si probabiliter statuitur Accianum (nam sic apud Hieronymum dicitur) fundum, qui iuxta Pisaurum fuit, a patre poetae colono possessum et filio traditum fuisse. [...]
    [p. LV]  V. 302 violentius Buechelerus eiecto camo ad senarii modos constrinxit:
    quid césso ire ad eam? em praésto est : em (vel iam) collúm grauem.
    [p. 176]  [Séd] quid cesso ire ád eam? em praesto est: cámo [uide] collúm grauem!
    302 sed om. libri   em praesto est, om. uide, libri hem praesto est: camo en Vossius hem praesto est: en camo Grotius Bibl. crit. nou. IV
  • Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Satirae = Sermones, liber I. In: Horace Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica with an English translation by H. Rushton Fairclough, 1942, p. 78f. (similary at wikisource and thelatinlibrary):
    "tune, Syri, Damae aut Dionysi filius, audes
    deicere de saxo civis aut tradere Cadmo?"
    "Do you, the son of a Syrus, a Dama, a Dionysius,d dare to fling from the rocke or to hand over to Cadmus citizens of Rome?"
    d These are common slave-names.
    e i.e. the Tarpeian rock from which criminals were sometimes thrown by order of a tribune. Cadmus was a public executioner.
-80.133.123.15 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
In an edition with English translation, Attius/Accius' "camo" is interpreted as necklace or neckband. So there are (a) Horatius with the doubtful "camo" (a punishment device) or "Cadmo" (proper noun) and (b) Attius/Accius with the doubtful "camo" (a punishment device or a necklace or neck-band). It's doubtful, but should be cited. -84.161.32.202 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ad perpetuum and ad perpetuam

Latin phrases purportedly meaning “everlasting” or “permanent”. I’m most sceptical, however, about the usage note included under ad perpetuum, viz.:

  • The words ad perpetuum or ad perpetuam rei memoriam were normally placed at the end of the salutation on Roman documents to convey the meaning that the documents were trustworthy and permanent.

I didn’t see anything about that in the usual lexicographic places (see perpetuus#References). The phrases in perpetuō (ablative) and in perpetuum (accusative) are well attested (elsewhere), but nowhere do I see mentioned a phrase with ad and any form of perpetuus. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • www.zeno.org/Zeno/0/Suche?q=%22ad+perpetuam%22&k=Bibliothek has many mentionings of "ad perpetuam rei memoriam" or "ad perpetuam memoriam". www.zeno.org/Pierer-1857/A/Bulle+%5B1%5D could imply that "ad perpetuam rei memoriam" appears in Medieval documents. As the pope lives in Rome and as it is "Roman Catholic Church" the quoted "Roman documents" could be correct, but vague or misleading. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magni_aestimamus.jpg (said to be a bull from 2011 by wikipedia) has "Benedictus Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam." and commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Detail_of_Quo_Primum_tempore.JPG (said to be a bull) has "Pius Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam" at the top.
    www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Key%C3%9Fler,+Johann+Georg/Neueste+Reisen+durch+Deutschland,+B%C3%B6hmen,+Ungarn,+die+Schweiz,+Italien+und+Lothringen/Erste+Abtheilung/51.+Schreiben?hl=ad+perpetuum cites a text with "ad perpetuum" in it. Maybe it is a British Medieval or New Latin form of "in perpetuum"? -84.161.13.81 19:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

deinde scriptum

RFV for this supposedly idiomatic Latin phrases defined as:

  • "in place of a signature", "the same" (referring to a signature written above on the page, typically following a P.S.)

I haven’t been able to find it in L&S, du Cange, Elementary Lewis, Niermeyer, or the OLD. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It could be NL and not CL, so it would be missing in L&S and OLD. w:de:Liste lateinischer Abkürzungen, w:de:DS and w:de:Postskriptum mention it, but that's not a reliable source and could be a German abbreviation. Talk:deinde scriptum gives another etymology, but in English, German, Latin that would be unlikely. -84.161.49.251 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

pseudoplatanus

Sense 1: "False plane tree".
By the version history I get the impression that probably there is just the second sense and this first sense is a misplaced literal translation.
In Latin Acer pseudoplatanum and Acer Pseudoplatanum (the latter in Carolus Linnaeus') do exist, but that would have the 2nd sense in it.
Furthermore:

  • If sense 1 doesn't exist, this likely better is a Translingual than a Latin entry.
  • In modern non-Latin taxonomics pseudoplatanus could be an adjective as there is Anomalocentra pseudoplatana (in a English taxonomic book from 2002). But well, ATM this might be the only source for the feminine and this taxonomic name.

-84.161.49.251 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

青鮫

Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 12:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be included as such in CC-CEDICT (not that it means much for our purposes). Taiwan's Ministry of Education dictionary seems to describe something more specific. —suzukaze (tc) 22:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
(google:"青鮫的" has a really feeble amount of hits...) —suzukaze (tc) 22:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

heptaphyllus

For the doubtful feminine forms heptaphyllus, heptaphylli, heptaphyllo etc.
BTW 1: In Translingual taxonomics the feminine is the more logical "heptaphylla".
BTW 2: this is the only Latin adjective ending in -us and using "la-adecl-2nd" besides the doubtful chrysocarpus. -84.161.22.20 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Design by contract

For the spelling, the gender and the inflection.
"Design by Contract" with neuter gender and genitive "Design by Contract" are attestable, but that's not "Design by contract" with masculine gender and strange genitive "Design by contracts".
IMO it could simply be moved and changed... -84.161.22.20 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • It's not a proper noun either. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The source for "Design by contract" could be de:w:Design by contract, but German Wiki uses "Design by contract", "Design by Contract" and "Design By Contract". The masculine gender could come from the given German translation in "Design by contract (kurz DbC, englisch für Entwurf gemäß Vertrag)" as Entwurf is masculine. But Design is neuter. The strange genitive "Design by contracts" could come from en.Wikt's template.
      German Design by Contract n does now exist (which also means that Design by contract can't be moved anymore to the correct place...). -84.161.18.209 11:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

OD

Rfv-sense "a doctor's degree in optometry". Seems to me like it's probably just English, or possibly Translingual, but I suppose it could be New Latin. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In Latin it could abbreviate a New Latin *"optometriae doctor". But for the full form, I only saw a few mentionings or non-Latin usages like English "[...] give the degree of O.D.--Optometriae Doctor, or Doctor of Optometry." The degree could be from the 20th century, hence it's more likely that it's not Latin but just English or at best Translingual. -84.161.13.81 23:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The RFV reasoning might also apply to the sense "oculus dexter, the right eye" (Eng OD, OS, OU do exists and were added in diff), and to the sense "the organ of sight; the eye"? For what should OD in that sense even stand? Added RFV-sense at least for "the organ of sight; the eye". -84.161.2.82 22:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
RFV failed for the degree sense.__Gamren (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Note that an anon sense-RFV'd the "organ of sight" sense as well; that one remains to be solved before archiving. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RSb

An initialism for a German noun that we haven't got. Nothing obvious on a quick Google search. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a [wiki article] on that subject. 178.49.152.66 17:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Rückscheinbrief does now exist. According to w:en:Rückscheinbrief it's an Austrian-German thing. wp's "RSa-Brief (Rückscheinbrief a [...])" and "RSb-Brief (Rückscheinbrief b)" imply that RSb does not stand for "Rückscheinbrief" but for "Rückscheinbrief b", or something similar as "RSb-Brief" ~ "Rückschreinbrief-b-Brief" would be stupid (though not impossible as "HIV virus" = "human immunodeficiency virus virus" shows). [2] has "RSa   Rückschein a    RSb   Rückschein b", similar [3]/[4]. "Rückschein-a-Brief" makes sense.

June 2017

bandoleer

RFV Spanish etymology - bandol doesn't appear to be a Spanish word. -WF

This was in the time of Old Spanish (1500s), which I am not an expert in. I think bandol was an Old Catalan word (modern bàndol), which includes the Catalan diminutive suffix -ol (Modern Spanish -uelo). That in turn from Old Spanish bando. I would change the etymology to something like this:
From earlier form bandollier, from Middle French bandoulliere, from Old French bandouliere, from Old Spanish bandolera, bandolero "guerrilla", from Catalan bandolera (feminine derivative of bandoler, “member of a band of men”), from bàndol "faction, party" (diminutive suffix -ol), from Old Spanish bando (faction, party). —Stephen (Talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

คทากร

AFAIK, we mostly use ดรัมเมเยอร์ for drum major. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"คทากร" is in wide use, as in "จุฬาฯ คทากร"; see further results from Google also. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Octahedron80, do you agree with that assertion? @หมวดซาโต้, could you add citations to the page?__Gamren (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

July 2017

The Slavic Latin contributions of 89.172.183.48

All of the contributions of this anon seem pretty shady to me, or at least under wrong title. @Metaknowledge, could you take a gander? —JohnC5

Also everything under Special:Contributions/89.172.170.90. —JohnC5 04:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
These all seem to be medieval Latin renderings of Serbo-Croatian names, and particularly of medieval Croatian/Pannonian rulers. Many of them could definitely be attested (at least from quotes in secondary sources), but some are plainly erroneous (“Muucimir” is just a misreading of Muncimir). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Affected Latin entries:
Additionally all these entries might miss a label like {{lb|la|Medieval Latin}}, {{lb|la|New Latin}} or {{lb|la|Medieval Latin|New Latin}}.
As headers and inflection do not fit:
  • The names ending in -o could be nominatives or be inflected forms, e.g. Budimero as nominative or as dative/ablative of Budimerus (gen. Budimeri) or maybe of Budimer (gen. Budimeri).
  • Names ending with mer or mir could have any of the following declensions: a) indeclinable, b) 3rd declension wih gen in -is, c) 2nd declension with gen. in -i and maybe with dropping of e in mer or i in mir similar to e.g. Maeander, gen. Maeandri.
As for vowel length as inflection templates add macra on the ending:
dunno. Maybe after comparing Slave names lengths can be assumed. But before comparison is done, it could be better to give everything without macra.
As for specific names:
  • Muntimerus (Muncimirus) does exist. Muncimir could barely exist (there appears to be a document from 892 (DCCCXCII) containing this name, and two other usages which might relate to that document). Muntimer might be wrong (correct inflection table, but entry and head missing -us). Muntimirus, Muncimerus could exist too, but that's another thing.
    By the way: Muntimerus was created by 89.172.168.75 who added a few more Slave names in -us.
  • Budimerus does exist. Created entry Budimero probably just is the dative/ablative of it. Budimer in the inflection section might be wrong.
  • Terpimerus could barely exist (the gen. Terpimeri can be found). Tripimirus might be inexistent.
-84.161.43.2 12:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Could you help attest some of these? I looked for Domosol and its variant Domosolus and couldn't find any hits outside of Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I deleted Muucimir as a misspelling. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If it helps any, these look like the work of BrunoMed (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), who was blocked several times for mass-adding entries via scripts from word lists that they obviously hadn't checked. Look for repetition of the same wording in multiple entries, even when it doesn't make sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks. I think that Domosol comes from this list: [5] The text is in Croatian so I'm not really sure what it says but it's pretty questionable as an attestation so I'm going to delete it. Benwing2 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

実見子

Japanese given name. —suzukaze (tc) 01:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

google:"実見子さん" produces more hits than 実見子の. Not many, but a few more. FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Although it looks like a real name, I don't think there is a strong case for the name being a common one, Among the few online examples I found, many seem to refer to a single individual living in Yamaguchi. (Different sources, thus less chance that it is the result of scanno, I believe.) [6][7][8] Whym (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

вурзпель

Dialect word, barely used nowadays. ганарэя is common. Comes from dictionaries from 1995 [9] and 2001 [10], but I think that it is not widespread. --Jarash (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be widespread, and it doesn't matter if it's dialect, but Belarusian is a WT:WDL, so it does need three uses (not dictionary mentions) from different authors over the space of more than a year. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Per utramque cavernam in this edit stated that RfV can be removed and in the description to this edit he provides a link to search on slounik.org with three hits. The first search hit is a dictionary from 1995 by editors С.Прыхожы, А.Стасевіч, А.Юркін, А.Сітнік, І.Каваленка (S. Prykhozhy, A. Stasevich, A. Yurkin, A. Sitnik and I. Kavalenka). The second and third search hits are Russian-to-Belarusian and Belarusian-to-Russian dictionaries from 2001 by the same editor Віктар Варанец (English: Victor Varanets). This makes the total count of independent sources only to 2. --Jarash (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It was a mistake of me to say that. As Mahagaja said above, dictionary mentions aren't enough; we need three real cites. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

adjectivo

Spanish. Or Portuguese? -WF

Our translations-section under adjective says that "adjectivo" is used in Portugal and "adjetivo" in Brazil. Spanish section looks more dubious. I could not find evidence of "adjectivo" meaning "procedural" in Spanish. Instead, a search for "regulaciones adjetivas" gives more than 300 hits. However, we don't have this sense listed under the Spanish entry for "adjetivo". --Hekaheka (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The Portuguese entry is perfectly clear; "adjetivo" is now the proper term, and the historical explanation is spot-on. --Luisftd (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete Spanish legal sense. Ultimateria (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@OP: It was an RFV for Spanish (NadandoBot moved the tag to a worse place...)
@Ultimateria: This is RFV, not RFD. The only reason why "delete" would be ok, is the age of this thread - properly, it would already be RFV failed...
@Thread: How about a Spanish grammatical term? Cf.: [11] ("nombres adjectivos"; from 1876, though original might be from 16-18th century), [12] ("adjectivo" - elsewhere also "adjetivo"; 1799), [13] ("nombre adjectivo" - elsewhere also "adjetivo"; 1789), [14] (elsewhere also adjetivo; 1862 - originally from 18th century?), [15] (also once "el Nombre adje- [linebreak] tivo"; 1818 - originally older?), [16] (1750). [17] (1747) has "nombre adiectio", which might have been more common. -14:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

August 2017

French demonyms

User @SemperBlotto has been mass-importing entries from French Wiktionary with, by his own admission, no checking of whether these words are actually verifiable. I decided to check a few of these, and (unsurprisingly) have been unable to verify the vast majority of them, particularly the demonyms for tiny communes, hence bringing them here. Note that these all have entries on fr.wikt, where the criteria for eligibility are far less stringent than ours. The (non-exhaustive) list is as follows; for brevity I have not written here the inflected (feminine/plural) forms, but I have also not been able to verify those so they are inlcuded too:

I've just started with the ones beginning with Y to see how this goes down. BigDom 06:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The history of this miniproject is as follows:- I noticed that a new user (Shiro1998 (talkcontribs)) was systematically added the plural forms of French nouns that we did not have (he seemed to be harvesting them from French Wiktionary). I didn't think this was very useful so started to add the missing singulars. While doing this I noticed that our French friends had very many French nouns (and adjectives &c) that we did not have - so started adding them. These included the above demonyms. My thinking went along the lines that, for a language such as French or Italian, we don't have to check the existance of all the conjugated forms of a verb, adjective etc., so I applied the same logic to the regularly-formed demonyms of French placenames. Some of these places are very small and the chances of the demonym appearing in print are slim - maybe in a local newspaper or a parish magazine, though these are unlikely to be archived. I assume that you are not complaining that any of these are actually incorrect, just that we can't prove that they are correct. My gut feeling is to keep them, and add any more that appear on the French Wiktionary or Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much it. I'm not saying these don't exist, but that they aren't used (in durably archived media, at least), which does seem to preclude them from having entries as per our inclusion criteria. I personally think we would be better served tidying up and citing our existing entries than creating unverifiable new ones, but if there's a consensus that such entries are allowed to remain, I'm not going to kick up a fuss. BigDom 10:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
These should definitely not be kept if they are not attested sufficiently. You did the right thing.__Gamren (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete if not sufficiently attested. – Barytonesis

September 2017

untriti

@Mulder1982 Where did you encounter this?__Gamren (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember where I got it from originally but to confirm I googled it and found that it is the word for one hundred. A website called LearnGreenlandic even has hundredi as a synonym. Mulder1982 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Links please? I agree that hundredi exists ([18], [19]), but I cannot find untriti, in its bare form, in the Atuagagdliutit archives, nor in sermitsiaq.ag. Katersat gives untritilik ([20]), but that, I can also not find. However, there are lots of words like untritilinni, untritilippassuarni, untritilikkaat, untritilinnik etc. in the timarit.is archive, so it cannot be complete rubbish. When supplied with some of these words, the Oqaasileriffik word analyser suggests untriteq as root, but that word gives no useful results at all.__Gamren (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's one link: untriti I'm trying to find more but I'm having the same "issue" that you do: that seems to be mainly found in compounds. It makes me wonder if it's possibly an from an older batch of loanwords, but this is just me speculating. Mulder1982 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

絵馬

RFV of the reading of えうま. @Fumiko Takesuzukaze (tc) 02:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Euma and enma are listed in Daijirin as independent entries.

え-うま ヱ― 【絵馬】

⇒えま(絵馬)

え-んま ヱ― 【絵馬】

(1)「えま(絵馬)」に同じ。

(2)能の曲名。

→えま(絵馬) ばかFumikotalk 08:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What version of Daijirin are you using? I don't see euma at [21] (Daijirin + others) nor [22] (Daijirin 3 + Digital Daijisen + others).
Also, I kind of want to see citations of euma in real life, as per WT:ATTEST. —suzukaze (tc) 08:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

pasador

Rfv-sense: DVD player
Rfv-sense: sieve, colander

Not found in a tiny sample of online Spanish-English dictionaries/translators. - Amgine/ t·e 04:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Sieve, colander is found in loads of dictionaries, so I removed the RFV form that. The sense for DVD player is something I couldn't find, but I did find "Pasador De Vhs A Dvd" for a kind of VHS-DVD converter. And added some more meanings while I was at it. I didn't realise Blotto was doing Spanish now. I see no reason why he shouldn't, but there was some minor cleanup to do afterward. --P5Nd2 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Rfv for senses "(Cantonese) to get wet by rain" and "(Cantonese) to drip" and pronunciation dap6. Dokurrat (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

dap6 is used for both these senses. The problem might be whether 溚 is used for dap6. The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters cites Parker Po-fei Huang's Cantonese Dictionary: Cantonese-English, English-Cantonese for this. I also found it in 陈慧英's 广州话的“噉”和“咁”. Also see this discussion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

????

Rfv for Cantonese. Dokurrat (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: The definitions come from the Unihan Database, which got their definitions from "The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters". Here are the sources cited in the article:
  • lan2 (variant of ????): 洪興仔 #21 殺入筲箕灣
  • lang1 (used in ????????/溜????): Hong Kong Judiciary unpublished glossary #4; 粵語書寫問題研究項目
  • lang3 (used in 半????????): Hong Kong Judiciary unpublished glossary #4 (I would pronounce this as lang1.)
  • nang3 (join, link, connect): A Study of Cantonese Words (Zeng Zifan), 粵語書寫問題研究項目
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: So, If my understanding is right, all pronunciations have passed rfv; sense "variant of ????" has passed rfv. And sense "uncommon, rare" is not verified (yet). Dokurrat (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
RFV is generally not used for pronunciations. "Variant of ????" doesn't pass RFV technically; see WT:ATTEST. "Uncommon, rare" is the definition for ????????/溜????; it's not used by itself, so there should be a {{zh-only}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

-verk

I'm not sure what to do with this. It appears in Norwegian Wiktionary, yet it's not a recognised suffix in the Bokmålsordboka or Nynorskordboka [23]. DonnanZ (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think -verk can be considered a suffix in Norwegian; it rather appears to be the second component in a compound? The fact that "verk" exists as a simplex in the same meaning as the proposed suffix seems to make it a suffixoid at best. Interestingly though, Wiktionary does have an entry for English -work. Morgengave (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes -work is a recognised suffix, whereas -works isn't, which is why it's now an RFD. Norwegian Bokmål verk (and Norwegian Nynorsk verk) is a word with two meanings and two genders, and I prefer to list derived terms there. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The senses given at verk already exist at verk. However, perhaps -verk has one or both of the senses of Danish -værk that DDO gives?
Also, DWDS gives, for German -werk: bezeichnet mehrere zusammengehörende oder gleichartige Gegenstände "denotes several objects that are similar or that belong together", which it calls "not productive".__Gamren (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I just looked up “-værk” in Den Danske Ordbog. That's interesting. I wonder is it's an error of omission by the Norwegian dictionaries, who knows? I quite often find words in the DDO which don't appear in the Norwegian ones, yet they are definitely used in Norwegian. DonnanZ (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

繃床

google books:"繃床" -"棕绷床" -"棕繃床" yields very few results. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There are 84,000 hits on Baidu for simplified 绷床. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we should mark it as a misspelling of 蹦床. The latter is found in the basic dictionaries, such as 《现代汉语规范词典》, 《汉语大词典》, 《汉语大辞典》, 《现代汉语词典》, etc., and agrees with the colloquial synonym 蹦蹦床 (bèngbèngchuáng), whereas I can't find this in any Chinese-Chinese or reliable Chinese-English dictionary. Wyang (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Have you checked the searching results of 绷床 in Baidu? It seems to me that many of them are not used in sense trampoline. Dokurrat (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, some refer to trampoline, others seem to be referring to a type of bed. Not sure about this one. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

caucă

scaucă

scălan

Both created by the same user. Caucă is mentioned in DEX as a variant of cauc: 1) a type of headwear used mainly by monks (from Turkish kavuk); or, 2) (archaic and regional) a wooden cup (from Latin *cau < cavus). Nowhere is the sense of "skull" mentioned. Scaucă is found only once on a nationalistic site trying to link the word scoică (< Slavic), through a regional form scaucă, to Dacian. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat delayed discovery, but scălan is also incorrectly defined. I'm starting to smell the nationalistic linguistics oozing from these entries. Am I wrong @Redboywild, @Word dewd544? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You're not wrong. I'm not even familiar with some of these to be honest. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
scaucă is definitely not citable. The other two get a few hits on Google Books, but I'm not sure if the definitions are correct. The etymologies are pretty fishy too, only mentioning PIE and Albanian. The words seem legitimate, but they're a bit too rare to be included by our standards. (To be fair, there are some other archaic/regional words on Wiktionary that don't seem citable, for example vierșun.) Redboywild (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. I'll take a look and see what I can do to correct the definitions that exist. I'm considering deleting scaucă, though. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

-- Dokurrat (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Chinese section. -- Dokurrat (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I am who added these symbols. Have you ever seen them in Chinese newspapers? I have. They also used in some publishings. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: I'm not sure if the weekday meanings of these symbols are inherent or just a SoP of ring and character. If these meanings have survived Rfv, we may need to add weekday senses to un-ringed characters too, I think. Dokurrat (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Usage of characters in brackets are attested [24][25]--Zcreator (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

湯桶読み & 重箱読み

湯桶読み lists three-kanji compounds, not just two like the definition claims. It's not an ideal source, so please provide with better ones. ばかFumikotalk 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Daijirin specifically defines these reading patterns as applying to two-character compounds (「漢字二字でできている熟語」 → "compounds formed of two characters"). C.f. Daijirin entry for 湯桶読み, Daijirin entry for 重箱読み. However, Shogakukan adds a note that these labels can be used more broadly for any single compound term (for 重箱読み: 「また、広く、一語の漢字熟語を音訓まぜて読むことにもいう。」 → "Also, broadly, used to describe readings of single-term kanji compounds read with a mixture of on-kun.").
Notably, the example terms with three kanji listed in the JA WP articles for ja:w:湯桶読み and ja:w:重箱読み all appear to be instances of an existing two-kanji compound read with on or kun and either prefixed or suffixed with another term with the opposite reading pattern. Some cases are what I would consider a multi-word term, like 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, fixed-width font) or 手榴弾 (te ryūdan, hand grenade), and as multi-word terms, these would not be either 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi).
(The 等幅 (tōhaba, fixed-width) portion of 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, fixed-width font) is itself read with the 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi) pattern, but the entire term 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, fixed-width font) cannot be considered as either 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi) -- especially so given the inclusion of borrowed katakana term フォント (fonto, font), which by very definition cannot be either on or kun).
However, some of the example terms include rendaku, indicating that these three-kanji compounds could be considered as integral words and not multi-word terms, such as 冬景色 (fuyu-geshiki, winter view, winter scene) or 雪化粧 (yuki-geshō, snow covering; to be covered in snow), and as such, the reading patterns for these could be considered as 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi).
I will rework the 湯桶読み and 重箱読み entries to clarify the definitions and to add usage notes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • First, most sources you frequently cite also make faulty claims, such as a Portuguese term as *Olanda, so I would take them with a huge grain of salt, and if I spoke Japanese, I would seek something, well, more linguistic than some dictionaries that might favor prescriptiveness over descriptiveness, or be outdated and therefore not reflect the true current status of the language (which they do seem like they do and are). Second, the way you divide words into smaller parts seems arbitrary; I've read a romanization guideline that would do very differently based on kanji count, but then with various exceptions. It doesn't help that Japanese doesn't use spaces to separate words, so it's very tricky to determine whether a morpheme is free or bound, whether it should be separated from other parts with spaces or not. I've been following a way that more or less resembles that guideline I've read (based on kanji count), factoring word-medially only processes such as rendaku or renjo. ばかFumikotalk 19:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You asked for better sources than Wikipedia. I provided several widely published monolingual Japanese dictionaries: Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten, Daijirin, Daijisen, and Shinmeikai.
As you note, these sources sometimes include mistakes. Importantly, mistakes such as the derivation of Japanese オランダ (Oranda, Holland) arise from misunderstandings of non-Japanese languages. These sources are quite solid when it comes to describing the Japanese language itself.
By your own self-description, you don't read Japanese. I'm not sure how you'd be qualified to judge the quality of monolingual Japanese resources.
Regarding romanization and word chunking, you're correct that rendaku and renjō are both important factors to consider. However, in the absence of these, I'm not sure how kanji count would factor into things, unless one is combining a simple count of kanji with an awareness of the underlying vocabulary. Probably most kanji-spelled integral terms are two characters in length. However, some are three characters long (天婦羅 (tenpura, tempura)), and some are only one character long ( (me, eye)). In 手榴弾 (te ryūdan, hand grenade), for instance, it helps to know that (te, hand) is an independent term, and 榴弾 (ryūdan, explosive round, explosive shell) is an independent term, but that *手榴 (*teryū, literally hand + pomegranate) is not a term. With this knowledge, we can tell that this is a compound of (te) and 榴弾 (ryūdan). This compound exhibits no sandhi (rendaku or renjō), the two portions have different reading types, the two portions are also used as independent terms, and the semantics are also clear as the two concepts put together as “hand” + “explosive shell / grenade”. Given all of these factors, it makes sense to render this in romaji with the space as two separate terms.
If you have a link to that romanization guideline, I'd be interested in reading it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Eirikr (except for the romaji part, I think, but I'm not sure how romaji is relevant to this RFV discussion). —suzukaze (tc) 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

黒鳥

Rfv-sense "(literally) a black-feathered bird". —suzukaze (tc) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, C.f. Daijisen and Daijirin entries, stating 「羽毛の黒い鳥」/「羽の黒い鳥」. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Attested:
  • 烏のようなる黒鳥が — 日本伝承童謡集成, vol. 2, 1974
  • 雪が降る中ヒマラヤ杉に黒鳥が止まり — 横浜市立大学論叢: 人文科学系列, vol. 40, 1989
  • ちょうどそこへ雌の黒鳥が飛んで来た。 — ゲセル・ハーン物語: モンゴル英雄叙事詩, 1993
TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

アキンボ

adjective: akimbo —suzukaze (tc) 23:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. google:"腕がアキンボ" gets one hit. google:"アキンボで" gets 2,070 ostensible hits, collapsing to 97 when paging through. However, the usage seems weird, and the meaning doesn't seem to be what our entry says. For example, one post is talking about a video game glitch, stating 「アキンボで走るときに」 (akinbo de hashiru toki ni, “when running akimbo”). That sounds super weird to me, and makes me think that this アキンボ is not just a borrowing from English akimbo. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This Yahoo answer pretty much explains it. It is apparently a borrowing from English akimbo, but its usage seems to be limited in the context of FPS games. Searching "アキンボ" on Japanese Wikipedia also confirms this. Nardog (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Nardog. The usage does appear to be more along the lines of "with pistols in both hands at the ready", similar to 二丁拳銃 (nichō kenjū, literally “two pistols”). For others here, the Yahoo link above describes how the term appears to be purely a gaming term, and pretty much exclusive to the Call of Duty first-person-shooter game. The poster there theorizes that the term came into vogue because of the game, and from a misunderstanding that "hands on one's hips" was more about gunslingers ready to draw their guns, and from there to having pistols in both hands.
It's clear the アキンボ (akinbo) entry needs reworking. I have other duties keeping me busy today, and possibly for the rest of the week, so I won't be tackling that soon. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

????

"Cantonese: virtuous". —suzukaze (tc) 00:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This character has previously drawn my interest. The definition suggests this character may be - if it fits the attestation criteria - a (very unorthodox) variant of 賢. But I has little resources. Hope someone can investigate into this and figure out what's the story. Dokurrat (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The definition is based on 汉语方言大词典, which cites 木鱼书《蔡伯喈琵琶记》: “蔡公醒后长吁气,叫声~媳好伤心。” I wonder if there are any other 木鱼书 that has this character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

主ページ

主頁

"home page". —suzukaze (tc) 20:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

ホームページ often connotes something different than "home page" as it can mean "web page" or "website", but 主ページ is not such a word. SoP at best, delete both as far as Japanese is concerned. Nardog (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Шахла

Шахля

Russian given names. Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominated by User:Recruos. Шахла́ (Šaxlá) spelling is citeable. It's just a transliteration of a name. I suggested the nominator to withdraw RFV. Ша́хля (Šáxlja) is a variant, harder to cite and, IMHO, the stress is wrong but with foreign names, the stress is not well-established. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

ager

Not a French word; always found italicised in historical discourse, as far as I can tell. A few examples: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. I'm looking for non-italicised instances. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam Hmm, do we not count italicized instances? I'm inclined to say we should, for the simple reason that a user might come across the word in a French context and want to know what it means. Sometimes italicization is used like quotes (e.g. "An oriented curve is said to be simple if such and such"), but these authors seem to italicize compulsorily, but otherwise use the word normally (and mostly as part of fixed expressions like ager vectigalis and ager publicus, but that's a different story). Are you worried about extreme duplication?__Gamren (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gamren: I don't know; I think italicisation should count for something, but it's not necessarily prohibitive either. User:Sgconlaw has summed up my position pretty well here.
In the present case however, I've no doubt the French section should be deleted; and if non-italicised instances do exist (which remains to be seen), I'm not sure I would even want to count them as valid. The reader is reading a book about ancient Rome; don't you think he'll naturally assume there's some Latin in there? Won't he spontaneously look in a Latin dictionary rather than a French one? Imo, thinking otherwise is treating people like idiots, and it ultimately makes us look like fools. Per utramque cavernam 20:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted, no valid quotes provided after more than two years. Canonicalization (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

January 2018

-theca

Is this productive? The five examples provided are direct borrowings from Greek, not Latin coinages. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

German terms ending with -thek should be from Latin and Greek or be rather recent creations like Videothek and Spielothek. The entries in Category:French words suffixed with -thèque might be rather recent creations too (though zoothèque might be older). Similary, Latin terms in -theca might be borrowings or be very recent formations difficult to attest as contemporary Latin is a LDL. yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2013/05/24/nuntii-latini (Finish Nuntii Latini, not durably archived) doesn't have anything ending in -theca or -thēca. In scientific Latin zootheca ([31] - cp. [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], Oxford Dictionaries: zootheca) can be found. Would this single word be enough to attest a Latin suffix? -84.161.37.160 23:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW: -isma. -84.161.54.72 13:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

コピペ

Rfv-sense "plagiarism". —suzukaze (tc) 00:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's quite common to see コピペ in reference to a plagiarism that is literally copied from a source, and not uncommon in reference related phenomena such as Rogeting. Example: [37]. Cnilep (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

あき as reading of 商

I know that read as しょう can mean “a business, a seller of goods”, and that the verb 商う (あきなう) means “to deal in, to sell”. But is the character ever read as あき, and does it then mean “the trade of goods”? Cnilep (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There are 商人 (あきんど, あきうど, あきゅうど, あきびと, しょうにん; "merchant") and 商物 (あきもの, "goods"), but that's probably it.[38] In both words the character indeed seems to denote business or trade. Nardog (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cnilep -- In 商う (akinau, to do business), the character covers the akina- portion. However, etymologically, the root is aki plus suffix -nau, and the root appears to be what is reflected in these other terms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

復審

Seems to be the wrong traditional form of 複審. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There're many hits in Google Books.--Zcreator (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zcreator: True. Do you think there are any differences between 復審 and 複審 in terms of meaning? (In Cantonese, they would be pronounced differently.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
That is the correct form, and 複審 is a wrong form, which must be verified ([39], [40]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji: (This is a really late response.) I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on. Guoyu Cidian only has 複審. It seems like both 復審 and 複審 are valid from the google hits, but there might be some differences in meaning. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

wede

First etymology. I find nothing about this even in WNT. —Rua (mew) 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Morgengave Do you remember where you found this word? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
R. Reinsma, Namen op de kaart: oorsprong van geografische namen in Nederland... (2009) mentions it as a "medieval word" found in placenames: "In de naam van de rivier de Merwede zitten de woorden meer (hier in de betekenis 'moerassig water') en wede, een middeleeuws woord voor 'bos' (verwant met woud). De Merwede moet dus lang geleden een kruising van een moeras en een bos zijn geweest, met de nadruk op bos." ("In the name of the river Merwede the words are meer (here in the meaning 'swampy water') and wede, a medieval word for 'forest' (akin to woud). The Merwede must have been a crossing of a swamp and a forest long ago, with the emphasis on forest."
I have not yet found any examples in running text. - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this can be deleted now. This is the most promising result I found:
  • 1903, Tijdschrift van het Koninklijk Nederlandsch Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, page 181.
    [] de zonnige Zuidhellingen komen hierbij dus niet ter sprake, daar deze gebruikt worden voor nederzettingen, kultuur, weden enz. en het woud op de schaduwzijde gemakkelijker zijne klimatologische grens bereikt.
    (please add an English translation of this quote)
But I'm quite sure that it is a misspelling of weiden. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The RFV template was removed in diff and the sense was converted to 'in toponyms'. This is OK by me if it's OK with Rua; we do have at least a few other such entries. I'll move it below the still-current senses, though. - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rua Can you confirm whether this resolves the RFV for you?

Lomocso

@Carl Francis marked this for speedy deletion, claiming that it is not actually Tagalog and not the correct spelling. I see use of this as a Filipino surname, and I'm not sure why @TagaSanPedroAko would be wrong about their native language, so I've brought it here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge

a It's Lumocso, not Lomocso and it's Cebuano. b The guy is just making stuff up as he goes along (see: Licuanan). c The guy is practically claiming every Filipino surname as Tagalog just because it's in forebears.io (see: Alterado, Magdayao and Bayot). He even made up an etymology for Alterado, claiming it's Spanish when his main reference, forebears.io, doesn't even have stats on Alterado in Spain.

@Carl Francis I have been out of WT for weeks, since I left for Canada, but I am pulled in to this thread by the arguments you point. So, let me answer your arguments you are pointing on this issue, since you pinged me in while I am away from WT:
  1. There is really a surname Lomocso (as I see it on one name I found in the news) , and Lumocso would be the main form, not the only correct form. Just mark Lomocso as an alternative form, and nothing else, so we do not inflame this argument.
  2. What do you mean of me creating out stuff? Yes, Licuanan also occur on the Tagalog regions because of migration, and that is not a reason to make it up as it is Tagalog. It is of Chinese origin, not Cebuano, and I have the sources to find their etymology. Don't push the argument they are Cebuano because it is common on its speakers. It is just associated with it, but not always, because there would be many families with that surname outside the Cebuano/Visayan regions, and not all of them would have their ancestors traced back to those.
  3. Claiming every surnames to be Tagalog is because they can be encountered in the Tagalog regions, particularly Metro Manila, and not just for because they are found in the Forebears surname database. I used Forebears for the stats for the surname as an approach I started after I found many Filipino surnames being listed in English already, through admin TheDaveRoss, who added many surnames in English based on 2010 US Census stats for a million surnames collected in the US. But, I now reduced my activity in adding surnames, and concentrated on the Tagalog vocabulary. And you are even claiming several Cebuano surnames of Spanish-language origin taken from the 1849 Catálog alfabético de apellidos to be native Cebuano. Alterado would have derived from Spanish (from a word that is not typically taken as a surname, but become so under the 1849 colonial edict on surnames for Filipinos), but not from Spain. You are free to remove the Tagalog entry of it, until I can prove it also exists in Tagalog. Please drop the argument that I mark every Filipino surname as Tagalog, as I changed my approach there: add only a Tagalog entry of a surname from any Philippine language if I can only prove it has also existed in the Tagalog regions, through migration of people who carried them. "Bayot" and "Magdayao" are, yes, Cebuano in origin, but that is not a reason to have it also in Tagalog.
I know you are a prolific contributor on Cebuano vocabulary, but let this thread be solved properly, without having to give further arguments that may worsen this..-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

硇#Japanese

Listed in WWWJDIC (c.f. http://nihongo.monash.edu/cgi-bin/wwwjdic?1MMC%E7%A1%87), but I cannot find any evidence of use in Japanese. The purported Google hits that I looked into at google:"硇は" all appeared to be scannos. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine that a query for "硇は" would bring up anything since it's not a stand-alone word... Daijisen includes 硇砂 (oddly, a search for "硇砂" doesn't bring it up). —suzukaze (tc) 04:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This webpage appears to be a digitalization of an old book that mentions 硇砂. —suzukaze (tc) 04:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you suzukaze. I should have searched for google:"硇" "は" instead.
It appears that this character only shows up in Japanese in the term 硇砂 (dōsha, sal ammoniac, ammonium chloride), which appears to be an obsolete synonym for modern 塩化アンモニウム (enka anmoniumu).
I haven't seen any evidence for the nyō reading listed in WWWJDIC and KANJIDIC (see also https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E7%A1%87). Can anyone tell, is this a dictionary-only reading? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Ng̃

Only found on Wiktionary. I can confirm this is used, but I don't have reliable sources to prove it, due to its nature being a physically handwritten abbreviation. ばかFumikotalk 03:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This is extremely common... especially in handwritten name lists and notes. I would have taken plenty of pictures to show this usage if I knew this was to be nominated for RFV, but... Wyang (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
If there are difficulties in typesetting "g̃", finding cites might be hard.
It's not the same form, but I think this book uses "Ng.": Tên tác giả: Ng. [...]suzukaze (tc) 00:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
[...] của NG. VĂN TRUNGsuzukaze (tc) 00:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

គូត

As disscussed in Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#គូត, this gonna be some kind of slang. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Both User:Stephen G. Brown and myself confirmed that this term is in Tuttle Practical Cambodian Dictionary (page 14) but verifying this term seems difficult. Note the dictionary itself is not digitised. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if there are other words meaning bottom or relations that we could compare. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
ថ្ពាល់គូថ (thpŏəl kuut) (buttocks, backside), គូថ (kuut) (buttocks; excrement), គូធ (kuut) (buttocks; excrement), គូទ (kuut) (buttocks). Why do you ask about words that mean "relations"? There are various words that mean "relations", but nothing to do with "bottom". —Stephen (Talk) 06:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I said if there are other language relations. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Besides the above, there are also ខ្ទត (khtɔɔt) (to move the buttocks), ខ្ទីត (khtiit) (to have the buttocks protruding while walking), ខ្ទុត (khtut) (to move the buttocks), ខ្ទែត (khtɛɛt) (to have prominent buttocks), គគូទ (kɔkuut) (buttocks), ចំតិត (cɑmtət) (to stick the buttocks out), ចំទយ (châmtôy) (to stick the buttocks out), គ្រហីត (krɔhəyt) (face down with the bottom sticking up). —Stephen (Talk) 06:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added the etymology and alternative forms. Perhaps only one or two can be verified. According to Sealang dictionary, គូត (kuut), គូទ (kuut), គូធ (kuut) are all variants. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80, Stephen G. Brown: The term is derived from Pali gūtha or Sanskrit गूथ (gūtha, feces), which makes sense. គូទ (kuut) gives lots of "bum" related images, plain Google hits and three Google books hits. I think we can make គូទ (kuut) the main entry and mark the others as verified. @Stephen, apparently English is Octahedron80's second language but I understand what he means. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: You have created គូថ (kuut). It's yet another alternative form of the same word. We just need to decide, which one should be the main form and which ones are alternative spellings. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
គូថ is the most correct spelling compared to Pali/Sanskrit consonant group [ត ទ ធ ន] = [t th d dh n]. Thai also has คูถ in one form only. You know that Khmer words from Pali/Sanskrit almost keep original consonants. Or else, គូត & គូថ may not relate each other; I have new theory that គូត may be borrowed from Thai ตูด but they don't like to pronounce t-. --Octahedron80 (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Nix Olympica

Entered by an anon. No sources given. DonnanZ (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Google has English results, e.g. New Scientist 24 Feb 1972. There should be enough results for an English entry. Planeten Monde Ringsysteme (1984) has it in German which could make it Translingual. As for gender, if it were Latin it would be feminine (nix), but in German it might be feminine (nix) or masculine (Schnee, Berg, Vulkan). In the provided source, gender isn't visible but hidden in "Riesenvulkan Nix Olympica", "von Nix Olympica". For Translingual terms with Mons (Category:mul:Geography), it would be easier. Though, considering other languages as well (English pretty much not having gender, French only having masculine and feminine, Danish only having common (masculine and feminine merged into one) and neutrum), it might make more sense to not have such terms as Translingual, or to have some note somewhere... -84.161.20.239 16:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Five references can be found in the Wikipedia article on Olympus Mons, which may be enough to verify this. DonnanZ (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. This is such a famous name and feature. If you don't recognize this name, I hazard to guess you don't recognize anything in astronomy.
-- 70.51.203.56 05:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Some of these sources might have mentionings (like "it was called X", "it was named X", "old name: X") and some might not be durably archived. Mentionings would be ok for Wikipedia and also for some Wiktionaries but not for the English one (WT:CFI). Nontheless it's attestable as Translingual, there are at least three English usages (google books, "Nix Olympica", "of Nix Olympica", ...) and three German usages (also see below).
[58]/[59], [60], [61], [62] have it as masculine; [63], [64] as feminine. google gives another masculine result for "der nix olympica" but I can't see it. This might lead to a gender problem, if it stays "Translingual"... -84.161.20.186 00:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
It's been used for over 100 years, and was originally coined in Italian by an Italian astronomer. If you look at maps of Mars from the 19th and 20th century, you'll find it on them (along with canals) Anything published before 1980 is clearly not an electronic-only document (such as the scans of 1800s sources listed in multiple languages) thus was published on paper. As it became obsolete before 1980, it will not be an ephemeral electronic source term. -- 65.94.42.219 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Entry has three usages since quite a long time, so it's attested, and this discussion can be closed already. --Pitza Guy (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

May 2018

まじ卍

A hot word, tagged as being older than a year, with no definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I remember seeing a report that it became popular to use the manji (卍) in Japan's youth recently. There's even a manji gesture which consists of crossing your arms in some manner. The included Wikipedia article says it's a symbol for hype and basically means 'awesome', but I can't read the details. First reference (Kotobank) on Wikipedia says it's a compound of 'まじ' (really) and '卍' (cool) and got some media attention. I think kotobank.jp was used as an acceptable source for verification here before, but I don't know our policies. I added a definition at . Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

ポケットモンスター

Rfv-sense "a Pocket Monster". —Suzukaze-c 17:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand, what's in question, this is clearly in widespread use. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Korn If so, please add some cites so the RFV can be closed. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It's literally the name of the franchise, it's on every single product. Again, I don't understand what exactly is in question about it that has to be verified by the cites. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It's clearly in widespread use, but what about WT:CFI#Fictional universes/Wiktionary:CFI#Brand names? --Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

熨斗

RFV for reading utsuto. Included in ja.wiktionary. —Suzukaze-c 04:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I sure can't find any support for this reading.
I find this spelling in both Weblio (in various sources) and [https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%86%A8%E6%96%97-112174 Kotobank (also multiple sources), but other than the JA Wiktionary included in Weblio's hits, no one lists any reading except のし (noshi).
Weblio has nothing at all for うつと (utsuto), and only the unrelated adverb for うっと (utto). Likewise, Kotobank has nothing for うつと (utsuto) and only the adverb for うっと (utto).
The JA Wikipedia article only lists the のし (noshi) reading for Japanese, mentioning:

なお、漢語「熨斗」は「ウット」とも読み、「熨(熱でしわをのばす)」+「斗(ひしゃく)」、即ち、昔のアイロンである火熨斗(ひのし)を指す。

Note that this says 「熨斗」は, indicating that this is (the Japanese rendering of) the Chinese term. Compare modern Min Nan reading ut-táu. I suspect that the JA Wiktionary editor was confused by this, as also suggested by their apparent misspelling of the kana -- the JA WP says ウット (utto), whereas the JA WT says ウツト (utsuto), and the editor of our Japaneses entry must have followed suit.
If we can find any evidence for this term actually used in JA with the utto reading, we should clarify the sense, as this seems restricted to JA contexts talking about ZH culture and language, where this reading refers to the iron used to press clothing. Our senses for the noshi reading are lacking, both at the Japanese 熨斗 entry and at the linked English noshi entry. Modern JA noshi is either short for 火熨斗 (hinoshi, traditional clothing iron, literally fire + pressing, smoothing), or refers to a kind of origami, sometimes even just a printed picture or stamp of the origami pattern, or in extremely abbreviated instances even just the two hiragana spelling out のし (noshi), as explained in more detail at the JA WP article. The dried abalone is generally omitted in modern usage, which isn't clear from either our JA or EN entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Vietnamese

I find it odd that Vietnamese writers would make use of a specifically Japanese phonetic glyph with a value of nu as the typographic equivalent of the " ditto mark.

I suspect that the intended glyph is not the Japanese katakana character (nu, Unicode hex value 30CC), but rather the graphically similar Chinese (and thus Vietnamese chữ Nôm) character (again, as well, Unicode hex value 53C8). In fact, the Japanese phonetic katakana character originally derived from a shorthand version of (used phonetically to represent nu), which includes the glyph as its right-hand portion.

Our entry at cites a website that appears to be volunteer-based data of uncertain provenance. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese Nom Preservation Foundation's online lookup tool has no entry for ヌ (Ux30CC), but it does have an entry for 又 (Ux53C8). Could someone check other sources and confirm?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The website in question says has a pronunciation of lại, and you can find several instances of pronounced lại on the same site. It is very likely to be a confusion of the two by their shapes. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information. The chunom.org website is the one cited at the ヌ#Vietnamese entry, and the data there is of unclear provenance. I cannot tell if this is a reliable and trustworthy source, or instead something that might be error-prone in a manner similar to Jisho.org. (That might be what you were suggesting, that chunom.org is error-prone?)
If, ultimately, the Ux30CC glyph is actually in use in electronic Vietnamese chữ Nôm texts, then we should probably have an entry. If instead electronic texts only use Ux53C8, ヌ#Vietnamese should probably go away.
Are there any other electronic Vietnamese sources, or even ideally published works, that use glyph (Ux30CC) interchangeably with (Ux53C8)? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a reduced form of ("again"), used as an iteration mark in Vietnamese Chu Nom, e.g. 喑ヌ (ầm ầm), 猪ヌ (chưa chưa), 赤ヌ (xích xích), 紅ヌ (hồng hồng). Lại means “again”. Listing it on is probably using the wrong codepoint, but then I'm not sure where this should belong. Wyang (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
They seem to use U+30CC and U+31F4 interchangeably, which suggests there is no officially assigned code point. I prefer moving the information to with a soft redirect at , until the official code point is given in Unicode. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Even Chunom.org's main entry is the U+314F one (), while their U+30CC entry is pretty minimal.
In the absence of any Vietnamese editor input, I second Shinji's suggestion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji: I checked the links provided by Wyang and the character is indeed attested in Vietnamese texts published from 1909 to 1940. The only problem is that it shouldn't be using the same codepoint that is meant for katakana. I don't think this character is unifiable with (the glyph forms are different) so I checked the proposed charts for CJK Extension G and H as well as CJK Extension B,C,D,E,F but this character is not there. I propose moving the entry over to ⿻㇇丶 (See Category:Terms containing unencoded characters for other terms that are not yet encoded). KevinUp (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that using the katakana codepoint is less troublesome, in the same vein as how Cyrillic codepoints are used for some tones in the old Zhuang Latin script. —Suzukaze-c 20:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @KevinUp, any chance that's a scanno kind of problem? I highly doubt that the original texts from 1909–1940 were using any codepoints at all. :)  And thinking through how such texts became digitized, scanning + OCR comes to mind as a likely approach. And if the OCR engine weren't configured quite right, that might be how (Ux30CC) crept in where some graphical variant of (Ux53C8) might have been the glyph actually used in the dead-tree texts.
An idea, anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I don't think Vietnamese texts can be digitized using OCR because many Nôm characters are still unencoded in Unicode. I think the Katakana character was chosen because no other character is available to represent that glyph (the links contain actual images of the text). For now, we could just keep the entry under ヌ#Vietnamese until it is encoded by Unicode. KevinUp (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@KevinUp: interesting re: digitizing.
For completeness' sake, I see that there is also (U+3121), visually identical to Japanese (Ux30CC) in some fonts, and more explicitly derived from (U+53C8). However, the Nôm lookup tool doesn't have U+3121 either, only U+53C8. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr, Suzukaze-c: I checked the images at chunom.org and noticed that there is another variation of this character where the dot does not extend beyond the bottom stroke of . Since this character is not a katakana or Zhuyin letter, it shouldn't be using any of these two codepoints. I think it would be better to move this entry to ⿻㇇丶 which can also represent the second variation of this glyph. KevinUp (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @KevinUp, thank you for the additional research. I wonder how much of this variation is due to differences in scribal handwriting? On the page for the ngày ngày example, for instance, I note several irregularities in other characters as well.
Agreed that our Vietnamese entry for this should probably be moved. One concern, however, is how would users find ⿻㇇丶 when searching? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

model

Spanish for "model (person)", from English. Ultimateria (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The query "es un model" yields a lot of Spanish Google Groups results, fwiw. Someone'd have to take a closer look to verify if it refers to the sense we have now or to something else. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

平仮名

Rfv-sense "(as opposed to complex kanji) simple". —Suzukaze-c 21:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a sense, nor are Obunsha, Kenkyusha, or Shogakukan dictionaries. Possibly a misunderstanding of (something like) this from 大辞泉: 「ひらがな(平仮名)。仮名の一。漢字の草体から作られた草仮名(そうがな)をさらに簡略化したもの。」 (Hiragana. A type of kana. Derived from sōgana cursive-style kanji and further simplified.) Cnilep (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The strange thing is that it was added here by @Bendono, who seems to have made a lot of great edits. —Suzukaze-c 04:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I wrote that. No offense intended, but you need better dictionaries. Those single volume dictionaries are aimed at everyday life and leave out far more than they actually include. You can confirm this sense in 日本国語大辞典--which even includes citations--that I will quote:
②(漢字のむずかしいことに対して)わかりやすいこと。率直な、または、平易な表現。
*洒落本・古今三通伝(1782)「魯国のやぢおの曰く(の給ひ)しを平がなにかけば」
*洒落本・金錦三調伝(1783)「いやならいやとひらかなで」 Bendono (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the quotes and usage, I might suggest an edit to the gloss given of just “simple”: perhaps “simple terms” would better convey the sense? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr So does this pass RFV? I can't judge if the citations are valid; if they are, they should be at the entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje, I'll be honest and say I haven't done a thorough survey of historical works to double-check. However, cursorily, I'd judge that this passes RFV, albeit as a rare sense that may be archaic or obsolete in modern usage. The entry excerpted by Bendono above is partially viewable online here (I say "partially" as the second quote in the entry dated to 1783 isn't included in the Kotobank version, probably due to Bendono having a later edition of the dictionary). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

July 2018

ウィークリー

Rfv-sense "adverb: weekly" —Suzukaze-c 19:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm stuck on the opposite thought -- how is this a "noun"? Same for マンスリー (mansurī). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
As a noun, it often refers to a periodical published once a week: 朝日ウィークリー, 日経ウィークリー, 毎日ウィークリー (oxymoron notwithstanding) etc. I think it's also used as a truncated form of ウィークリー・マンション, a room rented by the week.
"Adverb" is such a heterodox category that I'm having trouble thinking of a clear test for Japanese adverb-ness. Some sources that use standard European labels (e.g. Breen) call ウィークリー an adverb, but I'm not sure if that's because it's borrowed from an English adverb, or based on some analysis of Japanese.
I did find this, which feels adverb-y:
ウィークリーにするという前提(ぜんてい)でスタートせよと。
Wīkurī ni suru toiu zentei de sutāto seyo to.
We should start with the assumption that it is weekly.
I'm not 100% convinced it's an adverb, but neither am I convinced it is not. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't an adverb in Japanese mean that it's used independently without a particle, like 結局? Nardog (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Clearly it is only a noun in Japanese. You can say ウィークリー行う but never *ウィークリー行う. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I see some usage as a -na adjective. It looks like the grammar for this term may currently be in flux. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

gisterjaar

Only 64 hits on Google, I never heard this word before. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Morgengave, who made the entry. I can find some use on one Belgian blog, but otherwise only scannos. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
While not common, there seems to be a slowly increasing use of the word:
  • (1998, NRC Handelsblad): Nu vier regels uit de Ballade van de dames uit vroeger tijd met de bekende slotregel, die trouwens bij Chaucer al te lezen viel over de sneeuwen van gisterjaar. [65]
  • (2015, Nieuwpoort Nieuws): Foto’s Van gisterjaar: Marktstraat in Nieuwpoort en het trieste waargebeurde verhaal van Peter ‘ Petje de Kortn’ Provoost. [66]
  • (2018, Autofans press release): Aan de éne kant heb je het Opel van gisterjaar met GM-invloeden, aan de andere kant het Opel van morgen onder Franse PSA-vleugels. [67] Morgengave (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

aagiaq

It's in Katersat (which refers to Erik Fleischer and Ordbogeraq), and in this, but not in DAKA, and I can't find usages. However, DAKA has nassuk, which I can attest here (DAKA defines it as gevir, which means "pair of antlers" as well as tak, but the news article clearly uses it in the "single antler" sense). I have refrained from relying on the first two sources exclusively, because there seem to be many unattested words, like these words for different variants of red. I'm not confident they're reliable, even though they come from respectable sources.__Gamren (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and this probably doesn't matter, but this book talks of an Inupiaq word aaġiaq (valley, pass), and this book refers to someone named Aagiaq.__Gamren (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe mentions are enough to attest LDLs, no? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "a just or proper reason".

Apparently this rfv tag was added by User:Poketalker in May 2018, but discussion was not started here. (Apologies if I missed the discussion or misread the history.) I'm not familiar with such a sense, and couldn't readily find it in a quick skim of my dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this up; it's exclusive to Daijirin:
正しい筋道。正しい道理。
Roughly "the correct/right method or reason". Do you or anyone else have a better translation? ~ POKéTalker) 03:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The KDJ has the following two senses under the kyō reading, from which I could see the development of the sense in Daijirin:

3 一般的に、教訓、教化など教えを記した書。また、単に書物。

Generally, a text describing a moral, enlightenment, or teaching. Or, any document.

4 (経文を読む意から)仏事を行なうこと。経供養をすること。

(From the sense of reading the sutras) Holding a Buddhist service. Performing Buddhist rites.

Under the kei reading then, the KDJ lists a very similar sense to the one in Daijirin:

1 正しいすじみち。正しい道理。のり。つね。

Correct logic. Correct reasoning. Rule. Custom.

Sense 4.1 at Chinese isn't too far off. And considering the underlying original sense of this character, warp threads, as in something that runs consistently and regularly through, the "correct reason" sense is not unreasonable (ha!). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

ᡩᠣᡵᡤᡳ ᠪᠠᡳᡨᠠ ᠪᡝ ᡠᡥᡝᡵᡳ ᡴᠠᡩᠠᠯᠠᡵᠠ ᠶᠠᠮᡠᠨ

I'm wondering about this word's existence. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:C073:2829:9837:FE1B 20:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

See w:Imperial Household Department. Also 內務府. Google depends on OCS for Manchu script, so you'll probably have to search using the transliteration. You could probably find it in Paul Georg von Mollendorf's "Essay on Manchu Literature" in Journal of China Branch of R. A. S., Shanghai, vol. xxiv (1890), p. 1-45. —Stephen (Talk) 00:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

acastillar

Only dictionary cites on Google Books. Ultimateria (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ultimateria These don't seem to exactly fit the current definition, but here:

  1. 1785, Gaspar de Molina y Saldívar, Reflexiones sobre la arquitectura, ornato y musica del templo, page 326:
    Llaman acastillar colocar la cañonería de modo, que los cañones mas largos ocupen el medio, y disminuyan hácia los extremos.
    (please add an English translation of this quote)
  2. 1839, Félix González de León, Noticia historica del origen de los nombres de las calles de esta M.N.M.L.Y.M.H. ciudad de Sevilla:
    En esta época cada familia se acastillaba en sus casas y aun en los templos (como ya he referido en otros lugares de esta obra) ó cuyo fin fabricaban estas torres, y las guarnecian de armas.
    (please add an English translation of this quote)
  3. 1942, Luis Enrique Azarola Gil, Apellidos de la patria vieja, page 176:
    Se acastilló en las virtudes y costumbres tradicionales, y fundó su hogar en unión de doña Pilar Carro, hija del capitán Juan Carro y de doña Rosa Costales, con descendencia: []
    (please add an English translation of this quote)

DTLHS (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the cites under a new line with {{rfdef}} for now. Ultimateria (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

नोटबंदी

Attempted removal of {{hot word}} without any citations, let alone spanning a year. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • This word was seen in the category Hot words older than a year, so I removed that template from the word's page, as it was written on the Category's page that this category should be empty.
    • Also, this word came into common usage when Indian PM announced demonetization of 500 & 1000 rupee currency notes, on 8th Nov 2016. So, yes, it has been over a year.
    • Nonetheless, the word was always in existence, as earlier too demonetization had taken place in 1970s.
    • Entire news is filled with this word. You just have to Google नोटबंदी, and you'll thousands and thousands of news articles on this word, both in domestic and international media. Most recent example I can quote now is this BBC Hindi report here dated 30th August 2018.
    • Also on there is Hindi Wikipedia [page] on that incident, in which this word comes frequently.

September 2018

Cimbrice

While Citations:Cimbrice & Talk:Cimbrice#meaning show that the term has a 2nd sense, I don't see any evidence that it refers to Cimbrians as modern German people.
On the contrary, I see reasons why it should be something else:

  • de:w:Zimbrisch#Dokumentation: "1602 [...] ältestes Buch in zimbrischer Sprache" & "machte der deutsche Kosmograph Anton Friedrich Büsching 1769 die Zimbern im deutschen Sprachraum bekannt" (Der Teutschen Sprach Ehren-Krantz from 1644 is older than the latter)
  • Abraham Peter Cronholm's Forn-nordiska minnen has: "Francico mich, mik, mih, vel Cimbrico mig [...] Cambrico þig, vel Franco-Theotisco thich, thigh, thih" & "sumus, estis, sunt, Cimbrice erum, erud, eru". "Francico mich, mik, mih" looks like it refers to German (OHG, OLG, maybe including OD) - and mig and þig as well es erum, erud, eru (also cp. eruð and vera) could refer to Icelandic or some other Norse German language.
    PS: Cronholm's is based on Georgius Hickesius' older work ([68]).
  • "Danis Cymbrisq; [Danis Cymbrisque] est Blydemanet [...]" and -maanet (from Der Teutschen Sprach Ehren-Krantz) could refer to some Norse German language (cp. måned: "From Old Danish .. ma(a)net ..."), LG (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/mēnōþs#Descendants: "Middle Low German: mānet"), Low or South Low Franconian ("Middle Dutch: mānet, maent").

-84.161.26.64 21:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, as long as we're having an RFV, it'd be good/necessary to have some examples of the first sense (relating to the Cimbri) in use as opposed to mentions in dictionaries. - -sche (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Aha, with the help of Antiquitatum Danicarum sermones XVL, which seems to use Cimbrica and Cimbria, etc, in senses that refers to the same group as the 1620, 1705 and other citations of Cimbrice, I may have worked it out: the book has sections on Cimbria & Scandinavia populosissime terra and other things and contains such lines as "Omnibus notissimum est totum Germanica faecundissimae tractum praecipue geminas illas aqvilonis, maximasq.; peninsulas, Cimbriam & Scandinaviam innumeris & fortissimis hominibus, omni exuberasse tempore." This suggests that it may be referring to the people who inhabit the Cimbric/Cimbrian Peninsula (Jutland), i.e. the Jutes or the Danes. (Although the Cimbri are said to be from Jutland, the 1620 and 1705 uses are providing clearly Germanic words not ascribable to the Cimbri.) - -sche (discuss) 00:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, google books:"Cimbrians" "Jutland" and related searches suggest that Cimbrian may be citable with this sense in English. - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Georges: "Adv. Cimbricē, zimbrisch, loqui, Ps. Quint. decl. 3, 13."
L&S: "Adv.: Cimbrĭcē, in the manner of the Cimbrians: loqui, Quint. Decl. 3, 13."
Similar in many other dictionaries (e.g. Scheller-Lünemann-Georges, Dutch Georges-Schneither, Freund, Frenchy Freund, English Freund-Riddle, English Freund-Andrews, Leverett, White). For the source ([Pseudo-]Quintilianus, Declamationes) compare w:Declamation#History and w:Quintilian#Works.
In an older edition from 1549 and in an edition from 1905 (US): "... an Cimbrice loquendum sit."
Here it's quoted without caps.
Another usage with should refer to the ancient German people: [69].
BTW: Some other usages of Cimbrica, Cimbricae, Cimbrici (Cimbricus): by Paul Fleming -84.161.26.64 08:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the original second sense, "in the manner or language of the Cimbrians, a Germanic people who inhabit northern Italy and speak a Bavarian language", and added a sense for the Cimbrian-Peninsula-related citations above. It's possible that if there aren't more citations, the senses should be merged, although if there were enough citations to keep them separate that would been useful. - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Antique Latin sense is now properly cited: Citations:Cimbrice#pertaining to the Cimbri.
  • [70]: "JÓTSKR, adj., Cimbricus, Danicus (Jótar): jótskir menn Cimbri, Ý. 35. [cp. jyde and it's etymology]. The source also has "Cimbr. = Cimbrice." and uses it at least once (mis-OCR-ed as "Сітbr": [71]). It does at least hint that Cimbric- could refer the people of Jutland.
    That could also fit with the 1705 source (Hickesius). While gnog might be non-Norse-German in origin, it could be a borrowing from German (be it High or Low German), or alternatively Cimbric could be more northern Low German (as spoken in Northern Schleswig) or some unprecise umbrella-term. The 1620 source has Cimbric Tormaanet [= March], Faremaanet [= April], Schlachtemaanet [= November]. Other sources for the name for April: [72]: "alt Dänisch, Faremaanet", [73] "die Dänen Faremaanet", [74] which gives 2 sources for it, "Hadr. jurii nomenclator" and "Halthauss, in Cal." (Christianus Gottlob Haltausius, Calendarium medii aevi praecipue germanicum in quo [...], "Aprilis ... Cymbrice Faremaanet ... Dns Fabricius in Menolog. p. 144 ait: Faremanet ..." [75] ~> Jo. Albertus Fabricius, Menologium, sive Libellus de Mensibus, [...], "Danorum. ... 4. Aprilis Faremanet ..." [76]). So it could be from a language of the people of Jutland too.
  • Younger senses, if there are multiple senses (like maybe Jutlandish, Danish, Northern Low German), maybe should be merged, but it shouldn't be merged with the older sense.
-84.161.38.239 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

ウォールフラワー

Suzukaze-c 06:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Does this suffice? google books:"ウォールフラワー"
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

実相 -- Jitsusō reading

An anon has apparently been going through ENAMDICT and adding entries here. ENAMDICT is available via Jim Breen's WWWJDIC, which is a decent source, but I'm not sure of the data provenance.

Can anyone confirm that this reading Jitsusō actually exists in the wild? Outside of ENAMDICT and one other online JA-JA name dictionary, I can only find the expected Jissō. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are four online dictionaries giving the romanization Jitsusou (next to Jissou): [77], [78], [79], [80]. Not exactly in the wild, though.  --Lambiam 00:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the legwork. It looks like this might be a dictionary-only reading. Going through the links,
  1. Jisho.org is notable for its unreliability, and lists JMnedict among its sources, which I understand sources from ENAMDICT, the same as Breen's website.
  2. The entry at Weblio for the Jitsusō reading is also from JMnedict, which I understand sources from ENAMDICT, the same as Breen's website.
  3. Kanshūdō doesn't have any source information.
  4. Oriental Outpost sources from EDICT, whence also ENAMDICT.
Curious if anyone bumps into someone with this name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I get several Californian hits for different but apparently related people with the middle name “Jitsuso” combined with the surname “Yamada”.  --Lambiam 08:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that's useful suggestive evidence, but we're lacking any kanji in these cases, so it's hard to confirm if this reading matches this spelling. Unfortunately, expanding the search to include the kanji results in zero hits. :(
An interesting possibility is that this is an instance of "Ellis Island-ic", where a name has undergone transformation during the process of immigration to the US. In older kana orthographies, the small "tsu" character used to indicate geminate consonants (as in the expected kana spelling じっそう (jissō) for this kanji compound) was not always written smaller. I wonder if it was reinterpreted as regular (tsu) instead, but perhaps only outside of Japan? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

papago

Rfv-sense of "a singer who sings in Esperanto but doesn't speak Esperanto". I have never heard this word used like this before. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I decided to look in the page history and see who added this sense, and I was surprised to discover that it was me! I guess I must have had some reason to think it existed, but I have no memory of adding it or ever encountering this sense before. A few minutes of searching just now only turned up results about birds, but a more thorough search might be able to find something. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I found this Wikipedia article and it is also listed in a terminology of Bertilo. But is it really attested or is this an invention of Bertilo? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

xochih-

This "combining form" is only found in one word (xochihcualli), and it's not clear that it should be divided into xochih-cualli rather than xoch-ihcualli. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The mentioned entry at xochihcualli gives cualli as "something good" and offers tlacualli as a comparison. However, the latter entry's etymology, itself a bit of a mess, derives cualli as cua (to eat) + -lli (presumably a nominalizing suffix, though we have no entry for this). Meanwhile, the etym at derived term xochihcualcuahuitl (edible fruit tree) glosses xochihcualli as "edible fruit"", apparently corroborating the "eat" sense underlying cualli.
I know very little about Nahuatl, but simply applying logic to what we have with these entries suggests that what we have is a dog's breakfast in need of cleanup. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

disiplinaha

i kind of botchd it. reverted my own edits. Can someone fix the template. it's showing disiplinaha which is not a conjugation of Tagalog. 180.190.185.125 10:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. disiplinaha is not marked as Tagalog, it is marked as Cebuano. What template are you referring to? —Stephen (Talk) 08:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this about the conjugation of disiplinahin. The request is not really an rfv.  --Lambiam 03:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean the inflection table on disiplinahin.180.190.185.125 07:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the inflection table, the form ending with -a (or -ha) is a dialectal form (you should watch out for the notes about each inflection if you are working on Tagalog verbs). I am a native speaker of Tagalog, but I haven't heard of it. That inflection is of Tagalog dialects that preserved archaic forms, most notably the Marinduque dialect. And again, this is not clearly about the Tagalog, and it is not for verification. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

dilawan

I don't know where the guy who defined the word got that definition. everyone in the philippines know that a dilawan is a supporter of the previous administration. must be misleading people. the creator must be ignorant or a dilawan himself. for etymology the word is from dilaw (yellow} the color of the previous administration's party.—This unsigned comment was added by 180.190.185.125 (talk).

I'm not confident enough in Tagalog to fix that entry, but I added an English one. --Lvovmauro (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Bad definition. Fixed. —Stephen (Talk) 02:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I created the entry and I got the definition by analyzing its use in quotes from Google Books. But for the IP who placed the entry here, it is also bad to attack someone who created it personally. Calling me "ignorant" is considered a personal attack, but if you are correct that "dilawan" is a member of the opposition, I agree.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Does it actually mean "anyone of the opposition"? Or do supporters of Duterte call their opponents "dilawan" because they're accusing them of being liberals/supporting Aquino/etc? Like, Muslims get accused of being terrorists a lot, that doesn't mean the word "terrorist" now has "Muslim" as a definition. --Lvovmauro (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

confirmed dilawan. did you see him change the definition. dilawans have reached wiktionary.—This unsigned comment was added by 180.190.185.125 (talk).

@180.190.185.125 Please stop that politically polarized statements. This is not a way to channel politicized statements, and remember to be civil (please read your talk page first). I changed it out of agreement with Lvovmauro. I just responded to that comment, and calling me "dilawan" is an outright personal attack. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Italian contributions by 79.32.129.152

I'm just going to put it out there – a large portion of these contributions and translations look like SoP to me and many don't even seem to be idiomatic. Can anyone chime in cause 79.32.129.152 (talk) is currently flooding Wiktionary with new but sketchy entries. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It concerns an IP range, actually: Special:Contributions/79.32.128.0/21. Many of the added entries surely seem SOP. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "kanji: mango", and possibly related content under 檨#Readings. —Suzukaze-c 02:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If I understand this blogger correctly, they think 檨仔 is specifically Taiwanese. And this news article on Taiwanese mangos also uses that character combination; the character is not used stand-alone. This lends support to the hypothesis that in Japanese this character does not have the sense “mango”.  --Lambiam 09:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

mecin

(Indonesian term) - The Indonesian Wikipedia link doesn't use the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Some web pages in Malay using the term in their titles: [81], [82], [83]. I don’t know if these pages are specifically in Indonesian Malay.  --Lambiam 09:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Those first two links are written in Indonesian. The first link use Indonesian cyber guidance. The second link is a online mass media in Cirebon, Indonesia. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This article using the term is from CNN Indonesia. And this FAQ in Indonesian also mentions mecin / micin as alternative names for MSG.  --Lambiam 10:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Those links are written in Indonesian. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

orgulyo

I see this as a Spanish loan from orgullo, but I wonder if it exists in Tagalog. Some stubborn IP adding words from the Tagalog Pinoy Dictionary added this word without even thinking if it is used, such as in cites. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I already found one cite of its usage in Tagalog, and it is a very obvious loanword from Spanish. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

pipitsugin

Need to verify all its senses. Some IP is trying to redefine this using the one in the Tagalog Pinoy Dictionary, where copying definitions from it constitutes a copyright violation. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A source being proprietary doesn't matter as to whether it can be used as a source, and copyright violations aren't what RFV is about. I'm confused about this whole thing. To be on the safe side, I've put the rfv notice back up, and am resetting the timer. If any of the senses do not have three uses in a month from now, they may be deleted. Template:pin, would you have a look at this?__Gamren (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

jouer avec ses armes

Not an idiom in French, as far as I know, so I'd like some proof that it's lexicalised. Uses like this are few and far between, and nothing else than literary fancies, imo. Per utramque cavernam 17:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I see enough Google book hits plus many more Google news hits to sustain the idea that this is idiomatic. It would appear that the verb is extracted from an idiomatic phrase or saying chacun joue avec ses armes.  --Lambiam 08:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's clearly lexicalized. Lmaltier (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

德川

Rfv-sense "(~幕府) (historical) Tokugawa shogunate". Can 德川 really be used by itself in this way? —Suzukaze-c 21:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's a quote where I suppose you could say 德川 is short for 德川幕府:
德川的和平盛世與儒學的興起,大大改變軍事思想及其運用。[84] In fact, that quote is from a book titled 易學對德川日本的影響, and you could argue that 德川 in the title is also short for "Tokugawa shogunate". It certainly doesn't refer to a Korean city or the generic surname Tokugawa. Richwarm88 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
See [85] for more examples, like in the sentence 第一阶段是德川初期(1603—1691)。 The time period makes it clear that 德川 refers to the shogunate, not any specific person.  --Lambiam 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

moskal

"Russian person" has to be capitalized. Non capitalized: type of bread (dialect from Podhale). Abraham (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Abraham: Perhaps slang and derogatory terms are not necessarily capitalised? In any case, you could use {{alternative case form of|pl|Moskal}}. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: No. I have verified it in several dictionaries. Moskal only capitalized if about the person. Greetings. Abraham (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Abraham: OK, thanks. I see that occasionally it's in lower case in Google books but that's uncommon. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

konstrui kastelojn en aero

Esperanto. I can only find one attestation for this. In Zamenhof's Proverbaro, but seldom used. @Mx. Granger ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything besides the Proverbaro and the citation in the entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I found two examples with the definite article, but not sure if they count for the same entry. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@פֿינצטערניש Opinions differ, but I prefer slightly inconsistent citations over no entry at all. So I'm inclined to say this passes, though perhaps the entry should be moved. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

däspotiko

Volapük for despotically. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing found on WS. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
It's simply the regular adverbial form of the adjective "däspotik", so nothing wrong with it. Nüm bal (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
It isn't attestable, that's what's wrong with it. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2018

Rfv-sense (ジャン) (jan, mahjong). —Suzukaze-c 04:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that 雀(ジャン) is used to derive terms related to mahjong, such as 雀荘(ジャンそう) (jansō) and 雀卓(ジャンたく) (jantaku) while 雀(ジャン) is not meaning mahjong. It is not a noun. --Naggy Nagumo (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

大姑姊

Rfv-sense: (Cantonese) paternal aunt (father's elder sister). The spelling could also be 大姑姐. See the talk page for a discussion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV failed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

adosada

Spanish, noun sense "townhouse". I see a small handful of cites that are true nouns, but none that really indicate what type of building it is. Ultimateria (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Diccionario de la lengua española, entry adosado, -da states specifically that the adjective is also used as a masculine noun, but is mum about feminine use. In any case, as an adjective, used in a combination like casa adosada, it refers to a row house, one of several identical houses attached to each other at the sides. Used as a noun, provided it refers to a building and not something entirely different, it can hardly mean something else, given how language works. The Diccionario also states that the adjective is especially applied to a chalé, but one (or at least I) wouldn’t consider a typical townhouse a cottage or chalet. An image search for chalé adosado shows plenty of rows of townhouses, though.  --Lambiam 10:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
From French adosser (dos): to back up against. —Stephen (Talk) 11:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

gefährlich wird es, wenn die Dummen fleißig werden

German. It seems to be more often mentioned than used. The non-literal definition is potentially too narrow. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The “literal” translation is already not very literal. My attempt: “It gets dangerous when dumb people begin to work hard.” What a weird interpretation, though, not just narrow. I think the aphorism is actually meant to be taken rather literally. I see it often attributed to Erich Kästner, but never with a concrete source, so this may be another made-up attribution that is blindly copied. In any case, I don’t think we have even a single one of the over 200 aphorisms by GBS; why should we have this one?  --Lambiam 18:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
True, or "when the dumb become industrious". I agree about aphorisms; it can always be RFD'd if the RFV passes. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

homlupo

Esperanto for "werewolf", it seems like it is mostly used figuratively for certain players in the game Werewolves. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I find a Usenet cite and a book cite. Hathitrust has a hit on page 173 of Esperanto. v.1. Nederlandse Esperantisten-Vereniging La Estonto Estas Nia, but doesn't show context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Gscheidwaschl

Only 1 result at google books (which might be a mentioning), 1 in google groups (dialectal, for example with i = I, di = you (sg., obj.)). --Brown*Toad (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is one in de.sci.philosophie. The same one? I don’t get the intention of the “dialectal” parenthesis.  --Lambiam 19:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
google groups gave me this by opa2013 from 05.12.13: "Schau Gscheidwaschl, a nett?s G?schenk hab i f?r di!" (maybe this link works...). My guess would be that it's supposed to be: "Schau Gscheidwaschl, a nett's G'schenk hab i für di!". Anyway, i (= ich, I) and di (= dich, you [singular, object]) show that it's not normal High German but dialectal (Bavarian?). The parenthesis after you specifiy which you it is. --Brown*Toad (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It is the same message I saw. Nominative i and accusative di fit with Bavarian.  --Lambiam 23:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the encoding of that text: on my computer (Mac: both Firefox 64 and Safari 11.1.2), I'm seeing placeholders for umlauted vowels, apostrophes, and other "non-ASCII" characters. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This is obviously a difference of interpretation as to what language this is- Wiktionary doesn't require languages to have an army and a navy...
Move to Bavarian and look for references that meet CFI for that Limited-documented language. Pinging @-sche as the one who understands best how Wiktionary treats "German dialects". Chuck Entz (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz (1): I've the same problem - it looks like an error on google's/usenet's part and not on our part.
@Chuck Entz (3): google groups or usenet is an accepted source as for wt's LDL requirements. Thus the single quote could be enough to attest a Bavarian term. However, the text encoding problem could be an attestation problem. Is malformatted text acceptable? Can someone restore the text (there's a suggestion above, can someone verify or correct it)? Can someone translate it (suggestion: "Look #, a nice present have I for you" or "Look #, I have a nice present for you")? --84.161.18.20 23:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It may have been entered in German by someone who genuinely saw it in German — I can find non-durable websites where it occurs in German [de] text — but if that's the only citation, then it seems it only meets CFI as Bavarian (although deciding between Bavarian-regional de and bar from only a very short text can be, well, like trying to decide if a single sentence is Scottish English or Scots). Since the malformatting isn't in the specific word we're trying to attest, and doesn't render the citation ambiguous or unintelligible as to meaning or language, it's tolerable, though obviously suboptimal. I would quote it with the errors intact, but we could provide a 'normalization' afterwards in brackets or something. Providing a translation is fine. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course it should be quoted with the errors, as only that would give a correct quote. Bavarian i, di, für, hab, á, schau, Gschenk can be attested by other sources. [86] & [87] are dialectal (Bavarian?) and have nett's. -84.161.23.193 10:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

huile de reins

RFVing an old entry of mine. I don't think it's CFI-compliant. Per utramque cavernam 21:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

This web page gives a citation from an 1887 book. Other hits I saw were either mentions like in dictionaries, or uses in blogs.  --Lambiam 23:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete, not CFI-compliant, no valid quotes. Has sat in RFV for more than a year. Canonicalization (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

洛陽

Rfv-sense: Luojiang (a community in Luojiang, Quanzhou, Fujian, China). Is this referring to the town in Hui'an, Quanzhou? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I did some investigation on Google Maps. To answer your question, yes; what makes this slightly confusing, though, is that there are two distinct communities in Hui'an called "Luoyang". The first is probably what you're looking for; the second is spelled with different characters ( instead of ).
There does exist a place in Luojiang called "Luoyang", however. It's not a community like the entry claims, but a river. It uses the same characters as the first mentioned Hui'an community and the entry. You can decide what action to take about this on the entry, you're welcome. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @LlywelynII who added this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

selamün aleiküm

Marked for deletion with the comment "Not Turkish. No referances." — surjection?〉 10:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The common Turkish version and spelling of this originally Islamic greeting, which however has largely lost its religious connotation, is selam aleykum, the standard response to which is ve aleykum selam. You also hear the variant aleyküm with a front vowel. When seriously meant to be Islamic, however, Turks will use something closer to the Arabic version, but adapted to Turkish phonology. This may be spelled in different ways, such as – I think most commonly – selamın aleyküm. The spelling “selâmün aleyküm” feels like a transliteration of Ottoman Turkish but can be attested; in fact, it is the spelling found at the Turkish Wikipedia. Turkish spelling is highly phonetic and a spelling with ei is definitely nonstandard; this would correspond to a two-syllable /e.i/ instead of the correct one-syllable /ej/.  --Lambiam 15:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

明星

Can we verify the specific sense Antares? While Antares is a bright star (the literal meaning of 明星), I see no evidence this is used in Japanese to designate specifically that star.  --Lambiam 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

閩南

閩東

閩北

Rfv-sense "Southern Min" (etc.) —Suzukaze-c 02:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Duh. Those are obviously well-attested phrases; there are even whole Wikipedia articles about the regions! Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: This is rfv-sense for the senses referring to the topolects (varieties of Min Chinese), not for those referring to the regions (parts of Fujian), which are not rfv-ed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: The topolect senses are well-attested. What else are they called? What are you talking about? Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: They're usually called 閩南話闽南话 (mǐnnánhuà), not just 閩南闽南 (mǐnnán). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: 閩南 is a very common abbreviation for 閩南話; even being used in Wiktionary, etc. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: Saying that something is "very common" doesn't help. Use in Wiktionary is not a valid argument for common use. (I'm not even sure where it's used in Wiktionary as 閩南 instead of 閩南話 or 閩南語). We need actual evidence here at RFV. See WT:CFI. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
RFV failed, and unverified sources have been removed accordingly. I've seen "Minnan", etc. used as English names for the dialects, particularly on Wiktionary itself. But it's not in Chinese; in Chinese, languages are always followed by the character 話 or 語: for example, French is 法語. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: I think this has been closed too hastily. (While it has been sitting here for a month, it seems like we generally let it sit a bit longer.) I have found some possible attestations:
@Justinrleung: The thing is, we don't just say 法 for 法語, etc. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: There are exceptions to rules. Also 法 can be used to mean "French" in something like 英法辭典. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Got it. About the original three phrases, found enough attestations yet? Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

aganchado

Spanish, "hamiform, hooklike". Ultimateria (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

aganchado, aganchar are pretty rare in Spanish. I think enganchar, enganchado are synonyms. I think hooked is a good translation of aganchado, in addition to installed and, figuratively, "caused to be interested". I was not familiar with the English word hamiform and I could not find an example of aganchado online with that sense, but I think it makes sense. —Stephen (Talk) 00:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
This seems to get a fair amount of Google Books results. Should it be marked as "rare"? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

獅子

Rfv-sense: foo dog. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Yes, indeed. See "Common Knowledge of Chinese History, 2012". Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: I don't think I can find that book. Remember verification at Wiktionary requires actual uses, so citing a book without a quotation would not help. See WT:CFI. Anyway, I found two quotations elsewhere, so we just need one more to have this sense verified. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The foo dog is 獅子, so reversing the translation direction seems valid. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Related rfv-sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Which sense? Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnny Shiz: The same sense as above: foo dog. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Closed. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Open???Suzukaze-c 21:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Esperanto text messaging slang

Proposed in 2009 on this blog. Everything in this category seems to me like uncitable, except for "sal", "bv", "dk", "kvf" and "mdr". I highly doubt that we can cite pa3no, 4talo, -J, -L, -N, -X, G-, K-, M-, X-, L, M, N, V, X and Ŝ. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything for "pa3no" and its inflected forms on Usenet or Google. That someone would use a letter like "Ŝ" in text messaging slang is also implausible. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Esperanto 'ali-' correlatives

alial, aliam, aliel, alies, aliom, aliu

Aliu and alies can probably be cited; alies already seems to have two citations. The rest I'm not sure of. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC) wikified פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Esperanto. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find the reading of (geum) on the dictionaries. Found two webcites mentioned,[89][90] it seems not to be a part of Modern Korean but Idu (吏讀) of the ancient times. I don't know how to describe this reading. --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@荒巻モロゾフ: There are many kind of theory, and it can largely divided into "금" (geum) and "곰" (gom) depending on reading ways of Idu. #1, #2 p.s. I don't suggest to see Namuwiki, because it is probably inaccurate. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

chhia̋ng-póng

Any sources for this in Min Nan? @Yoxem — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See: http://reader.roodo.com/senghian/archives/3639337.html ("lô-tsip-tik [註:邏輯的]來分析,無 kâng 信仰之間對頭前 tsiah-ê 主題 ê 講法,當然是互相 tshiâng-póng,sûi 人有 sûi 人 ê 解說。"), and http://taioanchouhap.pixnet.net/blog/post/30876878-%E6%84%9B%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E5%9F%BA%E9%87%91%E6%9C%83%281%29%40noya (……1 ê高醫師講kap另外1 ê會議chhiâng-póng bē-tàng來;……) @Justinrleung--Yoxem (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yoxem: Thanks for these, but they only show that it should be "chhiâng-póng". Are there any sources that would suggest that it's read with a 35 tone for the first syllable? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see the Hokkien noon news of Taiwan PTS: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMULZyeDwWA ([around 0'9"]: ..., iah m̄-koh sî-kan sī ū chhia̋ng-póng--tio̍h ...). Due to the lack of a mark for the 9th tone (high-rising tone) in traditional POJ, some writers uses the 5th tone mark as a alternative notation of the counterpart of 9th tone. @Justinrleung--Yoxem (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

als de paus een geus wordt

Dutch, any hits found in books or news media are mentions. Nothing on Usenet. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There are attestions in books: [91], [92], [93] - with admittedly the first two are 19th century books on proverbs rather than examples of actual usage; only the 3rd is an example of actual usage. Morgengave (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

amenen

Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A small contribution on this newspaper page (see the top right corner) suggests that this form existed in Middle Dutch.  --Lambiam 21:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
That text returns verbatim in the book van Aalmoes tot Zwijntjesjager by P[ieter] H[endrik] Schröder (Erven Thomas Rap, 1980) (on p. 31; see this pdf), a selection from his (anonymous) contributions on etymology to the Haarlems Dagblad, written while Schröder was secretary-general of the Maatschappij tot Nut van 't Algemeen.  --Lambiam 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

ロリ

RFV of all the definitions under ロリ#Etymology 2. —Suzukaze-c 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sense "person with the Lolita complex" removed by User:UhhMaybe. —Suzukaze-c 02:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

ballenlikker

Dutch, defined as "an ass-kisser; a suck-up". I think that a meaning "testicle licker" or "homosexual" might be citable, but this probably isn't. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is used in the contested sense in this article. In general, finding attestations in durably archived media is not easy for vulgar terms.  --Lambiam 22:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that in this case it is an indication that the sense is simply uncommon. Dozens if not hundreds of Dutch vulgarities are very easy to cite in print media (google books:kankerhoer google books:paardenlul google books:kutjebef), though it is true some terms are avoided. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

calamarius

Not as a noun in Lewis & Short or Gaffiot.  --Lambiam 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

.. or Georges. Which wouldn't be surprising if it's Middle or New Latin, related to calamar, Eng. calamari, Germ. Kalmar (Calmar, Kalamar). --Κλειδίον (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I looked around, but only found species names (and not squid-related ones), the writing-reed-related sense (e.g. from The Register of John de Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter, (A. D. 1327-1369): " [] penne, calamarii, atque carte, [] ", or Q. Horatii Flacci Satyrae: [] cultelli & calamarii [] ), or Romanian. I also found a couple copies of a US museum work saying that this was also a noun meaning "pen bearer", but they seem to be misunderstanding or simply misrepresenting the adjective, because I couldn't find any uses of that noun, either. - -sche (discuss) 09:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

aujour-d'hui

Hi,

I think this entry is a mistake, as presented here.

Lepticed7 (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

IDGAF

Serbo-Croatian: I don't give a fuck --Pious Eterino (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

beskermfees

Afrikaans. Mentioned in dictionaries, but not actually used? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I expected to see hits for beskermheiligefees, but that term has only one hit, not durably archived.  --Lambiam 13:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

???? and ????

The definition: "(onomatopoeia) The sound of punching." Johnny Shiz (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hanyu Da Zidian only provides one citation for both these characters from 封神演義. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
As you know too well, I'm not really the best at ancient Han characters. Just wanted to make sure everything was accurate, thanks. Johnny Shiz (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

lappen (Dutch)

Rfv-sense "to enfold, to embrace". I have never heard of this one and it wasn't in the dictionaries I checked. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A comment left on Talk:lappen shows that the editor who added this got confused in interpreting the old-fashioned past participle lapt of the English verb lap in the sense “to enfold; to hold as in one's lap” (descendant of the Middle English verb lappen), imagining it to be the past participle of a now non-existent English verb *lappen and then got the L2 wrong to boot. (The word “happen” in the section title is, apparently, a confusing typo for “lappen”. How hapless this all.)  --Lambiam 23:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

bebiĉo

There's one citation from Egalecen, but unfortunately, I don't think that blog is durably archived (though some of its authors appear in durably archived works like Beletra Almanako). פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

beluliĉo

Only one citation, apparently from a Wikitrans article about a manga. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

boviĉo

Uncited. I'm only really familiar with virbovo. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Bär

"only used in compounds" sounds like Bär = boar doesn't (and didn't) exist.
Note: boar and Eber have "obsolete dialectal German Bär (“boar”)" which would imply a word Bär = boar does exist,.. but with many German dialects being treated like languages at en.WT (e.g. Bavarian) it's not necessarily "German" in en.WT's strict sence... --Brown*Toad (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the formally correct thing to do is to replace the current non-gloss definition with {{only used in}} and link all the compounds that way. I've done that now. If others come to our attention and the list grows excessively long, we could consider going back to the old format and listing the compounds as derived terms. - -sche (discuss) 05:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:only used in is for whole words only occuring in phrases, e.g. Laufenden in auf dem Laufenden. --Brown*Toad (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Chinese compound words use it, and I suspect also entries in spaced languages, though I'm not sure how to search for examples short of just paging through all the entries it's used on. - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Cited as a standalone word. Most of the citations are of the "jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail)" type because it's otherwise difficult to find and be sure of instances where Bär means boar rather than bear, since they're homographic and used in the same contexts. I also found some books discussing inspections of pork which included inspections of various breeds, wild pigs, and Bären; even there, it could mean bear meat instead of wild boar meat, but given the other citations and the compound words, I think it's clear this sense existed. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

beeld (Scots)

Meaning "image, picture", this is more often mentioned (with a different etymology) as the term for a temporary shelter. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That definition can be found here [[94]] Leasnam (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Scots is however a WDL, so a dictionary citation wouldn't suffice. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

bağdarlama

I doubt that this word exists in Turkish. It would supposedly be a verbal noun of the verb *bağdarlamak, a denominal verb for the noun bağdar, which is the simple present of bağdamak (“to intertwine”) but can be used as a nominal participle, meaning “someone or something that habitually intertwines”. However, I do not think this can be attested in the given or any other sense in standard Turkish. It is not listed on the TDK website.  --Lambiam 18:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are citations at Citations:bağdarlama; is there anything wrong with them? (There could be: in the past citations offered up for this kind of word have been Azeri, barely comprehensible Turkish, not actually durably archived, etc. We really need more Turkish editors who aren't grinding axes in one direction or the other.) - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I had overlooked these citations. There is a small group of people seeking to purge Turkish from not-true-Turkish words like televizyon, a word that stems from the foreign Greek language and thus should be abhorrent to true-blood Turks. They come up with weird loans from other Turkic languages like sınalgı from Kyrgyz сыналгы, which no Turk outside this group understands. So apparently bağdarlama (from regional Kazakh бағдарлама) is their chosen replacement for program. You can ask one hundred literate Turks for the meaning of bağdarlama, and almost certainly not a single one will have a clue.  --Lambiam 05:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
In case it is not clear, I am of the opinion that this is purist cruft that does not deserve inclusion.  --Lambiam 05:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam: LOL, another Turkish group seeks to make all Turkic languages to write in Roman letters. You can see that work on the Turkish, Kazakh and Wiktionary projects. All their Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar and Uyghur terms are written in Latin, ignoring the standard and common spelling, well in advance of any future orthography reforms. They also chose the wrong lemma forms for Tatar verbs, which matches better the Turkish way. They have bulk-converted all Cyrillic-based Kazakh into Latin. Now we know that future standard Kazakh Latin spellings (romanisation) keep changing - bağdarlamabag'darlamabaǵdarlama. The agenda of this group is clear but it's a huge disservice to users who can't find the correct attested and widely used Kazakh words in the right spelling. The Kazakh romanisation bağdarlama of the current Kazakh word бағдарлама (bağdarlama) is also part of that effort. I have deleted bağdarlama#Kazakh recently. I had to clean many unattested Tatar words in the past through RFV. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Three of the citations are from printed publications and seem to be valid. --95.15.235.10 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion I would suggest copying the label and usage note sınalgı uses, but it does seem to meet CFI. We do have rare neologisms in other languages, too, even English. - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Of the citations given for sınalgı, only one-and-a-half support the sense “television”. The last one contains so many made-up words, not found in any dictionary, that it is not possible to make out what it is trying to say. It is as if the confluction of snopivity is flurbing our sensiness to the trather or beyond, if you get what I mean. The others do not make too much sense either. What is a television buffalo? (Not the domesticated water buffalo you also find in Turkey, but an Indian wild water buffalo.) It is interesting that this citation returns in the citations for bağdarlama, showing that this belongs to a walled garden.  --Lambiam 20:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on your analysis, I think we can conclude that the citations are bad and the term (Turkish) should be deleted as not cited/verified. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

bye-Q

Suzukaze-c 04:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

バイQ is found on Google. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hj

Entry states a Translingual abbreviation for hajji. There's no Translingual entry for hajji, so perhaps this should be moved to English. How do you go about citing Translingual entries, anyway? --Pious Eterino (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a Malay (including Bahasa Indonesia) abbreviation for Haji. It is definitely not translingual.  --Lambiam 17:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

chó sa-can

RFV for Vietnamese. Unable to find any Vietnamese sources on the Internet, and I have never seen the term attested in Vietnamese books published in the 21st century. The term is currently labelled "obsolete" (I added the label). But was it ever in use in the first place? (The commonly accepted name for jackal in Vietnamese is chó rừng.) --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take Do you remember where you found this word? Asking for a response since none has been given in nearly six months. QQ gives nothing. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, the creator of the entry is no longer active, but @Atitarev added sa-can as a translation of jackal. (Per this.) @PhanAnh123 removed it almost 3 years later (probably due to doubting its veracity, per this). Atitarev, where did you find this term? (Note that the debated entry was created in September 2014, before Atitarev added the translation.) Anyone can contribute? (Yes, I speak Vietnamese but I'm not so well-skilled on searching for sources.) --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

melki

Rfv-sense of "to jerk off, masturbate". Can this slang use be attested? I don't remember hearing this word before. Most of the results found in Testaro are about actual cows. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it is very uncommon, but there are some results for it. [95] [96] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Avukonthorp

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC) (there are several others by the same editor)

Altniederdeutsche Eigennamen aus dem neunten bis elften Jahrhundert. Zusammengestellt von Dr. Mortiz Heyne. Als Gruss an die germanistische Section der 25. deutschen Philologen-Versammlung, Halle, 1867, p. 1: "Avukon-thorp n. loc.: dat. in Aucon-|thorpe Cr. 22" with "Cr. = Index bonorum et redituum monasteriorum Werdinensis et Helmonstadensis saeculo decimo vel undecimo conscriptus. Edidit Wilh. Crecelius, Dr. Elberfeldae 1864." → Collectae ad augendam nominum propriorum Saxonicorum et Frisiorum scientiam spectantes. Edidit Wilh. Crecelius, Dr. I. Index bonorum et redituum monasteriorum Werdinensis et Helmonstadensis saeculo decimo vel undecimo conscriptus. Edidit Wilh. Crecelius, Dr., Elberfelda, 1864, p. 22: "[...] In Frilingothorpe iij dimidia uirga. In Aucon thorpe xum uirge. In UUilinghem i uirga. In UUestar husun undecimus dimidius pes. In Aldonthorpe xxx. ui peđ. [...]"
Thus:
  • It's "[in] Aucon thorpe", not "Avukonthorp".
  • It's Latin.
--Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

ок

Allegedly an interjection ‘expressing fear, caution or disapproval’. Guldrelokk (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Weird. The corresponding entry on the Russian Wiktionary suggests no such sense. It seems to me that the sense can simply be given as “OK”. By the way, in the senses listed for the English interjection OK, I miss the function of process control interruption in turn-taking, serving as a request to the speaker to grant the turn to the interrupter. I don’t know how to phrase this concisely yet comprehensibly.  --Lambiam 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Used in turn-taking, serving as a request to the speaker to grant the turn to the interrupter? DCDuring (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I hope that, in conjunction with the usex, that is sufficiently clear.  --Lambiam 14:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Korean: Need to find usages, not mentions, some dictionaries bulk-insert all variant Chinese characters, mixing simplified (Chinese or Japanese), even if they are not used in those languages. @KevinUp: Sorry, I don't need to be mean, I just don't think it's right. A dictionary mention is not enough. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I found something on Google Books: [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] KevinUp (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The two quotations are obviously mentions and the third is Chinese, no? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I added the Korean entry based on the Table of Hanja for Personal Names (인명용한자표), which listed this glyph as a variant form of .
Yes, the first one is obviously a mention of the glyph as an alternative form of . The remaining citations indicate that this glyph may be used as a proper noun for various placenames. KevinUp (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Chinese: as above (Korean). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) Hanyu Da Zidian (2nd edition, page 2897) has the following citation:
[Classical Chinese, trad.]
[Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: 597 AD, 楊秀 美人董氏墓誌銘
Hán huá tù yàn, lóng zhāng fèng cǎi. [Pinyin]
(please add an English translation of this example)
(2) Kangxi dictionary has the following citation:
字彙雲南 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
字汇云南 [Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: 1666 AD, 吳任臣 字彙補
【 Zìhuì bǔ 】 Yúnnán yǒu èr gé lóng dì, yǒu jiǔ shān zuì xiǎn. [Pinyin]
Transcription of a placename in Yunnan.
(3) More search results at Wikisource Chinese: [102]

For Chinese characters, many tend to be archaic or obsolete and lack proper citations. Fortunately this character has some. KevinUp (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I will check these, thanks --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: IKR? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sočiti

I believe that translation listed as Polish should be included as Old Polish.

I have been reading the dictionary by Derksen cited as a source. I am also a native speaker (and a linguist) and I noticed that that particular dictionary has not been proof checked by someone with better background in Polish. Thus, I checked both wsjp.pl, that is a dictionary by Polish Academia of Science (our highest authority in ant type of science and humanities), and haven't found it. Then I went to sjp.pwn, which is the biggest commercial ditionary, and none information was there, in Doroszewski's dictionary neither (that is a standard for modern Polish before 1990). Google search linked me to Old Polish dictionary https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/M._Arcta_S%C5%82ownik_Staropolski/Soczy%C4%87, where the word is still used.

evergladensis

It seems that this was added on the basis of some taxonomic names. But we don't consider taxonomic names to be Latin, do we? I'm not sure if this can be considered Latin either if that's the case. —Rua (mew) 17:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Then move it. All we lose is the declension tables. DCDuring (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not pretending to know all the relevant policies and practices. I'm asking for clarification, and for action to be taken depending on what is needed. —Rua (mew) 19:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
There's never been any consensus. I don't really care. DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The more common treatment seems to be to list such names as Latin, as seen for example for carolinensis. Like is done for that lemma, I think names for which the use is confined to taxonomy should be labelled “(botany, zoology, New Latin)” (with appropriate adjustments to the list of branches of biology – for evergladensis including mycology). Personally, I feel that including a declension table is over the top, though.  --Lambiam 21:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
My own thoughts is that they should be listed as Latin (without macrons &c), labelled as "New Latin", and that declension tables should be include only if any of the feminine and/or neuter, plural &c forms are also used (they're not in this case). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Talk:iroquoianus, Talk:albifrons + WT:CFI are quite clear: The term has to be attested in Latin to be Latin.
@Lambiam: 1. carolinensis or Carolinensis can be found and possibly attested in Latin ([103], [104], [105]), though its sense might be different (compare karolinisch, carolinisch, Karl, Carl, and also see [106]: "acus Carolinensis, Karlsbader Insektennadel"). 2. People ignoring WT:CFI and (other) vandals don't change the rules because they ignore them.
--Brown*Toad (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not immediately see which clause from CFI applies here, but I have no problem with the L2 being changed to “Translingual”. I just reported on what appeared to be a commonly taken approach, based on inspecting a small sample of the most common epithets. If Carolinensis can be attested in Latin, it probably has a different etymology, being from Carolus without a detour through the Carolinas.  --Lambiam 17:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The most plausible ways to get Latin attestation for specific epithets like this are through Catholic Church Latin (many placename adjectives) or from scientific Latin taxonomic descriptions (mostly 19th century and earlier). This term, unlike caroliniensis or carolinianus, is not likely to be found in such sources. DCDuring (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam: "including a term if it is attested" and "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning" - of course a Latin term has to be attested in Latin, with a use in a Latin media.
Trying to attest Latin with random non-Latin usages is the same as trying to attest English *handy (mobile phone) with usages of Handy or *footing (jogging) with footing.
And that doesn't work out.
@DCDuring: Church Latin doesn't attest taxonomic terms regarding labels and biological stuff like "Discovered in or native to [region]" as in magellanicus,
and Church Latin more often capitalises adjectives while in non-Latin biological texts it's more often uncapitalised.
--Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

șaur

Never heard of it and I also can't seem to find it in dictionaries or on Google. @Word dewd544, does it ring a bell? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I've never heard the word. But it could be some kind of rare slang used among certain people, or either a newer or conversely a more dated word? For some reason it doesn't seem certain to me that it's outright made up by someone though, given the phonetics and proposed etymology; they'd have to be decently well-versed. Who knows. Word dewd544 (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Sentence-final particle softening the request. @Geographyinitiative — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sure have seen it discussed in fluff news articles this way, used in WeChat this way many times, and was also taught that it was used this way at least twice in Wuhan. Not as a real laugh, but kind of like a "ha" qingsheng at the end. Signals a flavor of authoritativeness. But this usage is apparently unknown in Taiwan. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
https://baike.baidu.com/item/语气词 单音节吧、罢、呗、啵、的、价、家、啦、来、唻、了、嘞、哩、咧、咯、啰、喽、吗、嘛、嚜、么(麽)、哪、呢、呐、否、呵、哈、不、兮、般、则、连、罗、给、噻、哉、呸、
http://www.doc88.com/p-785476701486.html <--- https://wenku.baidu.com/view/b3b4f3ae31b765ce04081479.html https://www.wjx.cn/jq/30654194.aspx --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

小女

Rfv-sense: "little girl" — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn’t “little woman/girl” be a literal sense (and thus SOP)?  --Lambiam 06:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Possibly. If it is a verifiable sense, I'd say we should still keep it since 女 is kind of a bound morpheme in Mandarin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung I disagree that 女 being a "bound morpheme" affects the outcome of this verification discussion in any way. Here we have articles for phrases such as 小刀, 大桥/大橋, and 小孩子, and the latter parts of each of them make sense in independent contexts. This whole discussion does not make sense. If anything, we should be nominating the types of phrases I've listed instead of phrases like 小女. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@WikiWarrior9919: The "bound morpheme" thing is addressing Lambiam's concern of whether the entry should exist (which would be dealt with at WT:RFDN). That is not an issue, which means the verification process should continue for the definition "little girl". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱh₂d-

This "root" has no e in it, which makes it suspicious. IEW is 60 years old and thus not adequate as a source, and the Wiktionary page name doesn't match the form given in IEW anyway. —Rua (mew) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, this should just be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 13:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Victar I added De Vaan as a more trustworthy source, but it's still somewhat dubious that there are no full grades anywhere. —Rua (mew) 13:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: I deleted the PII forms because those were all impossible. Now we're just left with the Latin and a couple dubious extra-Latin forms. --{{victar|talk}} 14:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rua, Victar: I don't know about this particular root, but *bʰuh₂- is one root that doesn't seem to have had a full grade, so it wouldn't be without precedent. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Like I said, I'm more concerned with the lack of indubious cognates outside of Latin, which is grounds enough for deletion. --{{victar|talk}} 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
What are the IE cognates of Skt. √śad ("fall, fall out, fall off; collapse; decay, wither, perish")? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: Hölderlin2019 raises a good point. It's clear that Proto-Iranian *kat- can't be connected and should be deleted, but why is Sanskrit शशद (śaśada) = Latin cecidī impossible? It could even be evidence for a full grade *ḱh₂ed- (since zero grade *ḱh₂d- would have given לid- rather than śad-). —Mahāgaja · talk 08:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Well for one, ×शशद (לaśada) does not exist -- it's actually शशाद (śaśāda), and that word reflects PIE *ḱe-ḱód-e, which itself points to a *ḱed- root. Secondly, I've only seen that word in the context of listing cognates for the Latin -- it's not in any of my Sanskrit dictionaries -- so it's very poorly attested which makes me question its meaning entirely and think that it's just a bunch of semantic massaging by Latinists. Not all Indo-European words need cognates, nor are all words actually from PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 13:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It's listed in both Whitney and MW? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you meant to write, "is it", and no, in Sanskrit the word शशाद (śaśāda) actually means "eating rabbits", as seen in Monier-Williams. --{{victar|talk}} 15:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I meant that it's listed in both Whitney and MW. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, accidental question mark than. That's the danger of using older sources; often inflection tables are assumed and not based on actual sources. The only form that is found in Sanskrit, and again, very poorly attested, is (only found once in AV) शत्स्यति (śatsyati) and everything else is fabricated. So again, ×शशद (לaśada) did not exist. --{{victar|talk}} 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It was a quizzical question mark. I don't know why you think the inflections are fabricated (by whom? Whitney/MW? the Indian grammarians?); both Whitney and MW assert that this particular one is attested in the Brahmanas. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Inflection tables are made up all the time. We do so even on en.Wikt. Modern sources ({{R:ine:LIV}}) cite the word as शशाद (śaśāda) and not ×शशद (לaśada) as seen in MW. Also, MW mistakenly associates this word with the unrelated शीयते (śīyate, to fall down), which is from *ḱey-. --{{victar|talk}} 15:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: But शशाद (śaśāda) does exist? If so, it can come from *ḱe-ḱod-e as you say, but surely it can also come from *ḱe-ḱh₂od-e, from a root *ḱh₂ed-, of which both the zero grade and the full grade could give Latin cadō. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Is *ḰHeT- even a valid root in PIE? In PII, you might also expect the laygyeal to have some sort of aspirating power. --{{victar|talk}} 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: We have entries for *kh₂em-, *kh₂eyd-, and *sh₂ey-, so the root shape seems to be rare but not impossible. As for aspiration, you'd expect it after a stop, but probably not after ś. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: I was asking *ḰHeT- (=*KʲHeT-), not *KHeT-. I don't think it is. Aspiration would have been pre-PII. --{{victar|talk}} 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: In both cases I suspect there aren't enough examples to allow us to generalize. CHEC is a rather rare root shape to begin with, so the apparent lack of ḰHeC- could be coincidental. And even if *-ḱH- became *-śʰ- in PII, are there enough examples of PII *-śʰ- to be sure that it didn't simply become ś in Sanskrit? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: I found an example with *sḱeh₂i- ~ *(s)ḱh₂ey- ~ *(s)ḱeyh₂- (cut open, sting) which allegedly yielded σχάω (skháō) and ἔσχασα (éskhasa). Theoretically, I would think PIE *ḱe-ḱh₂ód-e would have yielded > śeśʰh₂óde > PII *ćaćʰHáda (=/tśatśʰHáda/) > PIA *śaśʰHáda > शहद (śaháda). Problem is, we lack clear examples of *ḱh₂. --{{victar|talk}} 20:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
My point exactly. We know that *źʰ became h in Sanskrit, but that doesn't mean *śʰ did. It may have become simply ś. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: This discussion is surreal. Whitney does not "make up" inflection tables; Whitney does not deal in inflection tables, except in his introductory grammars. What he does do is catalogue attested Vedic + Skt. forms and assign them to roots. MW is not in error; he's simply following the synchronic analysis of the ancient grammarians, whose fiat assignment in this particular case Whitney explicitly discusses. The reduplicated perfect in question is multiply attested in the Brahmanas. I'm frankly astounded by how tenuous your grasp of how to understand the Sanskrit is, never mind the Sanskrit itself Hölderlin2019 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
But Whitney doesn't list *शशद (śaśada); he lists शशाद (śaśāda), whose existence Victar isn't denying. —This unsigned comment was added by Mahagaja (talkcontribs) at 16:40, 24 June 2019.
For one, I've only been referring to MW, not Whitney. Secondly, I'm not infallible and if I misread some source, I'm happy for someone to point it out, but personally attacking me is unnecessary. And lastly, any author is also fallible, especially in older works when our understanding of PIE and Sanskrit was not as developed and defined as it is today. I'm not sure which part you are claiming MW isn't in error of, but Rix agrees that MW mistakenly lumped शीयते (śīyate, to fall down) into this root, which probably had bearing on the definition he gave for it and calls into question the semantic connection to the Latin. --{{victar|talk}} 20:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, {{R:ine:LIV}} reconstructs the root as *ḱad- (*ḱád-e-ti > cadō) and {{R:ine:LIPP}} as *ḱed- (*ḱd-é-ti > *ḱₔd-é-ti > cadō). --{{victar|talk}} 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
That could work too for those of us who believe that PIE primary a was merely rare but not nonexistent. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Yeah, I'm not a fan of PIE a entries either. I think, however, there is some argument to be made that it existed natively in onomatopoeic roots. My preference would be for *ḱed- though. --{{victar|talk}} 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Old Norse emi ? (1st person sg. copula)

this wiki page as well as online etymology dictionary mention emi as an alternative form of em, preserving the final -i of PIE verb endings. Can we get an academic source for this?

RubixLang (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

caelus as Vulgar Latin form in caelum

I'm challenging the Vulgar Latin form as [107] sounds like the added form should be Vulgar Latin *caelus. --Waikaistai (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is just an alternative form of caelum, not an entirely separate word. —Rua (mew) 16:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I really can't tell what's being challenged here. The entry is referenced, with several cites listed in Gaffiot. As the anon notes, this being the colloquial term explains the Old French well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess that the question is, is there evidence that Latin caelus survived into the period of Vulgar Latin? If not, and this is a reconstruction, it should be marked as such. I don’t understand the argument, though, why this is supposed to be Vulgar Latin in the first place. Old French ciel is thought to come from Latin caelum. What is with this Old French ciels? Is that another word than the plural of ciel? The authors cited in Gaffiot are all strictly classical – the latest is Servius, who wrote in Classical Latin – so I don’t understand why this {{alter}} of caelum is labelled old either.  --Lambiam 19:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Old French still had two cases, but lost the neuter gender already. The nominative singular form ciels is a direct reflection of caelus. —Rua (mew) 20:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So does this mean that in the section Etymology of Old French ciel From {{inh|fro|la|caelum}} should be changed to From {{inh|fro|la|caelus}}?  --Lambiam 21:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Metaknowledge: Does Gaffiot give cites for a Vulgar Latin term? Enn[ius] is Old Latin and Lucr[etius], Vitr[uvius] and Cic[ero] aren't Vulgar Latin either.
Quoting Lambian: "the question is, is there evidence that Latin caelus survived into the period of Vulgar Latin? If not, and this is a reconstruction, it should be marked as such." Indeed. And even if it survived into Vulgar Latin times: Is it attested as Vulgar Latin, or only as Late Latin in which case the Vulgar Latin would still be a reconstruction or a mislabelling of Late Latin? --Waikaistai (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought that Vulgar Latin was an umbrella term for Latin spoken by ordinary folk wherever Roman influence was strong and was contemporaneous with both Classical Latin and Late Latin, and may be considered to have lasted beyond, even to the end of the first millennium. DCDuring (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
So Vulgar Latin survived Classical Latin and even Late Latin. But I still see no reasonable argument for labelling the alternative form caelus as specifically Vulgar Latin (or old, or anything).  --Lambiam 09:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's so easy to make a distinction, as they were just two different registers of the same language. Elements of vulgar Latin occasionally crept into written Latin from time to time, but I don't think there is a point in distinguishing VL as an entirely separate dialect or even language. It was just the informal-everyday spoken form of Latin, whereas the written standard was more formal and archaic. What can be said about caelus, if it is indeed attested, is that it fits the general trend in most of the Romance languages of eliminating the neuter gender in favour of the masculine. But that alone does not make caelus vulgar, necessarily, just that it has one particular trait associated with vulgar Latin. —Rua (mew) 16:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems as if it could treated here as something like a reconstructed language, based on occasional intrusions into written Latins and backward inference from Christian Latin, Late Latin, and early forms of Romance languages. Some older sources support it. It's hard for me to see why we should extirpate it from Wiktionary. DCDuring (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Absurd challenge. Added quotes from the early Empire. Fay Freak (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Fay Freak – The way I interpret the request does not involve the lemma caelus, but only the section Alternative forms of etymology 1 for caelum, and specifically the dialect indicated there in the line “ caelus (old, Vulgar Latin)”.
Indeed, caelus itself wasn't challenged. caelus (Vulgar Latin) is and there still aren't any Vulgar Latin quotes, like old graffiti, or mentionings, as in the Appendix Probi. --Waikaistai (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/buþlijaną

Kroonen does not have this verb. It only has one descendant, which does not match the reconstructed form. The noun *buþlą/*bōþlą, which the verb supposedly derives from, is not found in Kroonen's dictionary either. All this together suggests that this is a rather ad-hoc reconstruction and not supported well enough to have an entry. —Rua (mew) 16:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bōþlą

Not found in Kroonen's dictionary either, and few of the attested descendants match the reconstruction. Old English preserves -þl-, as shown in the descendants of other Proto-Germanic terms with this cluster, which rules out bold and botl. Moreover, these descendants have a short o. Old Saxon shows Proto-Germanic d, rather than þ (compare *nēþlō, where þ is preserved). Middle Dutch merges þ and d, so there is no evidence there either way. Old Norse indeed has a regular change þl > l, as is visible from the descendants of the other pages. All in all, I don't think there's enough evidence to clearly reconstruct this. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Gender-neutral usage of male Esperanto words

The following words are male in traditional Esperanto according to PMEG: avo, edzo, fianĉo, filo, frato, kuzo, nepo, nevo, onklo, patro, princo, reĝo, vidvo. In Wiktionary they have a second sense, a gender-neutral sense. I don't think this can be properly cited. Some people use words like patriĉo and edziĉo, which are cited, but those people never really use the base words gender-neutrally, but use words like gepatro and geedzo instead. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Fuppes

Looks spurious, also as Maria Besse, Britter Wörterbuch. Moselfränkischer Dialekt am "Tor zum Hochwald" has "Fuppes m. .. dummes Zeug, Unsinn ..". Super Teddy 3 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it is spurious. See the following article on the website of Welt (not Die Welt): “Über Fuppes, beömmeln und den Muckefuck”. The tentative etymologies given in the article have nothing in common with the one in our entry, but the sense and regional identification agree.  --Lambiam 12:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Palestinujo

The word Palestinujo is formed wrong. The root "Palestin-" indicates a country, so adding -ujo to it is wrong. When I search this term online, I mostly find it in grammar discussions about country names. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 12:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This might be citable, a quick search already yielded two attestations: [108] [109] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Atayalic/aku

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 16:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Atayalic/suwaiʔ

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 17:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Rukai/ako

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 17:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Rukai/səpatə

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Currently the article states that the meaning is "dwarf". That is not correct. The meaning is: "submissive, docile, obedient", "bowing; bent over" or “distant” and or was used as the early name of Japanese (Yamato?). This needs to be corrected. I wanted to correct that, but was reverted and it was explained that I have to do a request for verification first. The "dwarf" or "short" meaning is this: —This unsigned comment was added by AsadalEditor (talk • contribs).

@AsadalEditor: FWIW, The MDBG entry gives a meaning of dwarf for . Meanwhile, the MDBG entry for 矮 gives a meaning of short, but not dwarf. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

疎熅

"Seoul". —Suzukaze-c 19:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

wárhiti

I don't think this is a standard spelling. The same goes for 'warhi. --Lvovmauro (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

wiki

@Justinrleung sent this to RFD, where multiple editors encouraged putting it in RFV instead. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/frijô

tagged but not listed with the following note: "This page lists *frijō as an antonym while that page list frijô as an antonynm, but they both have the same meaning. Given the other words formed from this root: frijōndz ("friend") vs fijands ("foe"), it appears this was a typo and the antonym should have been something like "fijô" and one of these pages may be wrong"

I believe the antonym is due to the gender of the words (one being male, the other female) in the same way that man is the antonym of woman Leasnam (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

تصدر

Rfv-sense: “to be sent, to be dispatched” --2001:16A2:52E3:9200:71E4:2F1C:5EAF:A08C 11:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for "fumigate" and "bleach with burning sulfur" definitions. Sourced from the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Suzukaze-c 08:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Kangxi Dictionary defines it as: "火行也". I don't know a lot of Classical Chinese, but I believe this means "path of fire" or something like that; please correct me if I'm wrong. Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
All the dictionaries basically have "火行" as the definition. 字彙 says "火行貌", which would imply that it's likely an adjective. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

pousser la fonte

Is it durably archived? Nothing on GB. Canonicalization (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

ensavanement

The word appears to be logical, but I cannot find any use of any kind. Lmaltier (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I find a few uses of the verb ensavaner from which the putative noun is derived (e.g. here), but no ensavanement (and also no ensavanage, which could have been another plausible derivation). The page was created as the single edit of an editor, which is mildly suspicious. That editor also has two curious edits on the French Wikipedia, creating redirects Mozombique → Mozambique and Tonzonie → Tanzanie (and no further edits across all Wikimedia projects).  --Lambiam 21:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a well attested word, "savanisation", used with the same sense. CLXXX (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete, not CFI-compliant, no valid quotes. Has sat in RFV for almost a year. Canonicalization (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

bekaseto

Ido for "snipe". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

cook

Tagged by 2600:1000:b12f:3f61:9844:d387:80fd:cbda but not listed. — surjection?〉 18:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

empepillar

Spanish, Dominican slang. Ultimateria (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Epaña

Spanish, eye dialect spelling of España. Ehpaña is much more citeable. Ultimateria (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: There's a lot of hits on Google Groups; are these just typos? Julia 08:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Julia: It can be hard to tell which ones are typos, but it looks like the majority to me. One is "epaña eh diferente" which uses another eye dialect spelling ("eh" for "es"). That and "pero que eto eh epaña" make only two that are definitively intentional. Ultimateria (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A query.
English spelling is extremely squishy. We've got oddball things like knight and night both pronounced like nite. Words like are could be realized as /aː/ or /ɑɹ/ or /aʊə/ etc. An argument could be made that English spelling is approaching logographic in its divergence from strict phonetics. Spelling night as nite is clearly just a visual divergence: both are pronounced the same.
However, various other languages are less loosey-goosey with their orthography. Words are pronounced as they're spelled. Thus, España and Epaña are not just visual differences -- the different spellings represent different phonetic realizations.
At what point does this spelling-difference phenomenon shift from "eye dialect" to just "dialect"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Once again, Wiktionarians are misusing the term eye dialect, which refers to a nonstandard spelling reflecting a standard pronunciation (e.g. English sez for says, whose standard pronunciation is /sɛz/). Unless /eˈpaɲa/ and /ehˈpaɲa/ are standard pronunciations in Spanish, these aren't eye dialect. They're nonstandard spellings, i.e. spellings reflecting nonstandard pronunciations. —This unsigned comment was added by Mahagaja (talkcontribs) at 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC).

appel du vide

"Urge pertaining to self-destructive behaviour": I'm not able to find actual French usage of the term, nor the origin of the phrase. Wiktionnaire doesn't have it, French Wikipedia cites an English book as source. Google Books doesn't return anything related to the claimed definition (in French, at least). – Jberkel 22:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The relevant passage in the book given as source is:
“The French have a name for this unnerving impulse: l’appel du vide; ‘the call of the void’.”
This does not count as a use. Two sentences later Sartre is referenced in a way that suggests (but does not outright imply) that he actually used this specific term. The end notes direct us to an English translation by Hazel Barnes, Being and Nothingness (Washington Square Press, 1966), p. 345. I have a hard copy of L'être et le néant, but am not going to scan it for this phrase. There is a later edition of the translation by Barnes ([110]) that can be previewed; I did not find the phrase there, and also not its English translation.  --Lambiam 23:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

drone (Dutch)

Rfv-sense of "male bee or wasp". The Middle Dutch is in the MNW (lemma: dorne), but no luck with the modern Dutch term. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands Dutch dar comes from Middle Dutch drone by an interesting development: drone → (by metathesis) dorne, darn(e), whose s-plural darns was displace by the en-plural darnen, and then → (by assimilation) darren, reanalyzed as the plural of dar. Parallel survival of Middle Dutch drone into present-day Dutch appears extremely implausible to me.  --Lambiam 18:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
In several Limburgish dialects, it is droon/drone: [111], [112]. It's a bit tricky to find non-dictionary references seen the scarcity of dialectal usage online and seen the now-prevalent use of drone in the machine sense. Morgengave (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Morgengave I think this can be resolved by changing the language header to Limburgish and adding a reference to that Limburgish dictionary (the preview doesn't show for me), as Limburgish is a LDL. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

豺狼

Rfv-sense: dhole. @Atitarev added it per Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (2002), but a newer (the newest?) version of the Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (Chinese edition) does not have such a sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung I won't cry if the sense is removed, it's from the old dictionary. BTW, I have pinged you on 猱犬 (náoquǎn, “dhole”), which I found in Pleco but you may have missed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: In the Dungan-Russian dictionary there is an entry for цэлон (celon) (tones III-I) with a translation шака́л (šakál, jackal) (for the lack of the more correct word for "dhole"). I'm pretty sure it's the equivalent of Mandarin 豺狼 (cháiláng). Dungan цэгу (cegu) = 豺狗 (cháigǒu) and цэгузы (ceguzɨ) are listed as synonyms. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "cruel; wicked; mean" (from Unicode). Is this sense used outside of terms like 豺狼? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

プーマ

  1. the animal
  2. the brand (WT:BRAND)

Suzukaze-c 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It refers only to the brand Puma. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

bedel

RFV of the noun sense “begging, mendicancy”. I believe the noun has a very different sense in Dutch: a charm (small trinket or pendant on a bracelet), most commonly used in the diminutive form bedeltje.  --Lambiam 13:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The WNT has two cites: [113]. Should at least be obsolete (outside "aan de bedel" which might well be used in spoken language but which I haven't seen in print). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@LBD – I don’t understand “in het Mnl. niet aangewezen”. Aangewezen = aangetroffen? Is “al den bedel” in the quote not a variant (perhaps a clerical error) for “al den boedel”?  --Lambiam 18:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is an archaic sense of aanwijzen (to demonstrate, to attest). And it is a variant for boedel in that section, but that isn't a quotation for the relevant definition (you should press on the arrow before the definition line to view those). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Added some citations. -- Curious (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
RFV passed. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

malekskovri

This word has only Google hits for sites that copied from Wiktionary. It is also misformed, "eks" means "former", not "outside". Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Die Grünen

The first sense. This doesn't count:

  • "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen"
  • "Grüne", "die Grünen" etc.
  • "Die Grünen" at the beginning of a sentence

For the second sense, one can find enough examples searching for "Partei Die Grünen". Daloda (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that your issue is that sense 1 is actually the sum of the definite article die and the plural form of the noun Grüne(r)? If so, I think you are right. But the sense ”(in plural, collectively) the German green party, 'Bündnis 90/Die Grünen'“, currently found at Grüner, may be more in place at Grünen. (Does it make sense that this noun has separate masculine and feminine entries? Can’t we combine them?)  --Lambiam 05:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No, my point is: Does "Die Grünen" meaning "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen" exists, is it attestable, are there pars-pro-toto uses? "Die Grünen" refering to an older party exists. And because of the capital D it's not just "die" + "Grüner".
(Grüner/Grüne and Grüne are different words with different gender and inflection.) Daloda (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

庳哩

The word exists, but the characters seem questionable. I can only find this orthography in a wikibook (b:zh:福州語/數字). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

福州方言研究 writes the monosyllabic form (recorded in 福州方言詞典 1998 as ) as . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

جرم

Rfv-sense: جَرَم (jaram):

  1. crime, sin, wrongdoing
  2. a thing that incites anger, aggravates, or instigates ill-will

--2001:16A2:5310:FE00:F845:F876:E4B8:8216 08:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You can’t rfv a vocalization. Any text with it will be written the same as جُرْم(jurm) with the same meaning. Fay Freak (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

escuelear

Spanish, "to tame". Ultimateria (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's in this dictionary (not sure what "sl" means). DTLHS (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Apparently it means "slang". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It was WF who made the page, which is a bad sign. That guy sucks. Anyway, it seems to mean, unsurprisingly, to school or educate. Rare as hell, though. --I learned some phrases (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

zodarion

The English word failed verification; we should check if the French word passes. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

㚻片

See talk. —Suzukaze-c 01:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There are some hits on Google, but it's probably not verifiable in durable sources. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

vespivore

I only see mentions, not uses. Canonicalization (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

unudiismo

Esperanto. Nothing on the Tekstaro; highly suspect as anything other than an idealized bonalingva form. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

maminha

This word does seem to exist, but I think it refers to a kind of meat. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 12:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added the meat sense, but haven't been able to find cites for the slang senses. infopédia lists "nipple" (not "boob"), and "breastmilk". – Jberkel 13:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

kukident

Said to mean "mouth". I've only heard of this as a brand. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

ops

An IP editor insists on removing it as "unattestable". — surjection?〉 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

According to L&S the nominative singular is unattested. It's not in my Later Latin (to AD600) glossary either. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The IP may know Latin (just FYI the IP address belongs is a US school district), but they don't know how Wiktionary Latin entries are organized: the lemma is supposed to be at the nominative singular, and the other forms are soft redirects to the lemma. If we delete the lemma, the definitions, etymology and inflection tables go with it, just leaving redlinks to a non-existent lemma in the form-of entries. IIRC, we deal with this by saying somewhere in the lemma entry that the nominative singular itself isn't attested. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Curiously enough, the term is also the name of the earth goddess Ops, and also when used as her name it is unattested in the nominative or vocative; even where you would expect this according to the standard grammatical rules, the oblique case “Opis” is substituted. This is rather peculiar. Was there a tabu on the term “ops”? And how can we be sure that the nominative is not actually “opis” (cf. “apis” – “apis” – “apī” – ...)?  --Lambiam 20:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
There's inops, possibly virops, Ops (besides Opis). But correctly it would still be *ops or opis (genitive, nominative not attested) with a "--" for the nominative in the inflection table. --Pitza Guy (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Should terms like these be moved to the Reconstruction namespace? That way we could keep the information, and still link to it from other entries, but we avoid potential errors of speculation about lemmata. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Is the entire term unattested, or just the nominative singular? What form(s) are attested? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
From what I gathered, some non-lemma forms are attested. I meant that the lemma should be moved to a Reconstruction namespace, not the attested forms. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

zmírnění

Rfv-sense: understatement.

I do not know this use of the Czech word zmírnění, but I may be wrong. google books:zmírnění. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

mat

Doesn't Gaulish normally preserve endings, like in *matis? —Rua (mew) 12:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's conceivable this was found in an inscription where the ending is missing (e.g. the stone is broken), which a scholarly edition would probably render as mat[is]. I never know what we should do with cases like that, or with scribal errors in manuscripts. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

هوموسكسواليه

--2001:16A2:51CD:8C00:3:9D23:D901:45A3 19:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

kiceki

kinda obscure French internet slang. --I learned some phrases (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

fp

Swedish. Along with kd, seems to be uppercase. --I learned some phrases (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

āda

This etymology is complete nonsense and should be deleted. It also makes me wonder how many {{R:lv:LEV}} sourced etymologies should be deleted as well. --{{victar|talk}} 20:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Victar You meant to use {{rfv-etymology}} and post this under WT:ES. This template and this page are for doubts about the existence of the term itself.
Can you elaborate how the etymology is nonsense? It makes sense to me, although the likelihood is diminished by the claim of a byform for the term for a goat – it doesn’t go against something we know but rather too much into things we don’t know? And the part about “In Latvian, the term expanded” is irrelevant since meaning shifts from leather and animal hide and human hide are not surprising, so I would delete it anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

terrible

Rfv-sense for the sense "terrific" (very good). Pablussky (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

sugo (Italian)

Rfv-sense of "gravy", previously deleted out of process by an IP. Treccani has this sense. [114] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

English-style gravy is virtually unknown in Italian cuisine. The concept that perhaps comes closest is sugo d’arrosto. When used without further qualifications for a sauce, every Italian will assume sugo is short for sugo di pomodoro, which refers to a tomato-based sauce. You can also use sugo di carne to mean a meat-based sauce, as seen in this old cookbook. I think, though, that one would not call such a sauce “gravy”, but rather a “meat sauce”.  --Lambiam 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

tizzone

Rfv-sense "(normally considered offensive, often considered vulgar, ethnic slur) A dark-skinned person, especially a person of, or primarily of, black African descent", removed by an IP as "I am italian and I have never once heard the word "tizzone" used in that way. There's no trace of it anywhere on the internet that I could find of, and the italian page doesn't mention it either". — surjection?〉 10:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Not in my paper dictionaries. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    That's not how this works. Have you even considered that maybe your paper dictionaries don't cover racist slurs? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah. The arguments become stranger and stranger. It’s one of the most valuable parts of Wiktionary that we have words that fall under the radar, that aren’t covered and aren’t known by those people who else curate dictionaries. If you haven’t heard certain words, it also comes from a state of privilege. “I am Italian”, “I am German” ends up to be like “I have been brought up in the polite society”.
    That being said, if one listens to Italian rap music oftener one will probably stumble upon this word, as Metaknowledge’s quote has shown. Fay Freak (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, this is RFV driven by WT:ATTEST, and for Italian, paper dictionaries do not even count toward attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Fay Freak: I know this is real, at least in Sicilian (as used in the US), but I don't know how to search rap lyrics or sift through all the uses of the literal meaning, so I think it's up to you to save this one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge Yeah but I have never learned Italian, let alone listened to raps in it, i.e. I am no active user of it yet, so I don’t know to search certain words or constructions to find certain things. (You might also create a Sicilian entry with a quote which will have a similar value.) Where are the Italians anyhow? None on Wiktionary apparently? (Oh, the last one was Angelucci, you know what happened. No Italians in the recent changes to Italian lemmas.) Fay Freak (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @GianWiki is a frequent contributor; maybe he can be of help. Canonicalization (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I have to say that – while I can see the word being used in such a sense – I've never heard (or read) it used in a similar sense. -- GianWiki (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

sentar

Rfv-sense Used in various Brazilian funk song, such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzavRj4pnK0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOsl3uQdQw0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7urWiVOLcc

狸貓

Rfv-sense: "raccoon dog" and "civet cat". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

اختبر

Rfv-sense (Arabic): “to research; to explore, to search; to know well, to know by experience“--51.223.99.17 14:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to reorganize the senses to describe what you think the word means. The concepts (which are also scrammed together from Hans Wehr and co.) are very close together and in many contexts replaceable. If one has tried and experienced one also knows by experience etc., and knows well if one has done it enough. Fay Freak (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

antropo

Uncited form. I doubt this can be properly cited as an independent word. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

kôiôty

Malagasy. Not found in kôiôty in Malagasy dictionaries at malagasyword.org and even google:kôiôty finds almost nothing. Pinging Corsicanwarrah to help us find citations or sources to support WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky I just came across it on the Malagasy Wiktionary entry for 郊狼. Here. It's also on the other Malagasy Wiktionary entries for other foreign words for 'coyote' (but the word kôiôty itself is not an entry on the Malagasy Wiktionary.) Back then I wasn't aware of the CFI rules. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I find on the History page of the MG WT kôiôty entry that there have only been three edits, all apparently by bot user Bot-Jagwar. So I'm not sure anything there should be taken without a grain of salt, as it were. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Corsicanwarrah: Thank you. Other Wiktionaries are not reliable sources for the purpose of the English Wiktionary. Terms only found in other Wiktionaries are liable to be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I have also fallen foul of this, seen below on this list. However, the only link on Google for kôiôty that doesn’t relate to Wiktionary is Mitarika ireo fanahy, which uses the word once. After using Google Translate, the section where it is used seems to talk about how sheep are 'killed by wild animals such as lions or coyotes'. Obviously, this is not a reputable source or translation, but it does show an example of its use. -- DPUH (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

gen pl vicum

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Does not appear to exist. This is a defective noun with only certain cases attested. As those attestations are very frequent, I would expect the missing forms to be truly missing, not simply unattested. Benwing2 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Same goes for dative singular vicī and maybe vocative plural vicēs. Benwing2 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

ilarejo

A great word if it can be cited from durably archived sources, but I'm having trouble finding any; it appears to be largely theoretical. There's a mention on soc.culture.esperanto, but that's all. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

kuono, agvarao

Esperanto. Testaro gives nothing. Can only find on Wikipedia and a dictionary that was published last year. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

নএ

See edit history comments, was requested for speedy deletion. @Lbdñk as deletion requester. - TheDaveRoss 12:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(Notifying Lbdñk, Ash wki, Asm sultan, Countincr, Deepon, Hermitage17, Intellectual Bookworm, Moheen, Shaiwala, Tanweer Morshed): Also directing this at Lambiam, the Hungarian and Lithuanian entries may have been taken on from the English entry as it sometimes can happen and, more importantly, both entries have been deleted already. This hints at the orthography actually being false.
Directing this as well at Chuck Entz, before the addition of the letter "য়" at the end of the 19th century, as stated in w:Bengali alphabet, the letter "জ" ("j") was used word-initially for [dʒ] and in any other position for [j] because this sound apparently did not occur in the former position. The letter "এ" was not assigned to [j] even beforehand. There are no attestations available for this erroneous orthography. HeliosX (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
If I have understood the article পূর্ব নাগরী লিপি correctly, নএ is mentioned there as being Sylheti for 9, written using the Bengali–Assamese script. I suppose this is the source of the confusion. (We do have an entry for the Sylheti term in the Sylheti Nagri script: ꠘꠄ (noe).) Other than that one occurrence, the term is not mentioned on the Bengali Wiktionary or Wikipedia, which makes it very unlikely that this is used in Bengali. But now that there is an RfV box slapped on the entry, the risk that someone will be misled is low, so we may as well let verification run its course.  --Lambiam 18:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

k, m, q

Should be K., M., Q. (cp. Category:Latin praenominal abbreviations). --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

ibid

Because of the missing dot it looks English and not Latin. --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

magro

Possibly should be mag̃ro, cp. [115], [116], [117]. BTW: Similary ptate (properly ptãte as in [118], [119]?), hmoi might be wrong... --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As to the latter, I see ħmoi, ħmõi and hm̃oi, but also (because of limited typographical capabilities?) vanilla hmoi.  --Lambiam 07:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

not.-Tir., n.-Tir.

"-" makes no sense (in Latin). --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

True, but the same can be said for a full stop to denote an abbreviation; yet, the latter is conventionally applied all over the place. Note that we also have n.-Tir. I believe the corresponding versions without hyphens (not. Tir., n. Tir.) are in use but unoccupied here, and so it appears safe to move them to that spelling.  --Lambiam 10:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
German and Latin not. Tir., Not. Tir., not. Tiron., Not. Tiron. (also with capital in Latin) can easily be found (Latin: [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]).
[128], [129] have not. tiron..
I had no luck finding n./N. tiron./Tiron., n./N. tir./Tir. (in any combination regarding capitalisation) or any hyphenated form.
not. Tiron. had, for whatever reason, "|head=not.-Tīrōn." with hyphen. Based on that, I too would assume that "-" was incorrectly added (in a hypercorrectly Frenchy way?). --Brown*Toad (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess I was fooled by occurrences of n. Tir. as seen here, but examination reveals that the juxtaposition of n. and Tir. is incidental and that Tir. stands for Tirocinium.  --Lambiam 07:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin albicilla

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): I strongly suspect this is an erroneous adjective created by someone who didn't know Latin genders very well rather than a noun. In particular, it is used in Haliaeetus albicilla, which was originally named Falco albicilla. I suspect the person who chose the name Falco albicilla thought that falcō was feminine rather than masculine (an easy mistake to make), and accordingly used the feminine of albicillus (white-tailed). This error was then propagated when the genus was renamed. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A taxonomist would say that the species was moved to a new genus, not that the genus was renamed (Falco is still the correct genus for most falcons). The specific epithet is supposed to agree with the generic name when it's an adjective, but in this case it may be a noun "in apposition" as the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature puts it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Here] is the original publication. If Linnaeus had thought that Falco was feminine, you would think that some of the other specific epithets would be feminine, but none of them seem to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks, that's very helpful. Benwing2 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin manuculus: Attested or not?

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Latin manuculus is marked as "Vulgar Latin", and many sources put a star by it indicating it's reconstructed. Can we attest it? Benwing2 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Often stars are put wrongly or after obsolete or uninformed sources. With references and several variants and even several derivatives mentioned by Wilhelm Heraeus Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen p. 45 bottom. I note and link here the earlier form maniculus in Apuleius book 9. The Thesaurus linguae latinae has manuculus too. Fay Freak (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

越王頭

Chinese. Has the term been used outside the Nanfang Caomu Zhuang and sources which quote it? I requested its creation but back then I was a bit shaky on the CFI rules. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

kickear

Spanish, "internet: to kick". I see mentions but only one or two uses on Google Books. Ultimateria (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin extrēus

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Claimed to be a variant of exter. I think it's maybe a typo for extrēmus. Added by @DCDuring. Benwing2 (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that there is an entry extreus in Charles du Fresne du Cange’s Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis (augmented edition, 1883–1887) with a rather different meaning.  --Lambiam 06:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Even for Medieval Latin this seems morphologically implausible. Fay Freak (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Entered from a "Wanted page" that was about to be deleted. DCDuring (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam I'd like to fix this entry. Per Du Cange, is this a noun? What does "Abortivus, qui de exercitio ejicitur extra" mean exactly? It looks something like "Premature birth, which is pushed out due to exertion". Is that right? Benwing2 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If I interpret du Cange’s entry correctly, he is copying this from the dictionary by Papias. Since abortivus is an adjective, I guess the entry implies that extreus is also one. I’d translate the defn. as “Delivered prematurely, that which is cast outside by exercise”. Note that du Cange thinks this line is corrupt, as he adds that excercitio is “strongly to be read” as exsicio or excicio – which I in turn suppose is to be read as excisio (“excision”). The reference to the entry encimum suggests murder rather than C section. Disclaimer: My proficiency in Latin has not progressed beyond what I learned 60 years ago in Latin school.  --Lambiam 07:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
In a list of remarks from 1870 by one Anton Miller on a glossary contained in the Codex latinus 6210 (Bavarian State Library) we find the form Extrea (presumably occurring in the glossary), with a reference to Papias. This strengthens the supposition that we are dealing with an adjective.  --Lambiam 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Thanks; I've tried to fix the entry. Benwing2 (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hroþwyn

This looks suspiciously like an attempt by banned user UtherPendrogn to reconstruct the original source of the name "Rowena" based on the original etymology in that entry. The only occurrences in Google seem to trace back to us, but the Old English letters þ/ð and ƿ complicate things. The lack of coverage of names in reference works doesn't help. There's a couple of non-durable hits for "Hroðwyn", one of which cites "E.G. Withycombe, The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, pg 259", but I can't view that work to see if it refers to an actual Old English name or a hypothetical one. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Leasnam, Hazarasp, any thoughts? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Latin annulātus meaning "one-year-old"

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): L+S and Gaffiot only mention a meaning "ringed" (variant of ānulātus). Benwing2 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find this meaning anywhere, but it's certainly conceivable since -ātus is a productive suffix forming descriptive adjectives from nouns. The actual word that means this is anniculus. Brutal Russian (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin vetātus "forbidden"

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Classical participle is vetitus. The progression to vetātus would be logical but Du Cange only lists a different meaning "striped, made of twigs". Did this ever mean "forbidden" and if so, when? Benwing2 (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

”Transeuntes autem Phrygiam et Galatiae regionem, vetati sunt a Spiritu Sancto loqui verbum Dei in Asia.“ (Actus Apostolorum 16:6, Biblia Sacra Vulgata). This seems to be the only locus.  --Lambiam 08:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Quote from An Introduction to Vulgar Latin: “The ending -ĭtus, in the first conjugation, generally fell into disuse: [...] vetitus > vetatus”.  --Lambiam 13:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Georges: "Vulg. Perf. vetavit, Pers. 5, 90. Serv. Verg. Aen. 2, 201. Past. Herm. 3, 9, 6 Pal., vetastis, Itala Luc. 11, 52 Cant., vetassent, Epit. Iliad. 250, vetatus est, Itala act. apost. 17, 15, vetati sunt, Vulg. act. apost. 16, 6: vetati sulci, Chalcid. Tim. 153." 3 places for vetatus/vetati. --Trangomaron (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin persecātus "dissected"

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Similar to above. The proper past passive participle is persectus. Does persecātus exist and if so when did it come into existence? Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Quote from An Introduction to Vulgar Latin: “In the first conjugation -ātus was preserved and was extended to all verbs: [...] sectus > secatus”.  --Lambiam 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Sure; you can see this in the Romance languages. But this doesn't mean that such words are necessarily attested in *Latin* texts, and even if they are, I'd like to indicate what era to make clear this isn't Classical. Benwing2 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the quoted source puts asterisks in front of some forms, but not secatus, strongly suggests that the latter is attested in Vulgar Latin. This does not imply that this extends to persecātus, of course. All we know is that any attestations are unlikely to be Classical Latin.  --Lambiam 08:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Georges: "Perf. im Vulgärlat. auch secavi, wov. secarunt, Corp. inscr. Lat. 6, 30112: secarit, Serv. Verg. Aen. 5, 2: Partiz. Fut. Akt. secaturus, Colum. 5, 9, 2.: Partiz. Perf. Pass. secatus, Corp. inscr. Lat. 5, 5049, 12. de Rosci inscr. Christ. Vol. I. p. 265. Vulg. 4. Esdr. 4, 32. Commodian. apol. 514 (510)." But that's secare and secatus, not persecatus.

Latin sepeleō

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Given as an alternative form of sepeliō. No Google Books hits at all for the past participle sepeletus, and no non-bogus ones that i can see for the lemma sepeleo. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

ガッチャ

Suzukaze-c 06:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

auctoricō

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): This is defined as "Vulgar Latin form of auctorō". The comment says "attested by Brodsky in Spanish Vocabulary: An Etymological Approach" but I can't find any attestations in Google Books. Benwing2 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

[130]. I would not describe this as “attested by”. The following two sources state that French octroi comes from auctoricare, auctorare: [131], [132]; the latter calls this Late Latin. (Our entry derives octroi from Late Latin auctorizare.)  --Lambiam 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Thanks. I think the derivation from auctorizare is more likely via *auctoridiare > *aut(o)reiar > *otroier. The form auctoricare is undoubtedly at the origin of Spanish otorgar but might well have produced OF *otorgier instead (compare carricare > chargier). Benwing2 (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
BTW I don't consider the fact that the above source says "Late Latin auctoricare, auctorare" as an attestation. Benwing2 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

妈々

Verifying entry {{zh-see|媽媽|ss}}: the second-round simplified form of 媽媽妈妈 (māma). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin balnea singular

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam We have an entry for balnea singular genitive balneae that says it's an uncommon synonym of balneum, and the page on balneum likewise says balnea (singular) is an occasional variant. Is this true? It's not mentioned in LS or Gaffiot. Benwing2 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It is used in the singular in a letter by Marcus Aurelius quoted here. The Medieval Latin term balneum Mariae (bain-marie) occurs as balnea Mariae e.g. here.  --Lambiam 13:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

downie

Rfv-sense: "(informal, offensive) An incredibly stupid person." - anyone who knows? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin Serantis (place name)

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Name of a castle in Galicia. Evidently attested in a single inscription in the ablative as Serante. No gender. Unknown nom sg. One of the cited sources actually lists it as Serantum. What do we do in a case like this? Benwing2 (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The name is probably the Latinization of a Celtic proper noun, and different people may have Latinized it differently – but if the sole attestation is that inscription, then Serantum must be in error. I do not know what we do in such cases in general, but I think we should say that for lack of attestations the gender and declension (including the nominative) are uncertain. (For all we know the nom. could be Serans – see this snippet.)  --Lambiam 20:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

SL

Rfv-senses in Spanish section: abbreviations for Saarland (they don't speak Spanish there) and South Sumatra (not Spanish-speaking there's not even a bleedin' L in the word!). I'm assuming a n00b screwed up. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

M

Rfv-sense in Esperanto. This should be fun to search for... a texting abbreviation of mi (me, I). --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

also, V should mean vi (you). I hope we can find a cute text message saying "I love you" in Esperanto. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I have already added all those abbreviations to RFV before, here they are. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

landverhuizerin

Very unusual form for Dutch, I have only found an attestion here. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

sipen

I believe this is unattested and should be moved to a reconstruction. Leasnam (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

rinkani

This looks like a misspelling of rikani. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@AugPi, you created this. If you can't find any evidence that it exists, please help us clean up by deleting all the inflected forms that got created. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Latin Aunes = Aunios

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Aunes is claimed to be the Medieval Latin equivalent of Aunios, found in Pliny. The listed declension makes no sense (genitive Auniī) and I can't find any attestations. I'm inclined to just delete it straight away as nonsense but would like to see if anyone can attest it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam Benwing2 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The heck, @Froaringus probably mistyped or something like that. First created as Aunis, then moved to Aunes, then the content to Aunios but not bringing it over to put a {{delete}} to Aunes. It’s a thing made up in his mind, sure. Fay Freak (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry with Aunis, it was a mistype and I later forgot about it. The correct form, present in local Medieval Latin charters (CODOLGA) is Aunes.--Froaringus (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Latin fars

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam I don't think this is a word. It was added Feb 2019 and isn't found in L+S or Gaffiot. Benwing2 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, but in parentheses because the nominative is not attested. It lists the following attestations:
<com>esa farte -- Plautus, fragmenta incerta 143;
(facetiously) non uestem amatores amant mulieri', sed uestis fartim -- Mostellaria 169
(figuratively) fartem (conjecture) facere ex hostibus -- Miles Gloriosus 8
Since these are all from Plautus, it should be categorized as Old Latin. --Lvovmauro (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lvovmauro Plautus isn't exactly considered Old Latin normally, but these attestations seem questionable, given their labeling as "conjecture" and "fragmenta incerta". fartim is a potentially separate adverb. Benwing2 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Plautus is Old Latin. [133] by the way mentions distinctions and different senses of "Old Latin". --Pitza Guy (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Stop this. As I have mentioned for example on Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/July § Vocative of nouns in -ēius and -ius Plautus is Old Latin in some sense, but what that “Old Latin” on Wiktionary is referring to is Latin even older than that. “Inscriptional Latin” that is old enough that you cannot easily understand it. Fay Freak (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
No. Plautus is Old Latin. That Wiktionary might misuse the term "Old Latin" in an arbitrary and self-defined way to mean something else doesn't change this fact. --Pitza Guy (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Latin oogenesis

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam This is undoubtedly a word in English and various other modern languages, but I see no evidence that this is a Latin word. Benwing2 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have found an example of its use in Latin (unsurprisingly, the source is modern, not ancient). The dissertation "De spermatosomatum evolutione in plagiostomis," August 1878, by Adolph von La Valette-St. George, contains the quote "Itaque spermatogenesin ab oogenesi gradu solum, non re, differre existimo..." (p. 6). Perhaps he coined the term, as his Wikipedia article says he was the first known user of various terms related related to gamete generation.--Urszag (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

weirdwife (Scots)

I can only attest this on Google Books as an English word. The plural seems wrong as well, I can only find results for "weirdwives". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Юштыс

Given name. — surjection?〉 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Latin escaio

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Yes, Niermeyer lists escaire as a byform of excadere (along with escadere, eschadere, excidere). But do we really want to include every random misspelling by a semi-illiterate Medieval writer in Wiktionary? Can it even pass CFI? I would rather remove this and if we want to include it at all, just list it as an alternative form of excadō. Benwing2 (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Can pass WT:CFI, if there's a durably archived usage. Or why shouldn't it? --Trangomaron (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

aerŝtono

Esperanto for "meteorite". There seems to be one result on Google Books, though I can't see the preview. Most websites seems to have mentions. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

katidaro

Esperanto, it seems that this occurs just once in a translation of Baron Munchausen. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A nickname for Kim Jong-un. 鑫胖 is used, but is used by itself to refer to Kim Jong-un? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

servile

Adverbs derived from second-class adjectives normally end in -iter (as in serviliter), not . Canonicalization (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

L&S: "Hence, adv., like a slave, slavishly, servilely. a servile: gemens, Claud. B. Gild. 364.", Georges: "Acc. neutr. poet. st. des Adv., servile gemens, Claud. b. Gild. 364." --Trangomaron (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Acc. neutr. poet.": so that would be servīlĕ with a short , not with the adverbial suffix . Also, L&S states that "Comp. and sup. of the adj. and adv. do not occur", yet Latisc added them. Canonicalization (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is the one adverbial use by Claudian, in De Bello Gildonico: servile gemens. The pitiful moans come from a captured lion, called a monstrum by the Emperor’s father-in-law relating a prophetic dream. Might it be that the neuter form servile is in agreement with the neuter noun monstrum?  --Lambiam 09:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Not answering your question, but having scanned the dactylic hexameter, I can confirm it's a short . Canonicalization (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

inovacio

No hits in Tekstaro. I have never seen this word before. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

antialunizaje

Spanish. I see tons of products with this word in the name but no usable cites. Ultimateria (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

[134], [135], [136], [137], [138].  --Lambiam 10:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

malbonavida

This was listed in a translation table for "malevolent," but I can only find a single instance of its use in literature, with nothing on soc.culture.esperanto either. So I've created both the entry and the RFV... פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Additionally I think if this can be verified, it'd make a good foreign word of the day, assuming it analyzes as mal/bon/avid/a, which I'm not even sure of. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
One would expect an adjective bonavida of which this is the negation, like malbonintenca is the negation of bonintenca.  --Lambiam 17:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily; I think it better analyzes as "avida de malbono". I suppose you could also speak of a person as "avida de bono", but it doesn't seem to have the same evocative effect. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Southwestern Tai/khaau

Request added by @Octahedron80. Pinging @Alifshinobi (the creator of the entry) as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This should be *qawᶜ (comparing to PT *C̬.qawᶜ) according to Pittayaporn's revised system (this word is not mentioned in the document however.) By the way, "kh" can be interpreted as *kʰ-, *x-, *q-, or *χ-. Thai ข้าว is only one that prolongs vowel.--Octahedron80 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to see the document, I have it here: [139] --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

sinvendisto

Esperanto for "prostitute". One durable cite in Beletra Almanako, but are there any others? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen it used in other works, and my googles aren't turning up any. It was probably a nonce euphemism. Feel free to delete it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

ondegoruptilo

"breakwater", Ido. Doesn't seem citable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

paserohuo

Ido for a certain pygmy owl. A pretty calque from German, but it looks like a dictionary-only word. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

bukeman

Volapük for "librarian". Bukem and bukemöp are citable, but this seemingly isn't. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

quater

Rfv-sense quăter , adv. num. quattuor, I.four times: “quater in anno pariunt,” Varr. R. R. 3, 10; Verg. A. 2, 242; Hor. S. 2, 3, 1.—With other numerals: “quater quinis minis,” Plaut. Ps. 1, 3, 111: “quater deni,” forty, Ov. M. 7, 293: “quater decies,” fourteen times, Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 39, § 100: “quater centies,” Vitr. 10, 14. —Freq. in phrase: ter et quater, ter aut quater, or terque quaterque, three and (or) four times, i. e. over and over again, often, extremely: “ter et quater Anno revisens aequor,” Hor. C. 1, 31, 13: “corvi presso ter gutture voces Aut quater ingeminant,” Verg. G. 1, 410: “terque quaterque solum scindendum,” id. ib. 2, 399: “terque quaterque beati,” id. A. 1, 94: “o mihi felicem terque quaterque diem,” Tib. 3, 3, 26. —This unsigned comment was added by 87.11.204.161 (talk) at 10:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

The gloss “often” seems to derive from idioms like the phrases you have mentioned. It can be used liberally in poetry as numbers often, and while it can be appropriate to translate such things with “dreimal und öfter” and the like, it is not appropriate to gloss it like that. quater means “four times” and not “many times”, period. “Four” does not mean “often”, nothing to argue here, I will delete that gloss it right away, well following it having RFV-sense tag since 1 June 2019‎, anyway. If somebody goes over to adding senses “many” to English numbers like “twenty” or “several” to “six” based on poetical expressions or contexts where the exact value is not relevant we would declare him insane. Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
We had an entry 77 times defined as “An unlimited number”, but the entry has been deleted, together with the history record revealing its insane creator.  --Lambiam 12:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it was an IP from Quincy College.  --Lambiam 12:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Latin odeō, odīre; podeō

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Claimed to be an alternative form of odiō; conjugated like . Is it real? Benwing2 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Also podeō. Benwing2 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2 I don't remember seeing anything like that the last time I researched the various forms of the former verb, or ever. The closest thing to other one seems to be this medieval macaronic form (also see podibat in the end of the article). Brutal Russian (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian Thanks. I will delete odeō. As for podeō, this is supposed to be a variant of pudeō rather than possum. BTW when you say "medieval macaronic form" are you referring to spellings like "aucturetate" (like in the podibat article you cited) for "auctoritate"? What happens if someone wants to add a spelling like this to Wiktionary? My instinct is not to include them, otherwise the categories could be overwhelmed with such variant spellings. I asked the same question earlier with regards to escaiō, a macaronic spelling of excido. For that entry, someone actually created a full paradigm escaiō, escaīre with a Classical pronunciation, which seems very bogus. Benwing2 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2 Yeah, it is indeed a different verb. Aucturetate is an actual Late Latin/Medieval spelling, this type of vowel confusion is absolutely ubiquotous in Gallia after the 4th century (basically random chance error rate) as well as elsewhere a bit later. Podibat on the other hand is precisely the same macaronic type as odiātus and escaio, a Romance form minimally adapted to Latin morphology. I did see your question, and it's more or less the same one I had asked in the above-mentioned discussion - it seems like people generally feel the same way, but can't quite decide to do something about it. In my opinion before we decide what to do with these forms, we should sort out what are actual (ante-/post-)Classical alternative forms that currently reside under Category:Latin_misspellings, as well as the one macaronic form there, and then also sort out the whole Vulgar Latin thing, which for the time being I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent exactly - seems like a general dump for anything non-standard regardless of period, style and attestation. Where would be the best place to ask what's the working definition of Vulgar Latin on this website, and why this notoriously undefinable and largely rejected term has been chosen? Brutal Russian (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian I think the best place to ask about Vulgar Latin would be the beer parlor. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian For me “Vulgar Latin” is about style, register. It is also the same question whether a term is literary Arabic or dialectal. I as others have also spoken of “Vulgar Turkish” in reference to the diglossia of the Ottoman Empire. Many terms for one idea. This works everywhere where one writes significantly differently from how one speaks on the basis of a Dachsprache tradition.
Another question is why we have duplicates like “Vulgar Latin” Reconstruction:Latin/werra together with Medieval Latin werra. That’s a bloody joke, it’s the same word, I opt for deleting it. It’s not even that the Latin is reborrowed from Romance in this case, but even in such a case I tend to believe that the duplication should be refused. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, see, your attempt to define it already highlights the problem to me, seeing as it combines references to style and register - aspects of one language -, as well as to diglossia - which is quite the opposite! Moreover, modern scholarship expressly rejects the notion of Latin diglossia, while a separate phonology and dedicated inflection templates for a certain style or register of the same language is something I've yet to see a precedent for, anywhere! To quote one of the best books to read on the topic, Social Variation and the Latin Language by J. N. Adams:
"Many have tried to give Vulgar Latin a precise meaning {...}, but it has continued to generate confusion. Lloyd (1979) identified thirteen meanings that have been assigned to the term (no doubt many others could be found: see Poccetti, Poli and Santini 2005: 25) {...} In recent decades the inadequacy of ‘Vulgar Latin’ has been increasingly felt with the advance of sociolinguistics as a discipline. Analyses of social variations across well-defined social or occupational groups in modern speech communities are bound to show up traditional concepts of Vulgar Latin, however the phrase might be defined, as hopelessly vague."
The word you're referring to seems to show that two different people had two different ideas about what constitutes Vulgar Latin, both of them probably likewise "hopelessly vague" :) Brutal Russian (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Latin ratihabeō

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Appears to exist only as a noun ratihabitiō. Benwing2 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Again you forget that Latin was used after antiquity. In this case it exists in legal writing of the Modern Age. Fay Freak (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Medieval, many instances in googelbooks. Brutal Russian (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

acidostomako

Ido, "abomasum". Nothing on Google Books. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

aerovortico

Ido for "whirlwind". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

aquomelono

Ido, "watermelon". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

korkoquerko

korko-querko

Ido for "cork oak". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

dɑnau

Supposedly a Bavarian noun - but not defined as one. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Part of speech was incorrect, but entry is properly attest. Bavarian is a WT:LDL and hence a single quote is enough to attest it and there is a quote. --Apauge (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The article Boarische Schreibweis (Bavarian Orthography) on the Bavarian Wikipedia does not show any uses of the symbol “ɑ”. It does state that there is no standard orthography and that in literary use no special symbols are used, but that “ɑ̃” is used – as one might expect for a nasalized vowel – in an orthography used in dictionaries and grammar books. (There is no hint that parentheses may have entered any orthography.)  --Lambiam 09:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. You misunderstood that article. "It does state ... that in literary use no special symbols are used" is not correct. bar.WP: "Fia d Boarische Schreibweis gibd's no koa Konvenzion. Af da oan Seitn gibd's de Schreibweisn fia de Dichtung und fian Oidog .., wo nua weng oda goa koane Sondazeichn vawendd wean, af da ondan Seitn Weatabiachl, Grammatikn und Sprochatlantn, wo moasd a Lautschreibung mid Sondazeichn gnuzd wead." That's: "... On the one side there are spellings used in poetry and for every day .., which use few or none special characters, ...". (Few or none is more than no special characters.)
  2. Even if the article would state that no special characters are used in literary use, it wouldn't matter as it's only WP and as it's obviously not correct. One example is given in dɑnau and there are many others.
  3. As for "There is no hint that parentheses may have entered any orthography.": That's obviously not correct. Krauß' and Dümml's orthography uses it and is an orthography. It's not a standard orthography, but that doesn't matter as there is no Bavarian standard orthography and not a single Bavarian dialect, but many different subdialects.
And again: Bavarian is a WT:LDL, hence a single quote is enough (WT:CFI, WT:LDL), hence both terms (dɑnau & Aɑ(n)schei(n)) are properly attested. --Agaupe (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Latin stanticus

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Lambiam): Can this be verified as a real (not reconstructed) word? The link here [140] says it should be starred. Benwing2 (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. A typical @Word dewd544 error. Creating an obscure form to list Romance descendants, or even adding reconstructed forms to the mainspace, and conversely starring forms that should not be starred. And mystifying the etymology by a “probably”; but that’s probably because the meaning ascribed to this inventend word is also wrong, he is not good at distilling senses – I would rather gloss something like “crass, left-handed”, “schwerfällig”. Apart from that the descendant list lacks English staunch. Whereas the comparison with Spanish estante at English staunch and English staunch at Spanish estante is wrong. These omnium-gatherum cognate lists are becoming vexatious. Fay Freak (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

????????

This is the one to be deleted; it is mostly attested as ???????? i-ti, however it can theoretically be written ???????????? i-i-ti, perhaps this was the original intention of this entry. It is often common practice in Luwian to write out all long vowels with additional signs, such as a-an-ta for ānta meaning to go into, doubled even in the front of words as is seen here. -Profes.I. (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

????????

This one can be verified via the Luwian Corpus; http://web-corpora.net/LuwianCorpus/search/ -Profes.I. (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

sløv padde

Defined as a verb. Looks like a noun phrase to me. "En" seems to be not needed. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on uses, I think it is used as much for an apathetic or dull person as for a lazybones. Our noun lump, sense 4, covers both.  --Lambiam 12:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Can confirm that en is just an article; I've moved accordingly, and changed from "phrase" to "noun". I also observe that padde is an epithet in itself, also in Norwegian, although it looks like that refers more to stupidity than laziness or apathy:
    • 1983, Jens Bjørneboe, Samlede skuespill
      Jesus-Maria for en samling av idioter! Herregud, beskytt dem! For en idiot jeg har giftet meg med! Din padde! Ditt fjols! Å Gud i himmelen, hvis de tar deg nu! Hører du?! Din åndssvake gamle hankatt! Herre Jesus, ta vare på ham! Idiot!
    • 1945, Øivind Bolstad, De gylne lenker: roman
      Jeg skal bakkerekordere deg jeg, skrek Gunnar, og veltet ham over ende mens han sopte snø ned gjennom halsen hans, – tror du ikke jeg kan sette en ny om det så er stappende mørkt? Har du noe å si, din padde?

pordo-butono

Ido for "doorknob". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

krucovoyo

kruco-voyo

Ido for "crossroad, crossway". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

estancele

Not in Le Trésor, which only has estencele as ancestor of French étincelle. Godefroy has estancele, but with a completely different sense.  --Lambiam 01:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

殿

Rfv-sense: Alternative form of 臀 (tún, “buttocks”). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In Japanese 中殿筋 is a synonym of 中臀筋. I don’t know if a similar equivalence can be found in Chinese, although I see Google hits for 殿中肌 (e.g. here, where it appears to refer to the gluteus medius).  --Lambiam 00:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

stormpoolen

Dutch. A hot word that doesn't seem to have persisted beyond mentions. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

bloempot

Dutch, RFV-sense of "A (flowering) plant in such a pot [a flowerpot]", labelled as a metonym. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

កូនក្អុក

Request for verification: "tadpole". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I found ក្អុក (kʾok) that already means tadpole (and also a kind of fish). Does it need to prepend កូន (koun)? If not, the entry should be renamed to ក្អុក. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

កូនពៀក

Request for verification: "tadpole". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

اپاختر

Persian: Tagged by Emascandam (talkcontribs) --Mélange a trois (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This looks more like the MP form of باختر(bâxtar). --{{victar|talk}} 04:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

آب‌راه

Persian: Tagged by Emascandam (talkcontribs) --Mélange a trois (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Added source. --{{victar|talk}} 04:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Rfv-sense

厼 (eumhun 금) It is the borrowed notation(借字表記 / 차자표기), which was veryfied in some references. (1984, P. Nam, “차자표기법 연구”(借字表記法 硏究), Dankook University Publish, published 1984.)Reference

是去有良。이거이신아。 attested in the Jeonyul Tongbo (典律通補 / 전율통보), 1786. Reference

--Meoru00 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

椰菜

Rfv-sense: "iceberg lettuce" and "broccoli". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "A meaningless participle." What on earth is this supposed to mean? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I think the IP meant to write "a meaningless particle", but it probably isn't right. It's more like a prefix used in pronouns for emphasis, e.g. 兀那, 兀誰. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for "fuck" specifically with first tone, as opposed to the usual fourth tone. Added by @TsukiRansei. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Closed, this editor has made problematic edits in the past. —Suzukaze-c 03:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

&c

The missing dot looks like a New English mistake. --Tybete (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There are two pointless occurrences in the caption of this portrait of Queen Charlotte, c.1761–1766; the third “&c” is followed by a dot, but this is more likely the full stop at the end of a complete phrase. Two more in the title of this book from 1814, and three more in the title of this book from 1863.  --Lambiam 11:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Picture: It looks like "&c,&c, &c ." and could also be explained by "&c.," becoming "&c,". Anyway, all three examples are New English which isn't RFVed and not Middle English. --Tybete (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I guess I do not get what you mean by “a New English mistake”.  --Lambiam 11:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The link in the header of this thread points to the Middle English section, so I assume that it's the dotless Middle English form, not the modern English (= "New English") form that's being questioned. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Should RFV's for Middle English be in RFV:Non-English? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
--Tybete (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ハ行転呼

See also Talk:ハ行転呼音

The basis was probably only a single Wikipedia article. There are no entries in the Kotobank search results for 転呼 (tenko) or ハ行転呼 (ha-gyō tenko) themselves; but the longer form 転呼音 (tenkoon) and ハ行転呼音 (ha-gyō tenkoon) do have their own entries. ~ POKéTalker) 08:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep. This is an important Japanese linguistic term to which WT:SOP may not apply. Similar cases in English include Great Vowel Shift. The existence of this term can be verified in Google search results and should not be judged by any other online dictionary. However, I do find that its definition was inaccurate and tried improving it, but it is still far from being perfect. --H2NCH2COOH (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
What you describe sounds much more encyclopedic than lexicographic. As a term, this is clearly ハ行 (ha-gyō, literally “'ha' row”, in reference to the kana in that row, or to the sounds so represented) + 転呼 (tenko, sound shift). There are various kinds of 転呼 (tenko), of which this specific ハ行 (ha-gyō) shift is only one. See also the JA WP article at ja:w:転呼. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
To clarify my position: delete as SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I might notify that ハ行転呼 refers to the historical shift of ハ行 from /f/ to /w/, not just an unspecified one. ᾨδή (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ᾨδή: Apologies if I was unclear. I'm aware of what ハ行転呼 is. My point is that there are multiple kinds of 転呼, such as the ゑふ (ancient wepu) → よう (modern you) historical shift seen in the verb 酔う (you, to become intoxicated; to feel sick), and the ハ行転呼 is one specific variety of 転呼. My argument is not that ハ行転呼 does not exist. My argument is that, while ハ行転呼 does exist as a concept, it is a subject for an encyclopedia article, rather than an integral lexical item that belongs in a dictionary.
I am open to being convinced otherwise. At present, no one has sufficiently addressed the apparent WT:SOP-ness of "ハ行転呼". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this word is basically as WT:SOP as Hundred Years' War = hundred + year + war or 仮定形 = 仮定 + 形. ᾨδή (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ᾨδή: The SOP test is, is it idiomatic?
I posit that we can tell most of what ハ行転呼 is simply from the constituent parts: it is a 転呼 that has to do with the ハ行. If we know what a 転呼 is, and what a ハ行 is, then we know the basics of this combination: there isn't any additional idiomatically derived meaning that is not obvious from its constituent terms.
Meanwhile, although there is only one unambiguous sense for ハ行, "hundred years" is an ambiguous reference to any hundred years. If we look at Hundred Years' War, we recognize that this is idiomatically used to refer to a specific thing, and that specific meaning is not derivable from its constituent terms.
Also, both ハ行 and 転呼 are independent terms, unlike the 形 suffix in 仮定形.
Ultimately, I cannot see anything in this combined ハ行転呼 that isn't SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
An even older sound shift of ハ行 from /p/ to /f/ is not included in ハ行転呼 but called 唇音退化, which can not be deduced from the SOP of ハ行転呼.
As for the encyclopedia stuff, I think this is the real question deserving notice. In fact many Japanese linguistic term entries have more or less become entries of a linguistic encyclopedia. Japanese inflection templates have links directed to entries like 未然形, which means the template writer had expected the entries to explain "what 未然形 is" (encyclopedia), rather than "how the term 未然形 is used" (dictionary). Even User:H2NCH2COOH above wanted to furthur improve the entry, by which I believe he meant more encyclopedic contents. With all this kind of practice around, I may have mistaken this as the norm here. ᾨδή (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ᾨδή:
Re: the /p//f/ shift, that is not 転呼. 転呼 is a specific kind of sound shift, where a given kana takes on an irregular reading. Since the /p//f/ shift was regular, where all the /p/ sounds simply lenited into /f/ sounds, none of the relevant ハ行 kana underwent any irregular changes, so it's not 転呼. Meanwhile, as seen in the 1603 Nippo Jisho entries and still recorded as historical kana usage, spellings like たう that were sometimes read as /tɔː/ in 1603 or as /toː/ in the modern language, instead of the expected /tau/, would be examples of 転呼: literally, a kind of 転 "shifted" 呼 "calling" or "reading", where the reading is shifted from what would normally be expected. Another case is the modern practice of reading (ha) as /ha/ in most cases, but as /wa/ when used as the topic particle. Likewise for (he) read as /he/ in most cases, but as /e/ when used as the directional particle. These two are examples of an irregular shift that is both 転呼 in general and ハ行転呼 in specific (since these kana are two of the ハ行 kana). See also w:ja:転呼 for additional examples.
Re: 未然形 (mizenkei, the irrealis or incomplete form, a conjugation form for Japanese verb stems), the 形 portion is a suffix and not an independent word, so 未然形 cannot be SOP. There's also a difference between saying "what 未然形 is" in lexicographic terms -- supplying a definition -- and saying "what 未然形 is" in encyclopedic terms -- going into the history of the concept, presenting different academic views, analyzing how the form has evolved over time. Wiktionary entries should provide definitions. Sometimes a word expresses concept that is complicated enough that a complicated definition is required. However, going much beyond that definition would indeed be material for an encyclopedic entry, and, arguably, some of the usage notes content currently in the 未然形 entry should be moved. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
As you have stated, the modern and is not included in ハ行転呼, which can not be deduced from the SOP of ハ行転呼. ᾨδή (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Also "可能動詞 = 可能 + 動詞", thematic vowel = thematic + vowel. ᾨδή (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Also, not all ハ行-involved 転呼 are ハ行転呼. 這(は)ふ這(は)ふ (hafuhafu) is not, or at least not entirely ハ行転呼, although all of はふはふ are ハ行. (へう) (heu), ハ行-involved, but not ハ行転呼. These also can not be deduced from the SOP of ハ行転呼. Also ᾨδή (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ᾨδή, re: ハ行転呼, apologies, I'd gotten my wires crossed and lost sight of the forest for the trees. I revise my view, and recognize the specificity of ハ行転呼 in reference not just to any 転呼 of the ハ行, but to the specific Heian-era shift in word-medial ハ行 sounds from /f/ to /w/. This is therefore idiomatic in a manner similar to Hundred Years' War, and not SOP, and I hereby strike my "delete" comment above, and instead say keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your understanding. But... perhaps I think apologizing for a mere difference of ideas might sound a bit too serious... ᾨδή (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Being misunderstood is seldom a fun experience, and I recognize too that this thread represents a commitment in terms of time and energy. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

baidefeis

Real Spanish? Yes. Have I seen it before? Yes. Have I considered adding this term to WT before? Yes. Is it jocular? Yes. Is the etymology interesting? Yes, it's a Spanishized pseudo-English calque of por la cara. Does it appear in durably archived media? Not at first glance, but I'm sure with a bit of digging it might be. --Vealhurl (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It is used here as the title of a news category; I am not certain that enredando.info counts as permanently recorded media. A book use: [141]. Another one: [142], but there it seems used as part of a proper noun (Baidefeis card), which may not count.  --Lambiam 05:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

lah

I can't seem to find a source anywhere that backs this entry up Leasnam (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

earliest attest I can locate is from 1175, Þær wass an bennkinnge lah in the Ormulum. Have we ever considered dates after 1150 as Old English ? Leasnam (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Re-L2 as Middle English?  --Lambiam 09:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes Leasnam (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Old French plaigne and descendants

This is claimed to mean "plain" (flat expanse of land), which is misspelled "plane" in the entry. It appears the correct word is either plain or plaine. This is *maybe* an Anglo-Norman word; http://www.anglo-norman.net/gate/ has "plaingne" in this meaning among many other variants, which is similar to "plaigne". The form "plaigne" is also given in this dictionary as the first feminine form of "plein" "full". The English descendants "plain" and "plane" are claimed for this word, which doesn't agree with the etymologies listed for those words. BTW how would the gn sneak into this word? Maybe a non-attested VL *plānea? But then how does the feminine of "plein" end up as "plaigne"? @Fay Freak, Lambiam, any ideas? Benwing2 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The term occurs in the Vulgate Lancelot, in some mss. twice (see the footnote on p.329). I have no theory on the origin of the intrusive g, but note that Romansch plagn shows that nasalization of [n] can apparently also take place without high vowel following the n.  --Lambiam 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

蝨仔

蝨子 is usually called 蝨乸 in Cantonese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

三枚目

Does this word have the sense "antagonist; villain"? Such a usage is not found on Google. ᾨδή (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr ᾨδή (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@ᾨδή: I based that on my local copy of the KDJ, which is the most in-depth dictionary that I'm aware of and that I have access to. That 三枚目 entry has the following definition (emphasis mine):

演劇、映画などで道化役や敵役(かたきやく)をする者。

Checking elsewhere, I see that the Sekai Dai Hyakka Jiten entry over here on Kotobank adds a little more detail:

... 滑稽な敵役を〈三枚目敵(さんまいめがたき)〉と呼ぶ。

So not just an antagonist, but specifically a comic antagonist. That said, the Zokugo Dai Jiten entry here on Weblio keeps the "comic" and "antagonist" role senses separate:

① 第(だい)三流所(りうどころ)の意から転じて、敵役(かたきやく)とか道化役者(だうけやくしや)のことをいふ。〔歌舞伎〕

...

③〔演〕敵役、又は道化役者のこと。

The "antagonist" sense might be dated or historical rather than current, I have no particular data on that. @TAKASUGI Shinji might have more insight. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I can see the second link give its source as 隠語大辞典, wherein interestingly it even has a meaning "屋根を破る窃盗犯". It sounds like an argot or something, as means 隠語. I guess this sense must have been of very limited usage and even native Japanese people may not have ever heard of it. I suggest leaving this sense out when writing a short definition in sections like "See also". ᾨδή (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I personally didn’t know the “antagonist” sense. That must be obsolete and probably rare. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji:, that sense already has labels for "dated" and "uncommon". Should that be changed? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have never seen it and it may be rather “rare” than “uncommon”. We need some citations. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

poster (Dutch)

Etymology 1, "one who sets out posts, such as sentinels". I'm not sure what it means, so I reckon that makes the definition a shitpost. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a Dutch word wachtpost, which according to the Dutch Wiktionary can mean “person keeping watch”. I guess post can be used in Dutch as a shortening of wachtpost. I suspect that the editor who added this was Dutch-speaking. See sense 2 of the verb posten, added by the same editor. If that sense 2 exists, poster would be the standard corresponding agent noun – which does not imply the term is in actual use in this sense. (If used, the pronunciation will not be the same as for the homographs borrowed from English.)  --Lambiam 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Verbo is a Dutch speaker. There seems to be a specific sense, included by the WNT, for a trade union member who tries to deter strikebreakers. [143] [144] [145] I doubt that a more broad sense ever existed, there doesn't seem to have been any word poster in Dutch until the trade union movement coined that one. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Zoeloe

Dutch, RFV-sense of "primitive person, savage". If this is attestable it probably is the kind of verbal fireworks that needs some context labels, but the definition was added by Verbo, someone whose instincts on both lexicography and 'race relations' I strongly distrust. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

解放

Rfv-sense of the three Mainland proper noun historiographic senses. Are they really all used on their own, and as proper nouns? @Tooironic, Justinrleung. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Could you, erm, provide some evidence? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

llegarle

Rfv-sense, "Mexico: to go away". Added by a dubious editor. Ultimateria (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Igbo third-person pronoun, but capitalized. Seems dubious. There's a fuller entry at . — Eru·tuon 08:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I see a few uses that are not sentence-initial (only in search snippets; web pages fail to display), but they are in Bible texts and seem to refer to the Judeo-Christian God. We do have He as an {{honor alt case|en|he|nocap=1}} Capitalized “ọ” may be attestable with the analogous sense in Igbo. The current definition is obviously inconsistent with the headword line.  --Lambiam 09:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

adstutia

I'm not sure what's going on with this entry. In Latin, the consonant cluster dst only occurs in morphologically complex words that contain the prepositional prefix ad-. However, there is no base word stutia or stutus for a prefixed word "ad-stutia" to be built on. A prefixed word like "adstutia" would be expected to have the alternative form astutia, with elision of the d; compare astrictiō and adstrictiō. There is a Latin word astūtia, but it does not seem to contain the prefix ad-: it is from the adjective astūtus, from astus, whose etymology is a little unclear. The spelling adstutia could have arisen by analogy with words that did start with the prefix ad-, but I can't find that form actually listed in any reliable dictionary entry for astutia. The meaning is also slightly different ("adstutia" supposedly means "diplomacy", while "astūtia" is more like "cunning"). Can anyone confirm whether "adstutia" exists as anything other than a misspelling of astūtia?--Urszag (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A few occurrences in Late Latin: [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]. I am not sure how to place this, but it seems to arise from a false splitting. But why the effort to throw in an extra d? A pedantic way of showing off? I have not looked at the senses of these uses.  --Lambiam 21:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

sp.

Translingual really? --Vealhurl (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe similar to ssp., subsp., cf. Brassica rapa subsp. narinosa. [151], [152] have "spec. nova", "sp. nova", "sp. nov." (mentionings and not usages?), and [153] mentions sp./spp. (specis, sg./pl.), sp. aff. (species affinis, species related to), sp. nov. (species nova, new species). --Marontyan (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Cited in multiple languages. -Mike (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

All terms in Category:Latin first declension adjectives

RFV for any neuter form. Instead of "masculine and neuter forms identical to feminine forms" it might be "masculine forms identical to feminine forms; neuter forms not attested". --Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly attested uses of some such adjectives with neuter nouns in some case/number combinations, although it's not commonly seen. I discussed this type of adjective on Benwing's talk page, where Benwing brought up the application of the adjective to the neuter noun vinum (Benwing gave the form vīnum aliēnigena, while Lewis & Short gives a quote for the same phrase in the ablative: "“vino alienigenā utere,” Gell. 2, 24"). Similarly, the L&S entry for indigena gives a citation for its use with the form vinum. I said on the other page that I don't know of any examples of a first-declension form being used for a neuter in the plural, and I am quite suspicious of the neuter plural nominative/accusative forms in "-ae" that we currently display. Many such adjectives seem to have had collateral second-declension forms.--Urszag (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
There is also vinus m - might that occur in "vino alienigenā"? --Marontyan (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I just checked the Pliny citation that I mentioned in my last post, and it looks like it is actually ablative as well: "de indigena vino". So you're correct that these forms are not distinctively neuter as opposed to masculine, although I don't believe either of these authors ever uses the masculine nominative form "vinus". I will look for examples of the nominative singular in Classical sources (it's fairly easy to find a few post-Classical examples just by Googling the phrases mentioned above).--Urszag (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
A much-mentioned example seems to be the use of ruricola to modify aratrum, in Ovid, but in this case as well the actual attested form doesn't seem to be nominative or accusative: the verse is given as "Tempore ruricolae patiens fit taurus aratri", with the genitive singular.--Urszag (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Another update. The post-classical examples that I mentioned seem to mostly be dictionaries, which are not so great I think as examples of usage. But in any case, here is one concrete example of "indigena" used with an unambiguously neuter noun: "Landwein: vinum indigena, vinum in ipsa terra natum: vinum vernaculum", page 1402 in Ausführliches und möglichst vollständiges deutsch-lateinisches Lexicon oder Worterbuch zur Übung in der lateinischen Sprache, by Immanuel Johann Gerhard Scheller, 1789. Because of the pedagogical tradition of classifying such adjectives as common gender, there seems to be a fairly firmly established idea in taxonomic circles that forms ending in -cola can be used in the nominative as neuter adjectives (these two blog posts reference that idea: https://diaphanus.livejournal.com/1658229.html, https://interretialia.tumblr.com/post/120246141998/atmidolum) so I'd imagine taxonomic examples can be found, but that runs into the issue that you've talked about in your other RFVs.--Urszag (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Are these even really adjectives, and not simply attributive nouns? --Lvovmauro (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Is "attributive" the term you're looking for, or did you mean to say "appositive" instead? Adjectives and appositive nouns are formally distinguished in Latin in certain contexts by the fact that appositive nouns could be of a different gender from the head noun; e.g. "flumen Tiberim". But aside from that, adjectives and appositive nouns tend to behave similarly. So despite the existence of this distinction, there were some doubtful or variable cases. Madvig, transl. Woods 1870 mentions the case of adjectival neuter plural forms victricia and ultricia derived from originally appositive victor/victrix and ultor/ultrix. It seems that compilers of other Latin dictionaries have generally been of the opinion that the use of indigena and alienigena in the quotations above was adjectival.--Urszag (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

anno lucis

  1. First sense seems to be no sense but just a literal translation
  2. The English reference has this: "ANNO LUCIS   Latin, meaning in the Year of Light; abbreviated A.'. L.'. The date used in ancient Craft Freemasonry; found by adding 4000 to the Vulgar Era ; thus, 1930+ 4000 = 5930." The entry has 6000 instead of 4000.
  3. It's no adjective but a phrase consistng of two noun forms.

--Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

uno ab alto

Just a literal translation and no sense, and only 5 English google books results for "Uno Ab Alto". --Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The supposed motto does not mean what it is supposed to mean (based on the google books results). Whatever Latin uno ab alto means, it is not “one over all”; that would be something like “ūnus/ūna/ūnum super omnēs”. So this looks like dog Latin, but we have no categories for that language. Viewed as hopeful Latin, it is certainly not an adjective. In any case, this does not belong under an L2 “Latin”. Delete.  --Lambiam 19:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It can be English dog Latin, which goes under an L2 "English" header (uno ab alto). --Marontyan (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

melas

  1. Entry is wrong (WT:ELE: "Derived terms   [...] in the same language [...]")
  2. The note seems to be nonsense like the one once in ruderalis (diff) as it doesn't seem to apply to Latin, but to translingual nonsense.
  3. The Late Latin is a mentioning (of a Greek term although in transliteration) and no usage

--Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It is obviously used in taxonomic names, four of which appear as derived terms. DCDuring (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
We have had repeated inconclusive discussions about whether such terms should appear under Translingual or Latin L2 headers. Some of them have been used in scientific Latin running text, but attestation is difficult. DCDuring (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
As a Latin term, it needs Latin usages. If not used in Latin, it isn't Latin, see WT:CFI, Talk:albifrons. --Marontyan (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

dendrobatidis

The term looks like a noun in the genitive and not like an adjective, and the note hints that this term doesn't exist in Latin. --Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Not even the term acrobates exists in Latin, except in Neo-Latin as Acrobates, a genus name, like Dendrobates. It is anybody’s guess how acrobates would have been declined, had the Ancient Romans known the word and not declined to decline it, but acrobatidis is most unlikely, as there is no d in the stem; analogously, dendrobatidis does not look like a Latin case form of dendrobates. The Ancient Greek genitive of the etymon of acrobat was ἀκροβάτου (akrobátou), but Latin loans from Greek did not in general copy the Greek declension paradigm (e.g. Ancient Greek ἀθλητής (athlētḗs)ἀθλητοῦ (athlētoû) was borrowed as āthlētaāthlētae). To me “Dendrobatidis” sounds like a Modern Greek family name, like Apostolidis or Tsakalidis.  --Lambiam 18:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The -id- in dendrobatidis is presumably related to the Greek patronymic suffix that is the source of the taxonomic termination -idae. However, I don't know why or how the -is got there. If if is a genitive singular form, as Marontyan speculated, it would be consistent with a third-declension d-stem dendrobatis, but the ending -is -idis (Greek -ις -ιδος) seems to be used specifically for feminine patronymics.--Urszag (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, one of the authors uploaded the article where the name Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis was first used to academia.edu ("Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis gen. et sp. nov., a chytrid pathogenic to amphibians"), but it doesn't have any helpful explanation of the formation. It simply says that dendrobatidis is "from 'Dendrobates'".--Urszag (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The genitive of the name of a host organism is commonly used for the specific epithet for a small organism that lives on or in the host for at least some part of its life cycle. I guess that the 'idis' ending might be based of treating the '-bates' ending as if it were '-batis': βατίς ("skate"), βατίδος. In any event, mistake or not, we would need just one more taxonomic name to pass RfV. DCDuring (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I found a third species with the epithet. Result, one fungus species, two chromists. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
No, as a Latin term it does not need 3 species names, but 1 Latin usage, see WT:CFI, Talk:albifrons. --Marontyan (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

appa

I cannot find this word in the sense of 'father', formal or hypocoristic, in my dictionaries, nor in Pokorny's IEW, where it would have been a welcome reinforcement to the claim of a PIE *appa 'daddy'. -- RichardW57 (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

berjero

berloko

bavadar

bavadanto

bavadinto

bavadonto

boltagar

desboltagar

cementagar

chitinoza

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

ie

Doesn't look Latin (BTW from the same author: diff). --Marontyan (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

virginibus puerisque

As Citations:virginibus puerisque is not Latin but English. --Marontyan (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Besides the language issue, I think the definition is wrong. In the citation there and others I can find, it seems to be used in the literal sense of "to/for girls and boys". It seems more like code-switching than an English phrase, albeit a form of code-switching conventionalized among English speakers? --Lvovmauro (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As a Latin entry, it's clearly SOP, so if it's to be kept at all, it can only be kept as an English entry. I think "suitable for children" would be a good definition, but we do need more cites than just the one that's there. Some people don't like it when foreign terms are italicized as that indicates that the term hasn't really been assimilated into English yet. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Old Prussian lemmas

For everything spelled with a macron (e.g. Dēiwas/Dēiws, piēncts) as it looks like reconstruction, neo-Old Prussian. See also: User talk:Beobach972#Old Prussian. --Trothmuse (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've wondered about our Old Prussian coverage as well, but I'm not sure anyone active here knows enough about the language and its corpus to dare to speak up about it or to be able to answer this rfv satisfactorily. I really am not sure what is to be done; if I had the leisure time right now to research this all on my own I would, but I don't. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe they are. I know that Old Prussian has long vowels, furthermore the Elbing vocabulary, the one online, provides, I think, a reconstruction of words phonetically. The examples above are strange given the other Baltic languages don't have a ē in Lithuanian diẽvas and Latvian dìevs. From what I know, Old Prussian had no phonological development that caused stressed vowels to lengthen, only the opposite, that unstressed long vowels were reduced to simple vowels. ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RFV for the following:

  • azzaran: EGPV "See   Assaran", see assaran
  • ballo: EGPV "Stirne   Batto"
  • dags: see EGPV in dagis
  • irma: EGPV "Arm   Irmo", TLP "irmo, Arm, Oberarm", see irmo
  • kams: EGPV "Bene   Bitte" & "Hu͡mele   Camus", TLP "camus, Hummel, [..] Voc. 788."
  • naguttis: EGPV "Nagel   Nagutis", TLP "nagutis, Nagel am Finger"
  • pazzuls: EGPV "Nacke   Passoles", TLP "pa-ssoles, (pl.?), Nacken"
  • salts: "(manuscript forms:) salta" sounds like "salts" is a non-manuscript form, i.e. a reconstruction. TLP "salta, kalt", WBdSG "kalt   Salta"
  • sirablas: EGPV "Silber   Siraplis" - only attested as acc. sirablan, cp. TLP?
  • skals: EGPV "Kinne   Scalus", TLP "scalus, Kinn"
  • sunnis: EGPV "Hunt   Sunis", TLP "sunis, Hund", WBdSG "Hundt   Songos"
  • swerreps: EPGV "Keynhe͡gest   Sweriapis", TLP "sweriapis (keynhengest) Voc. 431. ist nunmehr wohl hinreichend klar gelegt als Zuchthengst, Beschäler; es ist das Masc., welches den Femininis poln. [..], böhm. swerzepice, Stute, entspricht; [...] niederrhein. kîen, beschälen [...]"
  • August, Daggis, Rags: not in EGPV, TLP, WBdSG.

EGPV = Elbing German-Prussian Vocabulary (by G. H. F. Nesselmann, online with reconstructions); TLP = Thesaurus linguae prussicae (etc.) by G. H. F. Nesselmann; WBdSG = Wörterbuch des Simon Grunau.
BTW RFC for undan and unds, see the comment in unds and in the source of wundan. TLP "wundan, Wasser, Voc. 59., wunda, Gr., vgl. und-s" and "und-s, nom., undan, acc. undas, gen. sg., undans, acc. pl., Wasser; Ench. [..]; wundan, Voc., wunda, Gr. s. dd." --Trothmuse (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Trothmuse: Most of the RFV pressed forthward don't match with the given phonetic reconstruction, so I would say delete. I cound't access the TLP so I can't check those; I have my doubts about WBdSG since it gives a diferent picture from EGPV, two examples are TLP Old Prussian maiʃta (town) and EGPV Old Prussian mēstan (town), and TLP Old Prussian kayme (village) and EGPV (Caymis) Old Prussian *kaimis (village).
If salts isn't attested then it should be deleted; yet an adjective ending with "-a" isn't normal, if the word occurs in a text then it could be the nominative feminine singular, if not then it's either a noun, a adjective given in the feminine nominative or something I'm not quite seeing.
I guess the real intetion of "masculine singular" was "singular nominative". The EGPV (v)undan maybe be because of the different forms attested in different sources, so we have Old Prussian wunda (water) in TLP, while the Enchiridion has Old Prussian unds (water).
One major thing, that I forget to mention, is that Old Prussian, in the Enchiridion, had stress vowels marked by a macron. Therefore if Old Prussian Dēiwas/Dēiws are from the Enchiridion then it's possible that the correct form is Old Prussian Déiwas/Déiws, as in diphthongs the macron served to represented the stressed vowel instead of a real long vowel. Another rule, altough not entirely agreed upon, is that vowels after conants are themselves stressed. ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
EGPV has wundan (Wasser), caymis (Dorf), mestan (Stat). (v)undan, mēstan are not in EGPV but reconstructions (by V. Mažiulis, added in that online version of EPGV).
Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.) quotes Grunau too (and adds some remarks in brackets and sometimes mentions Hartknoch's forms), but has another text than the WBdSG. Nesselmann's Grunau has Dewus (Goth), Maysta (Stadt), Cayme (Dorff), Wunda (wassere), Songos (hundt) and not Dewes, Maiʃta [= Maiſta, Maista], kayme, Songos, Wunda as in the WBdSG (or Devus, Maiſta, Caymo, Sangor, Wunda as in Hartknoch's). Nesselmann's TLP (here at another source) has "deywis Voc. 1., dewus Gr." and no Dewes/dewes (or Devus/devus). [154] mentions the existence of at least two manuscript versions of Grunau's ("Göttinger Handschrift", "Königsberger Handschrift") - the Göttinger version probably being unknown to Nesselmann.
Enchiridion (original, Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.), Die drei catechismen in altpreussischer Sprache (etc.), Trautmann's Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler (etc.)) has tilde in original Fraktur, macron in Antiqua editions. In it, it is (ignoring long s): Deiws/Deiwas (Deiwan, Deiwans) without diacritic, piēncts (other numerals are: pirmois, antars, tīrts, kettwirts, uschts,septmas, asmus, newīnts, dessīmts). That makes the original RFV for all terms with macron obsolete, as for example piēncts is properly attested.
Also RFV for the following terms with macron:
  • Dēiwas/Dēiws & dēiwas/dēiws
  • wisasīdis: EGPV "Dinstag   Wissaseydis", TLP "wissa-seydis, Dienstag, Voc. 19"
  • Janwārs, Februārs, Mārts: not in EGPV, TLP, WBdSG.
--Trothmuse (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Right, I normally use the reconstruction by V. Mažiulis instead of the original wording.
Sorry I mistaken the TLP with WBdSG, in my comment above where it say "TLP" I meant "WBdSG". In any case, from what I can tell they share similar roots, but not the endings, which IMO can be verified by checking them with the other Baltic languages.
If that’s the case then they should be deleted.
I haven't been able to verify all of them but for now I haven't found Mārts; kams is probably a reconstruction of "camus". ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

marburgensis

While possible, I only found Marburgensis and this non-Latin example with marburgensis: [155]. --Marontyan (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have found several taxonomic names that include marburgensis as a specific epithet. Whether we call the entry Latin or Translingual is a matter for those of a more legalistic mind than mine. We have never resolved this in general. DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No Latin cites were provided, hence the Latin term is still unattested.
  • As species names get entries under a "Translingual" L2-header, WT:Entry layout#Derived terms ("in the same language") is violated.
  • The following speaks for itself:
    • WT:CFI: "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning". (Of course a term of a language must be attested in said language - French usages of the pseudo-anglicism foot m (football) don't attest an English a term.)
    • Talk:albifrons: "Sense deleted and replaced with a translingual sense."
    • Talk:iroquoianus: "Moved to iroquoiana." (linking to a "Translingual" section).
--Marontyan (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If you would like to convert all specific epithets from Latin to Translingual, please take the matter to the Beer Parlor. Perhps you can also recruit someone to automate the change process and create appropriate inflection tables for those that have been used in scientific Latin running text, eg, species descriptions. DCDuring (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Here I'm only asking for attestation of Latin marburgensis, not more and not less. A Church Latin or Latin taxonomic usage could attest it, but dog Latin, pseudo-Latin or other non-Latin occurences don't. Compare: Talk:albifrons, Talk:iroquoianus.
Just by the way:
  • Many occurences of taxonomic terms are just mentionings and not usages, and mentionings (usally) aren't enough as for WT:CFI. Examples of mentionings are in Bimana, Brassica rapa subsp. narinosa.
  • Even if marburgensis is attested in Latin taxonomics, it might be better not to have an entry for it, and instead put it like this: Translingual species name from Translingual genus name + Latin Marburgensis.
--Marontyan (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

vēnus

According to dictionaries it isn't attested:

  • L&S: "vēnus, ūs, m., or vēnum (vaen-), i, n. (occurring only in the forms venui, veno, and venum) [...]"
  • Georges: "vēnus, ūs u. ī, m. [...] nur im Dat. u. Acc. vorkommend [...]"

Hence it's *vēnus, or vēnum (defective). --Marontyan (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Bourbon virus

It's English, and for example in German in would be ungrammatical. --Marontyan (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a translingual proper noun. Its validity in such use is sanctioned by the ICTV. Is San Francisco also ungrammatical in German in your opinion?
Do you doubt that one can find three citations of use of the term in works not written in Engliah? DCDuring (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This German textbook goes so far as to incorporate Bourbon virus into a German compound word. DCDuring (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That it is translingual, it questioned and needs to be attested. The provided citations are English as is the ICTV page. "international" (as in "International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses") doesn't mean translingual.
That German work has Bourbon-Virus which is grammatically correct and not Bourbon virus. --Marontyan (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The translation of translingual Bourbon virus into Persian is ویروس بوربن‎ (virus burbon). The fact that such translations exists does not invalidate the translingual quality of scientific viral species nomenclature, one possible objection being that the official ICTV Master Species List has not yet been updated since the discovery of this species, so theoretically another name may be assigned to the species than that given by its discoverers. However, that would be rather unheard of. Here is a use of “Bourbon virus”] in an Italian text, and here one in a Dutch text.  --Lambiam 12:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The point of translingual taxonomic names is that they are supposed to work in running text (or parentheses) in any language to make clear what the authors of the works involved are referring to. They are not considered taxonomic names if they are transcribed. But naming is tailored to the audience of the works. Textbooks (especially the more basic ones) may make more use of vernacular names. Scholarly works aimed at the worldwide scientific community use the scientific names and may strictly avoid vernacular names because they are often polysemic or otherwise confusing. DCDuring (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that the entry has jumped the gun since the term has not been sanctioned by ICTV. It may turn out not to be a new species. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The ICTV list doesn't matter at all. The term exists in English anyway, and might exist translingually regardless of the ICTV.
  • Are the Dutch and the Italian usage durably archived? If not, the usages don't matter (as for WT:CFI). If so, is it enough for an "Translingual" entry or does it need more cites (like 2 more Dutch or 2 more Italian or 3 French cites which would be enough to attest a WT:WDL term)?
  • BTW: As for commoness google web indicates the following (a > b : a is more common than b, a ~ b : a and b are almost equally common, a : a is not found):
    • Dutch: "het Bourbon-virus" ~ "het Bourbon virus" (both quite rare) > "het Bourbonvirus" (very rare)
    • French: "le virus de Bourbon" > "le virus Bourbon" > "le Bourbon virus" (rare)
    • German: "das Bourbon-Virus" > "der Bourbon-Virus" (quite rare) > "das Bourbonvirus" (very rare)
    • Italian: "il virus Bourbon" ~ "il Bourbon virus" ~ "il virus borbonico" (all quite rare) > "il virus de Bourbon"
    • Spanish: "el virus de Bourbon" > "el virus Bourbon" > "el virus borbónico" > "el Bourbon virus"
--Marontyan (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
A formal recognition of a name by one of the international bodies (ICTV, LPSN, ICZN, ICN) is presumptive evidence supporting translingual use. We use it as a shortcut.
The number-of-cites question has not been addressed explicitly.
Nor have we ever explicitly addressed whether a listing in one of the taxonomic databases is a use or a mention or whether we would considered it durably archived (not even in those cases (like ICTV) where the old lists are apparently retained).
Moreover, we haven't reached consensus on whether use of a Latin-like specific epithet in a taxonomic name would be a use in Latin of the epithet.
I think the only consensus about taxonomic names is that they are useful to disambiguate vernacular names, that some of them have entered discourse embedded in everyday language, and that some readers might want to know what they mean.
We try to elucidate meaning by taxonomic placement and circumsciption, by etymology, by ostensive definition (images), vernacular names, translation tables, geographic distribution info, and significance to people. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
"We use it" - can you point me to any policy which explicitly says so? (While ICZN is Latin-based and has some kind of tradition, ICTV is not and has not.)
A listing in a database is a mention and not a usage (WT:CFI#Conveying meaningw:use-mention distinction). And mentions aren't enough as for WT:CFI.
If the taxonomic name is used in Latin, it could at least be Latin. If the name isn't used in Latin at all, it clearly is not Latin, cp. WT:CFI, French foot or German Handy which aren't English, Talk:albifrons, Talk:iroquoianus. --Marontyan (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to propose an explicit policy that overrides past practice. Perhaps a procrustean bed is just what is needed for Translingual entries. DCDuring (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

akoholahy

Rfv-sense: gall. Tagged but not listed. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

At the very least the sense of polysemic gall should be disambiguated. The term akoholahy is clearly a compound of akoho (chicken) +‎ lahy (male (noun)), so the term also having another totally unrelated meaning is extremely unlikely. Note that the entry was created with gall as the sole definition by a native Malagasy speaker in a batch process of importing several thousand Malagasy words. I wonder if there may be some language confusion with Catalan gall, which means “rooster, cock”, just like the first sense given for Malagasy akoholahy and the only sense found in Malagasy dictionaries and the Malagasy Wiktionary.  --Lambiam 13:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds likely. Speedy. Does Jagwar use Catalan though? ---Corsicanwarrah (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Spanish has gallo of course, and it is well-known that the -o is a suffix, so I can see how a mistake could easily be made even without Catalan being involved. there's also Latin gallus. Soap 20:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Some Latin adjectives

All created by the same user.
Just la.WP/WT protologisms (with changed capitalisation)? --Marontyan (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

iudaeogermanicus

I've moved the content to iudaeo-germanicus, which seems to be attested. This spelling and all its inflected forms will have to be deleted later (if not cited) by someone with more time to do that than I have at the moment. - -sche (discuss) 05:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

iudaeohispanicus

iudaeoromanicus

meglenoromanicus

foroiulicus

Contemporary Ecclesiastical Latin? DCDuring (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't find any of these at google books searching for several (not all) inflected forms. --Marontyan (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Okazaki

  • Polish surname.
  • Portuguese surname.
  • Tagalog surname.

surjection?〉 08:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

negristo

Esperanto word supposedly meaning "slaver," but nothing found on Google Books. Only citation was Wikipedia, which I removed. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

locavore

Tagged, but not listed. "Noun form seems to be locavoro". — surjection?〉 13:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

గోపి

Telugu: Abbreviation. Apparently means "cat on the wall". Why would anyone abbreviate that???? --Vealhurl (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Rajasekhar1961...  --Lambiam 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
short form of గోడమీద పిల్లి (gōḍamīda pilli) (Cat on the wall). It is similar to మి.మీ. (mi.mī.) for మిల్లీ మీటరు. (millī mīṭaru.). If it is not clear, can we put a fullstop between the letters.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961 Yeah, but why would you abbreviate such an obviously SOP phrase? A google search brings up what looks like a movie/show, along with actual cats on walls. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems to be an idiomatic expression expressing uncertainty about how a situation will develop. (Self [te-0] and Google translate [te-1] at best, so this interpretation may not be on the nose.) It is pointless to define it by giving its literal translation, which does not carry that sense in English.  --Lambiam 11:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This Telugu dictionary explains it as “a proverbial expression for sitting on the fence”. It is not clear to me whether the idiom applies to a person (a fence sitter), or to an unresolved issue that can go either way, or can apply to either.  --Lambiam 12:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

مديونير

--95.186.143.168 01:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The term is used in the Okaz newspaper ([156], [157]) as well as elsewhere ([158], [159] – where the last one cites Okaz). There are also some GBS results ([160], [161]).  --Lambiam 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

vegivare

@So9q Can't find citations, never heard the word.__Gamren (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I did not check that. I heard it on 24syv radio as a new word used by the managers of stores. I cannot find any either, so I guess it has to go.--So9q (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Cantharides

Defined as a genus name. In form it is the same as the nominative plural of Latin cantharis. Genus names are singular (unlike supergeneric names, which are always plural in form). I can't find any species name formed from it. The single cite is ambiguous as to precise meaning and the capitalization therein is quite likely attributable to the orthographic conventions around the time of publication, 1603. Much of the use of the term could be interpreted as the plural of English cantharis, following the Latin model. Some of the other use seems to refer to a pharmaceutical material derived from insects of genus Cantharis, eg "effect of cantharides injections", "tincture of cantharides". One can find instances of cantharide#English as a noun. DCDuring (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Does it even make sense to use the word "genus" for something used before the 18th century? DTLHS (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
True. The single cite couldn't support the definition.
BTW, I found one taxonomic database that had an entry for the genus, but it didn't have any species, so I am suspicious of even that mention. Arguably mentions of species binomials would have been uses of the component terms. DCDuring (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
In the text by Montaigne the term is clearly plural. In French: Les cantharides ont en elles quelque partie qui sert contre leur poison de contrepoison. Also in the Florio translation the term serves grammatically as a plural. Following the link on organismnames.com to the Encyclopedia of Life leads to a page that does not contain the term Cantharides, but several occurrences of Cantharide in a French common name (Cantharide de Pennsylvanie, Cantharide officinale). So I think what we have here is the plural of a common name cantharide, probably borrowed from French.  --Lambiam 04:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I think what we may have here is at least two, if not three terms:
  1. The French plural of their term for cantharid, referring to a beetle in the family Cantharidae. Before the endings of taxonomic names were standardized, some English entomologists imitated the French usage, since several important early coleopterists were French. I vaguely remember something about -ides being an actual translingual family-name ending based on French usage, which was superseded by -idae.
  2. A substance obtained from beetles which at one time was widely used medicinally as an irritant/stimulant, as well as being considered an aphrodisiac (also known as Spanish fly)
  3. There may be some alternate spelling of the generic name Cantharis- it wouldn't surprise me if the French used "cantharides" to refer specifically to beetles in that genus as well, and some early English writers might have followed that usage.
Chuck Entz (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

乾貨

Rfv-sense: "corpse". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

偏僻

Rfv-sense: "peculiar; eccentric". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

回頭

Rfv-sense: "to retrogress". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

公民

Rfv-sense: "civics". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

分庭

Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

人胡

Rfv-sense: "heavenly hand: one of the limit hands in mahjong". Tagged by @Poketalker but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

嚴謹

Rfv-sense: "compact; well-knit; tight". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

妙處

Rfv-sense: "ideal place; suitable location". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

責備

Rfv-sense: "(literary) to punish". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

節制

Rfv-sense: "to command (an army)". Tagged but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

eskimo (Dutch)

RFV of: "A thick woolen fabric, mainly used for warm winter coats." The WNT has one cite and I could find one on Google Books. This could also be dated or archaic. The derived terms may be from the demonym instead, even with this capitalisation. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

haan (Dutch)

RFV-sense of "penis", said to be a slang semantic loan from English. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

咖啡

Vietnamese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

منذ

Rfv-sense: "as soon as". Up until today, this entry's had both that sense and "since" listed in one definition under Conjunction, but I split the two up because I was skeptical. An IP then saw fit to add an rfv-sense for "as soon as" -- I agree with that, because it doesn't really scan for me and none of the dictionaries I can check seem to indicate such a usage.

The only thing close that I've found in a cursory search is an online dictionary giving the example ما ودّع أحدا منذ علم بالخبر, which could be interpreted as "he stopped giving out goodbyes as soon as he heard the news", but a closer translation is of course "he hasn't said goodbye to anyone since he heard the news". So I remain skeptical. Any concrete proof in either direction? M. I. Wright (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

學部

Rfv-sense: "school club". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

官員

Rfv-sense: "administrator". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

就此

Rfv-sense: "because of this". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

幾哈

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

後來

Rfv-sense: "less advanced people". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

新居

Rfv-sense: "current residence". Tagged by @Dine2016 but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

新鮮

Rfv-sense: "odd; strange". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

斷頭

Rfv-sense: "to behead; to decapitate". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

早期

Rfv-sense: "earlier; previously". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

曲說

Rfv-sense: "(literary) to convince; to argue one's case". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

機運

Rfv-sense: "fate". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

流暢

Rfv-sense: "fast-selling". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

熄火

Rfv-sense: "flameout, misfire, cutoff". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

فاعل

Rfv-sense: to treat, to deal with —5.156.43.166 06:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

PPC

The quote is in English, put in a French section --Vealhurl (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are two French sources, but the term is spelled “p.p.c.” or “P.P.C.”: [162], [163].  --Lambiam 22:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

المنورة

Rfv-sense: "Medina". --5.156.43.166 23:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

zeevaartkundige schemering

Dutch, I can only find one durable attestation. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

ソヱツ ソチィアリㇲティ レㇲプビリカ ウタリシㇼ

"the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union)" — surjection?〉 08:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As of today, zero hits on Google: google:"ソヱツ ソチィアリㇲティ レㇲプビリカ ウタリシㇼ". Even a non-quoted search comes up empty: google:ソヱツ ソチィアリㇲティ レㇲプビリカ ウタリシㇼ
Pinging the entry's creator -- @幻光尘, Ainu is a WT:LDL, but we do still need at least one source confirming the term. Do you have any such source? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

zelfje

Dutch purism for "selfie", doesn't seem to be used anywhere. I'm not even sure whether it can be attested as a regular diminutive, though there does seem to be some use as a proper noun (that would however fail WT:FICTION). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

zepto-ohm

zeptoampère

zeptosteradiaal

zetta-ampère

zettaseconde

yoctoampère

yocto-ohm

yoctosteradiaal

yotta-ampère

yottaohm

yottaseconde

Dutch, these units appear to be very rare if not non-existent. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t that hold even more strongly for the corresponding yoctos and yottas?  --Lambiam 21:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Mostly, though yoctoseconde is in fact attested, by a hair's breadth. I have added those that seem unattested to me. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

zerpte

Dutch, this seems to be only used here. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Changed to RfV-sense of "coarse-grainedness". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Two more cites: [164], [165] (page 3/8 = 271, down in the left column).  --Lambiam 06:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Incredible, and the oldest cite is even surprisingly Verbo-like to boot. Anyway, the first sense passes. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/erþaburgz

I have no problem with the word or whenever it existed or not. My issue is in regards to whenever the word should be reconstructed as Proto-Germanic *erþaburgz (earthen mound, earthwork) or *erþōburgz. This example is one of many PGmc where the first noun of the reconstructed compound ends with "ō" but the reconstructed compound has medial "a". I would normally check the descendent to see if I can deduce more information, however, most have no medial compound vowel e.g. Old English eorþburh, Old High German erdburg, Old Norse jarðborh. So now, I'm left wondering what form it should be. ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

octavius, octarius

The references are English and possible the language got confused (compare Talk:bibliothecologia). --Bolaguun (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

zapalotl

This word is not found in either of the cited dictionaries. There is a word tzapalotl in Morelos Nahuatl, but that's spelled differently. Alexis Wimmer's Dictionnaire de la langue nahuatl classique has an entry for zapalotl citing Clavigero's Historia antigua de Megico, but as far as I can see it only includes the Spanish loan zapalote, and not the Nahuatl word. (Plus I'm not sure if the Nahuatl of Clavigero's time would be considered Classical.) --Lvovmauro (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/təmnēmi

This doesn't fit the Greek form, which reflects *temnō. —Rua (mew) 09:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite right. According to Beekes 2010 in the entry for τέμνω, "The nasal present τάμνω << PGr. *tamnēmi < PIE *tm-neh₁-mi is original, as is the root aorist 3sg. *etemet < *h₁e-temh₁-t, which was replaced by a thematic aorist ἔτεμον. This situation was levelled in various ways in the dialects: Att. innovated with the present τέμνω, while epic Ion. and Dor. secondarily created the aorist ἔταμον." Beekes states at the beginning of the entry that the form τάμνω is attested in Epic Ionic as well as Doric. This τάμνω appears to be simply a thematicized version of the original athematic nasal present PIE *tm-neh₁-mi attested in several IE languages. --Demolition man (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I think there's several aspects to look at then.
  1. Athematic vs thematic inflection.
  2. The appearance of the ē.
  3. e or a in the root.
Based on the forms you've given here, all forms of Greek seem to agree on the first two points: thematic inflection with no ē. They only differ with respect to the third point. I think Beekes is therefore correct on the distribution of e versus a. On the other hand, I think it goes too far to reconstruct Proto-Hellenic with athematic inflection and ē. After all, we know that PIE started off in one situation and Greek ended up in another, but we can't tell at what point one form got replaced with the other in the history of Hellenic. It could be entirely possible that an intermediate stage had thematic inflection but kept the ē, i.e. *təmnēō. In cases like this, I believe the reconstruction should be based on the later point in time (which is actually attested) rather than the earlier point (which is reconstructed). So I think that we should reconstruct *təmnō (aorist *(e)temon) for Proto-Hellenic, with points 1 and 2 agreeing with their later attested forms rather than their earlier PIE reconstructed forms. —Rua (mew) 08:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Nicanahuac

This is a modern fabrication which doesn't make any morphological sense. --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Should any of the following terms using the same reference ("Mancilla Sepúlveda, Héctor. (2000) Lecciones de Nahuatl, Hirata Editorial, México DF. p. 158.") be verified too?
What's IMHO also suspicious, is that the following terms have a similar reference ("Mancilla Sepúlveda, Héctor. (2002) Lecciones de Nahuatl, Hirata Editorial, México DF. p. 158." or once "Héctor Mancilla Sepúlveda (2002); Lecciones de Náhuatl, (dialecto de Amecameca), Editorial Hirata; Mexico City, Mexico.") but are Central Nahuatl: alotl, ayotochtli, axolotl, lalaxtli, macehualli, nohpalli, tlācamāyeh tēcuāni, tonatih.
Also compare tepoztototl and it's version history, where a term was entered as Classical Nahuatl and got changed into Central Nahuatl. --Trothmuse (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, nominate those too. User:Marrovi seems to have a knack for adding unattested terms, which I hope will stop since I posted on their talk page earlier but there seems to be a backlog of questionable entries still needing review. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Xapon I know is attested (in various spellings: Xabon, Jabun, etc.).
  • Cozcatlan is a real word but does not refer to El Salvador. (There are actually multiple places with this name.)
  • Portugal, Cuba, Austria, Filipinas could plausibly be valid but are worth verifying.
  • xocolatl is fake. The real word would be *chocolatl, which is not actually attested, but the compound chocolanamacac is. --Lvovmauro (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I have alerted User:Marrovi on his talk page here, in case he wants to demonstrate the attestation of these terms in Classical Nahuatl. Note regarding xocolatl that it was only recently changed to Classical Nahuatl, while the cited reference stayed the same! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Classical Nahuatl country-name neologisms

In actual Classical texts, the names for these countries are simply loaned from Spanish: Francia, Inglatera and Alemania. --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

References.--Marrovi (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • García Escamilla, Enrique (1994); Historia de México narrada en náhuatl y español. [166], Mexico City.
That proves nothing. Anything written by a modern author is a simulation of Classical Nahuatl, not the real thing. In the 19th century, someone wrote a story in Proto-Indo-European, just to show that it could be done- but that's not attestation according to our standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
"Narrada en nahuatl y español" - but by time (1990s/2000s), it can't be Classical Nahuatl, but must be some other Nahuatl (and may it be some kind of Neo-Classical Nahuatl).
(That someone was August Schleicher and the text was a Fabel.) --Trothmuse (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Marrovi Can you confirm that you understand the problem with this source? That it is Wiktionary policy not to use "revivalist" modern texts in long-extinct languages as attestations for that language? Unless you do, it might be better not to work on Classical Nahuatl at all. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This case is complicated, Classical Nahuatl is taught at many universisties and schools in Mexico, most like to be it a New-Classical Nahuatl mixing with life Nahuatl languages as Central Nahuatl or Morelos Nahuatl language, There's literature in Classical Nahuatl written in the XX century as the case of Enrique García Escamilla or Miguel-León Portilla. However, I understand that this case causes them problems with certain codes allowed here.--Marrovi (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

New reference.

Commenting to cross-link a related discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/December#Nahuatl_(nah):_convert_etymology-only_or_delete?. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If these terms meet the attestation requirements (momentarily disregarding the date of the attestations), then the question is whether to view modern use of this language as more similar to Latin (where we include sufficiently-attested modern terms) or Gothic (where we exclude even attested neologisms). Marrovi's comment suggests we should take a Latin approach. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

zijdevlinderrups

Dutch, seems unattesable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. No attestations, and likely just a mistake by the initial contributor (contamination of zijderups and zijdevlinder). Supportive to RFD. Morgengave (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "faeces; poo", added by an IP. — surjection?〉 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not fluent in Chinese but there's no way that character means poo, and the person who added that probably found it funny because of the similar pronunciation, but it's not appropriate for Wiktionary. Hkbusfan (talk)

zombie (Esperanto)

Esperanto for "zombically". Likely added by a helpful person who wanted to be comprehensive, but is this durably attested? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

zirkonen

Dutch, RfV-sense of the adjective. I only found plural nouns on Google Books. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

阿拉斯加#Japanese

  1. [167]
  2. [168]?
  3.  ???

Suzukaze-c 03:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I might agree with your first link, but the second seems to show evidence of scannos that makes me worry.
Scanning through the hits at google:"阿拉斯加"+"は" (adding the (ha) to filter for Japanese texts) finds a lot of Chinese ↔ Japanese dictionaries, but not a whole lot of use of this term as Japanese. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Two is concerning (hence the question mark), but フラシクリンポイント is probably a failed OCR of フランクリンポイント (Franklin Point), and Point Franklin, Alaska exists. I suspect that 比阿拉斯加の最北端 is similarly 北阿拉斯加の最北端 (the northernmost point of northern Alaska). —Suzukaze-c 06:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I confess that OCR scannos of that sort make me leery of trusting such a source for any given spelling. If the OCR system can't distinguish (n) and (shi), or (north) and (comparison), even when the system gets those (apparently) correct elsewhere, it raises my level of dubiousness that the core term itself was scanned correctly. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

阿拉巴麻

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 03:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

阿里蘇那

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 03:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

伊倫諾爾

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 04:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

倭塔瓦

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 04:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

干賽斯

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 04:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

英釐安納

Nothing in Google Books or Google for Japanese (all historical Chinese documents). —Suzukaze-c 04:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

zuigfeest

Dutch, might be attestable as "terrible party", otherwise likely not. A Google search does seem to show a lot of hits for the sex act, but these all appear to be links to porn sites, i.e. nondurable stuff, that are probably machine-translated anyway. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

zwaalde

Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Morgengave? This exists according to gtb.inl.nl, but I can't find 3 attestations for this, and unfortunately we still don't have a good policy for terms found in dialect dictionaries. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Dialectal usage is always more tricky. I do think we can give it the benefit of the doubt seen its many dictionary entries and as there was even a study in the 1950s on its use (vs "broodschieter" and "openpaal"): [169] Morgengave (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

zwart spechtje

Dutch. Nothing on BGC, only smoke and mirrors on regular Google. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean the bird "zwarte specht"? As that bird is easily attestable: [170]. Regular diminutives are implied to exist; diminutives don't need to be attested individually. Morgengave (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I meant to RFV only the diminutive. It is a matter of debate whether or to what extent there should be entries for unattested forms. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Acht

"(obsolete, found in toponyms) field". Tagged by User:Bolaguun, but not listed. — surjection?〉 18:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

trekken

Dutch, RFV-sense of "to jerk off, masturbate", which could be either relatively rare, an error or vandalism. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I see a use here and perhaps here, so this is not simply an error or vandalism. This is not easy searching. However, there are many occurrences on the web (like here), so it may be less rare than a book search suggests. Also, apparently the agent noun trekker can be used as an invective, and I guess it is a synonym of rukker.  --Lambiam 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Another use.  --Lambiam 20:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a variant of aftrekken. Compare reddit.com/r/cirkeltrek vs. reddit.com/r/circlejerk, too. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The point is, how common is this usage? Has it entered slang or are these ad hoc formations or maybe misconstructions from aftrekken? I think three durable cites are a reasonable minimum threshold. Searching for google books:"trekken" masturberen or google books:"trekken" rukken doesn't seem promising for finding citations. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedik

In my personal opinion, it could just as well mean "to insist that something cannot be desecrated". I don't know how we could find out the most plausible meaning. I suggest we could check out other verbs coined with the -eskedik/-oskodik/-ösködik suffix from nouns or adjectives with a similar aspect of meaning. Zsémbeskedik, édeskedik, ellenségeskedik, ellenzékieskedik, kotnyeleskedik, szellemeskedik, kényelmeskedik… there are more than sixty such verbs listed only with -eskedik in A magyar nyelv szóvégmutató szótára (Papp, 1994). This -eskedik sounds to me like a kind of insistence, but I may be wrong. Adam78 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a shorter variant of a “longest word” in Hungarian listed on Wikipedia. See Talk:megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedéseitekért. It should be deleted too. Like all such words, it is artificial. One use (rather than mention) is here, but in my opinion this should not count for attestation purposes since it is obviously constructed there as a joke – the article discusses “longest words” in various languages.  --Lambiam 08:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
And also delete megszentségteleníthetetlen, megszentségteleníthetetlenség, megszentségteleníthetetlenséges, megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedés, megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedése and megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedései.  --Lambiam 08:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The entire series should be deleted. Panda10 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
On second thought: megszentségteleníthetetlen and megszentségteleníthetetlenség are valid words. The others sound artificial. Panda10 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I doubt though that you can find three actual uses of megszentségteleníthetetlenség in durably archived sources.  --Lambiam 20:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

مصلحة

Arabic. Rfv-sense: good advice —5.156.43.166 14:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

CAYU

Welsh internet slang. Good luck finding durable cites. --Vealhurl (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

媽打

It seems to be restricted to certain characters on TV. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Is appears to be used as a nickname (of Shelley Lee and of Tang Pik-wan), so if kept, it should be re-categorized as a proper noun.  --Lambiam 19:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Japanese: Compounds

Is 港澳 really a valid Japanese kanji phrase? I don't really know Japanese, but not every Chinese word should be a Japanese word. Hkbusfan (talk)

"Should" is an interesting word. :) FWIW, the term appears much more common in Japanese as part of larger compounds, but google:"港澳は" shows enough valid, albeit rare, use as a standalone to meet our WT:CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

cabotiere

Italian for coaster (vessel). Ultimateria (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

鼓動

Rfv-sense: "beating; pounding". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

蒟蒻

Rfv-sense: "(originally) betel and bulrush". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

階段

Rfv-sense: "level". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, in Japanese at least, the reversed term 段階 (dankai) means level. Any chance that's relevant? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

平臺階段 level terrace —This unsigned comment was added by 76.102.251.32 (talk).

靈巧

Rfv-sense: "cute; lovable". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

人心

Rfv-sense: "popularity". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

mantel (Dutch)

RFV-sense of "surface (literal), lack of substance (figurative)". The literal sense is likely attestable in the meaning "the Earth's mantle", otherwise I'm not so sure. If it isn't attested with different meanings, a definition "mantle, Earth's mantle" may be a better option. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Dutch Wiktionary gives the sense “hull of a device”, as well as “a mollusc in the order Ostreida” without being more specific. (This source may be helpful.) The Dutch Wikipedia gives, furthermore, the senses “hull of an electric cable” and Mantle (mollusc) – not an animal but an anatomical structure, a muscular body wall. So “hull” would seem a better description than “surface”. I find no examples of a figurative sense “lack of substance”. There is a figurative use in the idiom “mantel der liefde”, which seems to be used rather differently (suggesting forgiveness) than English “cloak of love” (suggesting treacherous deceit). I think I see figurative uses here and here, where too the mantel is a deceitful cloak. This may be the same figurative sense as dekmantel. Perhaps the contested figurative sense is a very poor worded attempt to define the sense “guise, facade”. If the sense “lack of substance (figurative)” can somehow be attested, it should definitely get a line of its own, since it is completely different from “surface/hull (literal)”.  --Lambiam 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say hull and surface are synonyms; that a sense hull exists should be clear, but I don't really know what the appropriate level of splitting vs. lumping would be for that sense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

p

Rfv-sense: Latin: abbreviation of Publius. In lowercase. Good luck finding cites. --Vealhurl (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Compare: WT:RFVN#k,_m,_q.
Also I'd like to add the sense "Abbreviation of populus" as it should rather be p. or P. or P (as in SPQR) --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

acocil

Rfv-sense: "crayfish" (in general, as opposed to a specific type). --Lvovmauro (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

pascha

For "pascha n (.., genitive paschae ..); first declension ..", which is not in Gaffiot or Lewis & Short. --B-Fahrer (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Instances of paschae, pascham and pascharum. I didn’t immediately see uses that verify that the noun is also neuter in this declensional paradigm. BTW, I doubt that Aramaic פסחא(paskha) is “from” Hebrew פסח(pésakh); I think the two terms are merely cognates.  --Lambiam 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I already added a citation to Citations:pascha that shows it being used as a neuter first-declension noun (nominative "Pascha annotinum" alongside ablative "de Pascha annotino"; if it were masculine, these would be "Pascha annotinus" and "de Pascha annotino"; if it were feminine, they would be "Pascha annotina" and "de Pascha annotina"; and if it were third declension neuter, these would be "Pascha annotinum" and "de Paschate annotino"). For a few other examples, view the answers to this Latin Stack Exchange post, which I made in May: Was “Pascha” ever used as a neuter first-declension noun?. The question post there also cites a few sources that describe this word as being declined in some sources as a first-declension neuter with a genitive singular in -ae.--Urszag (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The citation at Citations:pascha could also have an indeclinable neuter and not a neuter 1st declension noun. Some of the examples at stackexchange are better (thank you for the link) - but they are Medieval Latin and hence there should be a note in the WT entry, or a much older citation. --B-Fahrer (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@B-Fahrer, Lambiam, Urszag: So is there any evidence of 3rd-decl use? And if anyone wants to add a usage note to the entry, that would be much appreciated. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
All of the forms built on the stem paschat-/Paschat- unambiguously belong to the third declension. The things that are difficult to find evidence for are the gender of the first-declension genitive singular form "Paschae" and the declension category of the neuter singular nominative/accusative form "Pascha". The ablative singular form "Pascha" is clearly not a third-declension form. B-Fahrer suggests it could be an indeclinable form; that is technically possible, but a text that uses "pascha" as an indeclinable neuter would be expected I think to lack genitive "paschae" or to contain genitive "pascha" (which is as far as I know unattested, although I haven't tried to check for its existence yet). So I think "Pascha" in the ablative singular with neuter agreement is pretty strong evidence for the first-declension neuter paradigm. With regards to usage notes and dating, I don't know if I agree that the paucity of early examples is especially notable with regard to the first-declension neuter paradigm: as far as I can tell, the word wasn't very frequent in any of its forms until the rise of Christianity, so I'm not sure whether the feminine first-declension and neuter third-declension forms can be established as any older. The only hits for "Pasch" that I find in the PHI Latin Texts corpus are from Zeno of Verona's Tractatus (Zeno Veronensis Tractatus, ed. B. Löfstedt, 1971) . Zeno apparently lived in the fourth century CE. The sermons themselves seem to only contain the form "pascha"; there is evidence from adjective agreement that it is neuter (e.g. "legitimum pascha"). The first-declension genitive singular form "paschae" shows up in this document in sermon titles and in the table of contents—but I don't know what date those were written.--Urszag (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

ἅρπα

Any texts in which this word, as opposed to ἅρπη (hárpē), appears? I didn't see a Doric or Aeolic form mentioned in any of the dictionary entries linked from ἅρπη (hárpē). — Eru·tuon 03:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Χαῖρε, hello, nice to (virtually) meet you...
With regard to recent edits on ἅρπα I wasn't sure where to post this, I was just responding specifically vis-à-vis the Doric Greek morphology of ἅρπα but ran long touching on the broader subject of Greek dialects and their inclusion on Wiktionary, so I'll post this full comment on your talk page too...
Personally I am bewildered that a simple 1st declension noun like Doric ἅρπα for Attic ἅρπη would be controversial...? This is pretty basic Ancient Greek dialectal morphology variance. Doric (and Aeolic) retain original ᾱ which Attic changed to η in many cases (there are exceptions after certain letters ε, ι, ρ; whereas Ionic nearly always changes old ᾱ to η). 1st declension singular -ᾱ, -ᾱς, -ᾳ, ᾱν. In the plural the forms are the same as Attic except in the genitive plural Doric -ᾱων typically contracts to -ᾶν. Unlike some other dialectal variances, on an academic level Doric 1st declension in -ᾱ, -ᾱς for Attic -η, -ης is a fairly well-established consistent paradigm, a minor lengthening of one vowel...
....and Western/Central Greek dialects (Doric-Aeolic) preserved ᾱ which was the original Ancient Greek form; Attic-Ionic lengthening ᾱ to η was a later dialectal novelty unique to the Eastern Greek dialects (Attic-Ionic). Attic is in fact the variant form here from the original authentic archaic Greek form which Aeolic and Doric much more faithfully preserved...to this day Tsakonian, descended from Doric, spoken in the Peloponnese (albeit sadly endangered) preserves ancient α where later Attic-derived Greek substituted η.
And in the ancient world, Doric and Aeolic Greek is what they spoke in Sparta and all of Laconia, in Thebes and all of Boeotia, in Epirus, in Achaea and Thessaly, Corinth and Olympia, on the islands of Lesbos and of Crete (also a bastion of preservation for the most authentic original Ancient Greek, being the birthplace of Greek civilization going back to the Mycenaean Greeks and Minoan Greeks), and also in much of Magna Græcia (Italy and Sicily), including Syracusæ in Sicily, the home of Archimedes, and by the Classical period the greatest and most significant rival city of Athens in the Hellenic world, by some sources Syracusæ was even larger and more significant than Athens. (And of course if you know your history, Athens deciding to launch an infamous "Sicilian Expedition" to attack Doric Syracusæ during the Peloponnesian War would prove a catastrophic ruinous mistake for the Athenians).
This seems to touch on the other general problem raised by recent edit reverts, which is bias in Wiktionary's coverage of Ancient Greek hitherto, bias that should be removed. A 21st century electronic 'Wiktionary' should not perpetuate biases of 19th century-20th century elite French and Englishmen who based on historical judgments idolized all things Athens, put up on an Ionic pedestal (the other 2 Greek column orders being Doric and Corinthian, both Dorian speakers!) while demonizing and denigrating Sparta and all of the Doric and Aeolic Greek worlds, in fact all of Ancient Greek linguistic history except for c. 5th century BC Athens. Biased scholars many centuries later decided that Attic was superior and real Greek while other dialects mere imitators, Archimedes in Syracusæ did not speak Ancient Greek of the Doric dialect, rather he spoke an inferior "Doric forms" of REAL Greek which is only Attic.
Other than such historical bias, there is no reason why distinct words and forms of Ancient Greek in Doric or Aeolic should just link to the Attic form as REAL Ancient Greek. Attic has more unique local noveltiies diverging from standard Ancient Greek than Doric/Aeolic. In their time Doric and Aeolic Greek were of equal if not greater significance, and spoken by far more people than the novel local dialect of Athens, which again only became looked at as the "model"
Doric Greek is different from Attic Greek, different enough that Doric/Aeolic forms deserve their own entry (at least a West Doric/Aeolic separate from Attic/Ionic). Different but an equally valid form of Ancient Greek in its own right and merits inclusion of Doric/Aeolic forms that stand on their own, not just (mis)represented as inferior variant forms of Attic. The language is called "Ancient Greek", NOT "Attic Greek". Doric/Aeolic Greek words and forms should be added/provided whenever possible-and as their own entries, not links to Attic, 'tis biased historical revisionism to imply Doric and Aeolic Greek are just variant forms of REAL (Attic) Greek, when in fact the dialects developed independently and were of equal standing and signifcance in the time when they were actually spoken and used as living languages (and Doric was actually closer to the original, Attic was the odd local provincial dialect that diverged most from Proto-Hellenic). As a reference source for all languages including ancient languages no longer spoken (some of which far more speculative like e.g. Phoenician/Punic), Wiktionary (and Wiktionarians) should seek to provide Doric Greek entries no less so than Attic entries. The biases of the recent past against any form of Greek except 5th century BC Athens dialect should be left on the ash heap of history. Rather, for a fair, unbiased and thorough modern reference source on Ancient Greek, the dialects should be treated equally as their own forms of Ancient Greek language with their own unique morphology.
Reducing Doric/Aeolic Greek words to mere dialectal variants of Athens just linking to the Attic variant is akin to having Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Galician, Leonese, Occitan, even Portuguese, all just have links to the (Castilian) Spanish entry e.g. Catalan joventut entry should say just "Catalan form of juventud" with a link to the Castilian Spanish juventud entry. After all, like Attic among Greek dialects, Castilian Spanish is the clear historical winner of the Ibero-Romance languages, the other Ibero-Romance languages are historical losers, just inferior imitation dialect forms of Spanish language not worth recordng and preserviing in their own right, like Doric and Aeolic are just inferior imitation dialects of Attic REAL Greek...
Respectfully, I would suggest perhaps re-examining your potential ingrained Athenocentric biases that have plagued Greek classrooms and textbooks and lexicons for the past few centuries which conflate Attic Greek with Ancient Greek, and which ignore or disparage other dialects as irrelevant inferior imitations of Attic at best, missing the forest through the trees; try to zoom out and get a new bigger picture perspective conscious of these insidious deeply ingrained...some of us have actually studied and are actually interested in researching and preserving Doric and Aeolic Greek for their own sake as equally valid and historically and linguistically significant forms of Ancient Greek, not as mere trivial inferior variant subdialects of Attic. Someone who wants to research Doric Greek forms should not have to click through every entry to go see the Attic variant as the "real" form. Attic is the spin-off from the original, not Doric! And at the very least Doric and Aeolic Greek entries deserve to exist! Especially such simple forms conforming to basic paradigms of what we know about the standard morphology and usage of Doric and Aeolic Greek dialects. Wiktionary cannot claim to have comprehensive coverage of Ancient Greek as a reference source if it neglects the other equally significant, equally legitimate, equally valid, equally deserving divergent dialects. Wiktionarians should seek to add Doric Greek entries just like they add Catalan and Galician or Asturian despite being varians of far more well-known and widely used Castilian Spanish which like Attic Greek just happened to win the historical winners-and-losers lottery...
And this is the case with Doric-Aeolic ἅρπα, ἅρπᾱς, an equally valid independent Western Greek form deserving of its own entry distinct from the Eastern Greek Attic-Ionic variant ἅρπη, ἅρπης...across many other languages there are many far more redundant forms of words in closely related languages (often forms identical or nearly identical, more closely related than the rainbow of diverse Western Ancient Greek and Eastern Ancient Greek dialects) that may not be so commonlyused much but are considered worthwhile to preserve as a comprehensive linguistic reference source database.

Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D2%3Achapter%3D13%3Asection%3D13 Smyth grammar 2.13.13 FIRST DECLENSION (STEMS IN α_)

[*] 214. The dialects show various forms.

[*] 214 D. 1. For η, Doric and Aeolic have original α_; thus, νί_κα_, ϝί_κα_ς, ϝί_κᾳ, νί_κα_ν; πολί_τα_ς, κριτά_ς, Ἀτρείδα_ς.

2. Ionic has η for the α_ of Attic even after ε, ι, and ρ; thus, γενεή, οἰκίη, ἀγορή, μοίρης, μοίρῃ (nom. μοῖρα^), νεηνίης. Thus, ἀγορή, -ῆς, -ῇ, -ήν; νεηνίης, -ου, -ῃ, -ην. But Hom. has θεά_ goddess, Ἑρμεία_ς Hermes.

3. The dialects admit -α^ in the nom. sing. less often than does Attic. Thus, Ionic πρύμνη stern, κνί_ση savour (Att. πρύμνα, κνῖσα), Dor. τόλμα_ daring. Ionic has η for α^ in the abstracts in -είη, -οίη (ἀληθείη truth, εὐνοίη good-will). Hom. has νύμφα^ oh maiden from νύμφη.

8. Gen. plur.—(a) -ά_ων, the original form, occurs in Hom. (μουσά_ων, ἀγορά_ων). In Aeolic and Doric -ά_ων contracts to (b) -ᾶν (ἀγορᾶν). The Doric -ᾶν is found also in the choral songs of the drama (πετρᾶν rocks). (c) -έων, the Ionic form, appears in Homer, who usually makes it a single syllable by synizesis (60) as in βουλέωνν, from βουλή plan. -έων is from -ήων, Ionic for -ά_ων. (d) -ῶν in Hom. generally after vowels (κλισιῶν, from κλισίη hut).

Perseus Greek Word Study Tool:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=arpa&la=greek#lexicon ἅρπα noun sg fem nom doric aeolic ἅρπα noun sg fem nom doric aeolic

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=arpas&la=greek#lexicon ἅρπας noun sg fem gen doric aeolic

Greek morphological index (Ελληνική μορφολογικούς δείκτες):

Nominative: https://morphological_el.academic.ru/687234/%E1%BC%85%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%82#sel=10:3,10:3 ἅρπας

   ἅρπᾱς , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem acc pl
   ἅρπᾱς , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem gen sg (doric aeolic)

Accusative: https://morphological_el.enacademic.com/687226/%E1%BC%85%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD ἅρπαν

   ἅρπᾱν , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem acc sg (doric aeolic)

Inqvisitor (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have not studied Doric and Aeolic in depth, but I am aware of several of the dialectal differences, including the retention of long alpha. Yes, ἅρπᾱ (hárpā) would be the likely Doric form, but I'm asking for an attestation (see WT:ATTEST) because lexica such as LSJ often mention a Doric form if it is used, but they don't for this word. We don't add hypothetical Doric forms for all Attic words. I don't know if the morphological tools that you linked to are restricted to attested forms (though I suspect not).
As for the rest of your post, I don't have the brain power to write a point-by-point response. I'll just say I'm in favor of marking dialects in Ancient Greek entries, as you did in ἅρπη (hárpē).
Putting most of the content in one entry is simply so that we do not have to synchronize two or more identical entries. (There are not a huge number of Ancient Greek editors and I suspect that many of us don't feel that synchronizing entries is a worthwhile use of our time when there are lots of lemmas and inflected forms missing.) The Attic or Koine entry is typically a good landing place for most of the content. The phrasing of the non-Attic or non-Koine entry ("Doric form of" the Attic form in this case) is perhaps misleading but is not meant to imply incorrect notions, such as that Attic is the ideal form while the others are distorted reflections (or that Attic is the parent and others developed from it). If this is not enough and you still want to drum up enthusiasm for changing editing practices for Ancient Greek, a better place to discuss it would be WT:BP. — Eru·tuon 09:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

بشير

Rfv-sense: "evangelist". —95.185.52.217 19:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've never encountered this term before. The common term is مُبَشِّر (mubaššir). Fenakhay (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

arachi

Spanish for Arachis. Ultimateria (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

xaruniyad

surjection?〉 13:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

acutisquamoso

—⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 07:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

دور

Rfv-sense: to search —51.253.234.181 22:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Here : https://ejtaal.net/aa/#hw4=357,ll=973,ls=5,la=1450,sg=397,ha=233,br=342,pr=58,aan=195,mgf=311,vi=150,kz=757,mr=235,mn=430,uqw=555,umr=375,ums=309,umj=258,ulq=733,uqa=136,uqq=108,bdw=h327,amr=h230,asb=h300,auh=h582,dhq=h185,mht=h303,msb=h84,tla=h49,amj=h249,ens=h164,mis=h643 Fenakhay (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

unverwandt

Rfv-sense- both senses in Etymology 2

These were added by User:Inqvisitor after being challenged on their translation of a passage using the term. The etymology makes no sense, and there's nothing to indicate that this person speaks German well enough to be adding definitions. I was tempted to just revert the edits that added these, but we might as well see what usage has to say. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh FFS, this never ends, damn Pokorny. Those definitions are taken directly from Cassell's German-English Dictionary for unverwandt, derived from un- + verwandeln ("change, transform, turn"). Fortunately Cassell's (revised 1978 edition) contains many older dated German words (a common complaint of buyers of copies of the book for basic modern spoken usage on e.g. Amazon reviews but useful for linguistic documentation purposes, such as this recent context when debating the meaning of Julius Pokorny's 1920s-1950s usage of the word unverwandt, the specifics of which I am not re-litigating). Actually that second definition was already listed on the Wiktionary entry ("unblinking") before I made any edits, but didn't make any sense listed as just definition 2 under the same first etymology of "unrelated"; all I did was properly expand that separate definition. Cheers.
Unverwandt from Cassell's German-English Dictionary.Deutsch-Englisches Wörterbuch (1978)

Inqvisitor (talk)

@Inqvisitor: The screenshot you provided shows the English definition for unverwandt, with zero reference to any etymology. The meaning is not at issue, although it appears that we disagree on your interpretation of it -- fixed, resolute, unswerving etc. do not often equate to unchanged, untransformed etc.
Your proposed derivation of un- + verwandeln is problematic, and not backed up by any mono- or bilingual sources that I've yet seen. The participle of verwandeln is verwandelt. Where does the medial /-el-/ go in your shift from unverwandelt to unverwandt? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
What Cassell's doesn't say, but Duden does (and Wahrig implies) is that unverwandt is said only of a person's gaze; de-wiktionary's example is also of a person's gaze. That being the case, I don't think we need both senses listed in our entry. Our current sense 2 is probably sufficient. As for the etymology, it's far more likely to contain the root of wenden (to turn), so that "unswerving" is the closest etymologico-semantic match. Of course verwenden no longer means "to turn away", but it used to, and that sense is still present in unverwandt. Interestingly, no dictionary (not even de-wikt) includes our Etymology 1, namely "unrelated", though I can find some examples of that meaning [171], [172]. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The sense of “(un)related” is retained in modern German Verwandtschaft (relationship, kinship).  --Lambiam 12:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Ja this is definitely archaic had to go digging but sources from 1792 and 1873 I found also suggest see "unverwendet" ergo "un-verwenden" (un+ver+wenden) as indeed an irregular source root word, thanks for revising the entry. Both sources say "fixed" as the primary meaning of "unverwandt" derived from core verbal meaning "to stare". So "not moving", "not turning away", having one's eyed fixed upon someone/something, not breaking eye contact, therefore "steadfast, resolute, unwavering, unflinching", etc., "to not turn away"...Cassell's: "verwenden (irregular only, usually negative)", example "er verwandte kein Auge von ihr" ("he never moved or turned his eyes from her").
Vollständiges Deutsch-Englisches Wörterbuch (1792)
Dictionary of the German and English Languages Christopher Friedrich Grieb (1873)

Inqvisitor (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mahagaja, Duden lists "turn away" as their sense 3, but with no indication that this is archaic or obsolete. Does that suggest that this sense is not archaic or obsolete? Or does Duden just not do much with usage labels? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: The link you provided says "Gebrauch   gehoben veraltet", i.e. "Usage   formal obsolete". I'm not sure if that means "formal and obsolete" or "formal or obsolete" though. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! For some reason I didn't even see that line earlier. Possibly an artifact of odd rendering; I've noticed sometimes that Duden loads strangely over mobile, where the CSS seems to get applied erratically. Anyway, thanks! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the Duden website is really not well designed. I prefer using my hardback Duden dictionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC) (Incidentally I feel exactly the same way about Merriam-Webster: I love my Merriam-Webster dictionaries, but I despise their website. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC))
Peinlich. Fay Freak (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

小酒

Rfv-sense: "quiet drink (of alcohol)" and "small bottle of wine". Pinging @Tooironic, who added these senses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Why rfv these senses? They are in common usage. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: For "quiet drink", I'm not sure what it really means. Does it mean drinking a little bit? For "small bottle of wine", do you have any evidence for its common usage? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it means just a little drink of alcohol. As opposed to the usual way in Chinese culture where everyone toasts and gets drunk. I have no evidence for either usage. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: If it's in common usage, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find evidence (not in dictionaries, but in the wild) to support it. From a quick Google search, I think there's some evidence for the "quiet drink/little drink of alcohol" sense, but I'm not sure about the "small bottle of wine" sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The "wine" sense may not be attestable. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

gebakje

Dutch RFV-sense of "a slice of cake". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

When you do a Google Image Search on “slice of cake”, several of the results could pass (I think) as a gebakje, like the type of gebakje seen here. This type has a slice of cake as its base, upon which Chantilly cream and pieces of fruit and/or chocolate have been mounted. That type of gebakje is fairly common if I can trust Google Image Search. However, this type is already also covered by th