This page is for entries in any Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (Oscan, Faliscan, etc.), or any Romance language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan, etc.).
Overview: This page is fordisputing theexistence 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 theattestation criterion as specified inCriteria 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 toWiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in theEtymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in theTea Room.
Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template{{rfv}} or{{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and thenmake 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 listedhere (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 ofattestation as specified ininclusion 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 inpermanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; seeWT:CFI.)
In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.
Recording negative findings: Editors who make a fair effort to find citations but fail to do so should state their negative result on this page (even if it only repeats another editor's negative result).
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 eitherRFV-failed orRFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time. In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors useRFV-resolved for such situations).
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using theaWa gadget, which can be enabled atWT:PREFS.
I see a few uses, sometimes hyphenated, but (grammatically) as a singular:[1],[2],[3],[4] (the last one is a mention). In the following case I think it means a head of white hair, so the sense of a white-haired person may be metonymical:[5]. --Lambiam17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Des cheveux poivre et sel (wfw. "pepper and salt hair") means mixed black and white hair, often appearing grey. All-white hair isdes cheveux blancs anddonner des cheveux blancs à quelqu'un (wfw. "give someone white hair") approximately means "endlessly get on someone's nerves". —Tonymec (talk)08:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@PUC Not sure what qualifies as attestation, but this is a very common expression. There are even more senses than just the softening of an order. "je passe un coup chez le dentiste" (rapidement), "un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus" (tantôt... tantôt),... Lots of hits on Google.Sitaron (talk)23:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
fr:coup sense 12 says it is used as a synonym of "fois" (like here) but the first two (of three) examples given there belong to a more usual (less familiar) level of language than here. The third example, though, is exactly the colloquial use mentioned here, and it is a quotation from a well-known French author:J’ai eu du chagrin de savoir que ton neveu s’était fait refuser aux postes encore uncoup. —(Marcel Aymé, La jument verte, Gallimard, 1933, réédition Le Livre de Poche, page 25). — OTOH as a native French speaker I confirm thatje passe un coup chez le dentiste orun coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plusdo exist, as part of familiar spoken French; a tiny wee bit less familiar (more "standard") would beje passeen vitesse chez le dentiste andtantôt il me croit,tantôt ilne me croit plus. —Tonymec (talk)19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
For 'modal' use, common places which first come to mind are these two imperatives:
"pèteun coup" (lit:"fart at once/a little" = "relax")
"respireun coup" ("take a deep breath"; "will you please calm down")
used in advices with the underlying "un coup (au moins) avant de..." ("once (at least) before...") and, as for me, often by stressed out people to stressed out people, hence the "will you please...". I guess the current def does quite the job, though as being derivative of the temporal use I feel it should be assigned second place.
For temporal use, I use it astantôt/parfois/des fois are used (so "sometimes"/"at times"):
"un coup tu dis non,un coup oui, je sais pas où donner de la tête moi !" ("at times you say no, at others yes, I don't know how to wrap my head around!")
P.S. I took the liberty of adding the example above from fr.wikt atun coup.Passeun coup le sel! instead ofPasse le sel,s'il te plaît. isvery familiar but it is used in colloquial spoken French. —Tonymec (talk)20:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tonymec: Thanks for adding sense 2 and its accompanying quotation. I also found some discussion related to sense 1 atw:fr:Français de Nouvelle-Calédonie#Un coup. Using "un coup" with an order may be especially common in that particular dialect, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist in metropolitan French or other dialects. But what we really need is a durably archived example of such usage. Have you been able to find any?70.172.194.2520:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@70.172.194.25: A durably archived example ? I dont have any, and it might be hard, considering that it is used mostly in spoken rather than written or literary language. Myself, I'm not a New-Caledonian but a Belgian and I would have thought it especially frequent in the "spoken dialect" of Paris but known to different degrees by radiation in most or all of the French language areas. —Tonymec (talk)20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tonymec: Would you say that the use of "un coup" in any of these would count as sense 1?[6][7][8]. The problem is that these are all articles by one author in one paper (from Mauritius). And there's alsothis article on Mauritian French which uses it quite heavily (although we can't cite the latter, because they're technicallymentions instead of uses). My methodology to find these was to search for "moi un coup le/la" on Google, hoping that the inclusion of "moi" would tilt the results towards imperatives like "dis-moi", etc., and the inclusion of "le/la" would get adverbial uses of "un coup" instead of cases where "coup" is just acting as a regular noun. But there actually aren't many results. I'm not going out of my way to search for French spoken on remote islands, it's just what seems to pop up when looking for this for whatever reason.
@70.172.194.25: I would count "un coup" as sense 1 if it can be replaced by "s'il te plaît" at the end of the sentence with no change of meaning; I would label it as "familiar" or "colloquial" and also "spoken language". Finding it in a song or magazine, I don't think so. In a TV show or even in a cinema film, I'd say maybe, if the characters are using colloquial spoken language. Teenager characters, maybe. But I wouldn't bet my head on it being easily findable.
In sense 2 "un coup" can be replaced by "une fois" at the same place in the sentence and I copied a quotation from fr.wikt about that sense. It is also "familiar" or "colloquial" but it has been found at least once in published text. —Tonymec (talk)02:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@70.172.194.25: Maybe in some dictionary, but recent dictionaries might be copy-protected (in France, until the 31st of December following the last living author's death plus 70 years) and older ones might be unaware of such a recent evolution in the language. I don't know how far we can make use of the French "exceptions to author's rights" allowing "short citations for use as example or illustration" and "extracts for information" (seefr:w:Droit d'auteur#Exceptions au droit d’auteur with footnotes sending back to the Berne Convention).
In addition, "moral rights" are in France part of intellectual property rights; they are perpetual and can neither be relinquished nor given over, even by testament ("perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible"): the author, and after him his "natural heirs", cannot avoid exercising them. —Tonymec (talk)22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
If this were very common colloquial French, I would expect to see more Google results than I do; nonetheless, I do find some hits for "toi un coup le|la", especially on Twitter:
@PUC,Tonymec, can you check whether those are using either of the relevant/RFVed (adverbial) senses ofun coup? Colloquial language would be precisely the kind of thing thatthis vote (which happened after this RFV was started) allowed people to discuss using online cites for... and there are also the cites of "moi un coup le" mentioned above...- -sche(discuss)16:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hm. In the above examples, "un coup" seems to me like a colloquial synonym of "une fois" but they could also beregiolectic (e.g. colloquial Paris French vs. colloquial Brussels French — I'm Belgian). I would analyze the personal pronoun as a complement or sometimes appositional subject of the verb and "un coup" as a circumstantial complement relating to the whole verbal syntagm and expressingsemelfactivity (English "once", "for once" or similar):
Have a look (wfw. look for yourself) for once at the best of Roger Federer on YouTube, you'll grasp the idea !
[détends-toiDIR OBJ] ← [un coup], [la musique évolue]
ParTerreDeRire vas-y, toiSUBJ APPOS, [un coup la Suisse] [un coup Portugal] [un coup Turquie] — ROFL, go ahead, you: one time Switzerland, one time Portugal, one time Turkey…(Even here, I would analyze "un coup" as a frozen adverbial idiom.)
I find it hard to tell apartcoup 7,un coup 1 andun coup 2. In Belgian French,une fois (possibly from Dutcheens) is often used colloquially to soften an imperative: fr_BE:Viens une fois ici, nl_NL:Kom eens hier (wfw. "Come once here"), nl_BE:Kom 'ne keer hier, en:Would you mind coming here ? etc. — Note the only example atcoup 7 whereEncore un coup, which is not obviously joined to anything else in the sentence, is translated by the adverbial clauseOnce again, —Tonymec (talk)21:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, OK. I will wait to hear what PUC or other French-speaking editors think, but I wonder if we could combineun coup senses 1 and 2 likethis and then consider them cited by the online cites (and the one book cite) ... or alternatively, redirectun coup tocoup and add a usage note tocoup about the colloquial use ofcoup sense 7 to soften requests, if that (coup sense 7 rather thanun coup) is how people prefer to view these cites ...- -sche(discuss)22:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Romanian. Rfv-sense "(vulgar, slang) extraordinary, super, excellent". Removed by IP (diff) with the comment "never heard it being used as an adjective, ever; add it back ONLY with a reference". —surjection ⟨??⟩20:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's definitely a real slang use, a synonym forpizdos. It's hard to find slang usage online, since it's a colloquial use (and when I google this word, I get only porn sites), but here's one proof of usage:"spectacol pizdă".Bogdan (talk)07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
L&S has "subst.: vŏlantes, ĭum, comm., the birds", but some other dicts only have f. (logeion -> LaNe: "subst. volantēs, ium en um f (poët.; postklass.)", Georges: "subst., volantēs, ium, f. (sc. bestiae)") and sometimes L&S has guesses, unattested information.”
Obviously, it could be masculine or feminine when used as a substantive, depending on the context:(vermes) volantes oraves (volantes). Maybe all attestations happen to refer to feminine animal nouns (aves,columbae) and not to for instanceculices orpasseres. Do we need such attestations to verify the inherent gender ambivalence? An entirely different issue is whether we should list such obvious nominalizations at all; we do not list a nounpowerful, even though its use as a noun is fairly common;[9] and we also do not list an (attestable[10]) noun sense forflagellantes. --Lambiam11:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I can't really find any dictionary supporting the existence of an adjective likeguantario, exceptthis, which I believe might've been used as a reference for the Wiktionary entry. There are a couple of usage examples I can find online – either as an adjective or as a noun (an alternative form ofguantaio(“glovemaker”)) – but that's all. —GianWiki (talk)12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
French. TheFrench Wiktionary entry lists one of the meanings ofabeillage as "Élevage des abeilles", i.e. the raising of bees, or beekeeping. However, all of the uses I found online were referring to the other historical senses of the word. If this sense is kept, it should at least perhaps be tagged as rare because it seems the more common translations for beekeeping areapiculture or a multi-word phrase like "élevage des abeilles", "industrie abeillère".70.175.192.21718:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Can somebody confirm the gender? This and alsoLagopus andλαγώπους give the gender as feminine (the latter offering both masculine and feminine). However,λαγώς andπούς are both masculine, so I can't see how the compound could possibly be feminine. If it really is, something needs to be added to the etymologies to say how this counterintuitive gender has happened. --Doric Loon (talk)22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
As forLagopus zoologists treat it as being feminine, as can be seen by the species epithets of two of the three species, the other one not being helpful. Lewis and Short asserts Latinlagopus as being feminine.DCDuring (talk)22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ancient Greekλαγώπους(lagṓpous) is a nominalization of an adjective meaninghare-footed; compare the adjectivesὀκτώπους(oktṓpous,“eight-footed”) andἐρυθρόπους(eruthrópous,“red-footed”). For these adjectives, the masculine and feminine forms are the same. The gender of a nominalization will usually be determined on semantic grounds; if seen as a shortening ofὄρνις λαγώπους (órnis lagṓpous, literally “hare-footed bird”), it will inherit the gender ofὄρνις – and thus still can go either way. --Lambiam11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
The Oxford Latin Dictionary agrees thatlagōpūs(“ptarmigan”) is feminine. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek says thatλαγώπους(lagṓpous,“ptarmigan, white partridge”) is masculine (the neuterλαγώπουν(lagṓpoun) is also substantivized and refers to some sort of clover or other trefoil). I'm pretty sure when LSJ says "λαγώ-πους, ποδος, ὁ, ἡ" it means thatas an adjective the masculine and feminine have the same form. However, it doesn't look like this word is ever actually used as an adjective meaning "hare-footed". It's only ever used as a masculine noun meaning "ptarmigan, white partridge" and as a neuter noun meaning "clover, trefoil". —Mahāgaja ·talk12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks for the correction; I overlooked the-xyz entries. It is somewhat unlikely that the Latin writers borrowinglagōpūs from Greek would have assigned it the feminine gender if they were not following a Greek example. --Lambiam09:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well, there's also the possibility, that the Latin gender isn't attested, but just assumed on whatever grounds. If that's the case, there maybe should be a usage note explaining the situation and the assumption.
In Latin dictionaries it's:
L&S: lăgōpūs, ŏdis, f. - 1. bird, 2. herb
Gaffiot: lăgōpūs, odis, f. - 1. bird, 2. plant
Georges: lagōpūs, podis, m. u. f. - 1. m. bird, 2. f. plant
So they agree, that the herb/plant is feminine. As for sensebird, all three reference works refer to Plinius: Plin. 10, 133 (Plin. 10, 48, 68, § 133). That is, according to edition:
LacusCurtius: "capitur circa Alpes etiam, ubi et phalacrocoraces, avis Baliarium insularum peculiaris, sicut Alpium pyrrhocorax, luteo rostro niger, et praecipua sapore lagopus. pedes leporino villo nomen hoc dedere cetero candidae, columbarum magnitudine."
Carolus Mayhoff, 1875: "iam et in Gallia Hispaniaque capitur etper Alpes etiam, ubi et phalacrocoraces, avis Baliarium insularum peculiaris, sicut Alpium pyrrhocorax luteo rostro niger et praecipua sapore lagopus. pedes leporino villo nomen hoc dedere cetero candidae, columbarum magnitudine."
transl. John Bostock & H. T. Riley, 1855: "It was formerly reckoned among the rare birds, but at the present day it is found in Gallia, Spain, and in the Alps even; which is also the case with the phalacrocorax, a bird peculiar to the Balearic Isles, as the pyrrhocorax, a black bird with a yellow bill, is to the Alps, and the lagopus, which is esteemed for its excellent flavour. This last bird derives its name from its feet, which are covered as it were, with the fur of a hare, the rest of the body being white, and the size of a pigeon." ["last bird" in nominative isn't in the Latin.]
In Wiktionary, Medieval Latin is Latin. So it seems both forms of the ablative can be attested, but only one may be Classical. Still, what aboutmemorium – can this form be attested? --Lambiam08:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
ML. is Latin, but there should be a qualifier/note. As for gen. pl.: Can the other,memorum, be attested? Or is it just an assumption, a form generated by an inflection template? Maybe it can by: "hunc crebro ungula pulsu incita nec domini memorum proculcat equorum, Verg. Aen. 12, 533"? --Myrelia (talk)09:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
(French) RFD sense of the fictional character: "One of the Three Musketeers." It already says this in the etymology, and IMO that's enough if it's a rare male given name derived from the book. This RFD goes along withthe RFD on English Aramis. Note the inconsistency also; we haveAramis as English,Porthos as French, and no entry forAthos.PseudoSkull (talk)22:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Rfv-sense "neighbour". Is this restricted to the biblical sense ofneighbour(“a fellow human being”), or is it also used for the literal sense of "person living on adjacent land/house/apartment"?__Gamren (talk)07:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don’t think this is specifically biblical. In the Vulgate this translatesὁ πλησίον(ho plēsíon) (“one’s neighbour”) in the Septuagint, a nominalized adverb derived from the adjectiveπλησίος(plēsíos) meaningnear,neighbouring. Latin has the feature ofzero-derivationnominalization of adjectives,[19] so perhaps Jerome simply used the nearest Latin equivalent of the Greek adjective as a noun. (Jerome could instead have usedvīcīnus(neighbour), also a nominalization of an adjective; we can only guess why he did not do so.) IMO there is hardly a reason to list this separately under the PoS “Noun”. When used as a noun, the term has a spectrum of meanings depending on the different senses of closeness, including “someone living nearby”, but is more likely to mean “next of kin”. --Lambiam14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
According to the authoritative text 'Rivet & Smith (1979) The Place Names of Roman Britain' (p315), the Latin name is indeclinable. What is the authority for a previous editor stating that 'Condate' follows a Greek-type' declension. If none, then this declension table should be deleted.— Thisunsigned comment was added byAvitacum (talk •contribs).
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. Rfv-sense: perfect passive participle ofcādō. This PPP is claimed to be indeclinable, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What's more, dictionaries (including TLL) don't mention a PPP for this verb. A supine stem is given, but given how widely-used this verb is, you'd expect to see some kind of reference to the PPP if it existed.This, that and the other (talk)12:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think the idea is that it only occurs in the compound forms of the impersonal passive construction (where the subject is always neuter singular), as shown in the conjugation table oncado. I just tried to search for an actual quotation exhibiting the use of impersonal PPPcasum + auxiliary, but I haven't found one yet.--Urszag (talk)01:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
The Goldoni and Consolemania quotations do seem to be using it to express unwillingness to repeat something said. Servi is using it for refusal to perform a musical encore, which is the same as the original story. Chirichelli and Odone are using it to refer to things that cannot be repeated because they are unique, etc., the same as what Paganini originally meant; but repetition of speech is not involved. Barbiera requires more context to understand, but I think also falls into this metaphorical category.
I'm not disputing that the expression exists with some meaning, but if it's super common hopefully we can find three quotations that are unambiguously using it to refer to refusal to repeat speech. And maybe we should flesh out the non-speech meaning too (something that cannot be repeated because it was improvised, etc.).98.170.164.8818:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: It is a technical term, so it might not be easy to find, butnavigazioneradioassistita is something even common people talk about.radioassistere (andservoassistere) are given in all major Italian dictionaries. I'm not interested in any of the fields where those terms might get used more regularly, but still, as a native speaker, I know those words... Reading you writing that they are "nonexistent" is a bit weird.Sartma (talk)08:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Looks like the country being referred to is theKingdom of Jolof and its predecessor, theJolof Empire, which is the same word asWolof (alsoDjolof,Yolof, etc.) and which we treat atWolof#English (sense 3). Although the definition there may be a little misleading, since in the Kingdom period, it was only one of multiple Wolof-speaking states, the others including Waalo and Cayor ([20]).142.166.21.7614:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. Taken from Gaffiot. Gaffiot, with du Cange, gives one citation, TertullianAd nationes 1.9 "abaliud a maiore defenditur", and apart from various scanos on Google Books it seems to be a hapax. But modern editions of Tertullian do not treat this as a word and instead render the passage "siab aliquo aliud, a maiore defenditur" (e.g.Borleffs 1954).Von Hartel 1890 already comments, "An die Existenz des Wortesabaliud glaubt heute wohl Niemand" ("nobody today believes in the existence of the wordabaliud"), and Schneider 1968 gives the emended sentence andlabelsabaliud aghost word. I can't find any reliable source disagreeing with this assessment. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)20:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Easily 'attested':
Tertullianus,Ad nationes [To the nations], lib. 1, cap. 9 – in some editions, e.g.Bibliotheca patrum ecclesiaticorum latinorum selecta. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edita curante E. G. Gersdorf. Vol. IV. Qu. Sept. Flor. Tertulliani opera. Ad optimorum librorum fidem expressa curante E. F. Leopold. Pars I. Libri apologetici., Lipsia, 1839, p. 141:
@Amicus vetus: Please re-read my comment above: the modern consensus is that it is not found in Tertullian, it is an error of manuscript interpretation (and not therefore used in actual Latin).By definition, it cannot be both a ghost word and attested. (Well, it can, but in this case it doesn't seem to have crept into actual usage anywhere, hence my RFV.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)10:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've read your comment carefully. It's found in Tertullianus -- at least in old editions thereof and an example was provided (and it's different from misprints/typos). That it is an error (scribal error in the manuscript, misreading, wrong conjecture or whatever) doesn't change that. Thus the entry is justified, and an explanatory usage note ('it's a mistake/ghostword' etc.) what is lacking. --Amicus vetus (talk)12:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Amicus vetus: I think we're arguing at cross-purposes a bit. My point is that if there was never a wordabaliud used by Tertullian or anyone else to mean "on the other hand", then our gloss is entirely spurious and should not be listed as a sense (it can be in the etymology, usage notes, or whatever—from elsewhere on this page some people might prefer this to just be a link to an appendix, I don't care too much either way). The only sense listed should, I think, be "alternative form"/scribal corruption ofabaliud. The fact that it is found in older editions of Tertullian does not support listing it as asense, which is a matter of how the text is interpreted rather than how it is printed—and it's the sense that's being RFV'd here, since I'm not at RFD requesting the entry itself be deleted. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Recently, I deleted several transliterated Japanese names and surnames created by a single IP that had little evidence to be in use in Portuguese language and looked like simple copies of the English entries. After a message from @Benwing2, I've gave some thought to this approach, so I'm opening this discussion in order reassess if the deleted should be restored or if the remaining unattested terms inPortuguese surnames from Japanese andPortuguese given names from Japanese should be removed as well. -Sarilho1 (talk)10:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sarilho1 My sense is that surname entries like this should be kept if they convey some useful info that is specific to the destination language, otherwise deleted. For example, if the surname is common enough to have a fairly fixed pronunciation, and we include that, this counts as "useful info". One example isFukushima, which has a pronunciation given (maybe because it is also a toponym, and in the news a lot). I would say, on the contrary, that an etymology that is simply copied from the English entry doesn't count as useful info. Basically, we should discourage people from creating entries by just copying the English entry and making automatable changes to get an entry in another language. The intended result of this is that only sufficiently common or well-known surnames from foreign languages (e.g. names of famous Russian composers, in the case of Russian surnames) end up as entries. Otherwise we could end up with endless autogenerated surname entries swamping a given page. Not sure if this explicitly matches with CFI, but probably to the spirit of it.Benwing2 (talk)06:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latin, feminine declension in-os,-oe. The Latin RFV IP wants to add this declension but I see no evidence for it in sources; expected phrases likeres adespotos,res adespotoe,oda adespotos etc. look unattested (res adespotae is passably common, and indeed appears in theNLW entry, "quasi res anteà fuerint adespotae"). The formadespotoe looks totally unattested and my immediate searches did not turn up any instance of forms in-os,-orum modifying a feminine noun. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)12:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
adespoton can be found. Masc.nom.sg. to that isadespotos (notadespotus), even if it weren't attested.
2nd point, first link, "adespotos" is either agreeing with "impressus", not "Vuittenbergae" (it's not in the genitive), or being used as an adverb (thus-ōs?). Second link,sermo is a masculine noun. Third link (assuming "vita Arist. adespotos" is meant, and it's thevita that'sadespotos) may count, although perhaps a rather thin basis. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)05:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
(this asked for forms in -os in general, regardless of gender. --06:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC))
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can't find evidence of this being used in (New) Latin texts, although it appears in some Latin-style names for diseases (e.g.retinopathia congenitalis). Maybe just Translingual? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)08:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is used in English and German, and appears as a "new Latin" style name, so perhaps this should just be marked as English. Translingual won't account for individual language conjugations.Graeme Bartlett (talk)22:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Italian. Also RFV'ingatrovarsi. @Catonif,Sartma Both are these are another wonderful SemperBlotto creation, claimed to be alternative forms oftrovare/trovarsi. No references given as to where these terms came from and they are not in any dictionaries. Attempts to Google them produce lots of typos fora trovare/a trovarsi but not much else (and excludingtrovare from the search yields no hits).Benwing2 (talk)23:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I placed two quotes, though I normalized atattrovare per the sources and becausea- instead ofa*- is just an obsolete orthographical practice once greatly used especially by northern authors. The TLIO link shows great use in northern dialects. Hopefully I'll find a third quote in proper Tuscan.Catonif (talk)13:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Romanian. I found this inDEX, but I havent been able to find it actually in use ... everything I turn up seems to be a dictionary, a list of words, or (in just a few cases) translation of an English-language text . I can't find a pronunciation given anywhere. There may be some French influence, as the definition given in DEX somewhat resembles that forpitchpin inthis French dictionary.
I've expanded the entry with another use in a popular novel (albeit somewhat mention-y). I couldn't find any other examples of the term in Romanian texts.Einstein2 (talk)15:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think so, yes, though it's a bit of a mess, since as our own entry indicates, thepitch pine can refer to more than one tree. The DLR dictionary gives onlyPinus palustris as the definition, butWikipedia gives onlyPinus rigida. Since the habitats of the two trees dont overlap much, I suspect at one point it was in use in English to describe both species, and that people probably still callPalustris pitch pine today, but as arborists have become more standardized, they ended up going withRigida as the one true pitch pine. Whereas the foreign dictionaries were probably compiled much earlier.
Anyway, my Romanian isnt good enough to tell at a glance whether the cite given in the DLR dictionary is good enough to qualify as a use rather than a mention .... I'll trust you all if you say it is, and we can let the word remain listed in our dictionary. And we even got a pronunciation out of it, too. However, without the full context and with my limited skills in the language, I can't say on my own whether the DLR dictionary's cites are really uses in running text or more like "this is what they call a pitchpine" examples. Thanks,—Soap—18:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
In English, it would not be surprising to me thatPinus rigida was usually the referent forpitch pine, but that the term was also often used for any pine that potentially yielded pitch economically. MW just uses an "especially" forP. rigida.DCDuring (talk)19:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can rest assured it passes. There’s the quotation you found (which is better than you might have realised, as it is a transcription of an actually published text), then there’s quotation #1 from DLR, where it is used without explanation in a technical text, then there arethese two occurrences in a forestry magazine. That makes three uses (as opposed to mentions) even if you don’t count DLR quotation #2 (which, as Einstein2 said, is more of a mention/English embedding indeed). Do these need to be on the page itself or does this mere discussion legitimise the entry? —Biolongvistul (talk)20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It would be better if they were in the entry, but we sometimes let users enjoy multiple link chases, if indeed they trouble to look at the talk page (where this discussion should be archived in due course).DCDuring (talk)21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is allegedly a Latin adjective meaning "Maronite", but the main word for that in Latin is definitelyMarōnītae (usually found in the plural, like most words ending in -ītae), which I just added. I'm having a hard time figuring out whether "maronitus, -a, -um" actually exists as more than an occasional mistake. I added one citation of "Maronitorum" that I think is not a misprint (but could be interpreted as a grammar error; comparethis similar example with -arum), so I guess that qualifies the word for inclusion based onhttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Limited_Documentation_Languages, but I wanted more eyes on this to check.
Two candidates I found that do seem to be misprints/typos or mistakes:this book refers to "laGrammatica arabica Maronitorum (París, 1616)" butthe actual 1616 book seems to use the spelling "-arum"; and an example of "nomen Maronitum" inthis book seems to be a mistake for "nomen Maronitarum".
@Urszag: I think the best solution is just to tag it as a nonstandard altform ofMarōnīta (more common than-ītēs when I checked). Though I'm aware many Latin dictionaries lemmatise demonyms and the like at the plural, given that that singular form is decently attested I think it's unhelpful forMarōnītae to be treated as a plurale tantum. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)12:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. This is apparently a way of writingⅯ(“one thousand”), but I'm pretty sure it should beⅭⅠↃ. Putting brackets around the letter I might be visually similar, but smells like BS.Theknightwho (talk)16:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Italian. Only found in personal and place names. (The current definition claims "especially", implying the word would be attestable outside of those, which would make this an RFV problem, but that's contradicted by the onomatology label, so I'm bringing this to RFD.) Very unlikely to have ever been an Italian word in any case, as all the names it is in are Germanic coinages.Catonif (talk)13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok,moved to RFV (sorry for the confusion. If it isn't clear, see the beginning of the page for explainations of how this works). The example you provide is curious: the glosses (prando together withpolve, ritorte, etc.) are clearly about the sonnet in the preceding page (it's not a vocabulary), though in the sonnet, alongsidepolve andritorte we findbrando, which is widely attested also elsewhere. Looking at the gloss closely, I suspect thatP is actually aB that lost its lower belly either in the printing or in the scanning phase, or alternatively a straight-up misprint. Note that even if we were to consider it a voluntaryP, it would still not be enough to keep the entry perour criteria of inclusion.Catonif (talk)16:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
No citations present. The subspecies are not recognized by Mammal Species of the World, the Catalog of Life, WP, or Wikispecies. It is my understanding that the goats that are the source of cashmere are breeds that do not have well-defined links to subspecies.DCDuring (talk)02:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The entry is confused, but that's no reason to post a confused rfv. This page is for verifying usage of a specific term, not goat taxonomy. Let me try to explain the main issues involved:
First of all,cashmere andangora are types of goat wool named after places in regions where they have historically been produced: cashmere fromKashmir and angora fromAnkara. They are each produced by a specific breed of goat. French Wikipedia claims, based onthis reference that the Angora breed was introduced to Turkey from Kashmir, and infers that the two breeds are basically the same animal, along with similar goats in places like Tibet. English Wikipedia, based on its own sources, says that the origin of the Angora breed is unknown and treatsAngora goats andCashmere goats as separate breeds, with the Tibetan goats included in the Cashmere goat article.
As for the taxonomic names: back before the taxonomic treatment of breeds and cultivars was somewhat standardized, it was common practice to assign them to taxonomic ranks likesubspecies. I haven't done a very thorough search, but the taxonomic names in question do seem to have been in use (Whether the Angora-specificCapra hircus angorensis is used for Cashmere and Tibetan goats is another question entirely). IMO the entry would be better off without them, since they're obsolete, inaccurate, and misleading.
Which brings me to what I think is the real issue: there is at leastone book that says "La chèvre Cachemire - égalment appelée Chèvre du Tibet", so for at least some people, they're synonyms. The sticky part is determining whether "chèvre du Tibet" is a term for cashmere goats in general, or merely for the goats found in Tibet, which are inferred to be the cashmere goat breed. In other words, would someone use the term "chèvre du Tibet" for a goat in Kashmir or China? To use an analogy, even though people in Brussels and in Paris both speak the same language, would anyone say that Parisians speak Belgian French?Chuck Entz (talk)05:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry if the RfV caused confusion. I am challenging the definition, at least the part that includes the taxonomy. The taxonomy is probably old, very new, or informal, should the definition prove to be attestable. If there is evidence of usage with these taxa, then it stays. I usually do not challenge entries that at least use current or recent taxonomy, leaving that for others. There is a similar problem with respect to a German entry forAngorawolle.DCDuring (talk)16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Portuguese. There are currently 192 entries in this category, most of which are not listed here. The tagging was largely done bySarilho1. I am making this listing so that Portuguese editors can look through and either cite or speedy delete any obvious entries.This, that and the other (talk)03:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Most of the tagged terms seem to be names and surnames that are either pretty common or very common in Brazil. Finding citations for a hundred terms is gonna be quite the tiresome ordeal.MedK1 (talk)20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It seems to exist: "Ce cocktail bière brune, liqueur de café, sucre et demi-expresso est un "after dinner""[29]; "Que ce soit pour un apéritif en tout début de soirée ou un after dinner, le Bar du TIGRR est un des endroits incontournables du centre du village"[30]. Don't know whether it meets CFI.Equinox◑11:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Portuguese. Never heard this adjective in Portugal. Portuguese dictionaries don't register it either, so if it is indeed a Portuguese expression, it is at most colloquial. -Sarilho1 (talk)14:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sicilian. Originally tagged for speedy deletion with rationale "This entry is mispelled. The semiconsonant j- is widely accepted as a simple i- when derived from Latin nexus pl- and fl-". That may be the case but there is an entry at scn.wikt with several other spelling variants.Ultimateria (talk)19:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was able to find ithere. This was theonly case where they weren't trying to just explain what the English term "wishful thinking" means.MedK1 (talk)01:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Spanish, "foreign countries; abroad". This might be an error forel extranjero, as defined byRAE.es and theSpanish Wiktionary entry. It seems roughly parallel with how in English we say "I moved to the country" to mean "countryside" and the article cannot be omitted. Perhaps since this is such an unusual construction in both English and Spanish, some people are getting confused. Thanks,—Soap—02:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what the protocol is here, but my two cents are: it's simpler and it makes more sense to keep it in one entry. It's the same word; it just means something a bit different when you add the articleel. The Gran Diccionario Oxford Español-Inglés/Inglés-Español includes the sense of "abroad" in its entry forextranjero. Not to mention the RAE entry doesn't bother creating a whole new page forel extranjero; they just make sure to distinguish the noun sense from the adjective senses.
According to the Diccionario Ortografico de l'aragonés (Seguntes la P.O. de l'EFA):
bada f. ‖ lat. vulg. de batare ‖ cast. rendija; paro laboral; huelga; aburrimiento ‖ cat. badall; aturada laboral; vaga; avorriment
Im not sure where they got their data from and it's a source that doesn't where it's said or why how many, but nonetheless is a reliable source.Jinengi (talk)16:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Portuguese. Supposed misspelling ofsepteto. Some users attempted to mark it as European Portuguese misspelling, however the creator of the entry is a Brazilian Portuguese speaker. -Sarilho1 (talk)15:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Is "septeto" always or usually pronounced with [pt], or can it also be pronounced with just [t]? From what I could see, the 1990 spelling reform alleges that the correctness of "pt" vs "t" in spelling depends on whether the word has [pt] "nas pronúncias cultas da língua", so it doesn't seem possible that "seteto" could be a simple misspelling (unless by just omitting a letter): seems more like an alternative form representing an alternative pronunciation, and whether that pronunciation is stigmatized or unremarkable should be marked in the entry.--Urszag (talk)18:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The IP that edited the entry claimed that "p" is never omitted in Brazil. I'm not aware of it happening in Portugal either. It's possible that it occurs, but so far the claims are that it doesn't. -Sarilho1 (talk)08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I meant that "seteto" couldn't be a 'misspelling of septeto' in Brazil because upon saying "septeto" out loud, the tendency would be to say it as "sepiteto"; the P wouldn't be omitted. The only way you'd get "seteto" is if it actually were an alternative form of the word... which does seem to be the case since I could find it in texts by Portuguese teachers and dictionaries alike.MedK1 (talk)19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Portuguese. This is about the 3rd sense. Are we positive this isn't just the 2nd sense but with the word moved to the end of the sentence (perfectly normal in Portuguese)? I'm saying the example sentence for sense #3 means "We could dine together tomorrowthen." I added some synonyms to the second sense, and both of them could apply to the 3rd one too. "Podíamos jantar juntos amanhã então" is definitely something I can see myself saying. Is this really something only used only in Southern Brazil? Granted, that's where I'm from, but it sure doesn't feel like a regionalism and I don't think I've ever raised any eyebrows using it in São Paulo or when talking to people from the Northeast.MedK1 (talk)00:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Come to think of it, perhaps I used the wrong template. I'm not questioning whether it's used like that (because it is and I do), but rather if it warrants being listed as a separate sense (I don't think so).MedK1 (talk)00:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@PUC I know nothing about the merits, but this IP geolocates to Tunisia- which does have French-speakers. I suppose there might be local usage that doesn't show up anywhere we can find it. That said, I've seen them editing in languages that they would have no personal experience with, so I wouldn't take their word on anything without independent verification.Chuck Entz (talk)02:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
As noted onTalk:ẑ, Wikipedia (in English and French) offers some other uses of this letter that may be worthy of mentioning in a Translingual section, particularly the Macedonian transliteration (if it indeed caught on in real-world use).This, that and the other (talk)01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sicilian. The spelling is attested in Latin, and the Latin word does descend from Sicilian, the question is whether the spelling can be found in Sicilian running text. @Hyblaeorum as creator.Catonif (talk)22:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Various 'Latin' terms that are (just?) taxonomic names
I can find some attestations offrangula in Latin as a botanical name, but not as an adjective meaning 'fragile'. Daniel Sennert'sEpitome naturalis scientiae (1637) includes it in a list: "...Buxus, virga sanguinea,frangula, Evonymus".--Urszag (talk)06:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Urszag In case you haven't already seen this: in modern taxonomy the name "frangula" goes back toLinnaeus as the specific epithet for what is nowFrangula alnus. The reference to "Dod. pempt. 784", evidently refers tothis and the following page inStirpium historiae pemptades sex byRembert Dodoens. This is the 1616 edition, but it also appears in at least the 1583 on as well. As you can see, it's all in Latin- not "taxonomese", but real Latin. Of course, that has no direct bearing on Latinfrangulus. It does discuss names on the top of p.784 and says that this name was in use by others at the time, so an explanation of the name may exist in writing somewhere, and it might be derived from Latinfrangō due to brittleness of the wood, as theWikipedia article onFrangula alnus claims.Chuck Entz (talk)23:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Through some research and discussing with @Kc kennylau at Wikt Discord server, I can safely assumeactinocarpo is aghost word, i.e. a term that only exists in dictionaries — and a pretty old aone, one of the earliest mentions is from1937. Basically, all hits are either from dictionary entries or definitions in some compilation work, I couldn't find any usage example of this word.
My guess is that someone wanted to explain what the specific epithetactinocarpus meant in scientific names and made a calque along the way, as both actino- (actinomorfo) and carpo (mesocarpo) exist in these kind of compounds in Portuguese. The etymology of all these is a mess too, but that's for another day.Trooper57 (talk)23:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is just a regular RFV. As I view it, and I've seen other editors agree in the past, a taxonomic name by itself doesn't count as a usage of a word in the Latin language. Therefore, we should either verify that these have been used in Latin or move them to Translingual.--Urszag (talk)19:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd really be OK with just moving them to Translingual. I doubt that we have many readers or Latin botanical species descriptions coming to Wiktionary for help and not finding them under Translingual. There are plenty that are real Latin, but compound ones like all butlycioides of these four are very rarely 'real' Latin. And I wouldn't argue about something ending in-oides either. I don't know aboutfrangulus, but it was not an arbitrary sign: I'm sure it was intended to mean something based on some vintage of Latin and/or its morphology.DCDuring (talk)21:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! While I suspected they might not be attested as 'real' Latin, for some of them I'm genuinely uncertain about if uses in Latin exist, so if they do, I'd like to know about it. I think I'll try to follow up on the lead found by Chuck Entz forfrangulus and do more of my own searches for the others before moving any of these.--Urszag (talk)00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest rewriting the entry as doesn't appear to be a synonym ofcoup bas. Sidenote: I found usages of "coup de bas en haut" / "coup de poing de bas en haut" as a translation of "uppercut".Io Katai (talk)04:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: Maybe you have, but you need to find citations and prove generic usage. You may have just heard everyday talk of a trademark like "let's get another of those Babybels, they are good on crackers".Equinox◑02:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Couldn't find this word used at all, SearchedPHI and [Perseus] . Theoretically it could be the future active participle ofadveniō, though I was unable to find it used that way.The word you are looking for is likely eitherpericuli (trials or perils),iter (journey), orcursus (travels/race).I believe it would be best if we removed the noun form from this definition.
In addition this supposed noun is in the wrong gender; it should rather beadventūra, which is in fact attested as a borrowing from one or more Romance descendants of Vulgar Latin*adventūra.
I would imagine that the assumption of an *adventūrus resulted from a misinterpretation of the etymology of the Englishadventure, that is, 'from Latinadventurus' could be read as implying the existence of such a noun in Latin.
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Catalan. Created by Wonderfool several years ago. Not in any dictionary. This is definitely a possible internationalism but if so we need attestations.Benwing2 (talk)07:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I searched through all the catalan diccionaries that are listed in the catalan reference templates, and they only attest "intersecar"; the only hit I got was this inGran Enciclopèdia Catalana (Ctrl+F "intersec" - four hits). If it exists it was probably modeled after the noun, like the English and Portuguese equivalents. I think it's safe to delete, I'll even create the proper one underintersecar.Sérgio Santos (talk)00:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, the single result for Pammenen is post-Classical, New Latin. If there's nothing in ancient Latin (Old, Classical, Late Latin), this should be marked in the entry. And while abl. Pammenē might then be based on analogy (e.g.sophistēs), this doesn't apply to dat. Pammenē. --00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not an isolated example, there are analogous complications in the declension ofAlcibiadēs,Thūcȳdidēs,Herculēs,Achillēs, etc. These can generally be analyzed as third-declension nouns with some anomalous forms (including potentially the genitive singular). I've adjusted the table to remove dat. sg. "Pammenē"; the length of the vowel in the ablative does not seem determinable from the current citations.--Urszag (talk)09:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
As the note on that page mentions, the spelling "Herculei" probably corresponded to a pronunciation that ended with the vowel /iː/, like a normal Latin third-declension dative singular form. We could compare "Orphei" = Greek Ὀρφεῖ as a dative singular of "Orpheus" (Verg. ecl. 4, "Orphei Calliopea"). From a Latin-internal standpoint, I think the use of "-ei" to represent /iː/ in forms like "Herculei" can be interpreted either as the archaic digraph spelling (also seen sometimes in nominative plural or dative/ablative plural forms) or as a case where "e" is slurred over by "synizesis" with the following vowel letter i, with the latter representing a long /iː/ sound (compare the use in poetry of Pēleō, Nēreō as disyllables, or of the native Latin words aureō, aureīs, ferreī). Whichever explanation applies, the irregularity would be a matter of spelling or of the form of the stem, rather than the use of an irregular terminal vowel for this case/number category. I don't think Pammenē, with long /eː/, is a likely form, as /eː/ is not normally found at the end of Latin dative singular nouns. It's conceivable that Pammenī might have an alternative spelling Pammenei (pronounced the same way) as a Graecizing variant, but I don't think we should go out of our way to present such irregular spellings, when similar names such asAlcibiades are attested in Classical Latin with the dative spelled as Alcibiadi.--Urszag (talk)18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I cited the dative "Pammeni" and added it to the citations page. The only still-uncited forms are the vocatives. It isn't that uncommon for this rare case form to happen to be unattested in Latin, and we don't in general require every case form of a Latin noun to be attested. So unless anyone thinks we need to hunt out for those or remove them, I'm marking this asRFV-resolved.--Urszag (talk)20:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Urszag: I'll agree with that. Excellent work! Given the vocatives are unattested, should we give them asPammenē andPammenē̆s, do you think? And do you want them asterisked or not? I also wonder whether an accusativePammenē and genitivePammenūs exist (following the third-declension Greek forms).0DF (talk)21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latin. Rfv-sense: afemale screw. I looked through the links at the bottom of the entry and found a few Latin texts with this word, but I couldnt find anything in which any sense other than the literal ones would be the most natural interpretation. Im skeptical that there is a sexual meaning that would be used three times in Latin in order to pass through RFV. One-off sexual innuendos might be there, but that's not CFI-compliant. It's also possible that the originating author misread something, or was copying from a source who had, and that the word actually means a literalfemale screw (search hardware sites etc), but Im not sure Roman carpenters even had screws, let alone the less common female form.—Soap—15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please seeWiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Number of citations: "Forlanguages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate [...]. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate [...]".
Latin is not aWT:WDL. Regardless of considering it extinct (which Early, Old, Classical, Late, Medieval and Vulgar Latin are) or alive (New Latin; Church Latin), 1 source is sufficient.
But feel free, to consider using {{lb|la|rare}} or {{LDL-sense}} (cp. {{LDL}}).
As for a source, L&S has: "The female screw, Plin. 18, 31, 74, § 317.". Georges, which is younger and often better than L&S, has: "b) rugae, der Schraubengang, die Schraubenmutter (griech. περικόχλιον), Plin. 18, 317." (i.e. in plural). Gaffiot translates it asécrou.
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I hope this is the right place to make this request. We havesēdēs listed as an i-stem, and so the genitive plural is given assēdium. However, my textbook claims this word to be a consonantal-stem of the 3rd declension, which would have a genitive pluralsēdum. German Wiktionary lists the non-i form instead; Latin Wiktionary actually lists both (and notable doesn't include the accusative plural variantsēdīs which we list). If this is indeed a case where variation occurs, we should probably include note of that and in what contexts/language stages this is the case. Could someone please verify?Helrasincke (talk)07:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is indeed the right place to request verification of inflected forms of Latin words. It looks like this is discussed by other dictionaries. Lewis and Short says "gen. plur. sedum, Cic. Sest. 20, acc. to Prisc. p. 771 P.: sedium, from form sedis, Liv. 5, 42 Drak. N. cr.; Vell. 2, 109, 3)". The doctoral thesisAspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin, by András Cser (2016) suggests that consonant-stem inflection would be expected overall, saying that third-declension words with the nominative singular ending-ēs "do not show other i-stem forms apart from GENPLURnubium andcladium (the latter varying with consonant-stemcladum; no GENPLUR forms attested for fames at all). In Latin historical linguistics-ēs is known as a typical feminine i-stem ending for the NOMSING originally" (page 126). I'll take a look for what other attestations might be found.--Urszag (talk)07:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Latin. It's essentially synonymous withcarmen, and so it seems suspicious that it has the same nominative/accusative plural formcarmina. Is it a medieval/Late Latin backformation, or a backformation in the mind of a modern editor? No other dictionary I have seen lists it.Urszag (talk)12:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm surprised this has lasted sixteen years. It is without a doubt the result of an editor's unfamiliarity with the language. There's of course nothing like this in any Latin dictionary, and searching forms likecarminum brings up sentences where that is clearly genitive plural (=carmen);carminō doesn't bring up any sort of dative or ablative singular (only the verbcarminō); etc.Nicodene (talk)02:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's been edited now with an example of "carminorum"; I also saw some other examples of that form. The question though is whether this actually implies a second-declension singular "carminum, carmini", or if it is best interpreted as a heteroclitic form (likevāsōrum and various post-classical genitive plurals in -ōrum).--Urszag (talk)00:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
French. Rfv-sense: "shaped like that of a crow or raven". Seems like a weird definition and Wiktionnairedoesn't have it. I added "corvine" and made the previous definition a gloss. If it's citable, it may simple mean "related to crows or ravens".Andrew Sheedy (talk)02:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The adjectival sense is noted in theGD "2. Corbin, adj., de corbeau : Le genre corbin." (Corbin, adj. 'of crows': the crow genus). However, when I looked at the referenced workL'Histoire de la nature des oyseaux (book 6, chapter 5), the original phrase is actually "C'est la plus petite de toute les especes du genre Corbin" (It's the smallest of all species in the genus Corbin), which doesn't support the adjectival sense. I would suggest removing it.Io Katai (talk)03:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Previous discussions archived at "Talk:E=mc²" established that only the following idiomatic sense should be kept in English: "A formulation or realization that captures a profound thought in simple terms." Is there are corresponding idiomatic sense in French? —Sgconlaw (talk)20:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
TheFrench version of the page cites two examples where it's used in the idiomatic sense of "simple, yet genius principle". There was also anRfD requested in 2013 on the French Wiktionary, but it was kept due to the idiomatic usage. That said, searching Google for idiomatic instances of "le E=MC2 du/de" or "le E=mc² de/du" turns up maybe only 22 unique results and of possessive forms like "Mon/son/etc. E=MC2" gives 3 or 4 results.
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Haitian Creole. I suspect this isn't actually spelled with parentheses; rather, it can be spelled eitherplan pye orpla pye. If so, we should move the content to the more common spelling and have the other be an alternative form. —Mahāgaja ·talk16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
This entry seems unattested, seeHesperus where the latter is in no way adjectival according to Charlton T. Lewis and other sources. Adjectival forms formed from the stem are eitherHesperius orHesperis, both in all caps.
Responding to the above request (not sure how to do this - I'm not a regular contributor): I can't speak to whether "hesperus" was used as an adjective in classical or ecclesiastical Latin, but it is used as an adjective in botanical Latin. For example, there is a plant species whose name is Parietaria hespera.
There are about 330 names of accepted non-extinct species at Catalogue of Life with forms ofhesperus as (sub)specific epithet. About 50% more with names that are unaccepted or for extinct species. I'm guessing that the meaning is usually "western" for these.DCDuring (talk)01:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't know about that ! But the real issue is the entry not being referenced as being of New-Latin usage and also being used in etymology headings (englishHesperus) when it's derivatives are uppercase-only and seems itself to be.
I've noticed the same thing withCamena/camena which shows perhaps a common problem on wiktionary about not uppercasing latin entries that should in fact be upercassed. I'll check on that and do the changes accordingly concerning theHesperus paradigms. Though I'd rather leavehesperus to someone else as I usually don't deal with new latin stuff.Tim Utikal (talk)18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
For most such terms we have entries for both upper- and lower-case forms. The lowercase form is usually attestable as New Latin or "Translingual" in the names of species. We haven't spent too much time on the matter because there is neither much interest nor consensus among contributors. In the case ofhesperus, it is easy to attest to its wide and continued use in scientific Latin with the meaning "western". I am not sure about other meanings, nor about use in other vintages of Latin, though "Italian" might be in use or have been used in Ecclesiastical Latin. I don't understand the implications of or evidence attesting the "relational" definition "evening", specifically why it differs in semantics or syntax from attributive use of a noun in English. Is it just that the term is inflected by gender? Or is it just a tradition among Latin scholars or certain Latin scholars?DCDuring (talk)13:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand what you meant. I'm sorry to ask but do you know how latin adjectives work?Hesperus is strictly a masculine noun and new latinhesperus (apparently) only an adjective. A proper (as not New Latin) latin adjectival form of Hesperus would beHesperius, suffixed with-ius and thus inflected in gender, case and number according to what it qualifies. But again I probably misunderstood what you wrote. I do think the entry should be cleared up and added a new latinlb tag to avoid confusion and for correctness' sake.Tim Utikal (talk)22:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd be surprised to find that it washesperius rather tahnhesperus in all Latins, eg, Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin. In any event, resolution requires citations.
BTW, how do you think we should present the etymology of the107 accepted genera of extant organisms? Are they likely derived fromHesperus (Latin),hesperus (Latin or Translingual), orhesper- (Translingual)? All three seem like possibilities.DCDuring (talk)13:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm quite ignorant regarding new latin word-creation so I don't have anything to compare this exemple to. Each way you propose seem likely, though I maintain lowercase+adjectivehesperus is quite aberrant and can't find any quote supporting it. It may just be a rethinking of the word from some scientist who didn't know his latin well enough (hardly credible) or may be a common thing to create new latin specific adjectives from former noun stems (it's for you to tell me if you know better). Either wayhesperus is not incorrect if used in scientific context, just a completely different word which again should not be confused for the other and given its new latin/translingual tag.Tim Utikal (talk)18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I view this exactly as another eye-dialect–spelling for Caipira "vermelho". Less common than "vermeio", but it shows some social media results, for what that's worth.Polomo47 (talk)13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Latin.
All descendants point towardsscloppus, which was once the spelling we used. The sole cite that I can find points tothis site which actually hasseloppo. This could be a scan error, but it's more likely a scan error forscloppo than forstloppo. (The suffix is because it's in the ablative case, i think.) And the onsetstl- is only found in Old Latin anyway. Basically looking to see why we're insisting on using a spelling that seems to rest on so many unproven assumptions. There may be infomation here in thepage history andhere too. but i couldnt find the reasoning for this. @Nicodene if youre around sorry to bother but you seem the best person to ask. Thanks,—Soap—21:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Soap: I was not aware that the formscloppus may actually be attested. I'll have to look into that. As forstloppus, it isattested inPersius andMarcellus Empiricus. As an onomatopoeic formation it may postdate the earlier /stl-/ > /l-/ seen inlocus, etc.
but isnt that supposed attestation the same text i just linked to? i dont know the source material we're working with here ... parchment, stone tablets, or maybe even modern paper? ... but it seems to me that the people sayingstloppus might've been looking at a single instance of a word, ahapax even, where the second letter was difficult to read. i'd be more convinced of the unusual-t- spelling if the Perseus text i linked to had it, but it has a spelling that suggests the word form was *seloppus. this could be a misreading ,but as i said above it seems more likely that it'd be a misreading forscloppus, which uses the traditional L onset cluster that all the descendants point to. is there a text we can look at that shows the-t- spelling, as opposed to a scholar who merely says that it's there? thanks,—Soap—09:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's just a website- there was probably a scanning error somewhere along the way. And that is only one of the two attestations mentioned.
The texts are parchment copies of copies of copies [...] reaching back across millennia to the Roman originals. Having delved down that rabbit-hole before, I am not eager to repeat the experience without a more compelling reason. I'll settle for finding more comments by reliable sources.Nicodene (talk)09:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I was just about to cite Jahn. As you can see from the critical apparatus, forms starting with stlo- such as stlopo do occur in some manuscripts, and as Nicodene said stl- turned regularly into /skl/. Jahn says Priscian cites this word as an example of a word starting with stl.--Urszag (talk)10:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
[32] (old) mentions a source: "cippus, auchcipus geschrieben z. B. Gram. lat. IV p. 574, 7 u. Var. bei Hor. sat. 1, 8, 12". Horatius' text can be found at[33]. This old ed.(1520) has it withcipus.(1864) givescipus asvaria lectio. So both can be mentioned in the entry:
occuring in quite old eds. (which, of course, can be of lower quality)
appearing in some old manuscript and being a varia lectio (likely of lesser quality/accuracy/etc.)
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latin. Domus is currently listed with three possible dative singular forms: domuī, domō, domū. The first two are attestable, but is the third? It seems most grammars of Latin don't list it. Hypothetically, it might be possible, given what Gellius says about Caesar's argument based on analogy for using -ū rather than -uī in the dative singular of all fourth-declension words: "C. etiam Caesar, gravis auctor linguae Latinae, in Anticatone, “unius,” inquit, “arrogantiae, superbiae dominatuque.” Item In Dolabellam actionis I. lib. I.: “Isti, quorum in aedibus fanisque posita et honori 9erant et ornatu.” In libris quoque analogicis omnia istiusmodi sine “i” littera dicenda censet." But it's not clear to me how far Caesar's prescriptions were ever put into practice (even by himself). Anyway, if "domu" is unattested in this use it seems better to omit it, so as to avoid confusing learners about the declension of an already tricky noun.--Urszag (talk)00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Georges: "Dat. archaist. domo (Corp. inscr. Lat. 3, 6463. Cato r.r. 134, 2. Hor. ep. 1, 10, 13) u. domu (Corp. inscr. Lat. 3, 231 u. 5, 1220), klass. domui:" with reference toCorpus inscriptionum Latinarum (see e.g.[34]). --05:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
web references only won't do it, though. I don't find anything in gbooks searching for "les haschs" or "des haschs".Jberkel08:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Though, it seems to be mostly "full <adjective meaning angry>" ("full pistola" is the most common and also what I've heard/used; but "full bolado" and "full nervoso" gets plenty of hits too) and "full <tier of Minecraft armor>". I was also able to find "full talento" and I have no idea what THAT could've meant. Maybe it should have its own entry?MedK1 (talk)01:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Portuguese.
Seems "emirato" is in Priberam, and "Emiratos Árabes Unidos" inInfopédia. Although, the Portuguese Wikipedia page says the name is used "wrongly" because it isn't in VOLP... doesn't seem like a misspelling, but maybe proscribed?Polomo47 (talk)00:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. Lewis and Short says "public talker of nonsense, a comically formed name, Plaut. Pers. 4, 6, 21 (703) Ritschl N. cr." Thisblog post suggests the form is "possibly completely conjectural". If it is a conjecture, we should at least give some context of who proposed it and why.--Urszag (talk)17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sicilian. Seemlingly a hypercorrected protologism for actualpartugallu. Siciliandd corresponds to Italianll in inherited words, though it is not the case for recent loans such as this one. (The word first surfaced in Italian itself in the late 18th century.)Catonif (talk)17:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm just listing it for bookkeeping. As for whether it really should be added... it's indeed a surname, yeah, but do people other than the musician really have it?
It seems a lot of other languages do list Mozart — even though, for some entries, the only sense listed is the musician (I don't think that's allowed?) — so I guess it probably makes sense to have it in Portuguese too.Polomo47 (talk)19:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think for names of famous people, it makes sense to have entries in multiple languages even if the last name isn't actually used by native speakers of that language, simply because the pronunciations will vary from language to language. It's not always predictable. For instance, the English pronunciation of "Einstein" is typically /ˈaɪnstaɪn/, but in French its more commonly /ˈaɪnʃtaɪn/. In more inflected languages, these names can also have additional forms that are not found in the source language.Andrew Sheedy (talk)03:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latin. Rfv-sense: "genitive plural of pus". I suspect this noun actually isn't used in the plural, at least not in Classical Latin.--Urszag (talk)16:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sicilian. Rationale: "This entry is mispelled, because slight similarities it has with Sicilian which lead to an italianized writing system. The actual form is de-sonorized: cuntatinu".Ultimateria (talk)18:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just remembered this spelling is actually valid as prescribed by the 1931 Orthographic Agreement. Will change categorization accordingly.
For now, though, I'd like to see this misspelling in CFI-compliant quotations (which may be found in 1931-orthography texts). I think such modern "mistranslations" are never used in actual prose, and definitely not by anyone with a hint of knowledge of the language.Polomo47 (talk)21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looks like this was the normal spelling for a bunch of 1600s official documents... Probably worth keeping as obsolete, then. Let's see.Polomo47 (talk)03:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, this is actually pretty noteworthy. Now that I’ve read more 16–1700s texts, I’ve indeed noticed that many of them use⟨`⟩ instead of⟨´⟩ and, for that matter, the sequence⟨aõ⟩ instead of⟨ão⟩ (this one lasted up to the mid 1800s). Though it’s kind of a clutter, I think we should make entries for these, yeah... Maybe the grave vs. acute could be reasoned... @Trooper57,MedK1 (god, do I love pinging!)Polomo47 (talk)17:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
wtf I didn't reply. Sorry about that. But at the same time, I don't really know what to do. Do we really want versions with ` for every accented word? We already have accentless versions too, don't we? Or are graves only for oxytones and they didn't coexist with the accentless forms? Hm...MedK1 (talk)19:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am under the impression these graves are from the 18th century at most, and only in oxytones; spellings with graves coexisted with those with acutes. In the same period, paroxytones and proparoxytones were usually unaccented, but I’m not sure if the rare accented ones also used graves, or just acutes. And do we want an entry in⟨-aõ⟩ for all of the words in⟨-ão⟩...—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·19:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not completely sure I'd miss them if they were gone. It'd save us a lot of work with pt-pre-reform and whatnot, that's for sure...MedK1 (talk)00:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Portuguese. Could not find 1930s sites in memoria.bn.gov.br, not any cites in bndigital.bnportugal.gov.pt. For that matter,aplicativo is just as rare in the former, within the same time period.Polomo47 (talk)06:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. There already isningit and the references for 'ningo' either point to 'ningit' (Lewis and Short) or simply don't give 'ningo' (Gaffiot). So should those 1sg. quotation forms exist at all when they at most occur in some dictionaries?Exarchus (talk)10:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I changed 'ningo' to 'alternative form of ningit' and removed the Gaffiot reference, but there's still the question whether these pages should exist at all, given thatningit is given as 'impersonal verb'. There apparently exists a page forpluo, saying this verb takes a subject, but is this attested for "to snow"?Exarchus (talk)10:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am of the view that this is the situation where a hard redirect could be used, as it's very plausible for someone to read "ningit" in a text and think that they should look it up under "ningo".This, that and the other (talk)00:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed,êle was widely used between 1911–1945 or 1943–1971, whileelle was used prior to 1911 or 1943. Accented spellings likeêlle would've been a rarer form that I'm working on deleting viathis RfM. Would appreciate your input there, by the way. Alsohere, another RfM for which your input would be good.Polomo47 (talk)22:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
It definitely isn't a misspelling. This doesn't look like a real pre-reform spelling because it has this weird accent; thus, I'm RFVing for a potential sense of "pre-reform spelling". For this purpose, attestations of the lemmachímico suffice.Polomo47 (talk)05:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The term is from OGP and is practically unused in modern-day Portuguese (we should defo make the OGP entry). But it still shows up in plenty of fixed expressions, linked at the bottom. So we can't just delete the page. Or can we?MedK1 (talk)14:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It would be great if we could actually have the entries to begin with. Regardless, I think we cannot keep the definition as it is if the word cannot be attested outside of the expression — we’d need to change it to “Only used in...”Polomo47 (talk)14:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
According to Spanish Wiktionary, it is an antiquated (possibly meaning outdated or obsolete, I'm not exactly sure, but regardless existent) courtesy vocative:
Singularsenior / Pluralseniors
Vocativo de cortesía que se antepone al nombre, apellido o tratamiento de una persona.
Since I'm not sure about the exact extent thatanticuado implies here, I have marked it as "dated or obsolete", since some I have seen some entries labeled as such
Latest comment:11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Portuguese. Seems to have use spelled separately, asguard rail, and it’s that spelling that’s listed at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Does the hyphenated spelling also occur?Polomo47 (talk)00:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure about this one. Though there are many hits for it online, none of them point towards it being anarchaic form. I'm actually thinking whoever wrote it as "archaic" meant to say "obsolete" since 'archaic' spellings are by and large etymological/hellenic. You'd expectofferecer.
Most instances forofrecer are in otherwise already badly-spelled texts or from messages on social media like Reddit by non-native speakers. Maybe it could still be a dialectal form? I haven't been able to confirm that for sure.
The form doesn't exist in OGP (per our references) and doesn't show up in Pero Vaz de Caminha's letter either (only words beginning in of- are what we'd now write asoficiar); so it really doesn't appear to be "obsolete" either.MedK1 (talk)23:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't see it. This RfV is for the word as a spelling with a differential accent (i.e., in use between 1911 and 1971). I believe the word may have been a misspelling in that period, but as a misspelling it would go to RfD instead, and I'd of course vote delete (useless to keep old misspellings).Polomo47 (talk)21:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:7 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Latin. Created byUser:Masonthelime, who has been known to make up entries in the past. It's in Lewis and Short but not in Gaffiot, which makes me very suspicious that it's a mistake. To make things worse,User:Masonthelime added a bizarre perfect tenseautumnēsit that almost certainly is complete garbage, and forgot the long vowel in-ēsc- in the verb conjugation, which propagated out to the non-lemma forms he created using the accelerator mechanism. @Urszag.Benwing2 (talk)07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Lewis and Short cites Martianus Capella, who is given by some editions as having "autumnascit". Latin is a LDL, so we don't necessarily need more than one citation. The question would be whether Lewis and Short is citing an attested manuscript reading. I think the answer may be "yes": the footnotes inthis edition (which gives "autumnescit" in the main page text) suggests that "autumnascit" is an emendation proposed by Grotius. I think it makes sense for us to include both forms, marked as alternative forms (I'm not sure which should be selected as the main form). I'm not sure though; the "-escit" version isn't listed in the critical apparatus ofthis edition, but is mentionedhere.--Urszag (talk)12:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have added the macron (-ēsc-). If this fails,autumnēscēns(“approaching autumn”) and its forms should also be deleted, but if not, I do not know whether it needs to be verified separately.J3133 (talk)15:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
The number of works (google books:"autumnescit") which interpret Capella as havingautumnescit makes me think it makes sense to mention it, if not by having an entry then at least by mentioning in a usage note in the-a- entry that some people read the word (in Capella) asautumnescit instead.- -sche(discuss)22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
In fact, the wordmelga is used both to refer to mosquitos and crane flies. There is even the widespread belief that mosquitos and crane flies are the same species, just different sizes. -Sarilho1 (talk)21:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Portuguese. RfV-sense Etymology 1:(rare, prescriptive) Alternative form of autópsia.
This is how the definition is now worded after my changes. This is for a prescriptive pronunciation (and therefore spelling) of the word as something likeIPA(key):/ˌaw.tuˈpsi.ɐ/, compare howCiberdúvidas describes it happening withnecrópsia /necropsia.
The problem: this form should be basically unseen in modern times, and prior to the first spelling reforms both forms would've most often been spelled the same.
@DCDuring: The genus is named after Ancient Greekθυία(thuía). Ancient Greekυ(u) is transliterated in earlier Latin loans as "u", but later loans as "y". Intervocalic Ancient Greekι(i) could be either a vowel or a semivowel (assuming it has the accent for orthographic reasons), the latter of which could be spelled in Latin as a "j", which might explain the variation in spelling.
That said, the capitalized proper noun is from a different word, probably Ancient Greekθυιάς(thuiás), which L&S defines as "inspired, possessed woman, esp. Bacchante", or perhaps related to Ancient GreekΘυῖα(Thuîa), which L&S defines as "festival of Dionysus at Elis". If I had to guess, I would say that they all come from some word for fragrant smoke or incense, as would the Ancient Greekξύλονθύινον(xúlon thúinon) in the book of Revelations, which the Latin Vulgate translates aslignumthȳinum.Chuck Entz (talk)04:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't advancingThyia plicata as a taxon. I thought it was just a phrase in what seemed like a non-taxonomic article.
FWIW, taxonomically,Thyia is a subgenus of genusPedionis of cicadellids andthyia is used as a specific epithet for several insect species.thuia is less used, once related toThuja. The Catalogue of Life has only one species in the subgenus,Pedionis (Thyia) thyia. There are other more remotely derived taxa, but we have already diverged from the matter at hand.DCDuring (talk)14:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Portuguese. I've seen -e terminations and -@ as well. Every mention of -x that I've come across was from a non-native though (see the infamousLatinx).
While trying to attest them, "moçx" returned like two hits repeated ad infinitum, and "meninx" returned the English word, singular ofmeninges. Do these pass CFI?MedK1 (talk)22:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This, along withtsendu, was added by @HeliosX in 2019. Supposedly these mean “hundred” in Aromanian. I've searched far and wide and could not find any word for “hundred” in Aromanian other thansutã.
Yeah I haven't seen it before to be honest. And I agree with Bogdan about it being either very obscure or fabricated. If it is real, it almost sounds like one of those words it borrowed somehow (maybe indirectly) from Italiancento, liketserclju, and adapted somewhat.Word dewd544 (talk)02:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "to haggle". I've never heard it and it seems to only show up in two European dictionaries, so I've marked it with the Portugal label. Can we verify whether or not it's aw:fictitious entry?MedK1 (talk)00:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
As a start, one can checkthis page. It's a rare use that's neither capitalized nor italicized, and it also spells things weirdly. I might just argue, if three citations are found, that this hasn't been lexicalized. I wonder if RfD is more suitable...Polomo47 (talk)16:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was only able to find this word in the Olivetti[1] further reading.That Olivetti entry has an incorrect pronunciation (The pronunciation oflèggere(verb).)
Other dictionaries don't mention this archaic form.
However Garzanti[2], Hoepli[3], and DOP[4] mention the spellingleggiere, that would be pronouncedIPA(key):/ledˈd͡ʒɛ.re/ likeleggère.Olivetti also has an entry for this word, but calls it a "literary form" ofleggero rather than an "archaic form".[5]
DOP[4] says that archaicleggiere can be used as eitherm sg orf sg, and there is alsoleggieri that can be used as eitherm sg orm pl.
Does theleggere spelling mentioned by Olivetti[1] actually exist? Is it different fromleggiere?
References:
↑1.01.1leggère2 inDizionario Italiano Olivetti, Olivetti Media Communication
^leggiere in garzantilinguistica.it –Garzanti Linguistica, De Agostini Scuola Spa
^leggiere in Aldo Gabrielli,Grandi Dizionario Italiano (Hoepli)
Latest comment:8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Italian.
Thene is pleonastic if you specify [di something]. Thene sounds redundant in this example: you would only use it, maybe, for emphasis in a conversation. ("right dislocation")
A Giovanni, non gli frega niente di quello
Giovanni doesn't care one bit about that
A Giovanni, non gliene frega niente[,] di quello
Giovanni doesn't care one bit about that
Also, except in some cases (e.g. conditionals/questions) where you can get away with specifying the "someone" only with [a someone], for example:
dovrebbe fregarne qualcosa a me?
should I care one bitabout it?
dovrebbe fregarmene qualcosa?
should I care one bitabout it?
dovrebbe fregarmi qualcosa?
should I care one bit?
dovrebbe fregare qualcosa a me?
should I care one bit?
..I think, in most cases, it is still necessary to use the dative clitic (gli) to make the sentence work even if it should be made redundant by [a someone] (a Giovanni) being specified explicitly.
I think these senses offregarne should be moved tofregare#Italian since thene is not strictly required. And maybe something should be done about these kinds of idiomatic verb meanings that, optionally, strongly require dative clitics.
Latest comment:3 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Istriot.
This looks very Spanish,not Eastern Romance at all. I don't know much about searching for Istriot usage, but I don't trust the IP who added this to know what they are doing.Chuck Entz (talk)21:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
pernoctare (pernuytar) (W. von Wartburg, Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes (FEW))
These forms are considered obsolete in modern French but all fit the expected French reflexes ofpernocto, whereas*parnuire does not. I couldn't find any attestations for that form nor entries in any French dictionary.Io Katai (talk)23:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Likewise, I did not see any attested forms that point to apo, apere rather than apio, apere. I moved over just about everything toapiō, but shouldapō be outright deleted now or retained and marked as a ghost word, since some dictionaries list it? Also, should we have an inflection table forapiō? Given its scanty attestation, I'm inclined to say it is better to omit it, but I dunno if others agree.--Urszag (talk)06:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:7 months ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Old Galician-Portuguese. Williams ("From Latin to Portuguese", 1962) cites the Old Portuguese form ofverme asvermem, notvermen. Williams also gives an incompatible etymology for the ending, writing "These nouns generally adopted the masculine ending in the Vulgar Latin of the Spanish territory:nōmen >*nōmĭnem > Sp.nombre. Inasmuch as the ending-ĭnem did not spread in the Vulgar Latin of the Portuguese territory, it is not likely that OPtg.vermem came from a V. L.*vermĭnem nor that OPtg.vimem came from a V. L.*vimĭnem. The spellingvimẽe (FM, II, Glossary) is of no significance as unaccented single vowels were often written double in this document (FM, I, xxv). Nor is it likely that Ptg.sangue came from the Latin masculine formsanguĭnem through an OPtg. *sanguẽ. See Comp, 116. Forvermem, see § 96, 2 and forvimem, see § 77 B."; at §96, 2, Willams writes "A nasal consonant ending a group sometimes nasalized the following vowel as an initial consonant did: vermem > verme > vermem (old) ; *remussicare (for re-mussitāre) > remusgar > resmugar > resmungar (cf. Nascentes)." I do see "vermen" listed byMeyer-Lübke. I also founda book that seems to say it can be found in the Cantigas de Santa Maria ("un vermen a semella") but I'm unsure whether that's some kind of normalization, asanother book seems to say the spelling is "uˈmẽ": I can find both spellings online (vermen,uermẽ). --Urszag (talk)15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Nicodene Thanks for adding the quotation; would you be able to comment on my concerns about whether this is actually an attestation of the spelling "vermen"? I see thatWiktionary:Old Galician-Portuguese entry guidelines says "Tildes being used to represent nasal vowels followed by another vowel should not be normalised. Spellings whose tilde is used as an abbreviation of n (such as cõ for con and lĩnage for linnage) should be included as abbreviations, with the unabbreviated form lemmatised (even if not attested)", but I don't understand whether this falls under that point, since it doesn't explain how to determine if the tilde is an abbreviation of n. Based on the example "con", should I understand that the convention on Wiktionary is to normalize the spelling of word-final nasal vowels in OGP as vowel + "-n"? That's OK I guess, although I would find tilde a more natural convention for that function. @MedK1,Stríðsdrengur,Froaringus --Urszag (talk)22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Funnily enough I hadn’t looked at this thread when I added the quotation. That would’ve saved me the trouble of tracking it down.
It seems the original manuscripts do in fact have ⟨u̕mẽ⟩:
As for Williams’ examples, I’m not sure why they couldn’t just as well be explained by a development likehominem >omẽe~ome >homem~home?Nicodene (talk)10:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
For what it is worth, the source is (Old) Galician, and in other coetaneous Galician works the spelling appear to beuermẽe /vermẽe (homẽe,virgẽe, etc), laterverme,home,virge.
Interesting, thank you. Using this resource I have tracked down a manuscript example with plural ⟨v̕me͡es⟩ (source: page 37, line 5). Also worth mentioning are the numerous attestations ofnomẽes ‛names’. These disyllabic endings are clearly of the *[-menes] type.
There are also, it should be mentioned, various modern words with final-em (< *[-ene]) yet without a preceding nasal consonant:ferrugem,fuligem,jovem,ordem.
Yes. Actually, in Galician most of these are written (and pronounced) without the nasal: ferruxe, feluxe, xove, orde (but dialectally you can also find ferruxen, xoven, virxen, pronounced with a final /ŋ/ which also usually nasalise the vowel).
On the form of the word, I understand that ⟨u̕mẽ⟩ should be edited asvermen, but I think that the "standard" form of the word for the 13th century should be the trisyllabicvermẽe. Maybe they used ⟨u̕mẽ⟩ instead because of syllable count or something? Otherwise, maybe bisyllabic renditions of this word, or these kind of words, were already common by the 13th century.Froaringus (talk)10:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Apparentlythiscantiga has a ten syllable count for each verse; the verse is "e tiroull'end un vermen a semella": e - ti - rou - llen - dun - ver - men a - se - me - lla. That implies, I think, that here the tilde is not an abbreviation, and that the word should be edited as in "e tiroull'end unvermẽa semella", so that "mẽ a" counts as a single syllable. But I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this subject, so maybe I'm totally wrong.Froaringus (talk)10:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Interestingly, in the search results that you shared, it appears the singular is consistently disyllabic and the plural consistently trisyllabic.
I wonder if it started the same way as alternations likecasal~casais < *[kaˈzale~kaˈzales], with an early loss of *[-e] in the singular and then later loss of intervocalic [l] and [n] leading to various allomorphic shenanigans.Nicodene (talk)11:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Nicodene: Wow. You're right. I was assuming that spellings such as vermẽe (elsewhere) implied it was trisyllabic, but it's not: in the Cantigas de Santa Mariavermen,home,omage / omagen,virgen, etc,usually have one less syllable than their pluralsvermẽes,homẽes(but sometimeshomes),omagẽes(sometimesomages):http://www.cantigasdesantamaria.com/concordance/
Where I wrote "so vermen must end in a consonant", I should have wrote "somaybevermen must end in a consonant", because I'm not sure at all.Froaringus (talk)09:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Edit for more context: I initially started this RFV based on my suspicion that the invariant "echō" plural forms recently added to the default declension pattern for words of this type were just a theoretical generalization from the singular. After now reading the linked source, I see that the situation is more complicated, so I'm not sure this RFV was really the best reaction. In any case, over the next few days I'll be trying to add citations for the Latin forms.--Urszag (talk)21:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. Other dictionaries and grammars say the genitive plural ofventer is always ventrium; if ventrum has been used postclassically with this sense, citations and a label should be added. Googling, I see some examples where "ventrum" is used for "ventrem", either as a typo or (accidental?) 3rd-to-2nd declension shift.--Urszag (talk)18:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Praenomina were highly restricted and women often didn't have one. Wikipedia has an entry forw:Claudia Marcella, which indicates this occurred as an cognomen of the Claudia gens: I wonder if that sense was mislabeled.--Urszag (talk)09:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Portuguese. Tagged byUser:MedK1 but not listed. AlsoRepública de Burundi. MedK1 claims that the spelling should beRepública do Burúndi with an accent on the second u in Burundi. In fact both the spellingsBurundi andRepública do Burundi are easy to attest in Google Scholar, probably to do with the fact thatBurundi is an unassimilated borrowing in Portuguese. What is not easy to attest isRepública de Burundi withde instead ofdo; this is the Spanish form but appears to be an error in Portuguese.Benwing2 (talk)13:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, Garzanti updated its website, and now the entry I linked explicitly mentions the non-third-person past historic inflections in its headword.Emanuele6 (talk)18:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Italian. Compound of past participleavuto(“had”) + dative cliticgli(“to him(/them/her)”).
I don't understand how this combination can exist:
I think e.g.gliho can only occur followed by a past participle to form a compound tense, e.g.gli ho detto ―I (have) told him.
I don't think it is possible to form a "compound past participle" with past participle "avuto" as auxiliary (*avutogli detto), and I cannot think of any use ofavere meant as "to have" that can accept a dative, so I cannot think of a way to use thisavutogli.Emanuele6 (talk)12:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Lutero,avutogli lungamenteriguardo o compassione, e celiato sulla sua pretesa di «camminar sopra le ova senza schiacciarle», e ripetutogli che «lo Spirito santo non è scettico», al fine gli lanciò una lettera delle sue, e ripetute ingiurie cordiali (I).
Italianavere riguardo(literally“to have regard”) means to care about something or someone, but you would not normally use it with "asomeone", so I wouldn't expect a dative to work there: "per ...", "di ...", oravutone would work. To make a comparison with English, it's like saying "I hadhim respect" (as in "I payedhim respect") instead of "I had respect for him" or "I had respect of him".
As expected you cannot find many use of "avergli riguardo": on Google Books, "gli ho riguardo" and "gli ho avuto riguardo" both yield only one result each:
Il Gondoliere [The Gondolier][49] (in Italian), volume ANNO SECONDO, number 1,1834, page66: “[…]chiunque trovo in casa altrui bene accetto, iogli ho riguardo[…]”
Lodovico Dolce, transl. (1508–1568),Le orazioni di Marco Tullio Cicerone, tradotte da m. Lodovico Dolce[50] (in Italian), translation ofThe orations byCicero, published1727, Parte 2, page347: “[…]per questogli ho avuto riguardo[…]”
Any time you have a regional language dominated by a related language which is the national standard, things get messy. It looks like interpreting results is going to be tricky.
I wonder how Sicilianghiornu figures into this: both are said to be alternative forms of Sicilianjornu in different environments. Also, the two senses are redundant, since Sicilianjornu has the same definition as the first sense. If we get rid of the first sense, that might mean we would have to look for jornu / [+nasal] giornu / [+vowel] ghiornu to verify this. I would also note the existence of Sicilianbon giornu.Chuck Entz (talk)22:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
And other linked pages liketunnelli andtunnelle. It could be a cross-wiki vandalism (all interwikis are recent creations by new user or IPs). I search on dictionaries online and I found nothing.Otourly (talk)16:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
This was added by an IP geolocating to England back in 2017. Another IP, geolocating to the US, doesn't think this is real, and has tried several times to just remove it.
In case they're reading this: We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not on authoritative aources, and this is a good example of why it's necessary sometimes. Vulgar slang is often ignored by reference works/sites, and many native speakers either don't frequent places it's used or want others to believe they don't- so it requires checking for usage before we can be sure it's not real.
I recommend that both senses/the noun section for "prit" in French be removed. I've never heard these and can't find any usage online. They also don't appear to be Verlan. The definitions also look like they were copy-pasted from the Oxford English dictionary definition for "prick".Io Katai (talk)23:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latin. This is claimed to be an (unattested) nominative of attested Greek accusativeelacatena, but the quote from Festus seems to show thatelacatena is the nominative. L&S meanwhile have a quote from Pliny that is supposed to attest a Greek pluralelacatenes, but this quote (even per L&S) is dubious. The quote here:[51] hasictinus, iulis instead.Benwing2 (talk)04:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
The Festus quote doesn't seem to be a complete sentence: rather, it's a gloss of a particular word (taken from I don't know where). I don't see a reason why the accusative singular would not be possible here: compare " Elinguem sine lingua", where "elinguem" is obviously accusative singular. By the way, the template isn't linking consistently to the right page on archive.org for me when I click the links onelacaten andvespillo; is there some bug in how the url is being formatted forTemplate:RQ:Paul.Fest.?--Urszag (talk)04:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Portuguese. I am suspicious of sense 1 because it seems like the kind of thing dictionaries would have, but they don’t; and suspicious of sense 2 because Aulete lists it as being capitalized. I plan to attest it myself (later), but tagging either way.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·14:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The same probably applies generally to nouns ending in-ina inSpanish female equivalent nouns that are equivalents of nouns denoting a male that end in-ino (unless there are some exceptions I've missed).
Cramum nullo in lexico inveni, sive antiquae sive mediae Latinitatis, nisi in Alberti Blaise priore; usurpatum est Venantio Fortunato uno in loco; ambigitur tam de vocabuli significatu quam de modo scribendi (cramum ancrama), ut accidere solet in ἅπαξ λεγόμενοις. Memorant etiam Ernout-Meillet et Walde-Hoffman, eundem Fortunati locum afferentes. Hoc pseudolexidion, ut ita dicam, Saravici videntur in medium proposuisse etymologis fisi quibusdam, qui illinc vocabulum Gallicumcrème deducunt. At haec etymologia plus quam dubia est; ab OED non accipitur, iure quidem, quandocrama ex mutationum phoneticarum normis in sermone Gallico vigentibus necessario, ni fallor,craime dedisset (ita aime abama[t],haim abhamo); scribebatur autem medio aevocresme, quod vocabulumchrismate exortum videtur, ut exponitur apud OED aliosque.”
Latest comment:3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latin interjection. Mayrhofer calls this a ghost word at{{R:sa:KEWA|head=dhik|page=102|vol=2}}. Walde & Hofmann call it a wrong conjecture in a text of Plautus. But maybe there are (much) later attestations.Exarchus (talk)11:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latin. Didn't have much luck searching for quotes, I think that's purely a taxonomic name. The mention in Marcgrave'sHistoria Naturalis Brasiliae is considered Old Tupi before you ask.Trooper57 (talk)23:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've soft-redirected it using{{singular of}}. I left the descendants tables (each entry has one, with different descendants); if anyone wants to merge them (and perhaps qualify forms by whether they are, or are from, the singular or plural?), I leave that to them.- -sche(discuss)06:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: Well, because all this word's senses (with the possible exception of “prison, dungeon”, of which I'm a little sceptical) are uncountable,primâ facie. That said, I founda genuine plural use oftenebrae to mean “darknesses” by Leibniz. Then I thought I'd founda comparable plural use oftenebra in a Persian–Latin dictionary; however, given that that dictionary usestenebrae andtenebrarum elsewhere in that entry, thattenebrae occurs nine times in the work, and thattenebra never occurs (the OCR thinks it does once, but that's becausetenebrarum occurs hyphenated across a line break astenebra-rum on page 555/1), I'm inclined to think that Vullers simply erred in using the wrong numeral (cardinal instead of distributive), meaning to writetrinae tenebrae. So it appears thattenebrae can be used countably, albeit rarely. The question is, does that countable usage carry over totenebra? It would be reasonable to expect that itwould, but we should verify that it does before asserting that it does. I don't see such usage amongst the first page of hits for that Google Books search, only uncountable uses in the sense “darkness”, employingtenebra and/ortenebrae to convey it indiscriminately.0DF (talk)06:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
As long as it's defined as "singular of [plural]", then (to me, at least) it makes no sense to say it doesn't have a plural. Even if it were redefined as "synonym of [plural]" instead, given that sufficient texts use both forms together, it still seems nonsensical (to me) to posit that we're dealing with a singular-only noun and a plural-only noun that merely look like—but are somehow not—each other's singular and plural, in the texts where they co-occur. From my perspective, this is RFV-passed as it stands (revision), but let's ping the Latin workgroup for input:(NotifyingFay Freak,Brutal Russian,Benwing2,Lambiam,Mnemosientje,Nicodene,Sartma,Al-Muqanna,SinaSabet28,Theknightwho,Imbricitor,Urszag,Graearms):.- -sche(discuss)03:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@-sche I think it depends on the semantics. If a word and its formal plural exist but mean the same thing (i.e. the formal plural does not mean the plural of the corresponding formal singular), then you have a singulare tantum and a plurale tantum that are synonyms of each other, not a singular-plural pair. If the formal plural can either be a synonym of the formal singular or mean the plural of the formal singular, then I would posit you have to have two POS entries, one of which is a plurale tantum noun and the other is a plural noun form. (An example where this occurs in English is "glasses", which can either be a plurale tantum meaning "eyeglasses/spectacles" or the plural of "glass" in its countable senses.) It doesn't trouble me to have both a singulare tantum and a plurale tantum that look like a singular-plural pair; this is a common situation due to the way plurale tantum nouns evolve (e.g. "glasses" = spectacles evolved from "glasses" = plural of "glass").Benwing2 (talk)04:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@-sche @0DF In this case, lemmatise at the plural, but include the singular in the table and put a usage note explaining the nuance.
On a related note, simply putting "singular of" is not ideal fortenebra. It's the nominative singular, so if we're not going to lemmatise at it, then we at least need to be accurate about its morphology.Theknightwho (talk)04:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would add that there are examples of the singular forms "tenebra" and "tenebram" in the Patrilogia Latina database (25 and 5, respectively). E.g.,
Aldhelmus Schireburnensis, "Epistola ad acircium, sive liber de septenario...":
"Da exempla ad amphibrachym pertinentia.--M. Haec sunt nomina primae declinationis, eamdem pedis regulam astipulantia, ut corona, carina, lacerna, acerva, acerra, arena, arista, papilla, mamilla, capella, catena, popina, culina, amurca, tabella, querela, locusta, marisca, rubeta, pharetra, camina, sagitta, loquela, medulla, medella, taberna, caverna, caterva, latebra, tenebra."
Given the relative rarity of the form and the general opinion that it's erroneous, I think the current solution of marking "tenebra" as the singular of the usual "tenebrae" works well and the RFV can be removed.3charles3 (talk)06:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Guardavia is included in these dictionaries ([53],[54],[55],[56],[57]),sicurvia in these ones ([58],[59],[60],[61]),guardastrada is included in one dictionary ([62]) andguidovia is a Helvetism included only in this Swiss site in Italian ([63]) and these are all correct. The wordsguardavia andsicurvia are sometimes used in technical-bureaucratic contexts, andguidovia is used sometimes on Swiss websites in Italian, such as RSI or Ticinonline, especially in road accidents' contexts, happened in Ticino or Grisons' cantons, in Switzerland. Exists also a rare Italian song calledGuardavia, sung by Mal di mare in 2020, that you can find on the web ([64]). And the wordguardastrada is only used in the phraseLa lamiera ondulata per i manufatti tubolari metallici e per le barriere guardastrada. I didn't find a dictionary which is includedguardaraglio. What do you think?DanielParoliere (talk)15:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hmm; if a word is used (not just mentioned in a dictionary as a word that exists, but used in running text, e.g. in a news article about a car crash or roadwork, or in an ordinance about how roads are to be constructed, etc) by three or more people (over more than one year), it can be included, even if it is rare or regional (in which case, it can be{{label}}ed as such). On the other hand, if an Italian word only appears in dictionaries but is not used, it doesn't meetWT:ATTEST.- -sche(discuss)16:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps, whereUser:SemperBlotto found it, this was actually a misconjugation of third-person plural subjunctive presentmuoiano rather than a misconjugation of third-person plural indicative presentmuoiono:-ino(“the third-person plural subjunctive present inflection for regular-are verbs”) instead of-ano(“the one for non--are verbs”), rather than-ino instead of-ono.
It is not uncommon for some people to sometimes get confused and mix up subjunctive present suffixes; two examples I can remember off the top of my head:
2023 May 25,Carmagheddon,9:14 from the start, inL'AUTO PIU'[PIÙ] BASSA DEL MONDO. [THE WORLD'S SHORTEST[in height] CAR.][66]:
Quindi adesso andiamo ad applicarle e avremo queste rotelline snodabili che terrano il cofano sulla strada: speriamo*resistino! ...resistano. ([Già,]resistano.)*resistino... Procediamo! (No!)
So now let's go apply them, and we'll have those little articulated wheels that will hold the bonnet on the road: let's hopethey resast[*resistino]! ...resist[resistano] ([Yep,]resistano.)*resistino... Let's proceed! (No!)
Se due persone che sivogliono bene, perché loro sivogliono bene, [...se] accade questo, è giusto che se la*risolvino[risolvano] e io mi auguro che Bugo e Morgan possano risolversela e magari portare in giro questa canzone che, ripeto, per me è molto bella.
If two people whoare friends, because theyare friends, [...if] this happens, it is only right thatthey resolve this [among themselves], and I hope that Bugo and Morgan can resolve this, and maybe tour with this song that, I repeat, in my opinion is very nice.
To me, it seems extremely unlikely that one would come up with and use-ino for a third-person plural indicative present; while for third-person plural subjunctive present, that is more plausible.
Personally, I think this page should just be deleted since it has been created without a single quotation, leaving us wondering.
There are no results for this, or any inflection, with or without a hyphen, with either⟨ê⟩ or⟨é⟩, on GBooks or corpusdoportugues.org — I figure memoria.bn is useless for niche jargon like this. I found (only) two results on regular Google: one paper withsino-xênicos (I understand this would be the correct spelling) andsino-xênicas; another withsinoxênicas, both of which I have listed atCitations:sinoxênico. These also do not meet the spanning-a-year requirement, perhaps by just a few days (first was published in 15-08-2022, second in 03-08-2023, or maybe earlier).
I’d like to remind Kauã Girão that, if he thinks a word is weird, and it is a translation from English — and if he had to look the word up, found two results and was satisfied that it exists — then it likely does not fulfill ourcriteria for inclusion and really should not be considered to "exist". His continued creation of protologisms in this project is problematic.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·01:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Middle French. The oldest mention in a French text seems to be in d'Abbeville (1614, four years after the cut date), and we're considering it as an Old Tupi attestation inmani'oka.Trooper57 (talk)23:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Catalan.
This seems to be an error caused by ignorance of the difference between Catalan and Old Catalan, as shown by the listing of an Old French descendant (as I understand it, modern Catalan didn't develop from Old Catalan until after Old French had already developed into Middle French). This seems to be from a misreading of the American Heritage Dictionary entry linked to at Englishorchil, which clearly states this is Old Catalan. There are similar errors scattered throughout the etymologies of related terms, along with a general sloppiness with language codes and other details.Chuck Entz (talk)21:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Portuguese. Googlingum coño only displayed results forum cono, which usually happens when all results of the former have been shown.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·01:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
From the responses I got onWT:Discord, it seems to me that those participle forms are not actually possible. Those languages always usePortugueseter,Spanishhaber,Catalanhaver as auxiliary for the active voice considering their modern standard version, and going by Wiktionary's defintions; so an inflected past participle is strictly only possible for transitive verbs, and there are no special rules that allow them in other cases like there are in Italian (reflexives forcing the use ofessere). Additionally, even ignoring that, the Italian cognate ofpecar,Italianpeccare usesavere as auxiliary while being an intransitive verb in a lanugage like Italian that has some intransitive verbs that useessere as non-passive auxiliary; agreement of past participles with their subject only occurs when the auxiliary isessere, nothaver/haber/ter/avere.
You're right, as a pure intransitive verb the past participle is invariable. As an adjective I have not found any attestation. I suspect that it must be a past participle in Old Catalan when the verb had a transitive sense. Without further evidence I prefer not to change it and it can be removed.Vriullop (talk)14:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for confirming! I updated the Catalan pages accordingly; like in Portuguese, you can prevent the conjugation table from showing inflected past participle using{{ca-conj|<pp_inv>}}; currently,{{ca-pp}} does not support|inv=1, so I've temporarily used{{ca-pp|-|pl=-}} instead.
currently,{{ca-pp}} does not support|inv=1; that was becauseMOD:ca-headword works differently; withMOD:it-headword,MOD:es-headword,MOD:pt-headword, terms are marked invariable with the "inv" named parameter; while with the Catalan module, this is done passinginv as the first positional parameter.
There are a lot of nouns formed with-ada that are used exclusively in the constructionsdar uma Xada], likedar uma comida(“to eat”),dar uma andada(“to walk”).pecada might exist in this context, but indeed not as a past participle. On this note, we have very few of these entries. @Davi6596 because he might know something about this.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·17:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Italian hasmangiata which is sort of the equivalent ofPortuguesecomida; anywaycomida would exist as a past participle in passive constructions, or adjectivally "that has been eaten" (at least in Italian also adverbially "mangiata la torta," = "after having eaten the cake,").
I meancomida in a different noun sense than the one we have currently; same withcaminhada. Those can both be used in the constructionsdar uma X-ada, but they’re not exclusive to them. The words I mean have kind of the meaning “an instance of X-ing”, which meansdar uma pecada has more or less the same nuances as Englishdo some sinning.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·17:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see: I understand what you mean; from the description:far(e) una X-ata (or irregular past participle likecorsa; withfare(“to do”) instead ofdar(“to give”)) would be the same thing inItalian. (Actuallydare would also work in some contexts)
I wouldn't say those are participles: they definitely don't feel like an inflection of the masculine singular sense at least.
It is not all that uncommon to hear things likefare unaripassata (ripassare study review), orstudiata, sometimes with intensifiers liketattica(“tactical”), or adjectives applied to it, often also with diminutives like-ina,-etta, both, or whatever; it is definitely productive, but when it is used productively like this it is mostlyjocular (except for the common ones likedormita,scorpacciata,mangiata,corsa,messa al bando, etc, etc) though, especially when all these diminutives and intensifiers are added to it, and when they are used in place of a non--ata deverbal that exists e.g. sayingfare unatarata in place offare unataratura.
I think the deverbal noun definition makes more sense to me than participle given the suffixes it takes and that it is not agreeing with some subject despite being inflected;Italian-ata has it as its first noun-forming suffix definition, but indeed the way this deverbal noun is formed is with the feminine singular participle inflection, not always-ata:corsa,messa al bando, etc.
I'm not a native Spanish speaker but since Spanish doesn't have any sort of participle agreement in present perfect constructions, it seems plausible to me thatpecadas etc. are unattestable and should be deleted.Benwing2 (talk)04:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latin. There are serious problems with this entry. This word, to my knowledge at the moment (admittedly not exhaustively deep, but I looked through the major dictionaries) is not attested in Roman Latin, even very late Roman Latin. It is probably not even attested in Medieval Latin. Where is it attested? Sources say, in Ptolemy's Greek, as Καρπάτης ὄρος. This word in Greek is not even plural: it is singular. For that matter, mountain ranges in Latin could be routinely named in the singular, like theAppennīnus. But maybe the Greek name transmits a Latin form close to its pronunciation. In any case, the problem is that the word is apparently not even attested in Roman era Latin and, if it is not, it must be marked as reconstructed and speculative for that era. The only attested Latin proper name for those mountains I could currently find was "Alpes Bastarnicae".Draco argenteus (talk)10:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. Other dictionaries give the perfect and supine stem as lacking. I find no hits for perfect forms starting with praecul* in Latin corpora.--Urszag (talk)22:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Urszag I was able to find the perfect passive participle in Statius and an attested perfect form in a Medieval Latin text. I'm fairly convinced that the formpraeculī is completely erroneous, as the perfect stem should bepraecellu-, as indicated byexcelluī. If so, then we would have to delete all of the existing pages for the non-lemma perfect forms of the verb.Graearms (talk)00:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. Lewis and Short writes "the nom. and acc. of the neutr. plur. do not occur; cf. Neue Formenl. 2, 51, v." I did not see any occurrences of "dīvita" as a neuter plural adjective in Latin corpora. We can instead finddītia.--Urszag (talk)04:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I could write a Latin essay on agriculture and have "dīvita avenae arva" ("dīves ager" is found). These could technically be encountered, it's not as if the paradigm has evolved to especially reject these neuter forms, there shouldn't be anything peculiar about them, no?Saumache (talk)06:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
For whatever reason, there are very few Latin third-declension adjectives, other than comparatives, that form consonant-stem neuter plural forms (even fewer than would be expected based on the general preference for i-stem rather than consonant-stem endings in adjectives, since many adjectives that have attested ablative singular forms in -e or genitive plural forms in consonant + -um do not have attested neuter plural forms in consonant + -a). Aside from Lewis and Short, see the following page on defective adjectives in thegrammar of Guardia and Wierzeyski.--Urszag (talk)17:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see, interesting. I couldn't find any post-classical attestation ofdivita either and only foundpubera in New Latin. We should update these one-termination adjectives.Saumache (talk)09:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah so, çcer is not a word, it doesn’t even work orthographically. While it is true that “des-“ and occasionally “de-“ do turn to “ç-“ in Mirandese. This is not one of those cases given it’s followed by [s] already. The word is ‘decer’.MdMV or Emdy idk (talk)19:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I checked the Portuguese Wikipedia page on this chemical element, andw:pt:Darmstádtio#Nomes provisórios[permalink] contraddicts it—Após sua descoberta foi denominado provisoriamente de "Ununílio" ("Ununnilium" em inglês) pelaIUPAC (nome sistemático).—saying the temporary name, in Portuguese, was actuallyununílio with onen.
Latest comment:5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Papiamentu. Created in 2008 meaning "Nazi", the content was moved and overwitten on the entrybisawelo "great-grandfather" in 2018 and this page now redirects to EnglishNazi.Catonif (talk)12:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comment .... it was created in 2018, from what i can see, and by a very careless editor. he seems to have found his way out of here before he got blocked ... so many of his edits were cleaning up his own mistakes.—Soap—16:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:21 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latin. Not in any dictionaries or corpora that I can see. I also failed to find examples that weren't scannos or unrelated examples when I looked through some Google Books results.--Urszag (talk)05:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think this one is made-up, based on the fact that normally regular 3s past historic of-ere verbs can exist as either-é or-ette; this is not generally the case for regular-ttere verbs, however.
Latest comment:1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Portuguese. The word does appears uncommon, and the few results on Google seem to have very varied meaning. I believe the current definition is incorrect. Ping creator @Fy Javan.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·15:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
It seems like it's a European thing. It's the prescribed way of spelling it there according toCiberdúvidas and I was able to find a few hits for it ina couple ofPortuguese forums.
I'm not too positive it passes CFI though. Maybe forGalician?Spanish?French? There's way more hits for those last 2 than for Portuguese. I believe it has to do with the number of people in each place. Being that Brazil doesn't use it... there's 10mil people in Portugal, 2mil people in Galicia and way more than that in, say, France.MedK1 (talk)23:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
It was tagged, but not listed, on 2024-12-08 byUser:Protegmatic who also added the Portuguese entry.
The page itself was created with only this Spanish definition on 2018-03-03 byUser:Otra cuenta105, aUser:Wonderfool alt, so pinging @User:Vealhurl since that seems to be their currently active account.
This is the only Spanish result I was able to find after looking for "una motoca", "la motoca" and "motoquita".[72]
DuckDuckGo's AI says it's Brazilian slang.
Considering that even "motoquita" (-ita gives off Spanish vibes) only returns stuff in Portuguese, I think it's pretty safe to think it doesn't exist in Spanish. I thought I'd struck gold when I saw a "la tortuguita motoquita" video, but it was a Brazilian brainrot video à la "ballerina cappuccina".MedK1 (talk)23:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Oscan. Rationale was: "Does not align with spelling conventions. "𐌏" was not a part of Oscan native script and this word is not attested as such."Ultimateria (talk)02:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ultimateria The term𐌕𐌏𐌖𐌕𐌏(touto) should absolutely be deleted. It appears that the original page creator decided artificially transfer the attested Latin script form into the Italic script. It is also a duplicate of𐌕𐌞𐌅𐌕𐌞(túvtú), which should itself probably be deleted because it is also unattested.Graearms (talk)01:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Graearms: Note: At the time the entry was created (2022), the Latin script was not used for Oscan entries. I have deleted the form with ⟨𐌏⟩, but as the correct spelling could be attested, it should be handled separately.J3133 (talk)11:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
have added 3 bibliographic citations (Gruson 1835, Jacobi 1825, Pacht 1850) to the entry. They are valid Latin sources. Please review and remove the RFV tag.Quantum0000 (talk)17:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Quantum0000 Can you move the citations underneath the relevant definition(s) and put#* before them to mark them as quotations (rather than putting them in a separate Quotations section, which is deprecated)? Also, two of the three citations you give are actually mentions rather than uses, because they are giving definitions rather than using the word in context. Can you convert at least one of the citations to a use? Presumably you just need to look a bit later in the same text for a use of the word in context.Benwing2 (talk)04:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for I am just a noob in it I just try to put the new Latin words with declarations and macrons with a large time to check it out.Actually I saw this usage in a dictionary it said that it is come from this new Latin.Maybe I need help or just try to find the evidence that this word has existedQuantum0000 (talk)10:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Spanish.
Seeking cites in running text in Spanish. All I see is people writing in English saying things like "printear isnt a word?" or copies and snippets of a ZDNet article written 25 years ago saying that Any Day Now these creeping Anglicisms are going to become everyday Spanish. I also looked forprinteado and other forms which i'd figured would be more common and would eliminate the news-article false positives. In fact Im actually surprised that this word hasnt caught on even a little bit, so maybe I'm missing something. Thanks,—Soap—16:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latin. Supine ofiaceō. I see it given in some dictionaries, but others such as Lewis and Short, Georges, LaNe give the future active participle to cite this stem; I suspect the supine may be unattested. Since the verb is intransitive, the perfect passive participle presumably does not exist.--Urszag (talk)22:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
You cansubscribe to aweb feed of this page in eitherRSS orAtom format.
