Scope: This page is for requests fordeletion of pages, entries and senses in themain namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. The most common reason for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests (requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted).
Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template{{rfd}} or{{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and thenmake a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as[[green leaf]]. The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag{{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag{{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise{{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.
Closing a request: A request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except forsnowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion,{{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because there is no consensus, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. The threshold for consensus is hinted at the ratio of 2/3 of supports to supports and opposes, but is not set in stone and other considerations than pure tallying can play a role; seethe vote.
Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
Adding a comment to the discussion here with eitherRFD-deleted orRFD-kept, indicating what action was taken.
Striking out the discussion header.
(Note: In some cases, like moves or redirections, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFD-deleted” or “RFD-kept”.)
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 spent a few minutes looking at the entries they made and comparing it to the source, for anyone interested. I'm inclined to say that they're innocent, or they at least didn't rip all of them. As for what to do, I think a more experienced editor should weigh in.
асп vs. "N. English: horse. Tojiki: асп. From: Tajik."
The editor in question added a lot of bad entries and was quite uncareful; we know for a fact that some are copied from that site. We also don't have anyone equipped to assess whether they're correct. Unless such a person appears, I think we may have to delete them to be safe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think they should all be deleted as well, but also because Yaghnobi should be written using more accurate Latin characters. Using Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda claiming that Yaghnobi as closely related to Tajik, which is unquestionably not at the case. --Victar (talk)03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
After looking a bit more, I agree with you guys... I shouldn't have been so quick to judge (in favor). Side note: some of the etymologies had straight up zero links 😕 –Gormflaith (talk)03:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
ThanksUser:Gormflaith for looking at the entries in more detail. If this is agreed upon then, then they ought to be deleted sooner rather than later, as once the data is re-used by Wikidata under a different licence I think it will be impossible to delete, won't it? @MetaknowledgeKaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk)16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
If it's decided to delete all of this user's Yaghnobi entries, note that some Yaghnobi entries were not written by this user, so look at the edit history before deleting.- -sche(discuss)20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how easy it would be to program a bot to do that, and DTLHS may not have time to write one, but if we all look over a few entries a day we can get this knocked out in a month or so. I've started going through the entries inCategory:Yagnobi lemmas, removing the ones I can't find evidence for in books (I am using Google Books to check for English or Russian books that contain the word and its gloss in those languages).- -sche(discuss)03:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would have to look at the page histories of all Yagnobi entries to see that Rajkiandris actually touched the page, unless you have a list already.DTLHS (talk)03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
To echo what I wrote before, all the Yaghnobi entries should be deleted. Using cyrillic is nationalist propaganda taken from the site Rajkiandris sourced. --Victar (talk)07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've found references attesting Yagnobi words in Cyrillic script from at least as early as the 1970s; based on that and Guldrelokk's statement above, your claim seems overbroad. I don't have a problem with romanizing those sources/entries if it is felt that the Latin script is preferable, though. I can go ahead and move/recreate the entries I've found attested in Latin script straight to Latin script entries.- -sche(discuss)17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: Mirzozoda from the Tajik Academy of Sciences is the spearhead behind spelling Yaghnobi using Cyrillic, an otherwise unwritten language. The modified Tajik Cyrillic alphabet he uses was invented by him, but it is completely inept at properly representing Yaghnobi phonology. He also asserts that Yaghnobi and Tajik are closely related, which is demonstrably false, harkening back to my nationalist political propaganda comment. --Victar (talk)17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've gone through the ёs, аs, бs, вs, дs, еs, жs, гs, иs, яs, ғs, ӣs and ԝs and removed the ones I couldn't find other references for (which was most of them, about 50 entries so far).- -sche(discuss)05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'vedeleted unsourced Yagnobi entries by Rajkiandris that had not been edited / fixed by any other editor since it's creation per the above discussion.Svārtava (tɕ)03:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Russian. These are not suffixes: the precedingа is a part of the verbal stem. It can be a suffix on it’s own or anotherа-final suffix like-ывать(-yvatʹ), but in any case it will be present throughout the inflection. The participle suffix is just-ущий(-uščij),-ющий(-juščij).Guldrelokk (talk)20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of metanalysis, I've always wondered whether our analysis of nouns ending in-ание was right. Don't these always come froma-stem verbs? If yes, I think we should consider parsingописа́ние asописа́ть +-ние, the same way we parse Latin words ending in-atio as "a-stem verb +-tio"; seeinterpretatio for example. I only know of two cases of a genuine-atio suffix:gradatio and*coratio; are there similar counterexamples in Russian?
I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of theа being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --WikiTiki8917:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's a problem unless/until it's being misapplied in word-formation (or, in this case, conjugation). Are there people who misconjugate non-a-stem verbs?
May I suggest moving it to-щий? The correct decomposition of such a participle is, for example указ-ыв-аю-щий. The stem is указ-, followed by a imperfective modifier -ыв-, followed by the infinitive suffix-ать, which is conjugated to 3rd person plural -ают and trimmed to -аю, followed by the participle ending -щий. Otherwise, all of the following would have to be created: -ащий, -ящий, -ущий, -ющий. These are not different forms of the same suffix, but different conjugation classes of the base verb. Nonetheless, I do agree that initial а/я is not part of the suffix.Quaijammer (talk)18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Guldrelokk Let's think this through before just deleting these suffixes. My motivation for-аемый is that for many verbs, the passive participle suffix clearlyreplaces the infinitive suffix, e.g.терп-е́ть ->терп-и́мый,ма́зать ->ма́ж-емый, hence the same could be said here, e.g.уваж-а́ть ->уваж-а́емый. This is the same reason I prefer to treat-ание(-anije) as a suffix, parallel to-ение(-enije), rather than having two suffixes-ние(-nije) and-ение(-enije) that behave in non-parallel ways. Since I've been the main person working on adding etymologies, you'll find lots of words with etymologies that reference-ание(-anije) , and so it's not so simple to just delete that suffix. -аемый doesn't have so many words referring to it but we should maintain consistency of analysis.Benwing2 (talk)03:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: But compareтерпим andуважаем. Verbs that drop the stem-finalа, likeписать(pisatʹ),пишем(pišem), do not have this participle at all, so there is simply no way to treatа as part of the suffix: it would be plainly wrong.Guldrelokk (talk)04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
To the active participle: note howписать(pisatʹ),пишу(pišu) hasпишущий(pišuščij). So to summarise:-ющий(-juščij) only occurs afterа when the stem invariably has it. Whenever it is possible to ‘replace’ the vowel, it does that. Thus, in уважа-ющий -ющий is clearly suffixed to the stem уважа-, which has no allomorphs altogether: if it could drop itsа likeписать(pisatʹ), it would beуважущий(uvažuščij). On the other hand,-емый(-emyj)only occurs after those stems inа which have no allomorphs altogether: for other verbs of the first conjugation the corresponding participle does not exist. So again, уважаемый is clearly уважа-емый, because ifуважать(uvažatʹ) could lose its finalа, it wouldn’t have a passive participle.
I think that-ание(-anije) is a way harder and a very different question. I’ll need to think a lot about it. But the participle suffixes I requested for deletion are unjustifiable: removing them will not change anything globally.Guldrelokk (talk)06:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
As per my reasoning in the section above, I suggestMove to-мый(-myj). The е/и is governed by the 2nd person plural conjugation of the verb (-ем/-им). It is not part of the participle suffix.Quaijammer (talk)18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latin. This together withinodiatus andperodiatus aretaken by L&S from Forcellini (edit: on another lookodiatus doesn't occur even there; the other two words do). However, inForcellini itself it says "word to be removed from the Dictionary, occurs only in Not. Tir. p. 77."This is what it's referring to: as far as I can tell, it's a manuscript/codex of Tironian Notes shorthand, and is indeed the only place I've found those words in. I don't know if misreading or scribal mistake is more likely. The words themselves reflect presumable proto-Romance forms (e.g.odiato) based on the verbodiare which doesn't exist in Latin. Those forms cannot derive fromodīre - the perfect participle from that would have been *ōdītus or *ōssus. Unless someone can provide dictionary entries for those words from Medieval Latin dictionaries or cite examples from medieval texts, I think it's fair to conclude that the editors of Forcellini have mistakenly included them (forgot to remove them), whence they've found their way into L&S, but are not actual Latin words. Perhaps they have a place in the newly-emerging proto-Romance section.
I just tried searchingodiatorum and easily found a result; I haven't found anything legitimate for an inflected form ofinodiatus, however. I'm not sure whether we should reject something only found in the Tironian Notes in any case, and perhaps they would be better to keep with an appropriate label. Also, for the future, this is the wrong place to post this;WT:RFVN is the forum where you should post entries that you doubt the existence of. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've found exactly 2 attestations ofodiatorum in google: one isthis 1591 edition which is corrected toexosorum inlater editions; the other I haven't found corrections of. archive.org has been somewhat more productive, showing for instancea quote from what I gather to be a book by a 19th century Italian historian Pietro Martini - which I haven't been able to find - quoting an unidentified parchment. Another isthis from ~1700. The wordodiatus, as I've made clear in an edit, is absent from the edition of Tironian Notes I've linked to (presumably corrected toodietas as a marginal gloss ofodiosus), the wordinodiatus has 4 alternative readings,perodiatus one.Ernout, Meillet has this to say, markingodiatus with an asterisk. The words are not in De Vaan.This dictionary follows Forcellini with the same single (and apparently false) reference, and so do some other minor dictionaries.
Here'sanother article conjecturing that the formodiare must have existed based on that same codex as well as the Romance forms - however, as we've seen, the form isn't truly attested even there, and Romance points to proto-Romance, not to Latin."Neue Formenlehre..." gives what seems to be a comprehensive list of all attested forms in pre-Medieval Latin, neitherodiare norodiatus are among them - the -ia- forms are presumably subjunctives, whose very existence by itself precludes a verbodiare from appearing. That said,inodiare at least does seem to have inscriptional evidenceand is listed. Looking forperodiare will be a bit too much for me right now.
I think this should be enough evidence from me. However, I'd also like to raise a methodological question: if a word that is expressly ungrammatical in Classical terms, is attested during or after the Medieval Period a couple of times with dubious manuscript authority, and corresponds to or is indistinguishable from a proto-Romance form, can be included on wiktionary as a properly Latin entry, then I have to wonder - firstly, what's the point of having the Vulgar Latin category (whose name I take a big issue with and whose link doesn't appear to be working, but never mind)? And secondly - does this mean that I can add a Latin word (naturally marking it as "contemporary Latin" or the like) found in the personalised dictionary, or simply in the writings or speech, of some modern Latin-speaking circle or internet venue? How about a random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating around the net? Is being found on the Latin wikipedia a solid enough ground for inclusion? Certainly it would be more useful for a modern Latinist. Do medieval Latinised Germanisms and Gallicisms such that abound in all those early medieval laws quality as Medieval Latin? What about their corruptions that are firmly-attested by several manuscripts? Last, but by no means least — doesNutella Nutellae and other macaronic Latin qualify? I know this might seem like it's going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect the answers to this latter part might instead be at the very core of our apparent disagreement over the inclusion of the words in question. By the way, I'm henceforth including the alternative conjugation ofodio into this discussion. Also, should we continue this here, at RFVN or at some other place? Sorry, I'm very poorly familiar with community pages.— Thisunsigned comment was added byBrutal Russian (talk •contribs) at17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC).Reply
Attestations from Vicipaedia or the like do not suffice. The question for mediaeval and modern Latin has been whether a single durably archived use or mention suffices (as it does for classical words), or whether three independent ones should be required. I support the latter position, and we have applied it with some success: it avoids words that just one person coined for, say,Harrius Potter, but still allows in words that seem like "bad" Latin but occur in multiple manuscripts and might reasonably be something that someone would come across and want to know the meaning of (likesewera). My viewpoint therefore leads me to be very inclusive of anything that may be classical (if there are several proposed readings, we can include them all with explanatory labels), and exclusive of things written after the Late Latin period unless they meet our more stringent requirements. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Regarding "WT:RFVN is the forum": If OP's opinion is that words only attested through Tironian notes should be deleted, it would be an RFD or BP and not an RFV matter.
Regarding "random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating": That's probably not durably archived (WT:CFI). And even if it were, there would be the mentioning stuff (such as "should maintain a list of materials").
Regarding CFI, types of sources (Tironian notes, manuscripts, editions) and types of Latin: 1. Tironian notes, manuscripts and older editions (if they aren't clear misprints or misspellings) should be okay for attestation. There can be labels and usage notes to note such things. 2. Even Contemporary Latin obiously is an LDL too like so many others languages and no constructed language as for example Esperanto. And why shouldn't Latin Harry Potter attest Latin words, when other Harry Potter versions can attest words for other LDLs (e.g.Scots,Cymric or West Frisian)?
It’s a good question what we do with well-attested manuscript corruptions that have creeped into literature.fariō(“salmon trout”) (whencever people are so sure about the meaning of this hapax) has even been borrowed into English though in Meillet’s and Ernout’s words “sans doute graphie fautive desariō” (from long ſ to f as it seems). Imho using{{n-g}} and saying what kind of corruption (with what likelihood, if applicable) a thing is is a good idea (even in Medieval Latin “odiatus” is a soloecism). There are lots of examples for ancient languages, considering Semitic languages too, where occurences of “holy” scriptures are corrupt but only later found to be so etc. Because why shouldn’t we if we includemisspellings? Traditional dictionaries write things like “so in the Ms. XYZ” (funny if juxtaposed with the three-quotes criterion, and tricky with the templates). Or we need a layout similar to{{no entry}} forcorruptelae. You need to let your creativity work.Fay Freak (talk)23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, I've checked the Latin misspellings category and only one item in there can be said to be a misspelling, the hypercorrectionpariens forpariēs (the status of nasalisation/nasal in this environment and its timeline seem to be unclear). Other items that aren't abbreviations reflect genuine alternative morphophonetic forms, even if-acius for-aceus is likely to be at least in part a result of phonetic developments. What criterion defines those alternative forms as misspelings? In some non-literary corpora, the rate of omission of the final -M can be well over 50% (data from Adams 2013) - this hardly qualifies for a misspelling any more, but the language of those inscriptions is undeniably Latin. Late inscriptions and early Medieval texts still identified as Latin (even if with reservations) consistently fail to distinguish between the Accusative and the Ablative; Medieval Latin always spells -e- for -ae- in the 1st declension. Why do we not supply these and other things as alternative Late/Medieval forms? Certainly it looks like that's what has been dome in the case of the alternative conjugation ofodio, only there a whole paradigm has been made up, apparently on the barely-extant evidence of just the participle - one can walk away from wiktionary falsely convinced that all of those forms are good Latin. Even if we were to confirm that paradigm with more than the current 3 New Latin attestations (+1 emended one) of the participle, I think it's beyond doubt that the form is an erroneous back-conversion from a Romance language for the properly Latininvīsus — and it's in this connection that I've asked about macaronic language, because the only difference here is intention. Would 3 attestations of a macaronic word give it a pass?
It looks like the misspellings category is currently being used as the generic dump for any non-standard form that's either attested or doesn't foreshadow Romance forms, and thus cannot be filed under the reconstructed namespace. This doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me, but filing them under for instance "Medieval Latin" doesn't seem a much better option - indeed, hence my objection to the inclusion ofodiatus etc under such a label. I think we need to somehow draw a clear distinction between forms current and accepted in some period and unambiguous corrigenda, non-literary (inscriptional etc), or as of yet unsettled or competing usage (modern Latin vocabulary). For entries currently residing under misspellings I would suggest "Non-literary form", an equivalent of "Dialectal form" in other languages, with a way to specify place and period. For solecisms likeodiatus, including those found in dictionaries on shaky or wrong evidence, as well as corruptions, I agree with the above proposal — there has to be a way to clearly indicate the non-acceptance of the former and the corrupted nature of the latter. And I don't think we can have an "alternative" conjugation like that without every form's page indicating its essentially fictional nature — unlike the 1st conjugation there are 2 pre-Medieval attested forms of the 3d conjugationodere - yet those aren't sufficient grounds to make up a whole new conjugation for the verb either. If anything, the reconstructed space seems like just the place for those. As forodiatus, its most solid attestation is a species of midge calledCulicoides odiatus — perhaps that's what the page should be provisionally reprofiled to. ♥Brutal Russian (talk)21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I know this was a long time ago, but were you literally only searching for "odiatus"? Because "odiatum" is attestable in Renaissance Latin ([1]) and New Latin ([2]), even discounting false positives for things like "odia tum".Theknightwho (talk)01:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I think the following uncontracted forms ofἀγαθοεργέω(agathoergéō) created byRexPrincipum, are incorrect. This is the fault ofModule:grc-conj, which currently gives some uncontracted forms if you set the dialect to Koine rather than Attic. But Koine contracts in the same way as Attic, thusἀγαθοεργοῦμεν(agathoergoûmen) not*ἀγαθοεργέομεν(*agathoergéomen),ἀγαθοεργῶσι(agathoergôsi) not*ἀγαθοεργέωσι(*agathoergéōsi).
Hi, I've seen your comment, but the thing is that, as a rule, these verbs also contract in koine, they still appear in their uncontracted forms throughout the corpus of text, although rarely. But do correct me if I am incorrect, I am not the most experienced.RexPrincipum (talk)01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to|dial=koi should suppress the dual column, and all the entries for dual forms of Koine-only verbs should be deleted too. —Mahāgaja ·talk11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17.Akletos (talk)07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don’t see the benefit of deletion, neither for the collective of editors nor for the users.Panthera onca is not some obscure species that you only find mentioned in specialized scientific literature, and we can provide an etymology for the epithet to the curious user. --Lambiam12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's not separate: the species was first described by Linnaeus under the nameFelis onca, then was transfered to thegenusPanthera, which automatically changed the name toPanthera onca. It would be like treating the name on someone's birth certificate and their married name as two different occurences of their given name.Chuck Entz (talk)07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Translingual. Entered without any definition, just a description of what the glyph looks like, visually. In the wording of CFI, terms have to "convey meaning".__Gamren (talk)07:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.[3][4][5] I have no evidence,though, that the symbol⧜ is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning. --Lambiam13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). —Eru·tuon04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
As I said on the RFD for-lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying-ing (second sense) to a word that ends inland, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyzeislending asis + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it'sIsland + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk)17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Gamren: The reasoning for deletion seems incomplete to me. On the one hand, there is the question about whether-lending technically is asuffix. On the other, the vowel change cannot be presumed to be trivial; it is not like vowels can be changed willy-nilly in Norwegian. The information that-lending rather than-landing is used in demonyms and similar words should be stored somewhere in the dictionary; and given that an official Norwegian dictionary has anentry for-lending, my starting point is that we should have an entry for it here as well. --Njardarlogar (talk)17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it should be deleted either, the fact that it is in the dictionary is reason enough for me to keep it. Also it's pretty convenient to get all the derivatives containing -lending from this page. The Norwegian Academy Dictionary also states that it is in fact a suffix, as seen on the entry for "flamlending" on naob.no, though they don't actually have a separate entry page for it. I am in the process of sending them a list of words missing from their dictionary, and will include -lending.Supevan (talk)13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
As I said on the RFD for-lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying-ing (second sense) to a word that ends inland, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyzeislending asis + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it'sIsland + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk)17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Albanian. Tagged but not listed nearly two years ago with the reason "It is misspelled; the correct spelling isdëgjoj". We do have an entry fordëgjoj, butdegjôj is labeled{{lb|sq|Gheg}}, and there's a citation for the inflected formdegjôn, so I suspect this is a valid spelling for Gheg dialect if not for the standard language. But I know virtually nothing about Albanian, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Pinging @HeliosX,PlatuerGashaj as the creator and deletion proposer respectively. —Mahāgaja ·talk10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
In Dhurata Ahmetaj's song, the verb is pronounced like this only the first time during the first minute. You can search the song online if you like to review its pronounciation. It can be noted that the rhyming word "preokupon" is pronounced here with the vowel [e] too but the pronunciation of the second verb can't be altered because of that only.HeliosX (talk)12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
It will be highly difficult to establish this spelling in writing because Gheg is nearly always written without any circumflexes and often without the diacritic of the schwa letter.HeliosX (talk)12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
All of them were created by my bot several years ago, based onModule:ar-verb. When I created that module, I did a careful analysis of hamza spellings based on several sources. I documented my findings in detail inw:Hamza, where they still remain. I don't think I made any mistakes but you never know; this particular area of Arabic spelling is very hairy, and there are disagreements among different authors. The IP apparently thinks spellings likeتسوءوا are more correct. If you look at what my module generates, you'll see it generates both spellings, and lists the IP's preferred spelling first. The dual spellings are intentional, since there is author disagreement in this case. Am I right or is the IP right?Benwing2 (talk)05:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was taught that following Quranic orthography, it was valid to write the hamza without a seat for e.g.سَاءُوا(sāʔū), but that doesn't even seem to be one of the options presented. That would be to avoid two wāws in a row, but for MSA usage where that rule is not generally applied, the wāw should be used as a seat instead. I don't know of any justification for using a yā', but based onw:Hamza, I would guess that it follows the trend of certain medial hamzas being typeset with yā' as the seat rather than seatless, even if not historically justified. So the IP is seemingly right from a prescriptivist perspective, but given that we're descriptivist, I don't see a problem with keeping anything attested (maybe labelled in some manner). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Thew:Hamza article mentions Barron's grammar books. I've got his501 Arabic Verbs. Thethird-person masculine plural past active ofجَاءَ(jāʔa) is given only asجَاؤُوا(jāʔū) (notجَائُوا(jāʔū)) but thethird-person masculine plural non-past active indicative is given asيَجِيؤُونَ(yajīʔūna) (notيَجِيئُونَ(yajīʔūna)).
A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic by Eckehard Schulz, however givesيَجِيئُونَ(yajīʔūna).
As far as I recall I've seen the forms withء(ʔ) only in older Quranic writing. I've never seen hamzas preceding a short or longu in the form ofئ(ʔ), butؤ, as mentioned by Anatoli. --Z14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
It isيَجِيئُونَ(yajīʔūna), becausei takes precedences beforeu. As noi vowel environs those third person male past plural forms they cannot be written withئ(ʔ). If in some Arabic country the opposite is considered permissible, I plead ignorance; search engines even hardly find forms likeشائوا and correct toشاؤوا even if in ASCII quotation marks. Forms likeشائوا should be removed from the conjugation tables at least owing to undue weight. Following experiences like onTalk:هذا we have to expect that Arabic grammars also contain wrong forms.Fay Freak (talk)14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
No kasra or ى around the glottal stop, then it can't be ـئـ. These are basics in Arabic orthography. No damma or و around the glottal stop, then it can't be ؤ. Some words are acceptable to be spelled with either, but in the eighties, one of the Arabic language academies (in Egypt?) favored the ء on the line for some words over ؤ that was commonly used, e.g. دؤوب (traditional style); دءوب (newer style).— Thisunsigned comment was added byMahmudmasri (talk •contribs) at20:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC).Reply
I have never seen an unseated Hamza in front of a non-vocalic letter, I must admit. Apart from that, I too prefer شاؤوا or شاءوا to those forms with a Yā'-seat, because they should only ever appear next to unrounded high vowels.
Also, on a side note, this discussion is open since 2020. When is a good time, generally, to either close a RFD or act upon one? Who archives inactive discussions? -Konanen (talk)15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Move. I agree we might add the superseded version for posterity's sake with an explanation ("compounded from an + sein"), and maybe add that to either "sein" (or "an", or both?) under compounds? -Konanen (talk)15:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The entryŋó is simply a rendition ofSuyá. The spellingŋó does not follow any established orthographic conventions for the language (it is taken from Guedes 1992, which uses its own ad hoc conventions and is in general not a very reliable source on the language). I was unable to move it because the pagengô already exists.Degoiabeira (talk)02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I don't really see any value in keeping ad-hoc phonological transcriptions when we can lemmatise at the established orthography.Thadh (talk)16:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete ... we have this same problem with a few other languages, like Abinomn, where in some cases it's not clear what the proper spelling should be because two transcription methods overlap. But in this case, it's clear thatŋó is <ngô>, so I would move the word to the new spelling.—Soap—10:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
So... I ask that these kinds of entries be deleted, because they contain a postposition, which is hard to translate in English as one word. Currently have found four words:ანგელოზი-ვით,აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ,აღმოსავლეთ-ის-ა-კენ,მათ-თვის. Now 1st can be translated as "like an angel", second and third "towards east", fourth as "for them; by themselves..." and other nuances the postposition carries. I don't think it's proper to have these forms on Wiktionary, since the pages would pile up and bad translations would arise. Just study grammar... I haven't actually looked whether this qualifies at all by the Wiktionary rules, so I'mma ask y'all. For comparison to other languages, these forms are kinda like if Korean미국에서(migug-eseo,“from America”) entry existed. I'll also ping @Dixtosa,Reordcraeft. Additional questions if we decide to delete them... would there be an easier way to actually find them? -Solarkoid (talk)17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Our concepts of SOP and words aren't all that good at dealing with agglutinative languages. A few precedents I can think of are "-que" in Latin and "'s" in English (forms with both of which are deleted as they're clitics that can go on syntactically-unrelated words), prefixed prepositions in Hebrew (prefixed forms excluded by Hebrew community consensus), and case endings in highly inflected languages such as Latin and Finnish. Latin accusative can be used for toward, ablative for away from, and locative for at. I'm not very familiar with Finnish cases, but there are a variety of cases with prepositional meaning. Then there are the long and complex German compounds that native speakers consider SOP, but that the overall community decided to keep.Chuck Entz (talk)19:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ye that's understandable, to be honest. However, additionally the thing is, none of the postpositions listed there: 1) Can mean anything on their own 2) Aren't considered as cases by anyone; none of them were given names. Akaki Shanidze, a well-respected Georgian linguist, considered things like-ში(-ši) cases, since 1) they didn't show the case marker 2) they could be isolated as a case per meaning (like Locative case). Georgian, like any language, deals with postpositions like word-case marker-postposition, where pp can either be a isolated one or suffixed.-ვით(-vit) means "like (close to in shape, size, features...) for example,შესახებ(šesaxeb) means 'about' and is spaced. But like, I don't know what to do with them. I guess since Hebrew excludes the prefixed prepositions and Korean also does that with their "markers", there should be no need for ones in Georgian, since they don't just change meaning for one word or another, they're systematic. I'll look at different responses, see what other people think. Also see if Dixtosa responds, he hasn't been active muchito. Thank you for your answer. -Solarkoid (talk)22:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I partially agree. Forms likeანგელოზი-ვით can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words likeაღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ (eastward,eastwards), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --Reordcraeft (talk)10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. @Karaeng Matoaya In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -Solarkoid (talk)11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point ofnot deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strongdelete from my part.Thadh (talk)12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there are good reasons why we should not delete them. Someone may want to look it up, wow. That someone is probably neither a native speaker nor a learner though because it is pretty easy to guess any postpositional form from two basic forms (genitive and plural). But, have you ever looked up a word in a language you knew nothing about?
I think WT's objective should not be to include any variant of any word that anyone could find anywhere. The reason to delete this is so that it doesn't fill up the mainspace with words that can be deducted very simply. This isn't different from any SOP except for the fact it doesn't use a whitespace. Why not add whole sentences inScriptio continua?Thadh (talk)11:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dixtos, Wiktionary has this convenient little feature called "words containing..." under the search if the word you're looking up isn't an entry. We could even do redirects to the main entry where they can open the inflection table and see it for themselves. Like look up the word "დიდედისთვის", which doesn't exist, and it will tell you, that the word "დიდედა" contains the word, so I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter. And if they can't find it that way still, let's just let them add it to entry requests, add main entry and add a redirect even. Redirect has to be discussed still, but we'll see. -Solarkoid (talk)13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Given the small number of languages using this script and their being limited to a relatively small area, the risk of overlap with words in other languages seems pretty small, and the likelihood that at least some Georgian editors will be able to spot it seems pretty high. That means you can be much more liberal with redirects than for scripts that are widely used by lots of languages with no connection to each other.Chuck Entz (talk)16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Hk5183 Sense "to havesexual intercourse with". It doesn't seem lexicalized to me, and AFAICT it's quite rare, too. Looking cursorily, I found one cite, and there is another on DDO, both of which seem like nonce euphemisms by romantic authors (Femina is a women's magazine).ODS lists a large number of minor semantic variations, but not this one.__Gamren (talk)19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I personally have never encountered this meaning in reading (only in DDO), so I cannot attest to it's usage. I agree that it is not at the core of the word's meaning, so delete it if you think best. Thanks!Hk5183 (talk)19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Lean delete, which religious titles to include and which not can be difficult because there are many metaphors and allusions involved, but this one is rather straightforwardly descriptive. So it is closer toHoly One of God (imo excludible) than toLamb of God (imo includible).←₰-→LingoBingoDingo (talk)10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Speaking from a background that leaves me rather ignorant of much of Islam, I can only guess at what or who "Allah's Messenger" would refer to -- Might this be an angel? Any of the prophets? A specific prophet? I don't know.
In other words, I agree withMahāgaja's point, and I cannot agree with Fay Freak's contention, that"[i]t's always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question" would mean any English speaker would perforce understand this in a sum-of-parts manner.
Latest comment:4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This construction isn't really a word (not in Dehkhoda), and the attempt to treat it as a verb has produced the convoluted usage notes. The relevant information is now contained inمنتظر#Usage notes, which I think conveys the information rather more succinctly.
Latest comment:1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
All of the entries for Barngarla on Wiktionary follow the standardised spelling (as specified here), except for one entrykawu, and two other entrieskauo andkawi that specify themselves as alternate spellings ofkawu. The version of this word with standardised spelling can be found atgawoo (and possibly alsogabi). The Barngarla Language Advisory Comittee prescibes that Barngarla should be written according to the modern standardised spelling. These other spellings are not part of any sort of obsolete spelling system, but rather are just arbitrary spellings that some linguists used to transcribe Barngarla words prior to the modern spelling standardisation. Therefore I propose that these entries be deleted. --AndreRD (talk)09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I looked into the situation here. The Barngarla language fell out of use by 1964, but has recently been revived thanks to an effort spearheaded by Ghil'ad Zuckermann, a linguist. Apparently Zuckermann himself developed a new orthography for the language. There are plenty of old pre-1964 texts with attestations (at least mentions) of Barngarla words not written in Zuckermann's orthography, but the evidence suggests these writers were using ad-hoc orthographies and there was no written standard. I suppose the most logical thing to do is to delete these old ad-hoc spellings - otherwise we'd clutter the dictionary with all sorts of one-off spellings for all kinds of LDLs. Do we have a common practice in these situations?This, that and the other (talk)02:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Of course, Wiktionary is not paper. Incidentally, while we are at it, should we get these pre-1964 texts burnt? A sane compromise is to by default require 2 independent mentions with the same spelling if there are no examples of use. --RichardW57m (talk)10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The sense 'well-gone' (perpetrated by @咖喱饭) currently (26 June 2021) given for Palisugata is either covered by 'faring well' or needs separate senses. "Well-gone" is not proper English in this context, but clearly a literal translation. --RichardW57 (talk)10:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
This is a tricky one to analyse. There are 784 raw Google hits, but the problem is that killing an elephant for its ivory is exactly what the poachers do, and examples referring to that would be straightforward SoPs. --RichardW57 (talk)12:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I've found a quotation that clearly isn't about elephants. Unfortunately, it's about the killing of Rama VIII (the current king's uncle), from a book that's banned in Thailand. It does, however, clearly show the use of the abstract 'noun' of the idiomatic phrase, so as with the request above we need a clearer explanation of why the abstract noun from the idiom should be excluded. The example shows the noun as the object of a preposition,ถึง(tʉ̌ng) (or a verb acting like one, depending on your taste in grammar). --RichardW57 (talk)20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Avicar apostolic has usually been ordained and consecrated as a bishop and stands as such in theapostolic succession, so they may perform the sacrament ofholy orders. They do not represent a bishop other than the Pope. A vicar acting as the representative of a Catholic diocesan bishop is usually not themselves a bishop; they have vicarious administrative or judicial powers, but not sacramental ones. --Lambiam15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Created by @Crom daba. The inclusion should be based on the usage. We don't create entries for "phonetic respellings" but we have (frequent) misspellings, alternative forms, etc. If the usage can be verified, the entry can be kept but as{{alt form|mn|баярлалаа}} or{{misspelling of|mn|баярлалаа}} --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)06:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Crom daba,LibCae,Fytcha: Still unresolved. It may not be just a "phonetic respelling" but a "common misspelling" (because it's how it's how it's pronounced). If this spelling is attestable, then it should be kept but needs a change of the label. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Kercha (2012) gives the forms четыри, четверо and штыри as forms of the numeral "four". AFAIK, Rusyn orthography is pretty phonemic, with a three-way contrast ы-и-і. I'd saysend to RFV.Thadh (talk)18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2,Thadh,ZomBear: Sorry, can't help with this. I lost my Rusyn dictionary. On "четверо" I wonder if it's a noun with the sense "four people", rather than a numeral "four".
Trying to find what is right in Rusyn can be frustrating as different authors can use very different words and spellings. There are multiple standards but it seems to be no standard. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Itdoes exist in Classical Syriac but not as a lemma. I believe @Antonklroberts is referencing its non-existence in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, in which he would be correct. I'll clean the article up and remove the deletion template. --334a (talk)05:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete if notspeedy; different number system does not mean that it isn't decipherable by its components and it isn't one word. —Svārtava (t/u) •09:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Normally I think CFI's allowance for deleting numbers is too strong, but in this case if you have any idea what alakh and acrore are, the expressions "ten lakh" and "ten crore" are completely transparent, so I am not opposed to deletion.Benwing2 (talk)04:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Rishabhbhat,Svartava Would you consider any of the following uses to be idiomatic/figurative for 'very large number' rather than the SOP meaning?
जानकारी के अनुसार आज जिले भर के बाजारों में लगभगदस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई।
दस करोड़ों की लागत से बनाया आधुनिक तकनीक का डबल लेन ब्रिज में पांच सालों के भीतर ही दरारें पड़ गई।
योरप में कितने ही ऐसे कला-प्रेमी पड़े हुए हैं जो उनमें की एक-एक तस्वीर के लिएदस-दस लाख पौण्ड तक देने को तैयार हैं।
बाकीदस करोड़ों की आबादी में कितने ही बूढ़े, कितने ही मरीज, कितने ही डाकू, कितने ही भिखमंगे, कितने ही साधु शमिल हैं।
ऐसा गोल्डन लिफाफादस लाख लोगों को भेजा गया है।
मारुति सुजुकी गुजरात प्लांट मेंदस लाखों कारों का उत्पादन हुआ पूरा
सौ करोड़ रुपये से कम बिक्री-राशि की दशा में निकटतमसैकड़ों, हजारों, लाखों अथवा दस लाखों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है। (ii) सौ करोड़ रुपये या उससे अधिक बिक्री राशि की दशा में निकटतमलाखों, दस लाखों अथवा करोड़ों या उनके दशमलवांशों में पूरा करके दिया जा सकता है।
ये कार्यकर्ता आने वाले नब्बे दिनों में हर दिनदस लाखों बिल्डिंग्स में जाकर लोगों के स्वास्थ्य की जानकारी लेंगे
खत्म होगी मुसाफिरों की मुसीबत, हाईवे के लिएदस करोड़ों राशी स्वीकृत
@Kutchkutch: Even in these sentences, in the first one -लगभगदस करोड़ों की खरीदारी हुई - the use might not be figurative: it translates tonearlyten crores of purchasing. I don't think that even the figurative use for "large number" should be enough to keep it because in any case it would translate to "ten crore(s)" even when figuratively and the meaning (from the components) and figurative use is obvious. —Svārtava (t/u) •03:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: Yes, whenever a term is deleted as SOP, I always relink its translation to its parts (instead of removing it) as every sysop should, so nothing would be lost there. The question only is whether this term merits a full entry by itself. —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉08:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It seems like a compound term hyperonymous toשבת with a slightly different meaning (more formal?). The Torah uses this word as a synonym toשבת. Correct me if am wrong on this one.Tollef Salemann (talk)21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep andundelete the literal sense inJoan of Arc. The deletion of the person sense fromJoan of Arc was incorrectly justified. InTalk:Joan of Arc, we can read "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia" as the justification for deletion. But this does not mean there can be no senses for people, only that the senses should not describe the people in encyclopedic manner. The quoted sentence also refers toplaces, and under the incorrect interpretation of the sentence, we would also need to delete senses for places from place names, which we do not want to do and have not been doing. It was further said that "Most terms inCategory:en:Individuals are not entries about individuals but about terms named after individuals", which is not obvious to me and even if it were true,many of the entries there are for specific individuals, e.g.Aristotle: "An ancient Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist (382–322 B.C.E.), student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great." We did see some efforts to get rid of senses for specific individuals in the past, but that never achieved anything like consensus; see e.g.Talk:Xenocrates. And inTalk:Joan of Arc I do not see 2/3-consensus for deleting the literal sense, so the closure does not appear correct as for consensus either. InTalk:George VI I do not see the required 2/3 supermajority for deletion either.WT:NSE does not require us to deleteJoan of Arc's literal sense, from what I can see. As pointed out elsewhere, we have othermulti-word names such asJesus Christ,Alexander the Great,Darwin's Bulldog,Attila the Hun,Genghis Khan,Mary Magdalene,Robin Hood and I have just checked that they contain senses for specific people.“Joan of Arc”, inOneLook Dictionary Search. shows support of multiple lemmings, so we can even useWT:LEMMING as an arbitrary aid. Thus, the deletion ofJoan of Arc person sense contradicts the usual interpretation of the part of CFI quoted for the support for deletion and contradicts common practice shown on very many of the entries inCategory:en:Individuals even if not all of them, and contradictsWT:LEMMING, which can help us when we feel undecisive about what to do as part ofWT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk)14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
As forWT:NSE's "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic", "of Arc" is neither a family name nor a patronymic, so this does not apply. The notion that we exclude all person senses from multi-word person names was refuted above. --Dan Polansky (talk)15:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Revisiting this a bit late.
From the WP article atw:Joan of Arc, particularly the#Name section, my understanding is that theof Arc ord'Arc portions of the name are in fact patronymic, at least as understood by the chroniclers who first recorded (something like) this version of her name roughly 24 years posthumously.
The EN entry atJoan of Arc currently has no proper noun sense, only the figurative sense -- which seems correct to me inasmuch as I understand the policy atWT:NSE.
The JA entry atジャンヌ・ダルク(Jannu Daruku) currently hasonly the proper noun sense -- which seems like an entry we shouldn't have?
Keep the figurative senses of these entries, at the very least (I'd have no objection to keeping the literal senses either but whatever approach we take should be consistent across entries). If attestability is in doubt then RFV is the appropriate forum to discuss that, so it's not relevant to discussions here. --Overlordnat1 (talk)23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The suffixes-li/-lı/-lu/-lü and-siz/-sız/-suz/-süz can be added to any Turkish noun to form adjectives meaning “with ...” and “without ...”. For example:şekerli kahve = “coffee with sugar”;şekersiz kahve = “coffee without sugar”. IMO there has to be a specific reason to have entries for such adjectives, such as that they have a specific idiomatic meaning (tatlı = “sweet”, not the regular “having taste”), or that there is a dedicated corresponding English adjective (ünlü = “famous”). --Lambiam17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
If we go based on these 2 rules we'd have to delete a lot of pages. Maybe mirror other dictionaries.{{R:TDK}} has the +-li form for some fruits, for example. Mainly those used as flavouring or in bakery. To my surprise they also haveabajurlu andabajursuz. Then I came to discover that there'slampshaded. --Whitekiko (talk)14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual, supposedly meaning the ISO 3166-1 three-letter code for Great Britain (the island).
This is factually wrong, becauseGBN is not defined in ISO 3166-1 (which gives 2 and 3 letter codes to all countries). The codes for the UK areGB andGBR, and no mention is made of Great Britain the island anywhere.
It also can't be a member of the related standard ISO 3166-2, because those codes all refer to subdivisions of countries and follow a strict pattern, which in this case would beGB-GBN.
I spotted that (and thetable on Wikipedia that actually saysGB-GBN) but didn't want to overcomplicate the original request because I have a feeling that Wikipedia's wrong. I think they mention the codesEAW,GBN andUKM in the remark "for completeness" because they're in the (now obsolete) UK standard BS 6879 that ISO 3166-2:GB is based on, but they haven't actually been incorporated into the ISO standard. In any event,GBN alone is clearly not correct.Theknightwho (talk)12:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that makes sense. I found various uses ofGB-GBN in the wild, but given the power of Wikipedia it's quite possible they all originated with a Wikipedia editor making the same misconstrual I made.This, that and the other (talk)04:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
They're not used in any dialect I am personally familiar with, and they were added by a non-native speaker I know who was adding words from a vocabulary list that is somewhat dubious. The question of whether a word that is attested in Standard Arabic may be considered to be attested in the dialect is a difficult one with no clear answer, because Standard Arabic vocabulary may be borrowed when specificity is required, as in the case of "arm" and "temple (of the head)". But I argue that they don't have any currency outside of those settings. (Note that this is different from terms labeled as "formal", which may be borrowed from Standard Arabic but are valid in the dialect and have the function of elevating the register of speech.) I would basically argue that just as we have started using Arabic dialect language sections on Wiktionary to include dialectal terms (instead of trying to accommodate them within the Standard Arabic banner), it doesn't make sense to use the dialect sections to accommodate all Standard Arabic terms that could be conceivably used in the dialect, which is nearly an infinite list.AdrianAbdulBaha (talk)10:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja: Because every German(and Romanian) adjective can be used as an adverb without morphological change. It's not insightful and just needlessly cluttersCategory:German adverbs as well as the adjective entries. It is also more or less de facto policy to not include these (seeing that we have 1.8k adverbs and 13.7k adjectives). Further, no major German(or Romanian) dictionary includes these conversions as separate adverb entries. —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
WT:CFI is actual policy, and it says "all words in all languages"; this is a word in a language. On the other hand, CFI says nothing about excluding completely predictable derived forms without morphological change. We're not paper, so we don't have to worry about saving space like major German (and Romanian) dictionaries do. —Mahāgaja ·talk11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't mind them being there, and it might be useful to add quotes under a more appropriate heading, instead of lumping everything together. – Jberkel11:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this principle for German, but in this individual case I am not sure whether it has not sufficiently detached in development, for many sloppy speakers interchangeable withsehr(“very”). Rightly we also listderbe(adverb), and also others linked onThesaurus:sehr.Fay Freak (talk)12:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Worth noting that the majority view among grammarians is to not consider adverbially used adjectives to be adverbs but adverbials:
w:de:Adverb#Alternativen:_Das_„Adjektivadverb“: "Die soeben dargestellte Auffassung, dass die adverbielle Verwendung eines Adjektivs keinen Übergang in eine eigene Wortart Adverb bedeutet, ist in der Sprachwissenschaft heute deutlich die Mehrheitsmeinung.[11]"
@Fytcha It's probably worth defining whatadverbial means in this sense, because the current definition doesn't explain what distinguishes words like this from adverbs. There is also the separate question of whether all adjectives can be used this way.Theknightwho (talk)12:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
2016 December 17, Peter Eisenberg,Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik[9], Springer,→ISBN, 6.1 Abgrenzung und Begriffliches, page204:
Kein terminologischer Glücksfall ist das Nebeneinander der Begriffe Adverb und Adverbial. Meistens - aber längst nicht immer - wird Adverb als kategorialer, Adverbial als relationaler Begriff verwendet. Wir folgen diesem Usus und gebrauchen ›Adverbial‹ synonym mit ›adverbiale Bestimmung‹ als Bezeichnung für eine syntaktische Relation (s.u.).
As to whether all lexical adjectives can relationally be converted, the following book argues no:
2016 February 16, Wolfgang Imo,Grammatik: Eine Einführung[10], Springer-Verlag,→ISBN,→OCLC, page78:
Dafür spricht auch, dass alle Adjektive attributiv verwendet werden können, aber nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial oder prädikativ. Das Adjektivklein kann z.B. nur attributiv (das kleine Auto,der kleine Junge etc.) oder prädikativ (Das Auto ist klein. Der Junge ist klein.) verwendet werden, nicht aber adverbial (*Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc.). Adjektive wie monatlich oder jährlich können nur attributiv (das monatliche Erscheinen der Zeitschrift; die jährliche Feier) oder adverbial (Die Zeitschrift erscheint monatlich. Die Feier findet jährlich statt.) verwendet werden, nicht aber prädikativ (*Die Zeitschrift ist monatlich. ?Die Feier ist jährlich.).
If such categories are necessary, then your original assertion that these adverbial forms are 100% predictable is no longer the case. The 2016 passage suggests that such exceptions are common. Am I right in thinking these generally correspond with English adjectives that can be suffixed with-ly, or are they far more common than that?
To contrast, every English noun can be used attributively and every English verb has a gerundive form that conjugates in the same way as the present participle. That's why we exclude those forms, because they're inherent to what it means to be a noun or verb in English. That reasoning doesn't seem to apply here.Theknightwho (talk)13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: My first post was not that clear, apologies. What I wanted to get at with that part was semantic predictability: almost all adverbially used adjectives mean exactly what you'd expect them to mean (hence, they're predictable); the ones that have gained additional semantics in adverbial usage (e.g.schnell) are of course to be included.
I did assert that every adjective can be used adverbially but, looking back, that's not even all that important of an argument. The most striking argument is that the majority of grammarians don't consider these forms (adverbiale Adjektive) to be adverbs.
Also, contrary to what is claimed in Wolfgang Imo's book, I'm currently not convinced thatklein cannot be used adverbially.
2014 January 29, Melanie Thomas,Taking a Punch at the Queen?: Die Darstellung von Königin Victoria in den Karikaturen des Satiremagazins "Punch" 1841-1901[11], Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag,→ISBN,→OCLC, page97:
Russell wird imPunch durchgehend winzigklein gezeichnet.
Yes, none of these in either German or English are adverbs.
The manner specifically of eating has no bearing on it being healthy (you can eat like a pig and it would be equally healthy), rather it is the subject categorized as healthy, the one who eats has a healthy attitude towards nutrition and thus eats healthy food. In Latin it would be in the nominative, apparently covered for Latin by German Wikipedia asParticipium coniunctum and for German asPrädikativum#Freie Prädikativa, leading us to the termdepictive as correctly categorizing their syntactical function.
I suppose the reason one cannot say *Das Auto fährt klein. Der Junge läuft klein. etc. is the same as why one cannot say *The car drives small. The boy runs small. – what would it mean? --Lambiam08:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha @Fay Freak Having looked at these again, they seem to be used withcopulative verbs, so as Fay Freak says, the adjective describes the subject. Cars might not be able to drive small, but one can certainly drive unsteady, perhaps aftergoing large. As well as depictive and resultative, they can also beinchoative.Theknightwho (talk)16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete – in general we do not include such entirely predictable uses. In Dutch and Turkish too, it is a property of the language that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, meaningin a ... way. For example,ogüzel bir şeydir means “that is anice thing”, andaferin, çokgüzel yaptın means “bravo, you have done it verynicely”. --Lambiam 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — PS. In English, adjectives can predictably be used as nouns for a collectivity of people:The people have three worries: that thehungry will not be fed, that thecold will not be clothed, and that thetired will not get rest.[12] In almost all cases we do not have the corresponding noun entries for adjectives. (However, we do have this noun sense forrich andpoor, and also forhungry, in the latter case without indication that it is grammatically plural. We do have a noun entry forcold, but it is not this collective sense.) At least for Turkish, several verb forms can predictably be used adjectivally:meyveolgunlaşacak “the fruitwill ripen” next toolgunlaşacak meyve “the fruitthat will ripen”;bu meyveolgunlaşmaz “this fruitwon’t ripen” next tobuolgunlaşmaz meyve “this fruitthat won’t ripen”. --Lambiam09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. In general, I'm not a fan of the idea that predictable or formulaic (non-SOP) entries should be removed for that reason alone. The overwhelming majority of plural forms are easy to guess, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have entries. The same applies here.Binarystep (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Delete per Fytcha.Binarystep (talk)00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam Bad example, because those showpredictable being used as a noun, and we can even see the pluralpredictables. In fact, predictability is a totalred herring here and should not be used as a basis for deletion: the real reason whyextrem is not an adverb is because it never actually describes the manner in which a verb is done. If the water “runs red”, that doesn’t make “red” an adverb, because it refers to the water, not the manner of running. The same applies here, because it’s used with copulative verbs. This also applies to your Turkish example -ripen is a copulative verb in English, too.Theknightwho (talk)15:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Maybe “regular” is a better term. But if the grammar rules of a language state that adjectives can be used adverbially without morphological change, then it is predictable that such regular uses can be attested. The point withpredictable was that this is another example of the regular use of a term as another part-of-speech (herenoun) than the most typical one (hereadjective); that this boundary transgression is possible is not an exception but an instance of a general rule. The use of PoS labels on Wiktionary is a bit loose; we assignadverb toin brief andunder the influence, while these are prepositional phrases most often (but not exclusively) used adverbially. And we label the verbal phrasecome in from the cold as a verb,verb phrase being explicitly disallowed. I don’t get your point aboutolgunlaşmak; I don’t think it is copulative, and certainly not in these examples, where there is no complement. --Lambiam17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The example was poor because it doesn’t hold true for English. You cannot use every adjective that way, even if it might be obvious what it means in certain circumstances. In any event, you’re ignoring that these German examples are copulative uses, because they describe the subject.
@Binarystep: It's not "that reason alone". The most important reason is that adverbially used adjectives aren't adverbs (i.e. don't belong to the lexical category of adverbs) per the majority view of German grammarians as I've already laid out above. —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. To paraphrase others' arguments- if grammarians do not regard these forms as adverbs, and if they are entirely predictable adverbial uses of adjectives, it doesn't make sense to mark potentially several thousand adjectives as adverbs. An exception can be made for cases where the adverbial usage has developed new senses.Nicodene (talk)21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
On one hand, Duden has it only as an adjective and I believe those who say that German grammars traditionally treat these only as adjectives. On the other hand, one needs an adverb if one wants to enter the near-synonymsehr, which is never an adjective. CompareThesaurus:sehr, which lists pure adverbs such asäußerst and adjectives+adverbs such asungeheuer. How do you enter an adverb-thesaurus link into an adjective-only entryextrem or adjective-only entryungeheuer?de:extrem listsäußerst as a synonym and even a definition of an adjective sense; that looks odd. Andde:extrem translation table is incomplete in so far as it does not include any -ly translation yet that is applicable if this also covers adverbial usage. Furthermore, if it is true that "nicht alle Adjektive auch adverbial [verwendet werden können]", then one cannot say this is an exact analogue of English attributive use of nouns: each noun and gerund can be used attributively without modification. I don't think we are listing English adjectives as synonyms of English nouns. As for "semantic predictability", that's not particularly relevant since -ly adverbs are perfectly semantically predictable from their base adjectives. As for English "the hungry", ourpoor entry does have a noun section for "the poor". Since not every adjective can be used adverbially and since true synonymy does not hold between adjectives and adverbs, having separate adverb sections contrary to German grammatical tradition has considerable merit. About adverb vs. adverbials, I would say that what these grammars are saying is that all adjectives are so readily used as adverbs that it makes no dictionary sense to document them as such. The question whether they "truly" are "adverbs" probably means almost nothing: they behave like adverbs, and the rest is a matter of conventional treatment. From looking atCategory:German adverbs, what is being discussed here seems to be a proposed change to a widespread previous practice, impacting possibly hundreds of entries, and "we don't have these null-morpheme, 100% predictable conversions" seems contradicted by observation: we do have these and they are not 100% predictable since not all adjectives produce adverbial behavior. Some examples from "f":feige,fachlich,fassungslos,figürlich,fleißig,förmlich,fragend,freudig, andfurchtbar. I saykeep in RFD: it makes no sense to delete hundreds of entries via individual RFDs. This needs to be adopted as a policy change via a proper channel so that one can then start removing these adverb sections in volume without RFDs. Our de facto policy so far has been to allow these adverb sections, and the nominated entry is no lone outlier. --Dan Polansky (talk)20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
If one dislikes categorizing them as adverbs, one can put them into a separate category such as "Adverbial adjectives" or "Adjectival adverbs" and use a dedicated template for the purpose. That's an easy fix. --Dan Polansky (talk)21:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reduplication in Basque is a regular process which can be applied to virtually all adjectives. In all cases the reduplication of [adjective] means "very [adjective]", so this expression is certainly not idiomatic.--Santi2222 (talk)18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Based on precedents above. Might be more controversial as they're more common and somewhat "standardised" for what use them. I'd prefer themdeleted. —Svārtava (talk) •16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, it seems a bit strange to delete terms as common as these while keeping stuff likeYWb. Not saying we should delete YWb, butm/s in particular feels lexicalised. I can’t quite put my finger on why, though.Theknightwho (talk)19:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
We findm/s used without further explanation in articles written for a general audience, not just in the scientific literature or science magazines, so the unwashed masses are assumed to know its meaning. --Lambiam09:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
m/s² was originally at㎨ (the single Unicode character); I moved it tom/s² because of the RFM now archived atTalk:㍹. If we want to keep the Unicode character but not the string, then maybe we should simplymove it back to its old name and not delete anything. —Mahāgaja ·talk08:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep – m/s is the standard SI unit for speed, m/s² is the standard SI unit for acceleration. If you break up these symbols into smaller parts, they loose their meaning. --Sloyment (talk)07:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't know why this wasn't closed but a belatedkeep as perWT:FRIED. As above, m/s specifically as a unit of speed is arguably its own unit, with a meaning more specific than its constituents.🌙🐇⠀talk⠀⠀contribs⠀08:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Presumably, a “single term” means here, “a term that is written without spaces”. This is obviously a problematic criterion for languages that are traditionally written without spaces. Is中華民國國旗歌 a single term? It also “favours” more agglutinating languages. IMO,Tietoyhteiskuntapuolue is not part of the Finnish lexicon and should not have a dictionary entry. --Lambiam15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
The OP did not claim the term was not attested (which is what RFV is for), but solely that it contradicted an etymology in some unspecified way and that the alteration was non-standard. The latter point is not an issue arguing against inclusion – while there is no standard for alterations, many observed alterations are in some way anomalous, such as the unexplained shift from-o- to-e- in Esperantotendeno, borrowed from Englishtendon. That is not an RFV issue. We should try to avoid internal contradictions, but absent an indication of what the claimed contradiction is, it is difficult to discuss it, but this too is not an RFV issue; etymologies should be discussed in the Etymology scriptorium. I think we should close this for failing to present a rationale. --Lambiam12:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam: What do you mean with "move"? A redirect? I can't see the use of it. That entry is misspelled, why keep it?
That cuneiform spelling is not listed inKūsu because I usually only give the nominative (which would correspond to the entry). Phonetic cuneiform spelling are just given as examples anyway, I don't try to be exhaustive. —Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ●𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam, @Theknightwho:𒆳𒆪𒋛(Kūsi) is the genitive of𒆳𒆪𒌑𒋢(Kūsu). We don't even have inflected Akkadian entries at the moment, so it makes no sense to give their cuneiform spellings. We didn't even cover the basic vocabulary...! Akkadian cuneiform entries are not a priority at the moment, so I'm not creating them. But you're more than welcome to go ahead and do so yourselves.
@Sartma Do you have the gadget enabled in your preferences? It makes certain links go green, and if you click on them it automatically generates the page for inflected/alternative forms.
WT:ACCEL can explain much better than I can, but in essence it automatically generates the appropriate{{form of}} on the definition line. Setting it up involves adding some extra parameters to the{{l}} templates in the{{cunsp}} template that tell it what to put. It's pretty straightforward once you've done in a couple of times, to be honest. Once it's done, it's literally a two-click process to create the page.Theknightwho (talk)14:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I disagree.YYA-sopimus is short forystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus, not the other way round. We have alternative spellings of many other terms even if they can be described somewhere else. A dictionary is made for users. If someone sees term A in a text, how helpful is it for them if the term is "described" under term B?Keep. --Hekaheka (talk)07:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
YYA-sopimus being short for the full form is correct, but we can just link to Wikipedia from the template. This is done a lot in English entries (just one example:NBA). —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/05:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Did you know that theFinno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 wasn't the only agreement of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance the Soviet Union made. In fact it had similar agreements with many other countries. On top of bilateral agreements theWarsaw Pact was officially a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. Thus, the term does not refer to individual agreement but to a type of agreement. I edited the text of the entry accordingly.--Hekaheka (talk)18:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, but I have never seen "ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus" used to refer to anything else than the Finno-Soviet pact and cannot find any such usage either. —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/18:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Latest comment:3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Old Mon.
The essential problem is that the author misencoded repha in the page title as <RA, ASAT> instead of <RA, ASAT, VIRAMA>. I have moved the file to the correct name, and am requesting removal of what was the residual redirect. To show what was happening, I have copied the original content fromအကုသလကရ်္မ္မပထ toအကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ before making further modifications. It isအကုသလကရ်မ္မပထ whose deletion I am requesting. --RichardW57 (talk)23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
An additional complication is that the author wasUser:우습게, who has been banned as a 'sockpuppet' ofUser:咽頭べさ 'Dr Intobesa'. Is there any point in opening communication with him via the Mon Wiktionary to seek his approval to the deletion? Communication with him has not been entirely fruitless. --RichardW57 (talk)23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57: Both user accounts have not been blocked from editing their talkpage (yet), so you could try communicating with them there. At this point, I wouldn't presume they know much more on the topic than you do to be honest.Thadh (talk)23:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'd be interested to know if thebuah word meaning fruit is more often used with this than with others. If not I'd say that we could just delete this and move on.—Soap—09:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A Nahuatl word for which our sole sample sentence spells it as two words, and which seems like it would be sum-of-parts even if the spaceless spelling was an acceptable alternative. Also, does Nahuatl have geminate stops? Thanks,—Soap—20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
It seems that the distinction betweenichtequi andichtecqui is gemination, so I can believe the spelling is accurate, but this still seems like the very sum-of-parts thing we look for in other languages as a rationale for deletion. However, if we delete this, we probably need to point out on theichtecqui page that the final vowel rotates to-a when it is juxtaposed in this fashion (maybe it's the genitive case marker?) Thanks,—Soap—09:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Turkish. The definition is wrong but the correct interpretation is simply-n- +-de;-n- also combines with the other case suffixes so this is best documented in just one location, at-n-. @Anylai as the creator. —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉13:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
What about-y-? I saw AZ suffixes with the postvocalic forms so I did the same but in TR schools-y is also taught as an interfix, a "glue letter". Should we delete the postvocalic forms and create-y-?
Latest comment:2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Swedish.
The adjectiveobegränsad(“unlimited”) is formed aso-(“un-”) +begränsad(“limited”). By surface analysis it can instead be interpreted as thepast participle of the verbobegränsa(“to unlimit”). However, that verb is seldom (if ever) attested. Most likely the page was created as a misunderstanding. I suggest that it to be deleted for that reason.Gabbe (talk)18:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete as they seem to be transparent formations from the word for the nationality followed by the word for language. If there are any exceptions ... e.g. iffransuz can mean the French language by itself butingliz cannot mean the English language by itself .... then we can handle that on the individual entry pages for the exceptions, so i would still vote delete in that case.—Soap—09:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Please delete all pages underCategory:Thai rhymes EXCEPT the pageRhymes:Thai. We will use rhyme categories instead that they do not need to be updated. Another reason is that Thai word list take lots of memory for transliteration; it cannot handle thousand words in one page.Octahedron80 (talk)06:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Aearthrise, thank you for showing the reference. I put it inτρίπα αλά βενετσιάνα. I am trying to look for further instances, I found this in a tweet "όπως κ να το κανεις ακουγεται καλυτερα ετσι,σαν την τρυπα αλα βενετσιάνα που οπως λεει κ η αρωνη,ειναι πατσάς με σαλτσα ντοματα" (with υ instead of ι).FocalPoint (talk)17:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Pretty old but since it hasn't been closed I'm commenting. It is mentioned in an academic publication regarding an endangered idiom, I think that's enough attestation in this case.Antondimak (talk)09:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment – This is not a number, numeral or ordinal, but a phrase whose meaning (if it can be attested) is opaque. What, precisely, is a potentially valid rationale for its deletion? --Lambiam17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep – The usage of countdown phrases is language dependent, often opaque, and sometimes even in dispute (such as1-2-3, whether to go on 1 or on the beat after)—the kind of phrases that need a dictionary entry to be understood correctly. This one is in no way different thanready, aim, fire, other than the constituent parts being numbers. The numbers in this case don't even mean anything numerical, they're being used for sound and familiarity.— ˈzɪzɨvə (talk)02:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Lambiam; I don't know how I would feel about the Russian equivalent of "three, two, one" (which is at least obviously counting in a sequence), but "three hundred, thirty, three" is definitely opaque, the meaning/use is not guessable from the parts IMO.- -sche(discuss)23:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Normalizing spellings is not outdated at all. It's easy to find recent works that normalize spellings, e.g. Fulk'sA Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages and Ringe & Taylor'sThe Development of Old English. All dictionaries that I'm aware of do it, including wiktionary.
As far as it being "misleading": has anyone come out and said, "I was misled"? Or is this hypothetical? I talk to people who study Old English all the time, and no one has ever complained that the normalized spellings on wiktionary caused them any problems. In fact it makes looking up words easier, since you can often tell what the normalized spelling of a word will be by glancing it at, whereas idk how anyone's supposed to predict which alternative spelling is gonna be prioritized for each word if the normalization is done away with. Some words appear with dozens of different spellings.
In fact, requiring all spellings to be attested, and not just all words, would cause huge practical difficulties. Presumably this would have to go for every inflection of a word, since those are supposed to have pages too and they're automatically linked to on the mobile version of wiktionary. That greatly multiplies the number of spellings that have to be checked for attestation and the number of new reconstruction pages to be created, to the point where the category for reconstructed words will be unusableor the same declension tables will be full of different spellings from different dialects, depending on which ones are attested. It's a ton of work just to make the site inconsistent and unwieldy. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure there is no source that lists every attested spelling of every word, so the task is not just onerous but impossible. Much better to just keep the normalized spellings.Hundwine (talk)05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I find normalizing the spelling of these types of vowels to be misleading or potentially misleading. (I certainly don't have an issue with normalizing the spelling of letters with the same pronunciation, such as ƿ > w, ð > þ). To give a specific example, even with the disclaimers atielf, I didn't realize that that form is alleged to be completely unattested until reading the following statement inThe Meanings of Elf and Elves in Medieval England (by Alaric Timothy Peter Hall (2004): "Nor is *ielf, the i-mutated form of West Saxon */æulβi/, attested (the form <IELF> on coins being an epigraphic variant of <ÆLF>: Colman 1992, 161– 62; 1996, 22–23); the absence is worth noting becauseielf is frequently cited in grammars and dictionaries" (page 212). I wonder whether the same applies to derivatives such asielfisċ orielfcynn, which do not even include any disclaimers. Even if this word is a special case, the fact that the formælf could be "borrowed into West Saxon at an early date" indicates that this kind of inter-dialectal borrowing was possible. I wonder whether this kind of issue is particularly likely to occur with "ie", which seems to be pretty limited in terms of actual attestation (I think it only occurs in Early West Saxon)?
I don't mind normalised spellings either, but we need to decide one way or the other on this. There needs to be consensus. If there were simply ONE attested form ashīersum (and 10 of another spelling), I would have made the entry ashīersum, heck that IS the most etymologically perfect form. But other editors have pulled me the other direction. Please, let us decide on one and stick with that. I edit across multiple languages, and I cannot keep track of micro-preferences for each.Leasnam (talk)06:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please delate the page -zki (and it feminine version: -zka)In Polish, there is one ending -ski, but it shifts some consonant cluster to -cki (when the last letter represents some voiceless consonants in our alphabet, e.g. Sopot + -ski = sopocki) or -dzki (when the last letter represents voiced consonant, e.g. Łódź + -ski = łódzki) -- both are pronounced the same.
The only reason that English Wiktionary has 3 forms, is because it has also 2 forms for -izna (-izna, -yzna) that also depends on the last consonant before it.
There is no "special" -zki ending in Polish language. And the link to the page should be for -dzki.There is the difference (both pronounced the same) between: Francuzki 'French women' (Francuz 'French man') and francuski 'French' (adj.).
If your language has a word with -zki, you should add it as part of that language, because in Polish -z- here is a part of the digraph in -dzki.
Delete. I'm only now noticing we've had-zki instead of-dzki from the very beginning, but I'd be inclined to change it per the request if we're to analyze either as separate from-ski. I don't really see how-zki can be the voiced allomorph of-ski; the-k- devoices the preceding obstruent, so it never is actually voiced, and given together with the-d- stem it constitutes the digraphdz, making it pronounced identically to-cki, it makes no sense to analyze it as separate (nor have I seen others do so prior).Hythonia (talk)06:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I was wrong about the sonorization, but-cki and-dzki still aren't suffixes: in both cases the real, underlying suffix is-ski. That-s- is written differently when next to a dental doesn't change that fact; it's simply a spelling feature. So:keep-ski, explain everything there, anddelete the rest.PUC –13:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
FYI the general practice is to keep entries for allomorphs of suffixes and soft-redirect them to the canonical form. This is done in several languages.Benwing2 (talk)16:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Middle Persian. These two terms are supposed to be in the Book Pahlavi script, but it hasn't been encoded in Unicode yet. As such, they're using codepoints that haven't been assigned. Isuspect they're using suggested codepoints from some kind of application to encode the script, but thedocument Unicode link to from theirroadmap doesn't have them. Not that it matters much, as we wouldn't be able to rely on mere applications anyway.
I should stress that this is very different to the situation we had a few months ago with some Kaktovik characters. Those were added a few months before Kaktovik was added in Unicode 15, but after the codepoints had been finalised (meaning they were very unlikely to change). Book Pahlavi hasn't even been accepted into Unicode yet - and may not be for several more years - so the whole block might end up somewhere totally different; nevermind the fact that the characters within it are very likely to change, too.
It's just not tenable for us to have entries like this, as they're essentially unusable.
Sadly, unicode approval ofPhlv got derailed from when I createdModule:Phlv-translit, while communicating with Roozbeh Pournader. I would move it under my userspace but"Scribunto" content is not allowed on page, so please justkeep for now.Delete the two entries though. --Sokkjō21:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sokkjo You can put modules in your userspace by prefixing them withUser:Sokkjo:. Technically it's still in the module namespace, but the software treats it like it's your userspace anyway.Theknightwho (talk)21:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete and salt. That sounds like a bug in Pywikibot - my guess is that it’s set to assume all control characters are bad titles, when in fact that only applies to the C0 codes. That being said, allowing C1 codes as titles is probably a bug in the first place - this was flagged way back in 2006, and it’s still not fixed:[21]. I’d normally be ambivalent about having them, but since they’re almost certainly useless, we should get rid of them to stop any technical problems they’re causing.Theknightwho (talk)16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Czech. This is imo incorrect, or at least unnecessary. Looking at the definition, it feels like someone took the English prefixmis- as a starting point and tried to make Czech fit it.
Votingdelete but perhaps if someone more knowledgeable than me votes otherwise I might listen, but I am basing this on Polishniedo-, which is a pseudo-affix.Vininn126 (talk)10:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree and this is good to know. I personally would be appreciative of having the option to know this is a misnomer. Perhaps listing it as a misnomer. Another aspect, if zne (actually 2 stacked prefixes) is removed as a (single) prefix, and then I search "czech words beginning with zne", would these "double prefix" words not populate? just a thought.75.201.24.415:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
We haveLomboy as an English surname from Cebuano,Leblanc as a German surname from French, andZaldarriaga as a Cebuano surname from Basque. If these are possible, why not this one? It is more likely, though, if attestable as a Cebuano surname, that it should be defined as a Cebuano surname from Afrikaans. --Lambiam19:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Many non-canonical (i.e. not native or from Spain) family names permanently have made their way into the Philippines via migration or intermarriage. I have mentioned the well-known Tausug family nameSchuck in arelated discussion. This is not a matter of "weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf", but we need solidattestations. The creator of these entries (@Carl Francis) still owns us a proper explanation about what motivated them beyond their stupid comment ("This is stupid") in the Beer Parlour[22].
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual. This is used in Internet slang to indicate that the user is grinning. However, the enclosing< > symbols can be replaced with* * or even( ). Furthermore, any word (or sentence) can be used in a similar manner (common examples include the unabbreviated<grin>,<facepalm> and<sarcasm>, see also the list at* *). I've added an identical sense tog#Noun, so this entry is now a sum of its parts (g +< >). There is also German*fg*(“cheeky grin”), which could probably be moved tofg.Einstein2 (talk)10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
We have an entry forinsurance policy (insurance contract is a synonym-of entry), and there are several translations there themselves worthy of an entry.
We don't have an entry forrental contract orlease agreement, but imo we could. Although they probably wouldn't be protected by THUB in its current version, gathering translations there (Frenchcontrat de bail for example) could still be useful.
SOP - yeah, in Finnish it is, but it is not self-evident nor easily or in fact at all guessable that this iswater dog in English and not a "bird dog that fetches from water" nor a "from-water-fetching bird dog". One important function for an interlingual dictionary is to help people find foreign-language equivalents for precise (even if they are SOP-) terms in their own language. Unless you can come up with a better way to tell to the users that this term actually translates as "water dog" into English, I wouldkeep it. Are we writing the dictionary for actual users or for some other purpose? --Hekaheka (talk)22:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Czech. SOP, meaning is "Ancient Roman law". (We could have any number of similar terms referring to specific cultures, and all would be SOP.)Benwing2 (talk)03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Czech. "Financial statement", for which we don't have an English equivalent in Wiktionary, which strongly suggests this is SOP. I have createdzávěrka, and one of its meanings is "(financial) statement".Benwing2 (talk)07:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
We normally allow pages for inflected forms. If the rule for Arabic is different thenWiktionary:About Arabic should have an explanation of the policy. Or do you mean it should simply be defined as an accusative case and not as an adverb?Vox Sciurorum (talk)22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Whoever created this page was probably imitating the orthographic norms of 19th century Croatian and NDH (1942—1945). The problem is that in this word 'ie' is not correct according to those norms, cf. theNDH orthographic manual – it's justljepota. The form may have been used somewhere before the 19th century, but without an attestation that's just speculation, there's no attestation even in the JAZU dictionary. —Phazd (talk|contribs)01:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
It appears that some 1,350 words in this language use a transcription system that is, to put it lightly, completely made up. The guide for the transliteration (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Ubykh_transliteration) given has no basis in Ubykh literature and in theuser talk pages you can see these editors discuss what letters are used for the transliteration.
The only writing system this language has used in recorded history was theTurkish Latin alphabet and a transcription system based off of this snippet is in the back of A Grammar of Ubykh (ISBN-10: 3862880508)which can be visually shown here. ~Burned Toast (talk)
You’re not wrong. This was done on the basis that it’s used by Ubykh revivalists, as it’s an extended form of the Abkhaz alphabet, but I’ve not actually seen anything that suggests it’s actually in use. @Thadh,Apsaros1921?Theknightwho (talk)00:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is an unwritten, extinct language. The language is attested in scholarly works, each using a different transcription system. There is no standard. We can choose whichever system we want and even devise our own one as long as the spelling normalization rules are clearly documented.Vahag (talk)07:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Piggybacking on this comment, since Russia generally doesn't generally have a high tolerance of non-Cyrillic writing systems (to put it mildly), most languages will eventually develop a Cyrillic orthography one way or the other, if any is developed at all. The only exceptions to this I can think of are Finnic languages and communities in Siberia whose mainstream counterparts live outside of Russia. Hence, if we are to create a writing system based on the fact that the language is undocumented, since Ubykh was spoken on the territory of Russia, I indeed believe it's best to devise a Cyrillic-based orthography.Thadh (talk)08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
However, most ethnic Ubykhs live in Turkey since the Caucasian war with the Russians (1864). Sure, it could make sense to base it off of Cyrillic since their native land is modern day Sochi but most of them live Turkey or other places that use a non-Cyrillic writing system.Burned Toast (talk)Burned Toast (talk)08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
In that case I don't see any problem in adopting a different kind of orthography. I was making general statements more than anything else, since I'm not familiar with Ubykh myself.Thadh (talk)14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The ethnic Ubykhs have forgotten their language. We can choose Latin to make it easier for them to study their ancestral language. Or we can choose Cyrillic for consistency with all the other Northwest Caucasian languages. It doesn't really matter. These things are usually decided by the active editors of the language. Our only active editor is Apsaros1921 and he prefers Cyrillic.Vahag (talk)14:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The issue in this case is that the most recent publication of Ubykh literature has Fenwick state that the language has three vowels, which contrast in quality not length: [ɐ ɜ ɨ]. The entries use a very old dictionary with a transcription system (which the user has based his off of) which can't accurately describe the language as it includes vowels that don't exist - such as /oː/ which has been rejected by everyone else in the field - or excludes consonants from words that should exist. So none of the entries are correct on two points. If we are going to include any Ubykh at all, we should include a citation to A Grammar of Ubykh since it is the most up-to-date work in the field.Burned Toast (talk)22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Lushootseed uses accents over vowels to mark stress in dictionaries and such, but are omitted during regular writing. For example the entry for saliʔ in the dictionary (Bates et al. 435) is sáliʔ rather than saliʔ. I am fine with Lushootseed entries on Wiktionary either incorporating accents (which is proper, but potentially misleading for those not educated in Lushootseed) or dropping them (which is less proper for a dictionary), as long as there is consistency. I guess it depends on the precedent set by other languages with optional academic stress markers (like Hebrew?) but I don't know what that is here on Wiktionary.PersusjCP (talk)18:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm also happy to follow whatever seems to be in suit with other such projects, but can say that the vast majority of Lushootseed entries so far have been made without stress markers. When I started adding Lushootseed entries, I did my best to follow what the majority of the pre-existing entries seemed to go with beforehand.
I'll also add that stress is different from dialect to dialect. The Bates-Hess-Hilbert dictionary doesn't mark the difference between Northern & Southern dialects in terms of stress, & while we can try to determine based off the speakers cited in the example usages, it's hard to say which the markers usually follow (although much of the dictionary treats Northern as the standard, we can't assume, & it isn't clearly stated). The inconsistency of stress, & the fact that we don't currently make the clearest distinctions between Northern & Southern except as marked in entry text, leads me to think that the accents might be overly misleading & best dropped.CedarForest14 (talk)23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
My personal preference would be to omit stress markers, like you I agree it is misleading, as I often see people copy-paste Lushootseed with the markers included. Sadly there isn't much precedent for either online, however in my personal experience working with the language, the stress markers were omitted. I think either works as long as there is consistency. I'm fine with moving all the Lushootseed entries to not have stress markers. Like you said, I think they could have a place wherever dialectical differences might be marked, which really isn't part of many entries as of now.PersusjCP (talk)00:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@PersusjCP@CedarForest14 Hey folks, I also agree that accents should probably be dropped in page names for the same reasons. Although, maybe we should include them in the pages themselves somehow? They may differ across dialects, but recording the accents from the Bates et al. dictionary would be really valuable.
The pronunciation section has that information as part of the IPA, so there is really no need. We can make different entries in the pronunciation section for different pronunciations, if it is spelled the same. Different spellings should probably be their own pages though, under alternate forms. I'm going to start moving pages to have no stress markers based on this discussion.saliʔ should not be deleted, either.PersusjCP (talk)22:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here's why: what I have seen is that in a word where a vowel is followed by "y" (for examplebôyun andoynamaq), the "y" is dropped and replaced with vowel length (so oynamaq becomes "ônamaq" and "bôyun" becomes "bôun"). In the case of "bôun", this becomes"bûun" because of diphthongization.Xenos melophilos (talk)15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
User:TheDaveRoss edit-warring over removing deletion tags, refuses to follow procedure
Latest comment:2 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
Rather than contributing to the edit-war, I'm reporting it here.
The instructions on the deletion tag are that, if DR contests the deletion,they should file an {rfd} or {rfv} and ask for review here.
The reason for the nomination is that there is no content apart from the Unicode data. DR agrees that is reason for quick deletion, but argues that mathematical symbols should be exempt. They give no reason why there should be an exemption.
These entries may actually be harmful, as many Unicode names are misnomers. If the "definition" blindly repeats the Unicode name, we risk mis-defining the symbol. At the very least, if we can't devise a definition ourselves, there should be a link to the WP article that covers the usage. If we can't identify usage, we have no way of knowing if the Unicode name is accurate as a definition. Also, if the name is e.g. "circulation function", as one of them is, and we independently link 'circulation' and 'function', then we have a fake definition, because this mathematical usage is not covered under our entry for 'circulation'.
(In fact, when I changed the link to the phrase 'circulation function', making it clear (by being a red link) that we don't actually have a definition for this symbol, DR reverted it to the fake definition.)
All of which means these articles should be deleted, unless someone is able to verify/correct/cite them.
So if they can be verified, we shouldn't delete them? I sure wish we had an established process that other editors could use to verify... and if only there were a template to request verification...Vininn126 (talk)22:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Even if they can be verified, they're not intelligible definitions. They provide the reader no understanding of what the symbol is actually for. I've cleaned up a few, but I've never seen most of them. If we have an article with an empty/fake definition, it should be deleted. RfV templates sit for months with no action. There would be almost zero effort involved in recreating these articles, and meanwhile we haven't lost any information (the Unicode name is visible when you check a character with a red link).kwami (talk)22:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
So that gives you the right to subvert the entire process, instead of trying to rewrite a definition to make it better/check if it's real? We don't do that for anything else, I don't see why these should get special permission. Stick to the process like the rest of us.Vininn126 (talk)22:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I *was* following process. DR is the one subverting it, by refusing to follow the straightforward instructions on the {d} tag. I'm already doing their work for them.
As I said, I have rewritten definitions in some cases. But in most I have no idea what I'm talking about, so it would not be appropriate for me to add some garbage and pretend it's a definition. That's the problem I'm trying to fix.kwami (talk)23:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is a long-standing custom to not use{{d}} if the matter is not clear and has to be discussed. You were told numerous times that this was the case here, yet you continue to use the template. Stop making others do your work for you and start using{{rfv}} and{{rfd}} yourself!Thadh (talk)10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Um, this thread is from a month ago. Where have I done this in the past month?
Also, if the instructions for how to use {d} are wrong (as multiple people have now said they are), you might consider correcting them so they do not mislead people who do not have inside knowledge.kwami (talk)10:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The documentation seems straightforward and accurate to me? "If there is any possibility that the entry should maybe be retained for any reason whatsoever, then use{{rfd}} instead." —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The template itself says that if you believe it should be kept, thenyou should change it to rfd. Evidently that is incorrect, or at least that is what people have been saying.kwami (talk)10:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't see what is incorrect or misleading here. The notice on the template serves to inform anyone who comes across it that they can change it to an RFD if they challenge it. That does not contradict, and rather reinforces, the convention noted in the documentation that if you perceive any chance of it being challenged in the first place you should save people's time by not using it in the first place. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)11:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh: I'm sorry, but I think they're going to have to be picked off one-by-one. I suspect that even the three path integrals (⨖⨑⨐) are not going to be bunchable, and the Southfork symbol (⅄) is probably on its own. The modulo two sum⨊ is probably exactly what it says, but finding evidence may be difficult. (I think it comes from a use of⊕ as sum modulo 2.) --RichardW57m (talk)11:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
'Keep'. The definition 'transverseintersection' works fine for the intersection of one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold. I've referenced the general definition undertransverse. We ought to add the verbal meaning 'to [[intersect]] [[traverse]]ly', but I can't find an acceptable quotation for that either. --RichardW57m (talk)10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The moratorium on editing these has not been lisfted.
You mangled my definition. I said that looking up the words of the definition worked in one case, which I suppose is the prototypical case. It should actually work well now - those who need the definition should have enough background to at least vaguely understand the definition in Wikipedia. The term is not limited to one-dimensional submanifolds of a two-dimensional manifold.
I've found some examples of use - Quiet Quentin delivers some, and Google yieldedhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01166. They're a bit esoteric, but they're showing usage, and it looks as thought the meaning is indeed as non-specific as 'thermodynamic'. So here are three quotations from Quiet Quentin, to be added when the moratorium is lifted:
2020 March 4, Gary A. Mabbott,Electroanalytical Chemistry: Principles, Best Practices, and Case Studies, John Wiley & Sons,→ISBN, page165:
CONTROLLED POTENTIAL METHODS 165 Equilibrium conditions Net reduction Ox + ne Red Ox + ne Red y g ren e Reactants Products e e r F ΔG f ⧧ = ΔG b ⧧ = ΔG o ⧧ ΔGf⧧ = ΔGo⧧–αnF(E–E°ʹ) ΔGb ⧧ = ΔGo ⧧ +(1–α)nF(E–E°ʹ) Reaction coordinate[…]
2020 November 22, J. Chris Slootweg, Andrew R. Jupp,Frustrated Lewis Pairs, Springer Nature,→ISBN, page147:
The kinetic C6H4 (AH⧧ parameters extracted for the formation of 1-NMe2 -2-B(Ar)(thiophenyl)- AG298 = 19.9 ± 1.1 kcal‧mol–1; AS⧧ = − 30.9 ± 3.1 cal‧mol −1 K−1; ⧧ = 28.4 ± 2.0 kcal‧mol–1) are in agreement with the computational data[…]
2022 April 17, Jianwei Xu, Ming Hui Chua, Ben Zhong Tang,Aggregation-Induced Emission (AIE): A Practical Guide, Elsevier,→ISBN, page649:
6 Schematic graph of the two nonradiative decay channels NR-VR and NR-MECP (A) BDP-1A and (B) BDP1G with the Gibbs free energy of activation ΔG⧧, the nonradiative decay rate constants, and the corrected quantum efficiency.
The argument is identical. Comparemodern klädde av barnet ("the mother undressed the child") versusbarnet klädde av sig ("the child undressed itself"). No fundamental change in meaning.Gabbe (talk)08:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete, it's a long-standing tradition that we don't have separate entries for reflexive verbs when the reflexive pronoun is written separately (e.g. Germansich, Frenchse).
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Chinese Pidgin English. SoP:one (=Englishone) +piecee (classifier). The same construction is valid for other numerals, for example:
examples
1862,唐景星 [Tong King-sing],英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume IV, marginalia, page65; republished as “Pidgin English texts from theChinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors,Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[23], volume10, number 1,2005, pages79-167:
1862,唐景星 [Tong King-sing],英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page43; republished as “Pidgin English texts from theChinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors,Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[24], volume10, number 1,2005, pages79-167:
合吉地⿱竹厘卑時毡地文甘顚拿 *hap6 gat1di6 li1 bi1 si4 zin1 di6 man4 gam1 din1 naa4 hap gotthree piecee gentleman come dinner 3 gentlemen dine with me
1862,唐景星 [Tong King-sing],英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page33; republished as “Pidgin English texts from theChinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors,Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[25], volume10, number 1,2005, pages79-167:
1862,唐景星 [Tong King-sing],英語集全 [Chinese English Instructor], volume VI, marginalia, page32; republished as “Pidgin English texts from theChinese English Instructor”, in Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews, Geoff P. Smith, editors,Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics[26], volume10, number 1,2005, pages79-167:
I think the reference (Gow) is correct in interpretating this as "one" for the purposes of a guide book, but from a linguistic point of view it's simply sum of parts. –Wpi (talk)15:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to go through and remove the 'delete' tags that I added for the articles that, thanks to you, now have some content, but per above I don't see any problem in you doing that yourself.kwami (talk)23:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Shan. @Kwamikagami requested deletion on the grounds of 'no comment'.
Keep. I've added a comment. I've found the same text in several orthographies on p315 of Sai Kam Mong's 'the History and Development of the Shan Scripts', and I may be able to use that for quotations if the need arises. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in the typesetting of the book. --RichardW57 (talk)23:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
(Translingual section)
Supposedly translingual when the entry is actually for Burmese. RichardW57m asked about this kind of edit at the Beer Parlor, and was told that the 'translingual' header is for translingual items, and that words/letters of specific languages need to be under the header for that language. Yet he continues to edit-war over the issue, calling for a "ban" of anyone who attempt to correct his abuse.
Burmese belongs under 'Burmese'. Since this entry already has a Burmese section, the 'translingual' section should either be deleted as redundant or turned into a translingual section. Easiest to delete it and let someone create a proper translingual section in the future if they wish.
BTW, I have tried changing these bogus sections to proper translingual ones, only for RichardW57m to revert me. This isn't a confusion over what "Burmese" means, e.g. of the country of Burma or of the Mon-Burmese script -- he admits that means specifically the Burmese language and alphabet (ဇ is the 8th letter of the Burmese alphabet, but may have a different sorting order in other Mon-script alphabets.) These are supposedly "translingual" because of the Burmese Army.kwami (talk)01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It is the Burmese script representative of the 8th letter of the Brahmi alphabet, which originally represented a voiced unmurmured oral stop (and its descendants prototypically still do) and we are confident that it is the 8th consonant letter of the Burmese, Mon, Pali and Sanskrit alphabets. As there is currently a moratorium on editing single character entries, here are some examples for its translinguality:
These languages are using the same letter! The letter is best known for its rôle in the Burmese alphabet because the Burmese conquered Burma prior to its conquest by the British, with a massive dimunition in the rôle of Mon. The domination is also demonstrated by the use of the ethnic name of theBurmans to denote the territory in English (and Thaiพม่า(pá-mâa), for that matter). --RichardW57m (talk)09:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
public opinion arguably involves an idiomatic expansion ofopinion (senses 1 and 2), given that strictly speaking an opinion can only be formed and held in the mind of an individual.public opinion is a shorthand for the opinions of individuals considered in aggregate.Voltaigne (talk)22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not saying it's not SOP (I'm on the fence; let's add it as a collocation at least), but I think your argument isn't good; if anything, it would seem to indicate thatstosunek płciowy andstosunek seksualny are pleonastic. I suspect that sense ofstosunek arose by ellipsis fromstosunek płciowy /stosunek seksualny.PUC –10:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, the full designations are shortened in speech because it has been perceived as indecent to talk about sex, so the noun without attribute could only mean the same as the noun with attribute after the wieldy term has been established. Thus GermanVerkehr is entered in dictionaries as “euphemism” and the like. This one though claim to not stand forsexual intercourse but forsexual relation in general, so you hearVerhältnis in old films said with a certain tone forLiebesbeziehung, and even Englishaffair apparently also shortened “euphemistically”. So why do we even havesexual relation? Or as another obvious example, Frenchfille, of which not the most transparent compound term would be SOP to mean “prostitute”, likewise GermanDirne if one opines that written-together terms can still be SOP, because the shorter term in this meaning is only secondary. (WT:JIFFY.)Fay Freak (talk)15:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I believe it might depend language to language - one can see evidence of stosunek being the original metaphor and later collocations being added - I wouldn't exclude it being under influence of other languages however. Agree with PUC it should at least be a collocation.Vininn126 (talk)15:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
In English one can say that two people are “having a relation”, which is usually understood to be romantic and to include (probably, but not necessarily) sex, but also hanging out together socially. This also applies to “having a long-term relation” but not to “having a good relation”; when someone states they have a good relation with their boss, there is no romantic connotation. If one says two people are “having a sexual relation”, it implies that this is not just “sexual intercourse” (the first definition given atstosunek płciowy), but repeated sexual intercourse during an extended period. The connotation that they are hanging out together socially is absent. I don’t know how this is for Polish, but if it is similar, the term is a SOP. --Lambiam06:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't trust what it says about cultural differences: this was created by an Indonesian IP who was convinced that finding ads in any language with floor listings made them qualified to add translations and entries for those languages. To give you an idea,here they're explaining Finnish floor numbering to a native speaker.Chuck Entz (talk)06:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I thought if would be a good idea to create the page بمن, as you can also find لمن, عمن, ممن. Why should it be deleted?Mbursar (talk)11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have mixed feelings on this one - on one hand it seems SOP, on the other it seems lexicalized. Furthermore, I suspect that it's usage in psychology might mean it has a specialized meaning? Unsure.Vininn126 (talk)09:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete can't find any instance of use except by rekhta dictionary. SOP as, सहीफ़ा(originally: book/writing; in islam: divine scripture) + ख़्वाँ (reader)कालमैत्री (talk)03:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Namely if you look at the usage notes/alt forms of the Polish entry, you'll see that the pronouns can vary widely, meaning we can "boil" them away, leaving us only with "pokazać". I believe this is the same for English. Furthermore, English "show" as in "threaten" can be in the past tense as well. So the broader subject is "the Polish and English forms should just be at the verb".Vininn126 (talk)10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
In Bulgarian, a verb can have a verbal noun derived from it, which in turn can form its own plurals and behave like a noun in its own right. Some of these, such as the ones that end in-е(-e), are able to form the plural form by adding-та(-ta), e.g.бране(brane,“picking, gathering”) + -та(-ta,plural suffix) → бранета(braneta,“pickings, gatherings”). In some cases, they can further be madedefinite, with the prefixed meaning "the", by suffixing-та(-ta) again, e.g.бранета(braneta) + -та(-ta) → бранетата(branetata,“the pickings”).
However, sometimes, forming the plural is done with the-ния(-nija) suffix instead, and the-та(-ta) suffix is invalid or rare. In the majority of cases, it's-ния(-nija), although there are also times when only-та(-ta) is acceptable. Now, we have recently discovered that there are a lot of entries that were created by mistake using the-та(-ta) rule, many of which byUser:ArathVerbFormBot (seeбушуванетата) once upon a time.User:Chernorizets sifted through many of these candidates, and we found almost all of them were not worth keeping. As a result, the following ~800 pages, all malformed-та(-ta) plurals and their definite forms, have been found to be in need of deletion (all are totally empty besides the bad Bulgarian content.):User:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns. If you need to delete these using a bot, I also have them listed in plain text (no wiki formatting, each word on its own line) atUser:Kiril kovachev/RFD BG Verbal nouns/plain. Thanks very much,Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs)23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago13 comments5 people in discussion
These entries are riddled with so many errors (in formatting, matters of fact, referencing, transliteration, and other matters) that it would take more work to fix them than to nuke them all and start from scratch. See comments by various users atUser talk:Loukus999. In my opinion, not worth trying to salvage. —Vorziblix (talk ·contribs)09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Vorziblix,Surjection,Fay Freak Where was the{{rfd}} warning to hint that repair work should not be started? As a partial aid to anyone else tempted to start fixing them, an at least partial list is:
This was was prepared as a list of entries with language ':Egyptian:'. Formally, the countdown to deletion has not started yet, though they were vanishing as I typed. --RichardW57m (talk)17:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If someone competent in Egyptian wants to create valid entries with correct content, that would be great, but as pointed out above and as I (unaware of this RFD) independently noticedand posted at RFC, the entries Loukus999 created had so many errors in formatting/layout and content/notation that it'd be about as easy to create good entries from scratch as to fix everything wrong with the entries that existed.- -sche(discuss)20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57m: Hi! I concur with -sche above; also see my response atWiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/January#Bulk_Deletion_of_Hieroglyphs. From sheer practical considerations, putting a warning on every single one of the entries in question (there are literally hundreds of them) would be impractical, and at least in my opinion a waste of time that could be better spent on building actual content, considering how little time and effort the original creator of these pages spent on them — almost all the material is just crudely copy/pasted out of Egyptian lexical entries that I made, and often doesn’t belong at the hieroglyph entry in question at all (e.g. all the references are wrong, all the descendants sections are wrong, most of the definitions are misformatted or outright wrong because they’re mindless copy/paste jobs, all the ‘transliterations’ are wrong...). I recognize that it’s not ideal and could be seen as out-of-process; if you want any of the entries in question restored, or want to discuss further before any more deletions take place, we certainly can. I just don’t think there’s anything to be gained from trying to fix these entries when practically everything in them needs to be totally rewritten anyway. —Vorziblix (talk ·contribs)20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vorziblix: What was wrong with the new headings? I agree that most of the descendants sections would need rewriting or deleting on a subsequent pass (there are Meroitic descendants for a few of them), and the statuses as phonogram needed massive revision, for which I was at least sorting out the biliterals as I fixed the headers.
As there were less than 200 entries with the colons in the language, it looks as though the headings were at least getting better as Loukus999 progressed.
@RichardW57m: Nothing was wrong with the new headings; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for all the other contentunder the headings, which would still need to be totally rewritten. The problem with the copy-pasting wasn’t copyright (as mentioned on my userpage, all content I add is released into the public domain, and I claim no copyright whatsoever over it); rather, the problem is that no effort was put into making sure the copied content belonged on the new entries being created. For instance, all the references in each hieroglyph entry were good references for the particular Egyptianwords they were originally copied from, but often had no relevance whatsoever for thehieroglyphs they were being copied to. The descendants sections are another such case; none of them belonged on the hieroglyph entries, since they were listing descendants for particularwords, nothieroglyphs. This confusion of words and hieroglyphs ran through the entirety of Loukus999’s entries and is also visible in such things as the misconceived ‘transliterations’ present in many of these entries.
If you’d be willing to fix all these entries thoroughly, rewriting them with reference to actual scholarly sources, I could certainly restore the deleted content for you; just let me know. Again, though, I really don’t see what you would gain compared to just re-creating the entires from scratch. —Vorziblix (talk ·contribs)13:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vorziblix: I was planning incremental fixes, so the headword lines would probably be fixed in one pass, and the descendants (largely by deletion) in another. It is arguable that there should be an explicit redirect from the words to the transliterations, though again the descendants as words would belong at the main lemma.
The main references I would be using are those I know have access to, Gardiner and Allen, and templates were already set up, but not filled in. Additionally, the headings seemed to be free of typos, apart from the inappropriate colons. I hadn't worked out what to use for the biliterals - I was considering just using a Wikipedia list, though fleshing them out with examples appealed to me.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can commit to reworking about 150 hieroglyphs - I have too many stalled Wiktionary projects - fixing Mon entries, Welsh numbers, Sinhala script Sanskrit, Tai Tham Visuddhimagga, and I'm currently trying to set up Tamil script Sanskrit, which is currently mired in an unresponsive Unicode Technical Committee - there's an issue with the Unicode non-Standard. --RichardW57m (talk)15:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, first time rfd and I forgot about this step. Thank you for adding for me! A couple of those are also not properly normalized to academic Early West SaxonYthede Gengo (talk)17:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Old English: "sword's edge"
This seems SOP, even though it's used metaphorically/poetically- more of a collocation than something lexical. This is just one of many possibly-SOP phrase entries that @Wuduweard has created in Old English, Old Saxon and Proto-West-Germanic. I'm nominating just this one to make sure there's consensus in order to avoid disruption if I'm mistaken. If we do decide to delete, there are many more where this came from.Chuck Entz (talk)06:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the reason I created these is that these collocations seem to be reconstructable formulae often limited to poetic contexts, though that is definitely debatable. I'm fine with them being deleted if there's consensus.wuduweard (talk)06:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Acehnese. Nominated for speedy deletion with rationale "not a lemma, it’s two being combined. From ‘jak’ (obsolete spelling: djak) and ‘woë’".Ultimateria (talk)21:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ultimateria: In general, I don't see how this automatically stops it also being a word. Additionally, will a user automatically recognise it as two words?Keep, but open to dissuasion. --RichardW57m (talk)10:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete, the lemma being written is spelt in an obsolete spelling system (djak instead of jak) and is incorrectly spelt (both in old and modern spelling, "wo" is spelt as woë or woe), and it should've been spelt with a space instead of as a singular word (jak woë instead of jakwoë). Jakwoe is also SOP where you can deduce the meaning by looking at the individual meanings (jak: to go, woë: to return, to go home).Zayn Kauthar (talk)18:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:11 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This is a half-line from the Hávamál and only attested there (source). It is sort-of idomatic, but it's not a fixed expression. Nor is it semantically complete, the poem continues listing other things and when one should praise them (e.g. a woman when she is married-off, a frozen river when one has crossed it and so on). @Mnemosientjeᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭Proto-Norsing ᛭Ask me anything03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete, had assumed the phrase recurred elsewhere but if it only occurs there then the entry should not have been created. A big part of the Edda is gnomic, doesn't mean that all of those verses should be added as proverbs. —Mnemosientje (t ·c)08:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Polish. Potentially SOP. The adjectivepodcałkowy is used withfunkcja podcałkowa most likely the most, butwyrażenie podcałkowe is also used often in the same meaning. Aside from that I was able to finddodajnik podcałkowy[27],element podcałkowy[28],iloczyn podcałkowy[29], and a couple of others.Hythonia (talk)23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a Welsh word. The creator of this entry misunderstood the initial element of the compound formbarúg-wallt as being a stand-alone word when in fact, the acute accent is solely a consequence of its being part of a compound. (Modern spelling would dispense with the hyphen, which in turn would obviate the use of the acute, to givebarugwallt.)Llusiduonbach (talk)18:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@FocalPoint That's precisely why we list them atWT:RFV, and RFD is explicitlynot for claims that terms don't exist. Even if it was we wouldn't speedy delete it, because the whole point is that we give people time to find attestations.Theknightwho (talk)02:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
All these entries must be deleted, they are all misspelled variations of the actual term, which I have replaced with the correct entries.Akhaeron (talk)11:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Akhaeron: RFV is for verifying whether the term exists in the language in question. We have entries for misspellings, but only if they've actually been in use and people might find it somewhere- that's a matter for RFV. ForWell-Documented Languages we don't bother with rare misspellings, but this is aLess-Documented Language. RFD is for cases where it may exist, but issues likeWT:SOP orWT:BRAND mean it would inherently not be suitable for an entry whether it esists or not. If no one finds sufficient evidence of usage that meetsWT:CFI, it gets deleted. Also, there's no need to put an{{rfv}} template here (I removed it)- that goes in the entry so people know it's been challenged.Chuck Entz (talk)14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment: what about as part of expressions such as (but not necessarily limited to)24/7/365? I've never seen it written like this, but I've heard it, and I can certainly imagine someone wondering what "365" means out of context. Specifying it as shorthand for "every day of the year" might be useful, and we do have a separate entry just for24/7, so I think perhaps an entry for "365" is justified, although the current entry doesn't really explain why. Of course,this year it could be 366—but nobody uses "366" to mean "every day of the year", and I think that helps explain what distinguishes "365" from other numbers that could, but don't usually possess lexical meaning.P Aculeius (talk)18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Finnish.
I don't think we should have entries for nonstandard suffixes. I'm not opposed to entries for words that are actually used, liketahalteen if properly labelled. But we should not give a non-suspecting user the possibility for misunderstanding that this suffix could be used generally as replacement for-llaan (which we don't even have). --Hekaheka (talk)14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho thanks, I'll remember that. It should be deleted rather than converted (which I have already done for other Middle Welsh mistakenly marked as Welsh), for the same reason that Latinamō goes on the pageamo rather than getting a separate page.Arafsymudwr (talk)14:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
This seems like a set phrase to me. There's no other way to communicate the same command to a formation of soldiers. The English transmission is missing, though.Keep. --Hekaheka (talk)19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
[Middle] Tamil.
I have no clue whether we should treat Middle Tamil as a separate language from Tamil and Old Tamil, but this isn't the way one would do it. All the language codes are "ta", so all the categories say "Tamil". As it stands now, Middle Tamil is treated on Wiktionary as a variety of Tamil, so we shouldn't have entries under a separate Middle Tamil headerChuck Entz (talk)13:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Lithuanian. Rfd-sense: Vocative singular (slỹva) of 'slyvà'.
The lemma, which we name using the nominative singular, 'slyvà', and the vocative singular, 'slỹva', have the same orthogragraphic form, 'slyva'. Therefore, we should not give the vocative singular and the lemma entires in the same section, just as we have no entry for Latin ablative singularmēnsā next to its lemmamēnsa(“table”). --RichardW57 (talk)00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I disagree that this page should be deleted because it is an orthographical error; omitting the trema on ë in written Albanian is certainly informal, but it is very common and not any more wrong than it is in Russian, yet alternative spellings of words with ë in Russian are maintained on WiktionaryMaxenceLE (talk)04:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is not really a definiteform. It's essentially some of parts: an adjective with the definite article, "the first". They are just written as one word. In Hebrew, the definite articleה can be added to almost every noun and adjective, it's mostly consistent in orthography, and it's not considered a grammatical form.
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Turkish. To me it makes very little sense if any. Correct: many nationalists would like to clean up loanwords in some specific language. Pretty soon we may decide to kick "PUTIN'" out of Russian. Rational? Not necessarily!— Thisunsigned comment was added by64.114.129.169 (talk) at02:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC).Reply
What entries would we put the quotation in then? Almost all of the words in it are well-known and in general use today as well as in Ivarsson's time. The only exception to the latter isäro, an archaic but formerly standard verb form.Glades12 (talk)19:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The synonymous termsonraki is far and far more common. The literal meaning of the termönümüzdeki is “that is in front of us”. In English it is much more common to use “next week” than ”the week that is in front of us”, and Turkish is not different. However, the term is easily attested. The question is whether it is a transparent sum of parts, for which we do not have a satisfactory criterion in the case of agglutinative languages. Note that the person can be varied, as inönünüzdeki yıl, “the year that is in frontof you, which IMO shows the form is transparent. --Lambiam20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I think your arguments are pretty valid but I just want to clarify that Turkish is way more different than English. If we go by literary translation Turkish doesn't have a proper word for "next" sincesonraki also literally means "which is after" and in English we wouldn't say "week which is after". I also don't think that person variability matters since the meaning of "next" is usually lost when the person is changed as in "önümüzdeki yıl" being "upcoming/next year" while "önünüzdeki yıl" being "the year that is in front of you" and not "the next year". So I think its an entry we should have.Kakaeater (talk)15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sanskrit. Currently a redirect, this form was a pure invention by the original creator of the page (a class 1 verb instead of a class 7 verb fromअववृज्(avavṛj)).Exarchus (talk)12:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Polish. This also concerns-óg#Kashubian and-óg#Old_Polish. These stopped being productive in these languages and only exist in inherited forms. Do we want non-productive affixes? Why not include non-productive affixes from PIE as well?Vininn126 (talk)12:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep all three. There is no rule against having unproductive suffixes. They are still morphemes and people might want to know what they mean(/meant) and where they come from. There are many entries for unproductive suffixes, e.g. English-en(feminine), Hungarian-ű(present participle). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk)17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete per OP. Georgian also denotes languages with the (nominalized) adjective alone, e.g.ფრანგული(pranguli).ფრანგული ენა can live on as a collocation on theფრანგული entry.(I'm mindful that we have equivalently formed entries foreesti keel,inglise keel (etc.) in Estonian (seeCategory:et:Languages), but those may be warranted by "[adjective] keel" being the standard (only?) way of denoting languages in Estonian.)Voltaigne (talk)21:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It should exist becausecome from exists, it also has its own entry in the Estonian dictionary Sõnaveeb. From a learner's point of view, it is very helpful to see the conjugation as it is not clear that the words change order when conjugated, and which case the verb governs ("olema" and "pärit olema" governs different cases). Honestly this is the kind of entry that a learner of Estonian would realistically search for on this website.Supevan (talk)11:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sõnaveeb isn't a great source.pärit should be a separate entry and the usage can be illustrated in the examples. Including 'olema' in the entry is redundant.Joonas07 (talk)17:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well "pärit" doesn't even exist as an entry, at all. So that's not happening.
As long as "come from" exist in English, there should be translations of it - if you disagree with that it's best to argue your request for deletion on the English entry, instead of the translations.78.110.38.907:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
This literally means "devour with one's eyes" and is glossed in our entry as "to stare at someone or something very single-eyed, greedily, longingly".
Theõgima entry has an example: "Naineõgib meest etteheitva pilguga. ―The womanis devouring the man with a reproachful look." If this is a typical way of using that verb, then it is SOP (and should be added more explicitly to the verb's entry).
Latest comment:6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Cornish. Given in a list of birds onthis site as a suggested term to be used. However, the Akademi Kernewek's "Terminology Panel" has already opted to borrowWelshbras instead. There also does not seem to be any consistent or widespread use of this term (seethesesites).
Big pile of completely SOP, non-lexical entries created by an IP (they have no more meaning than "five euro banknote" would in English). They also created a lot of synonymous entries along the lines ofZehnmarkschein, but since those are more debatable as one word terms I'll leave them for now.Smurrayinchester (talk)07:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think German should be treated like Chinese, i.e. an SoP term is not automatically accepted if it is written without spaces and adequately attested. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@King of Hearts: Preferably. Editors make analogical considerations when deciding whether an entry is even useful, which the IP apparently didn’t, mechanically applying the coalmine rule, which was enacted with an unclear set of languages in mind.Fay Freak (talk)03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Eastern Pwo. SOP: "elephant + male" = "male elephant". Eastern Pwo has scriptio continua, so it's not a situation like in German.Thadh (talk)11:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not what an idiom is. It's precisely as trivial as “internal affairs” in English, of which it is a calque (or both calqued from some other European language).Nicodene (talk)04:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The instance of ⟨biliþe⟩ in the Daniel poem is now regarded as a corrupt spelling ofblīþe(“happy”).
Alternatively it could be made into an alternative spelling page for the aforementioned word, with perhaps a note regarding the abnormality and its widely perpetuated misidentification.— Thisunsigned comment was added byYthedeGengo (talk •contribs) at 05:59, 20 July 2024.
I'm not so sure. 1) One never uses any other number as specifier together withvartti in the sense "15 minutes". 2) We have the equivalent English expressionthree-quarters as entry. 3) In other context than time "quarter" is translated into Finnish asneljäsosa. --Hekaheka (talk)08:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
1) is because there are more natural ways to express the same concept. Nevertheless, the others are fully understandable and occasionally used;kaksi varttia is probably attestable from BGC. 2) IMO does not mean much, and I'd rather say the English entry should also be deleted. 3) is irrelevant, asvartti itself already means "quarter of an hour", and it is not really possible to interpretkolme varttia any other way. —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/14:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yoruba. Rationale was "This page is to be deleted for not following the rules of Yoruba languages entires, in addition to the fact that Ṣábẹ̀ẹ́ has its own ISO code making it its own language".Ultimateria (talk)19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. It should be moved tomɔ and put under the Ede Cabe header with proper orthographic rules. I can get to it sometime later if no one else does.AG202 (talk)15:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Mon. Currently entered as a "non-standard encoding of"ဗှ်ေ, pulled from the SEAlang Library Mon Dictionary, apparently. This feels even worse than including a typo, to be honest: the fact that the SEAlang Library Mon Dictionary didn't encode the term properly isn't meaningful, and certainly isn't something we should care about recording. It doesn't even render properly.Theknightwho (talk)01:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It could be seen as just a clitic rather than a true suffix, but there are many formations with -einander that are treated as lemmas by Duden and have their own entries on Wiktionary. Ssome potential -einander formations are rare compared to the standard ones. So I think there is a degree of lexicalisation here, it acts like a productive suffix in my opinion. Some other arguable clitics also have entries like this, such as-e (etym. 3) and-n't, as well as all of German's "separable prefixes" (e.g.auf- vsauf have separate articles), which are also more like clitics, but have lexicalised combinations; I think the latter are in a similar situation. There are even combinations of separable prefixes and -einander acting as a separable prefix themselves, likeaufeinander (aufeinanderfolgen etc), which could also be seen as just auf + einander + folgen that happens to be spelled without spaces. In my opinion, it makes sense to distinguish between einander used without a preposition, and einander used with a preposition (the latter spelled as a suffix in standard orthography), so it's not like it's a complete duplicate. Of course, they are essentially the same in form and there is still a lot of things shared between them that doesn't need to be duplicated (hence why I said to refer to the usage notes ofeinander in the-einander entry).
@Sérgio R R Santos: Hi! It’s basically a discussion over whether or not to delete on the basis of our current policies/practices. A change to our policies themselves would take a little more work, but can be done through creating a discussion at theWT:Beer Parlour and getting community consensus there, if you so wish. —Vorziblix (talk ·contribs)00:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
well, in my opinion the policy of criteria for inclusion mentioned by @Vorziblix that wiktionary currently has always annoyed me a little bit: what is the point of having a whole page that just says "this is an inflexion of such and such" - that's basicaly a full fledged redirect page. Even if a user is searching a non lemma form of a word, and that secific form doesnt have its own page, as long as that word is mentioned in the lemma page they'll ultimatly get to that page, even if indirectly, in the search results.
Now having said all that, regarding the current discussion, i thing they should be deleted if all they say is "this is a particular form of x", which like i said just sounds like a redirect page to me, but i think they should be kept when they provide further information, like usage examples or quotation of that form beig used.I dont know how difficult that distinction would be able to be put in practice, but I gess in this particular case we're just talking about half a dozen cases. Sorry for the long and meandering response, i'm incapable of going straight to the point.Sérgio R R Santos (talk)09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
As mentioned, if you wish to change that policy, please go to the beer parlour. As it stands, if these forms are attested, then they pass RFV and would need to be sent back here for RFD if you somehow manage to convince everyone to not include pages for inflections.Vininn126 (talk)09:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
then do what the policy sais.i for now am just entertained with adding and improving coptic pages; if semeone wants to create non lema pages, good for them, it doesnt bother me. I might some day ending up going to the beer parlour, but it better have some beer!Sérgio R R Santos (talk)12:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
coincidently, i just made a search in my coptic dictionary and the very first (unrelated) entry that came up includes pretty much all verb forms for all dialects - except the absolute form for bohairic. so i gess in certain cases having a page for a non lemma form is unavoidable. or...inevitable.Sérgio R R Santos (talk)13:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The reason for the existence of these English entries, as I understand, is their figurative use as (I assume) appositions to denote ‘(by extension) Finishing in first position, winning’ (‘the gold medal project’, ‘the gold medal runner’).
That every language grammatically allows such use is unlikely, and the majority of the corresponding entries only give the literal meaning. I presume all others to be SOP and in need of deletion. ―Biolongvistul (talk)18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This should be merged with*alamann-. There's no need for a separate page. Ethnonyms in this language are also generally not capitalised.— Thisunsigned comment was added byHaimariks Wandilaz (talk •contribs) at 16:00, 11 October 2024.
"being weird" is not grounds for deletion (so in the absence of a rationale for deletion, my vote iskeep - it looks keepable enough in its current state).
If you think the entry could use some work, feel free to improve it (or slap an{{attention}} or{{rfc}} on it and hope for the best).
Latest comment:11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
German.
Doesn't seem to have any meaning beyond the literal SOP "horse and rider", although I'm willing to be corrected on this if there's an additional definition we need. Not to be confused withRoss und Reiter nennen ("call a spade a spade"), which is idiomatic.Smurrayinchester (talk)13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
These were mistakenly created as badly-formatted Hebrew entries (Hebrew wouldn't end these words with "א"), by someone who obviously has no clue.
You can find these in the etymology forabracadabra as a theoretically-possible/hypothetical origin for the Latin word. As Aramaic, however, they just mean something like "what has been said has been done"- nothing idiomatic.Chuck Entz (talk)06:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Update: I have now added a second entry that was created at the same time and edited my explanation above to reflect the change from one to two entries. The first one is a spelling variant of the second (they differ in only one letter, a common type of variation because the letters look almost identical). The first one is a closer match to "abracadabra", but the second matches the "what has been said has been done" translation.Chuck Entz (talk)00:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
agreed. even if those are correct, i don't see a need to create unique pages for them as they're not idiomatic and to my knowledge aren't particularly documented outside etymological discussions forabracadabra.TalyaNe (talk)15:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Turkish adjective meaning “weird”. The deletion request is only for its listing as an interjection. Using an adjective by way of a full sentence (as in “ ‘Weird,’ he said”) does not an interjection make. For Turkish,garip is in fact a grammatically standard one-word full sentence, meaning “he/she/it is weird”. (Seegarip § Declension.) A much more common similarly uttered Turkish one-word sentence isinanılmaz(“he/she/it is incredible”), which must, of course, also not be lexically categorized as an interjection. --Lambiam10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Icelandic. Created in 2005 byUser:Schneelocke. This is glossed as "something else" and looks like a transparent SOP to me. I strongly suspect the masculine and feminine equivalents "someone else" exist as well.Benwing2 (talk)06:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Vietnamese: “phải +cái from the beginning of the adjacent noun phrase. With the example provided, not a construction, maybe someone can provide an example where grammaticalization has progressed further?”MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)02:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with @MuDavid of his opinion on the usage ofphải cái. What I've seen people are using is that the phrase go with verb or adjective, but never before seen anyone using it with nouns. There are also examples on the Internet about the phrase:phải cái nói,phải cái nghịch,phải cái kêu,phải cái ngữ(may be idiomatic)phải cái nghĩ,phải cái lương(seems to be using with a clause).
About the own entry itself, I don't think the authors ofphải cái do really consider how it is really used ("Used to introduce a negative statement or clause"). IMO it should be introducing someone's personality trait or some event deemed undesirable (not vaguely as negative statement or clause).HungKhanh0106 (talk)04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thinking back, I judge that the term should be merged intocái because people also usecó cái,được cái,bị cái with verbs and adjectives, which I think is to emphasize what is said.HungKhanh0106 (talk)21:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think that they are all of the samesense/usage (to emphasize an info), so maybe a merge would be a better idea than to split them all in different pages?HungKhanh0106 (talk)10:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not sure about that. Where does one go to if they want to find info about one of these above terms? Intuitively (and hopefully), not "cái". A usage note in the entry forcái would be nice, but seperate entries for these terms are needed.Duchuyfootball (talk)10:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tagalog. SOP
dahil sa = due to, because of
All usages involving the sense "to; of", will involvesa (for nonpersonal names) orkay (for personal names). Papunta sa tao (going to the man), papunta kay Manny (going to Manny)
Latest comment:10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Eteocretan. Nominated for speedy deletion by @Kumwawa, but this is clearly a matter for RFD. Reason given is: "Asasara(me) is a suggested Minoan god found in Linear A, not Eteocretan inscriptions. Maybe put it in the Minoan or Linear A Category (with lab signs not grc)."
In any event, thesource on the entry is an Etruscan dictionary which merely statessee Cretanasasara divine name [dep], which is not enough to justify this entry, in my view, and I see no compelling reason to have Latin-script entries for Eteocretan.Theknightwho (talk)15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep, single-word compounds do not fall underWT:SOP by long-standing Wiktionary practice (hence criteria likeWT:COALMINE). See alsoWT:Criteria for inclusion#General rule: "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is asingle word or it is idiomatic.". (Changing this would be quite the can of worms.) —Mnemosientje (t ·c)10:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Edit: Because each of these terms correspond to one year of the sexagenary cycle, they must be greater than the sum of their parts. --ChemPro (talk)11:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's the cycle of the ten heavenly stems and then there's the cycle of the twelve earthly branches. The lowest common multiple of ten and twelve being sixty, the combined cycle is sixty years. That's how the sexagenary cycle emerged: as a sum of two parts.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)14:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@MuDavid That's not how the sexagenary cycle emerged. If the sexagenary cycle were be a mere sum (or rather a combination) of two parts (or cycles), then the number of possible combinations would be 10 * 12 = 120, leading to a 120-years cycle. The reason why only half of the number of possible combinations are used is the following:
Five of the ten heavenly stems have a yang property. The other five have a yin property. The same goes for the earthly branches. Six of them have a yang property. The other six have a yin property. According to the principle that yang heavenly stems can only combine with yang earthly branches and yin heavenly stems only with yin earthly branches, we get a total of 5 * 6 + 5 * 6 = 60 possible combinations.
It's therefore a summation of the two partsaccording to a principle (here the yin-yang principle), which makes the actual sum less than the theoretical sum. --ChemPro (talk)18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I've already looked it up. In my view, it's rather a coincedence that the sexagenary cycle concludes at the 60th term, which happens to be the least common multiple of 10 and 12. I'm pretty sure that the inventor(s) of the sexagenary cycle didn't purposefully construct the cycle based on the mathematical notion of the least common multiple. But if its true though (meaning the inventor(s) did create the sexagenary cycle based on the notion of the least common multiple and not on the principle of yin and yang or some other principle), then yeah, the sexagenary cycle would be, indeed, just be the least common multiple of 10 and 12 and therefore a sum of parts. But, after all, it's just an assumption. You'll have to prove it. --ChemPro (talk)09:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why the heck is it a coincidence? It’s just basic math. Why do you think anybody “created” the sexagenary cycle? They created the branches and the stems and out came a cycle of 60, end of story. If there’s anything else behind it, it’s up toyou to prove it.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)09:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
„The 60-cycle envisaged as a pair of toothed wheels representing the 10-cycle and the 12-cycle.Even-numbered positions never engage with odd-numbered positions. Six turns of the 10-cycle correspond to five turns of the 12-cycle, after which the system has returned to its original state. [...]”
Given two cycles, if each of their positions have been numbered and aparity assigned to it, then a summation of these two cycles leads to the emergence of exactly two larger cycles where each of these larger cycles is the result of one particular way of pairing. There are only two ways of pairing: Each position of the two smaller cycles can be paired with each other with positions of either the same or the opposite parity. This leads to the conclusion that the sexagenary cycle is the result of one kind of pairing, where each position of the two smaller cycles haven been paired with each other with positions of the same parity. Which proves my point I made earlier: It's a summation of two parts according to some principle which makes its actual sum less than its theoretical sum.∎ --ChemPro (talk)12:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
The greatest common divisor of ten and twelve is two, so there’s two ways to get a cycle of sixty out of one of ten and one of twelve. Your “enlightening image” is nothing but that. And out of the two possible sexagenary cycles, an accident of history chose one. Don’t go searching for more principles.
It's all due toparity (or yin-yang in the Sinosphere). Yes, the greatest common divisor (gcd) of ten and twelve equals two. But the number two alsohappens to be the number of parities an integer can have: even or odd. Also yes, the lowest common multiple (lcm) of ten and twelve is 60. But the number sixty alsohappens to be the number of possible combinations after the even and odd numbers of ten and twelve have been paired based on the same parity. I question whether there is any correlation between the sexagenary cycle and the gcd/lcm at all, and whether the gcd/lcm are just post hoc mathematical descriptions of it. Now coming to the crucial question: How come that the combination of Ất and Tị leads specifically to one Ất Tịyear and not an Ất Tịday, Ất Tịmonth, or Ất Tịsomething else? --ChemPro (talk)09:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Generally, concepts like the gcd and the lcm, which work pretty well for numbers on a linear number line, don't really work well for the sexagenary cycle due to its cyclical nature. --ChemPro (talk)11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
(Sigh.) You really don’t know basic math do you? And apparently you don’t know the Chinese calendar either. There areẤt Tị days: the 5th of February this year will be anẤt Tị day. There areẤt Tị months: on the 6th of May 2027 anẤt Tị month will start. Given that you obviously don’t have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about, I’m not going to continue to argue with you. When you understand how the Chinese calendar works, we can continue the discussion.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Damn, you guys got me. Seems like I have to go back to primary school and review some basic addition. Let's see if I can get this straight:Ất +Tị =Ất Tị. Okay, that wasn't too bad... Wait a minute. AnẤt Tị can be either a day, month, or year. How does one proceed from here? --ChemPro (talk)17:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep for now. The entryheavenly stem only mentions it in its usage notes that they are used as the first component of each of the sixty terms of the Chinese sexagenary cycle. If this section can be somehow included into one of its definitions (the same applies for the entryearthly branch), then I'd vote for possibly SoP. --ChemPro (talk)11:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
In addition, the numbern of itsnth term cannot be easily derived by combining the heavenly stem and the earthly branch without knowing the underlying pairing principle of the sexagenary cycle. An explanation of how to numbern can be obtained might be provided in the usage notes of the entriesheavenly stem andearthly branch. --ChemPro (talk)08:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the word functions more idiomatic/figurative than literal ("nói gì thì nói" isn't understood literally as "whatever [person specified] say", even there are cases which it does not need any people to speak, somewhat akin tobe that as it may). It is also useda lot (in colloquial contexts) as compared to other forms of "X gì thì X".HungKhanh0106 (talk)06:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've never seen "tệ nạn" being used with any adjective outside of "xã hội" (to create the word "tệ nạn xã hội"). Also "tệ nạn" is currently used to mean "an evil that is pervasive in society" (as what I've known) so "xã hội" is redundant in the word, that's why I think theempty space test can be applied here.HungKhanh0106 (talk)07:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
The rule outlines that "frequent use of terms appearing to contain elements ofredundancy" can be used in a RFD argument.Apricot tree,empty space,HIV virus are cited as examples:apricot already have the sense "apricot tree",space already have the sense "vacuum" (space that contains no matter),HIV already have the sense "virus"[reference]. In that matter, people may be addingtree,empty,virus to those words to narrow down to some (or just 1) specific senses, thus rendering the them "redundant" (it could have ambiguities otherwise, such as a standalonespace could be understood asparking space etc.). About its application totệ nạn xã hội, there isxã hội being the redundant part (newspapers nowadays usestệ nạn standalone in the context of the whole society, though old publication(s) may narrow the scope of wheretệ nạn happens (?)[refer to one of the quotations on entrytệ nạn], which should also match the case of "narrowing down" stated above).
What I think you are saying is, any noun that follows "vấn đề", "khoa học", or "chủ nghĩa" is an adjective? Then we would have a lot of adjectives. Is "máy tính" in "khoa học máy tính" an adjective? Is "dữ liệu" in "khoa học dữ liệu" an adjective?
Noun can "describes a noun's referent" too (refer to its Wiktionary entry). While that usage might be rare in English, it does not have to be in Vietnamese.
Keep. Both the English and Chinese entries have the meaning ofsocial issue (which is not a SOP), while the Vietnamese entry translates tosocialill (which is a SOP).Tệ nạn translates to Englishill rather thanissue, turning it into a SOP hypothetically. Nonetheless, I've changed my vote to "keep" as well because of the application of theempty space test mentioned by Hung Khanh. --ChemPro (talk)08:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
The reason whysocial issue is not an SOP comes down to the difference between anissue and aproblem. Anissue is "any question or situation to be resolved", whereas aproblem is specifically a "difficulty that has to be resolved or dealt with". Becausesocial issue refers, per definition, to aproblem,WT:FRIED can be applied.
@Duchuyfootball I think "social issue" refers to specifically "a problem" (e.g. immigration, racism, unemployment, etc.[32]the page is unsourced, but I think it can also be verifiable via Google), buttệ nạn xã hội here have a more specific meaning, to mean specifically "ills/evils" ("moral wickedness"), not just any problem (e.g. prostitution, gambling, narcotics, etc.).HungKhanh0106 (talk)22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I thinktệ nạn xã hội is used to refer to the problems (e.g. prostitution, gambling, narcotics, etc.) also? Like when you say "đẩy lùi tệ nạn xã hội", what exactly is being alleviated (if not problems)? I don't think the word means "moral wickedness".Duchuyfootball (talk)03:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the confusion, but what am I doing here is pointing out precisely thattệ nạn xã hội refers to specific problems (that includes prostitution, gambling, narcotics, etc.) that have negative effects on the society, that should akin to "moral wickedness". "Social issue" should refer to broader topics (such as immigration, racism, unemployment, etc. - asSimple English Wikipedia pointed out). Google also returns results that indicate that those are "social issues".HungKhanh0106 (talk)07:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Finnish; simply a combination of two suffixes which will never be used in etymology sections, because the corresponding-va/-maton also always exists. —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is no source indicated, and I doubt that there is an Alemannic dialect that diphthongized short /i/, as implied by the spelling.Flœœru (talk)07:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion
The definitions of these characters are no more than a fleshed-out version of their Unicode names. No indication of what they mean or how they're used.
[⅀ has now been recreated, again without a definition]
So why not just add their definitions then? The latter four at least have "sometimes used for…" descriptions in theUnicode charts. I know Wolfram Mathematica at least uses double-struck symbols as default representations of some constants in its interface, and probably provides the alternate symbols to not clash with variable-name usage needs while allowing natural-looking code (e.g. in interactiveTraditionalForm). Online docs:ⅆⅅⅇⅈ;ⅉ (same as previous)ℽ (Euler–Mascheroni constant)ℼ (no default assignment). That leaves ⅀, ℿ (likely justn-ary sum/product) and ℾ (likely thegamma function).Hftf (talk)09:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
If someone who knows what they're doing is willing to do that, that would be great.
The mathematicians I know say that double-struck letters have no real mathematical use -- they're just handwritten substitutes for bold letters, which is how they should be typeset in print.kwami (talk)09:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
The symbols and meaning the set of thenatural numbers, are used without distinction in meaning. The open typeface is called “mathbb“ in the widely used AMSFonts package for LaTeX, where “bb” abbreviatesblackboard bold. It found its way into typesetting because some authors appreciated the aesthetic appearance. I don't think I've seen uses of blackboard bold symbols with another meaning than the plain bold version. In only a few and rare cases is a bold letter used in mathematical publications with a specific commonly understood meaning (as opposed to an ephemeral meaning defined for local use in one publication). The use in Wolfram Mathematica is interesting, but not sufficient for the criterion of attestation of use in at least three independent instances, as given by ourCFI. --Lambiam21:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Many symbols, especially in math, are used without distinction in meaning – so therefore, they can be synonyms/alt forms, just like<= and≤.
I respect the attestation criteria. I'm not one to say Wiktionary should mirror Unicode, and I don't think Unicode does nearly enough to define characters much of the time. Unicode already has its own attestation/whatever requirements and these must have met already it some time ago (25 years). We read that major math publishers asked to encode them[1, with original meaningful character names][2]. Lots of our symbol entries have no citations sadly. Has anyone at least tried googling "mathbb d" or "mathbb gamma" or "mathbb sigma"?
At this stage in time, regarding blackboard-bold/double-struck letters, both "they're just handwritten substitutes"and "they have real mathematical use" are true. Rarely are they distinct in meaning (ignoring nonce usages so common in math), but sometimes they are the preferred form. It is at least definitely the case that today, if looking at an 𝐍 with no context and a ℕ with no context, the latter is going to have less ambiguity; if you "ask mathematicians" to close their eyes and see in their mind the symbol for natural numbers, they will imaginejust "the letter ℕ",not a composite lexicon entry like {printed, handwritten drawing of N on blackboard like} or {printed 𝐍, handwritten ℕ} or anything like that. Which isn't surprising – this is no different from how new full-fledged words and meanings are gained, e.g.#.
By the way, your recent additions of "A handwritten form of" atℕ etc. and "The original print form" at𝐍etc. really make no sense, especially not inside the definition/gloss. Perhaps in an etymology, but I would rather just link to Wikipedia'sblackboard bold which is going to do a better job with that information. We don't define& as "the handwritten form ofand" – it's not true, it's not its meaning, and it's not relevant. If you admit you don't know what you're doing, why do you keep doing it? And "mathematicians I know say…" doesn't do us much good.Hftf (talk)13:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, moving it to the etymology section would work well. I'll do that.
I'm doing it because no-one else is. But that's also why I'm here.
Many many of our articles were created by people who didn't know what they were doing, with no more reason than that they are characters in Unicode. Consensus has been that's not enough. We don't create an article for every emoji, for example.
Unfortunately, Unicode often does not have adequate attestation for their characters. An example offhand is the letter 'oi', which is really 'gh'. The proposal didn't even get the distinction between vowel and consonant right. For another, the alchemical block has duplicate Latin letters 'C' and 'T', which isn't supposed to happen. They've been replaced with poorly attested composite forms to avoid the duplication, but they weren't justified to begin with. There are also numerous allographs in that block, which again isn't supposed to happen, because the proposers at the Newton Chymistry Project didn't understand Unicode criteria, and Unicode didn't understand alchemical symbols. There are also blocks of early symbols that were added for compatibility with other computer encoding systems, with little reasoning preserved in the documentation.
The mathematician I'm speaking of, who is a prof at a major university, witnessed the addition of the alphanumeric block to Unicode, and says that the person drawing up that proposal was ignorant of actual mathematical usage, and that the people at Unicode were unable to judge. Two series of script letters should've been added, for example [they're now handled with variation selectors, with poor font support], and the four sans-serif series have no basis in mathematics. I'm not asking you to make decisions based on my sourceless reporting of second-hand accounts, but I do think we should follow Wk attestation criteria for math symbols the same as we do for English words.kwami (talk)16:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
But back to the deletion request -- those characters have no definition, and so shouldn't be on Wk. They can always be recreated if someone can attest to a meaning to give them. They shouldn't remain just because someone who didn't know what they were doing created them.kwami (talk)16:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think some kind of indication that these are unused duplicates of other characters and linking to the correct ones would be useful enough to keep the entries- basically like a "misspelling of" definition. It might prevent someone from using them by accident, or help them to recognize and correct bad OCR artifacts. The part about how they got into Unicode by mistake might go in the etymology, I suppose.Chuck Entz (talk)22:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree, but sourcing might be a problem. The mathematician I talked to has very strong opinions on this but wanted to remain anonymous because he knows the people involved. But his source is 3+ decades of experience in the field, nothing we could cite even if he was willing to share publicly.
The blackboard bold characters C N P Q R Z are frequently used in print as alts to regular bold, and the undefined ones above presumably are as well. None of the sans-serif characters or monospace currently have articles, and if we wanted to preemptively warn people about them, I don't know what we'd say they're equivalent to. I suppose roman sans-serif and monospace = ASCII and bold and italic sans-serif = regular mathematical bold and italic. But I don't know how I'd defend doing that if challenged.kwami (talk)23:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Of these blackboard bold characters, is the only one that (as far as I’m aware) is not a standin or alternative for the plain bold letter. ‑‑Lambiam21:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep as a combining form, per#światło- and#ćmawo- above. There probably needs to be a wider discussion about combining forms in Slavic languages in general rather than nominating individual entries in individual languages, which will inevitably lead to more inconsistency and confusion. —Mahāgaja ·talk15:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Old High German. appears to be a simple typo or misread, the listed source in the entry (Schatz) iists a name "Helidin", not Heldin. Inummerable citations of Heldin, but none appear to be OHG— Thisunsigned comment was added byGriffon77 (talk •contribs) at06:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Clarification: the appendix is correct as it is. I'm only proposing that we delete some of the redirects and thus turn blue links into red links, when the blue links don't lead the reader to a definition of the symbol.
These symbols have specific mathematical definitions, at least theoretically,* and are not simply digits. They should therefore not be redirects to the articles for the basic digits. For example,𝟏 [or equivalently𝟙] is the indicator function in set theory, not the number/digit 1. The two characters 𝟏 and 𝟙 are the only ones that we give definitions for; the others are just rd's and should be deleted. I haven't tagged them since there are so many.
I think we're justified in treating numerical characters from other blocks, i.e. superscript, subscript, fullwidth and segmented [digital clock form] digits, as mere graphic variants and therefore appropriate as redirects and in the character variant info boxes where they are now. The monospace variants are probably justified as well; AFAICT they are not defined mathematically, and good fonts provide monospace digits as character variants for column alignment.
BTW, italic C, D and beta should be deleted for the same reason, but I tagged them individually because there's only the three of them.
*I say 'theoretically' because, AFAICT from talking to mathematicians, the four sets of sans-serif letters and digits in the alphanumeric block have no definition, and were encoded into Unicode in error.
Can you explain the meaning of “rd” in this context? AFAICT the page presents a faithful listing of the “Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols” (Range: 1D400–1D7FF) ofThe Unicode Standard, version 16.0. If we decide to change it, we should make it very clear that this is a modified listing. ‑‑Lambiam11:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I didn't mean to modify the appendix, which is correct as it is, but to delete the redirects from it. We have for example a redirect from𝟑 to3. But those characters don't mean the same thing -- 𝟑 is intended as a mathematical symbol, possibly for a function or something, not as the digit 3 -- and we don't explain the symbol 𝟑 at the article for digit 3. Including it would be like redirecting 'honeybadger' to 'honey' and then not explaining what a honeybadger was on the honey article. The only one of this series we get right is𝟏, which has its own article. But we can't create an article for 𝟑 without knowing what it means. Even if we hope to figure out what it means in the future, the rd is inappropriate as we don't explain it now.kwami (talk)20:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
So the answer to the question actually asked would be "in this context, an 'rd' is a 'redirect' ", or more precisely: "a link to a redirect"...Chuck Entz (talk)01:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Would you mind pointing me to where this is stated? There's a few problems with making such a general statement: 1) there's a difference between no-longer productive and never productive. 2) We can in theory create compound affix entries ad-nauseum if we allow ones that have never been productive.Vininn126 (talk)11:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't know whether it's stated in black and white anywhere, but you only have to peruseCAT:English suffixes to see that the current practice is that wedo allow nonproductive affixes. And the entry in question says nothing at all about the current or former productivity of-iczek, so of course my comment was made in response to your argument for deletion. —Mahāgaja ·talk22:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Persian. Rfd-sense: "the UK or England." I would like evidence that this specific sense is lexicalized separate from the sense of "fox, cunning person."--Saranamd (talk)08:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Estonian. I've never heard this word before and I can't even find it in books or dictionaries, besides the fact that this entry was created by an IP (91.129.103.10) with no idea what they were doing (based on their other edits).Auringonlasku (talk)21:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Kirmuses oli mingi luuletusgi veel, aga ma ei saanud seda linki lahti.
enamasti on tegu selgelt madalkeelse väljendiga, ning avalikus kõneruumis pigem välditud ning kirjakeeles kõvasti haruldasem kui kõnekeeles (sealgi pigem teatud ehitajate ja masinistide pruugis).
Pigem leiad selliseid otsesemas tähenduses erootilisest kirjandusest ja mingitest seksfoorumitest (sageli avalikkusele suletud) — ning pigem teatud trükimeedias kui avalikus veebis (kuna digar kasutab enamasti OCR-i, siis on mõningaid asju raskem leida sõltuvalt kuidas poolitatud või kas tähetuvastuses esines vigu).
kaudsemas tähenduses kasutavad mingid masinistide ja tuunijad mootorite kohta, nt: "ära hoorata mootorit", samas kus teised kasutavad selleks "hoorama".
Rohkem vasteid leiad pööretes, nt: „hooratavad“.
see pole minu väljamõeldis ning on täitsa olemas, seda ka küllalt kaua - küll on ta üsna haruldane ning selgelt madalkeelne. Küsi laiemalt ringilt üle kuskil, redditis või Facebookis näiteks.
ise suurem asi keelemees pole, seepärast ka raskusi selgitamise ja muu säärasega — tean ainult et olemas ta on. Mul oli tarvis peamiselt tabeleid, sest üks keelt alles õpiv inimene koperdas nendele otsa ning tal tekkis küsimus, et mismoodi küll eestlased neil üldse vahet teevad, näiteks: hooratas (hoo-ratas ja hoora-tas) või hooaja (hoo-raja vs hoora-ja). Kirjapildis üksikuna on need kõik ju üks-ühele samad, ent häälduses neid segi ei aeta (küll võib mõnele õppijale tekitada raskusi tema aksent), jne.
Puhtalt "abiks ikka" põhimõttel ma neid ei eemaldaks — abiks neile kes nendele veel otsa komistada võivad. Ka näide mis vahet häälduses, ning tegusõna ja nimisõna erinevast kasutusest, ning selle olulisusest - ehkki mitte just kõikse esinduslikum.91.129.103.1000:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ma saan sust aru, ent teostus on pehmelt öeldes ütlemata lohakas.
The actual name of the brand is not Spotifajo, though, but Spotify. We do include nicknames of brands, why not foreign adaptations?MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)09:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Vietnamese, tagged as SoP. A literal interpretation would give any big slab of ice though, not just those floating on the ocean. It’s true that many sources usetảng băngtrôi (which is obviously SoP), but many leave out thetrôi, making it idiomatic.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete of SoP. There are other usages oftảng, such astảng đá (big rock),tảng xương heo/bò (pig/cow bones connected altogether), so I thinktảng băng should be SoP.HungKhanh0106 (talk)15:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago17 comments6 people in discussion
Bashkir. It uses the long-obsoleteYañalif orthography, and there are only 5 words in the orthography in Bashkir lemmas category:jaꞑь,jьl,Jaꞑь jьl (this one could even be falling underWT:SOP),ʙajram,ʙəjge. If really wanted to be kept, it's probably better to make an orthography template, like thePersian regional spellings template, or theKazakh spellings template.
Also, it's important to note that much unlike Persian or even Kazakh, Bashkir isn't official anywhere outside Bashkortostan, which doesn't necessitate any other spelling at all, let alone the long-obsolete Yañalif. If we are to keep the 5 words, then we are to duplicate everything else too. If we are to delete one, then we are to delete the rest too.Bababashqort (talk)15:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ultimateria tagging you here for the rationale for my earlier page deletion. I thought it was a no-brainer/obvious page to be qualified for deletion, I'm sorry if it wasn't the case.Bababashqort (talk)15:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Bababashqort: Thank you for opening this discussion in the right place. I didn't see a reason to speedy delete because I know absolutely nothing about the language and I doubted that anyone else who patrols the deletion nominations would be qualified to make that decision.Ultimateria (talk)16:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yanalif is of same kind obscurity asRomanian transitional Cyrillic, Norwegian/Icelandic/Swedish post-reformatoric runes, Belarussian Lacinka and Belarussian Arabic. May it be a good idea instead of creating own entries in Yanalif, just add commentary to entries about Bashkir letters which letters are corresponding to Yanalif? Like I did with runic use of Norwegian letters (see for example, at NorwegianP, etc).Tollef Salemann (talk)15:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
A chart in«Башҡорт яҙыуы тарихынан» places the number of Latinized Bashkir books as 284 from 1928–1932, andw:ru:Башкирская письменность states that Latinization was used for a full decade (1930–1940). As the official orthography used by Soviet materials as part of a campaign against illiteracy, I doubt that Yañalif is too insignificant for inclusion in Wiktionary.
Speaking entirely personally, I would not put the effort into actively creating such entries, but I also do not believe there is sufficient reason to ban Yañalif entries entirely. «Башҡорт яҙыуы тарихынан» (as well ashttps://bashkort-tele.livejournal.com/tag/латиница) describes fluctuation of spelling rules, but I doubt that it is severe enough to disregard Yañalif. Although I am not familiar with Bashkir, I believe that I'm familiar with what type of content is typically in Wiktionary, and Yañalif is not out-of-place.
(As for templates likeTemplate:fa-regional, note that these always output links, and that some types of editor have an obsession with eliminating any such red links; creating such a template is not much of a solution, although it would definitely be useful for containing Arabic, parallel to{{tt-variant}}.) —Fish bowl (talk)08:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
As someone who is familiar with Bashkir (a native speaker), I would disagree. No Russian entries contain the pre-Peter orthography lemmas, let alone theSoviet Latin lemmas.
On top of that, by this logic, it would be much, much more reasonable to addVolga Türki lemmas, since the literary language was used, quite literally, for hundreds of years before the Yañalif. And it did eventually transform into a Bashkir-specific variant, which poets likeShaykhzada Babich, in factdid use for more than a decade.
Regarding the spelling rule fluctuation — such adaptation of foreign words was actually a practice in almost every latinized language (which is common knowledge to those familiar with the surface level knowledge of Turkic historical linguistics), including significant examples like Kazakh. The only reason modern Cyrillic lacks such adaptiveness is the language regulation institutes' policies, that are also the reason why we use the hard sign (ъ) in words likeдонъя, instead of writing it as "доня" (compare with Uzbek Cyrillicдунё, which didn't adopt such policy), or why the Udmurts write "эшъёс" instead of "эшёс" when there's nothing preventing this in the practical sense.
In conclusion: the Yañalif is in fact not significant enough for inclusion in Wiktionary. In fact, so insignificant, that even Unicode didn't include theI with bowl, which is present in the alphabet. These 5 lemmas are simply out of place, and if we keep them, then we have to duplicate every other lemma too. There is absolutely no reason to keep them alone, and absolutely no reason to not delete them. Keeping the lemmas would lead to duplicating the whole lemma list in Yañalif — the same reason why Unicode didn't accept inclusion of I with bowl:1,2,3,4.
On top of that, a significant part of the contributions of the user who created the page,139.194.37.72, seem to consist of simply creating such spelling variants, such asTeajikistan, oraltьn (which is tagged byWT:NORM too), or creating non-lemma forms, such asmetin dosya,metin dosyası, for which (not specifically, but same kind of entries)Anatoli T. had warned him. This fact about the page creator also contributes to the insignificance of these lemmas.
There shouldn't even be much thinking in this regard. As I had said previously, this is a no-brainer. I don't understand why this discussion even should have been made — it hadn't been started to create these pages in the first place.
I would also kindly request @Atitarev to finally proceed with mass-deletion of139.194.37.72 entries, since practically none of those pose any significant contribution, the user hadn't been active since 2020 (or at least the IP hasn't), and as you have already stated, it's much easier to mass-delete than to fix the mess they have created (the mess also being an (in?)direct cause of this discussion as well). Thank you in advance.Bababashqort (talk)00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
After thorough consideration and talk with @Thadh, I present this idea: include Yanalif entries only if they have a lexicographical significance, especially the properly/uniquely adapted loanwords likeədəʙejət,miljon[33], and many others. As such, there would be no need to duplicate words with the same spelling in Cyrillic, like the aforementioned jaꞑь, jьl, ʙajram, ʙəjge, and no ignoring the Yanalif completely. But move the Yanalif entries to the end of lemma list, so that they won't clutter the first page ofCategory:Bashkir lemmas.
I started this discussion in the proper place hoping that there would be any progress at all. There seems to be no progress after over 2 months at this point, and no counter arguments, so I am proceeding with deletions. @Ultimateria
@Bababashqort: Please do not delete them. According to ourWT:CFI these terms have a right to be represented on Wiktionary, and I think we have to keep them.
@Bababashqort: I know it's frustrating when a discussion doesn't generate many comments, but based on the responses, I don't see deletion as the conclusion. CFI is based not on "significance" (a subjective measure), but on whether terms can be attested.Ultimateria (talk)23:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do we have to keep the exactly same attested terms though? I did present an idea to include Yanalif entries only if they have a lexicographical significance, such as adapted loanwords, but these 5 lemmas fall under neither. And as I said, if we do keep them, we would have to add more Yanalif terms that simply just copy the cyrillic equivalents (of course if they are attested), so we could add hundreds more lemmas, such asmin,hin,kyl and many many more.
What I present is adding only uniquely adapted loanwords that aren't attested in any writing system Bashkir language had used, such asədəʙejət,zagьs and whatnot. This seems like a perfect middle ground: acknowledging Yanalif as a part of Bashkir orthography history and not cluttering the lemma list.
@Bababashqort: "so we could add hundreds more lemmas" - yes! But usually people have better things to do. Notice also how many English obsolete spellings we have, they're not much different.Thadh (talk)12:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Greetings again, is there going to be any progress in this? I started this discussion over half a year ago, my latest reply was over 3 months ago, and I am stuck between not being able to do anything and not being able to get permission to do anything. If there is no decision on this over the next month I am deleting those lemmas as I did initially. Practically nobody cares about Bashkir language category anyways.Bababashqort (talk)12:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Vietnamese.PhanAnh123’s comment for @Minhandsomely: “SOP. Find a better example please, you chose a really bad example (liếm gót giầy) to illustrate the idiomaticity of this.” Doesn’t actually mean to kiss up but to lick the heel.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
As much as I can find, the phrase in question is a calqued translation of an actual word, bootlicker, in English and it does have idiomatical meaning, not just "to lick the heel" as you might think.Minhandsomely (talk)03:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
The fact that it is a calque is irrelevant. The correct translation of the example you gave would be “licking the Westerner’sheel”, making it not idiomatic.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)09:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Declining deletion request and reopening. This clearly seems idiomatic because it doesn't mean to literally "lick the heel" as inferred by it's components - similar expression being in English doesn't make it SOP.Keep. –Svārtava (tɕ)03:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Old English. @Mahagaja, I would like to ask you to reconsider deleting this entry. Here I list two more reputable sources, to add to those that I previously referenced, discrediting Stephens' reading of the Collinham Stone inscription.
From these, andthis high quality photograph, courtesy of "The Megalithic Portal", I think it is apparent that the rune just right of the center of the cross is most certainlyᚦ, and therefore a reading ofᚩᚾᛋᚹᛁᚾᛁ cannot be possible. And since the leftmost runes are entirely unreadable, and were reportedly already so in Stephens' own time, it is simply better then that this inscription not be referenced in the creation of Old English entries, due to its illegibility and controversy; especially as it has lead to likely false, or at the very least otherwise unverifiable, assumptions about the progression of theIngvaeonic nasal spirant law and the dating of cross itself.
And here can be found the original claim for further reference:Stephens, George (1866)The Old-northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England. Vol. I, pages 390-1. (A summary version appears on pages 121-2 of hisHandbook of Old-northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England (1884))Yeldred Gengo (talk)08:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Northern Altai. In Todozhokova's dictionary, палықҷы is similarly to палыкчьы (қ=к, ҷ=чь in 17 pages). Thus, I made палыкчьы, and падыкчьы is error spelling that I wrote.
Latest comment:2 months ago9 comments1 person in discussion
Ukrainian. It's an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of-ічний(-ičnyj). I'm unaware of instances where this is an independently generative suffix in its own right.Voltaigne (talk)22:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ukrainian. It's an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of-лявий(-ljavyj,adjective-forming suffix), not an independently productive suffix AFAIK.Voltaigne (talk)23:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ukrainian. It's an inflected form (feminine nominative singular) of-ливий(-lyvyj,adjective-forming suffix), not an independently productive suffix AFAIK.Voltaigne (talk)23:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I request this page to be removed because:
This name is heavily Latinized or simply Latin. The expected Old Dutch form would be more like '...guta', where Vultra-/Ultra- seems very hard to connect to any Germanic naming element (RC:Proto-Germanic/wuldrą perhaps?);
Though it is partially personal preference, I think 5th-6th century is too early for an Old Dutch lemma, a reconstructed Frankish lemma would be fine to me;
Old Dutch lemmas shouldn't contain a 'v-' at the start of a word, as for standardization. This is only possible as an newer form of 'f-' (which can't be the case because this woman is from the 5th to 6th century) or a Latinization of 'w-' (and I dislike using Latinizations for lemmas).
The source is Gregory of Tours, 6th C.. In hindsight should probably be edited to ==Latin== and the headword marked as {{la-proper noun|Vultragotha<1>|g=f}} {{tlb|la|Early Medieval Latin}}. was cleaning up a lot of entries erroneously marked as OHG because Forstemann uses the term "Altdeutsche" meaning old Germanic and the creator didn't check the sources for the date or location. A Frankish name so wasn't sure where to change it to, since it's not a reconstruction. Forstemann links it to (RC:Proto-Germanic/wuldrą). the second element has always been difficult, almost never being used for female names after the 6th C. (unless it's *gunþiz, but then i'd expect a 3rd-declension Latinization). Nicoletti seems to have had another idea, but we can't ask her.Griffon77 (talk)21:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Speedy keep, invalid argument. I think that "Holocaust denial" was deleted as being SOP, an argument that does not apply to one-word terms. In general, terms in different languages should be considered on their own merits. ‑‑Lambiam09:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. The English entry was for a two-word phrase that was SOP. The Swedish entry is a one-word compound and isn't subject to deletion as SOP. —Mahāgaja ·talk09:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Agree todelete as SoP. The partcó thừa can be added to other feelings, such asđam mê có thừa orgợi cảm có thừa. @Erminwin, do you have any comments?MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please hear my reason (albeit Sinocentric) to keep it: From original Classical Chinese quote餘勇可賈 (SV:dư dũng khả cổ),餘勇 (SV: dư dũng) is extracted, calqued into Vietnamese asdũng cảm có thừa(“to have courage in excess”), from whichcó thừa(“to have in excess”) is then extracted. Still, I understandDuchuyfootball's &MuDavid's objection.Erminwin (talk)12:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think it seems like the "phrase" can be used as an adjective. You can see it in the currentlylast two quotes. The Chinese entry also has two senses, so probably one of those could be used as a reference to revise the senses (and finally be idiomatic). But then we can't really much rely on it because there is often a corruption of original senses, such that also seen in Confucianism's "tòng phu" (to obey orders of the husband) vs. Vietnamese "theo chồng" (simply to abide by the husband - the original meaning being corrupted and simplified).HungKhanh0106 (talk)16:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The Chinese entry also has two senses, so probably one of those could be used as a reference to revise the senses (and finally be idiomatic).餘勇可賈／余勇可贾 (yúyǒngkěgǔ)'s sense 1 "to be exceedingly valorous; to have extraordinary courage" is not that far away semantically fromdũng cảm có thừa's current sense "having outstanding courage; highly courageous" (as revised by you from "to have excessive courage; to be exceedingly courageous"). Still, afaik,dũng cảm có thừa cannot be used to translate餘勇可賈／余勇可贾 (yúyǒngkěgǔ)'s sense 2 "to be ready for more challenges; to be untiring for further exploits".
I also appreciate that you added Hoàng Phủ Ngọc Tường's quote whereindũng cảm có thừa,apparently as one unit, modifieslòng, which in combination with the HCM's quote whereindũng cảm có thừa,apparently as one unit, modifiestinh thần, proves thatdũng cảm có thừa isapparently one full-fledged, idiomatic adjective.
Even so, one can still argue:
thatlòng dũng cảm có thừa results from scrambling the "default" word-order of the verbal SoPcó thừa lòng dũng cảm, comprisinglòng dũng cảm pluscó thừa, and
thattinh thần dũng cảm có thừa as resulting from scrambling the "default" word-order of the verbal SoPcó thừa tinh thần dũng cảm, comprisingtinh thần dũng cảm pluscó thừa.
Well! I've argued against my own case thatdũng cảm có thừa is one full-fledged, idiomatic adjective.
One last argument for my case thatdũng cảm có thừa is one full-fledged, idiomatic adjective that wiktionary shouldkeep is:
dũng cảm có thừa is attested much earlier (as early as HCM's 1951 quote) thanđam mê có thừa (attested after 2000) orgợi cảm có thừa (attested after 2000) adduced byMuDavid. I can argue thatdũng cảm có thừa is one full-fledged, idiomatic adjective, and it has given rise to this formula[insert nominal direct object here] có thừa to create more adjectives, explaining the exact word-order "nominal direct object > verb > adverb" indũng cảm có thừa,đam mê có thừa, orgợi cảm có thừa. 14:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I feel likezo in the meaning of “if” is rather restricted in modern speech, and it feels like modern expressions that use it are becoming set phrases.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hebrew (‘to break the law’). While certainly a collocation, it is clear that this sense of the word can be applied to a range of objects. I admit that dictionaries do not give this as a dedicated meaning forעָבַר, relegating it instead to its derived expressions, but I find this contrary to Wiktionary principles.
Milon Even-Shoshan gives in its list of expressions featuringעָבַר the combinationsעבר על מצווה,עבר על דין,עבר על דברים, as well as the transitiveעבר את מצוותו,עבר את פיו. (Perhaps a native speaker may lend his expertise and inform us of nuances of register, frequency and currency—which professional Hebrew dictionaries never bother to do.)
In consequence, I propose deleting this entry and adding the following toעָבַר:
Such a change would have prevented me from learning about this idiom as a consequence of looking up חוק. I would recommend leaving the reference and duplicating it for עבר.SwiftSurge (talk)05:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
A collocation (as suggested above by me) is more prominent than a mere link, but it’s true that we should duplicate the information acrossעבר andחוק. ―K(ə)tom (talk)09:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The phrase is common and not vulgar. It has a colloquial feel but actually is standard in legislation (העובר על חוק זה צפוי ל... the transgressor of this law is to be...). With variations of preposition, the collocation goes back to the dead sea scrolls, and (more loosely) even to Isaiah 24:5.
I'm not sure about idiomacy: the combination with the prepositionעל seems to be reserved to a. these, b. to pass by, ignore (an insult), c. to "go over" (a draft etc). The only direct object for the verb עבר that uses this sense isעבירה, AFAIK.Danny lost (talk)02:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The letteri in this entry is Latin rather than Cyrillic. Generally, a single Kazakh word should not be written in multiple scripts. In addition, there has already been a correct entry I created years ago (келі).
In consequence, I propose deleting the entry *келi.
Latest comment:7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tamil. @Pixelpito There seem to be a lot of online citations for this term. Could you elaborate on why it should be deleted? For example, is it an improper adaptation from English?Kutchkutch (talk)07:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Translingual. Absolutely no reason for this to exist - at least the other fractions are a single codepoint. This one isn't. Mathematical trivia does not make this any more entryworthy. —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/13:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
every entry in "Category:German terms spelled with :", "Category:German gender-neutral terms", "Category:German gender-neutral nouns", plus the categories
Latest comment:6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The so-called gender-neutral spellings of words listed in these categories are neither firmly established nor officially standardized in German. No references are given, either.HГq (talk)11:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This supposed suffix is only attested inǣmenne, and there is no reason to interpret this as anything butǣ- +mann +-e with umlaut. I see no reason why we would have a page for it when there's no indication that it truly existed.Vergencescattered (talk)00:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. This is not an infix, but a duplicate of the Azerbaijani entry -ş, which can occur word-final (e.g. intanış, the second-person singular imperative oftanışmaq). ‑‑Lambiam09:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Turkish. Tagged forverification on December 6, 2022, but not listed. I think this should be deleted, even if it can be "verified". For one thing, this is a clearly transparent sum of the nounsahip(“owner”) and the "reconstructed" verb*imek(“to be”). You can say, "sahip imişsiniz" – "apparently, you are the owner". You can likewise say, "baba imişsiniz" – "apparently, you are the father", "şef imişsiniz" – "apparently, you are the boss", and so on and so forth. Then,to own is transitive, whereassahip *imek is intransitive. Furthermore, when you specify the item possessed, you need to use the possessive, changing the form of the noun: "Bu evi beğendik.Sahibi imişsiniz." "We like this house. Apparently, you are the owner." ‑‑Lambiam12:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Indonesian. Does the SoP rule apply to cliticized terms like this? Anyway, I think this is SoP becauseku- is a clitic and not a real inflecting prefix, and it is optional and doesn't always have to be in front of verb for example "kutelah tahu", "telah kutahu" and "aku telah tahu" (all mean I already knew) are all acceptable, just like the clitic-ku which is aslo optional for example "anakku" and "anak aku" are both acceptable.Alfarizi M (talk)10:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
The SOP rule generally doesn't apply to terms conventionally written together without a space, at least in languages written in scripts that use word spacing, which Indonesian is. Still, the Indonesian editors could get together and agree to exclude things like this, and have that agreement recorded atWT:AID. —Mahāgaja ·talk15:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I votekeep by thein between test: the concatenation is in my experience more common than usingSéc on its own. In casual speech, countries are either mentioned just by name (Đức) or preceded withnước (nước Đức), butSéc is as a rule preceded withcộng hoà even in colloquial speech, making it an exception.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)00:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sanskrit. This is just two words in a sandhi contraction (वसधा + एव). Therefore, this entry is non-idiomatic. It also doesn't have the declension listed since एव is indeclinable— Thisunsigned comment was added byStromchaser1 (talk •contribs) at08:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC).Reply
@Graearms: More importantly, it's missing the breathing mark that is supposed to be on the first syllable of every Ancient Greek word that starts with a vowel or diphthong. OurAncient Greek entry guidelines are very clear that such diacritics are required wherever applicable.οικονομέω(oikonoméō) (created by the same Finnish IP) has the same problem. There are plenty of other entries they've created that do have the breathing marks, so it looks like they just got sloppy here.Delete. @Mahagaja.Chuck Entz (talk)02:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The page title was misspelled, and the correctly spelled pageאַנטלויף(antloyf) already existed, so I've moved all the information there manually.
The misspelling in the title is because in Yiddish final fey (ף) should not take the rofe/rafe diacritic (the horizontal bar over it), only initial and medial fey (פֿ).OuroborosSys (talk)18:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
While corporations/companies are pretty much always deleted, some editors vote keep on the ones that have derived terms, related terms or synonyms in order for the corporation to exist as a convenient link-able entry, sort of like ade facto”etymology hub”. I think this is silly but eh,Microsoft evidently hastons of derived terms, hence I knew it would fail an RfD. The EN entry forApple had either none or very few (at least at the time of nomination), and was thusdeleted unanimously.LunaEatsTuna (talk)19:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Ukrainian. It's just-лог(-loh) +-иня(-ynja). That is, female-equivalent feminine nouns ending in "...логиня" are derived by suffixation of-иня to the corresponding masculine noun ending in "...лог".Voltaigne (talk)17:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've searched far and wide but cannot find any real attestations of "konata mono" as an Esperanto translation of "cash". Using Glosbe, it would appear that the usual translation of "cash" in Esperanto is rather "kontanta mono", and indeed I can find plenty of attestations of that across the Internet, and Esperanto Wikipedia itself has a page for "kontanta mono" but not "konata mono". So I'm figuring that this "konata mono" page is in all likelihood a Wiktionary user's eggcorn or otherwise misspelling of the actual term "kontanta mono".
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Serbo-Croatian. The correct form of this suffix is-nje. The "a" comes from the preceding verb stem and isn't a part of the suffix itself.Vouckal (talk)15:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Serbo-Croatian. The correct form of this suffix is-nje. The "e" comes from the preceding verb stem and isn't a part of the suffix itself.Vouckal (talk)15:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, the only others they created are Dutchpaspoortnummer and GermanPassnummer, both of which are acceptable because they're single words written without a space. But I do think either both Czechčíslo pasu and Englishpassport number are SOP and should be deleted, or they're bothfried eggs and should be kept (a passport has a lot of numbers in it, but only one is the passport number). —Mahāgaja ·talk06:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Indonesian. Rationale was "this is not how Indonesian verbs should be treated. 'kau-' is just a proclitic, not a (obligatory) person marker. The definition is also wrong, this is not passive."
and with a declension change (normal for u-declension cf. frid fromfridu) in the formhad at the end of names. entries of words found only in personal names are frequently entered as prefixes or suffixes when they appear in both positions. I suggest move tohadu with qualifier "only in personal names and their derivatives."Griffon77 (talk)20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Like most u-declension nouns however it regularly passed into the a-declension, and hadu only survives in older compounds where theu serves as a linking vowel. The regular lemma form ishad, with the dative frequently as a prefix. I'd therefore suggest moving it tohad with usage notes.Griffon77 (talk)03:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you understand anything? In Old High German, Proto-West Germanic u-stems regularly pass into the a-stem, with only a few exceptions. Even fridu, which mostly retains the u-stem declension, has an attested a-stem variant, which is the form regularly used in personal names (fem. names use an alternate root frida from Proto-Germanic *frijaz+*-iþo, giving a long /i:/ vowel, cognate with OE freoðu f.). Although the same thing happens in Old Dutch, there's no evidence it happened in Proto-West Germanic, as early u-stem forms are sometimes attested in the daughter languages (OE more often retains the u-stem).https://archive.org/details/altbairischegram00scha/page/114/mode/1up?view=theaterGriffon77 (talk)17:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Old High German. cited references have no mention of the term or its etymology, doesn't appear to be attested in any form anywhere else. previously listed descendants do not exist or have other origins. remaining German name is Plattdeutsch, not High German. the majority of the entries created by this user seem to be based on Soviet-era communist propaganda, still available on early the Belarusian Wikipedia, denying the existence of Lithuanians as a separate people from the Germans with their own language. They urgently need to be removed.
The notes should be rewritten to be less confusing, but I don't think this should be deleted, since there is some evidence that ὗ (hû) was used as the name of the letter. E.g. LSJ says "ὗ is aspirated in AP 9.385.20 (Steph.Gramm.), 11.67.1 (Myrin.) cod.Pal.; the Coptic name he (cf. Arm. hiun) may indicate that the early name was ὗ, which seems also to be implied by Serv. ad Verg. A. 1.744: alii dicunt Hyadas dictas vel ab Y littera, vel ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑός".--Urszag (talk)20:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'll take a look, but more explanation would help. Obviously names ending in "-lāf" existed in Old English. Assuming our inflection tables are correct, there is a difference in inflection class betweenlāff (ō-stem) and -lāf m. (a-stem), which is not just an automatic consequence of the adjustment in gender, since in contrast names ending in -mund likeĊēolmund are, according to our tables, ō-stem nouns like the base noun. The definition Griffon77 wrote indicates that the meaning also could be different, although I'm not really sure how to figure that out.--Urszag (talk)11:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
To clarify,no compound elements in dithematic names are suffixes or prefixes, including Old Englishlāf. The name element may indeed be ana-stem, or it may have been reanalyzed as such to conform to male names. Since you brought it up, trying to assign a meaning tolāf as a name element that differs from the nounlāf is speculative at best. --{{victar|talk}}04:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Serbo-Croatian. For one thing this is misspelled (it should bedivergentni niz) but for another thing it appears SOP. The equivalent in English,divergent sequence, is a red link as it's simply a mathematical sequence that is divergent (in the mathematical sense). (This actually makes me question whetherdivergent series, which exists, is SOP, along with all its translations.)Benwing2 (talk)19:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The meaning follows directly from the combination of the constituent words: "to familiarise sheep", and has no other meaning, making it SOP.Arafsymudwr (talk)07:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. This is literally "military uniform" and refers to precisely that - a uniform worn by the military. It doesn't have any other meaning so I'm calling SOP.Arafsymudwr (talk)16:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. This is literally "police livery" and all it is is a livery for police - livery/lifrai in English and Welsh referring to both uniform and to paint schemes for vehicles.Arafsymudwr (talk)16:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 days ago14 comments4 people in discussion
Translingual. I understand that we do not include characters that have no definitions other than a description? I have no experience with this, so tagging for RfD.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·07:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I guess the translingual section is not needed. For Zarma, the nasal i is less common than the other nasal vowels and tilde above is used instead of tilde below in Mali. --Moyogo (talk)18:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:14 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Old English. Same as withhafian; this paradigm has been assumed based on the regular imp.sg. ofsecgan and minority 2/3sg.prs.ind.sagas(t)/sagaþ. No other forms compatible with a wk II classification occur.
No, same problem. In fact, it's even worse there, because even 2/3 *gesagast/*gesagaþ are unattested, so it's based 100% off of the normal sg.imp. ofgesecgan —gesaga.
I have a few usage notes I prepared for the weak class III verbs that I think I'll go ahead & add, although I was never fully satisfied with my wording...
Latest comment:3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hebrew. Sense: “in the context of wikipedia, wikitionary, and related projects, it is to turn a red link into a blue link by creating a new article with that name, or redirecting to an existing article that relates.”J3133 (talk)15:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That one also appears similar to a typo in nature,unless it really is used deliberately. It could go either way for me.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·10:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This form has been removed from the declension table ofपर्शु(parśu) as some time ago I removed Vedic dative sg. on -ve (instead of -ave) for nouns with two consonants before the -u-.Exarchus (talk)12:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Form not attested in Tarifit, where it is attested asyur, which already has an entry. It is attested in the nearby Berber variant of Sanhaja de Srair, which is not considered a dialect of Tarifit but a separate language.
Not sure how to properly add references on this page so I've added some below!
Serhoual, Mohammed (2002),Dictionnaire tarifit-français, Tétouan: Université Abdelmalek Essaâdi
Maarten Kossmann (2009), “Tarifiyt Berber vocabulary.”, inWorld Loanword Database[40]— Thisunsigned comment was added byLankdadank (talk •contribs) at 08:58, 2025 August 28.
Latest comment:2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ukrainian. It currently only has one definition: "female equivalent of-як /-яч", but female equivalent nouns ending in '...ячка' are actually formed as [stem]як or [stem]яч +-ка(-ka). I propose that-ячка(-jačka) be deleted unless one or more instances of its use as an independently productive suffix (without intermediate forms ending in-як/яч) can be found.Voltaigne (talk)21:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@BodhiHarp: You can approximate the appearance of Occitancap in Cyrillic, but the fact that Tajikсар(sar) has the same definition is just a coincidence. No one actuallyuses the combination in question for the obsolete IPA character.Chuck Entz (talk)20:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a Cyrillic letter. Maybe you confused it with what the combination ԍ̡ would be. Edit: Maybe it's not the confusion of a Cyrillic letter.BodhiHarp (talk)21:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I argue that ◌̡ while not canonically equivalent to precomposed characters like ꞔ is used when no precomposed character exists. Also, when this character is encoded, we can move without leaving a redirect.BodhiHarp (talk)21:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
keep it's in the unicode pipeline for next year. presence or absence in unicode isn't the criterion for having an article, but notable things like IPA letters are generally created when they're in unicode. the unicode request notes that it occurs in Michael Job (1981)Grammatischer Wechsel im Lesgischen, Bedi Kartlisa 39, 279–296.
and yes, when people need to type a retroflex or palatalized letter that's not directly supported by unicode, they do indeed use the combining diacritics that are provided for that purpose. the two options [composed and atomic] are not canonically equivalent, but that's an error in unicode and not our concern. when the unicode character becomes available, we can move this article there, same as when we have articles with unsupported titles.kwami (talk)22:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep iff citations of it actually being used in the transcription of a language can be found, otherwisedelete. Unicode has said they're not creating any new characters that can be formed by combining existing characters. If the entry is kept, the Usage note should be rewritten, because the characteris in fact directly supported by Unicode, namely with "U+0262 U+0321". It's not a precomposed character, but that doesn't mean it's not supported by Unicode. —Mahāgaja ·talk08:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
palatalized and retroflex characters are an exception to that rule, partly because unicode messed up early on and they are not decomposable into letter + diacritic, but also because that rule applies when the diacritic and letter do not intersect or overlap. there are 24 characters with palatal hook in the pipeline for unicode 18 next year.kwami (talk)08:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ukrainian. Speedy deletion: erroneous spelling by myself. Right one is created:-єння.Talk:-їння is redirected.— Thisunsigned comment was added byD'Lisye (talk •contribs).
I suspect the reason it was created is that way back in August 2012,Hans-Friedrich Tamke for some inscrutable reason added [[als Baustein betrachtet]] to the entryStein as a Derived term, and it had been patiently sitting there as a red link until HerrGutmannsWiki created it 2 months ago. There are actually a whole lot of very dubious terms listed in the Derived terms section, including things that (like this one) aren't derived terms ofStein at all, but derived terms of derived terms. (In this case, if this phrase actually were idiomatic, it should be listed as a derived term ofBaustein, not ofStein.) —Mahāgaja ·talk10:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Omniglot seems to have taken it from Younis Kashali (2006-2008)Proposal for Marwari writing system[41][42] which is listed on the Marwari page but not used anymore. --Moyogo (talk)07:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Omniglot seems to have taken it from Younis Kashali (2006-2008)Proposal for Marwari writing system[43][44] which is listed on the Marwari page but not used anymore. --Moyogo (talk)07:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:18 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Malay. A new user marked all of my new Malay entries with-nya affixation for speedy deletion. He/she said that those shouldn't have their own entry. What is the general agreement on this?
The Wiktionary rule of thumb seems to be: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.". This was exactly my case. I am a learner of Malay and use a Malay-English dictionary based on Wiktionary to look up terms. Naturally something likeisterinya does not show up because it has no entry. That's why I wanted to add it to the dictionary.Renek78 (talk)01:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
While I appreciate the perspective of a learner (@Renek78), Wiktionary policy generally dictates that simple morphological derivations those meaning is entirely predictable from their components should not have their own entry, specifically underSum of Parts(SOP) criterion. The words "suaminya,bapanya,isterinya,etc.", are formed by combining a common noun (suami,bapa,isteri,etc.) with theobligatory third-person possesive suffix-nya.
1.Predictable Meaning: The meaning is predictable: (Root Noun) + 'his/her/its/their.'
2.No Idiomatic Meaning: The combination carriesno new specialised, or idiomatic meaning that is not covered by the entry for the root noun (suami,bapa,isteri,cucu,etc.) and the entry for the suffix-nya).
3.Lexical Overload: Creating individual entries for every noun +-nya combination (e.gmejanya,keretanya,bukunya,etc.) would result inmassive unnecessary lexical bloat that hinders maintenance and navigation. If we allow this for"suaminya, etc.", we must be consistent and allow it for all simple Noun +-nya combinations. The issue of lookup difficulty for learners is better addressed by improving thesearch function to include entries that contain a known affix, rather than creating tens of thousands of redundant entries. The root noun entries (suami,bapa, etc.) already include fullinflection orderived terms tables that cover these forms.
@Ultimateria*Keep (Wipe/Delete) per Sum of Parts.*
While I appreciate the perspective of a learner (@Renek78), Wiktionary policy generally dictates that simple morphological derivations those meaning is entirely predictable from their components should not have their own entry, specifically underSum of Parts(SOP) criterion. The words "suaminya,bapanya,isterinya,etc.", are formed by combining a common noun (suami,bapa,isteri,etc.) with theobligatory third-person possesive suffix-nya.
1.Predictable Meaning: The meaning is predictable: (Root Noun) + 'his/her/its/their.'
2.No Idiomatic Meaning: The combination carriesno new specialised, or idiomatic meaning that is not covered by the entry for the root noun (suami,bapa,isteri,cucu,etc.) and the entry for the suffix-nya).
3.Lexical Overload: Creating individual entries for every noun +-nya combination (e.gmejanya,keretanya,bukunya,etc.) would result inmassive unnecessary lexical bloat that hinders maintenance and navigation. If we allow this for"suaminya, etc.", we must be consistent and allow it for all simple Noun +-nya combinations. The issue of lookup difficulty for learners is better addressed by improving thesearch function to include entries that contain a known affix, rather than creating tens of thousands of redundant entries. The root noun entries (suami,bapa, etc.) already include fullinflection orderived terms tables that cover these forms.
Delete. Sounds reasonable. I will stop adding those words to Wiktionary. Thanks for your input. In the meantime, I’ve been in touch with the maintainer of an eBook dictionary project. He kindly implemented an automation that redirects possessive forms to the base word’s translation, and he’s planning to extend this to other affixes as well. We’re currentlydiscussing those improvements — it would be great if a native Malay speaker could join that discussion. --Renek78 (talk)08:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
"It would be great if a native Malay speaker could join the discussion"
Easydelete for most of the following "noun + -nya" constructs for now due to them being SOP, and the fact that “-nya” can be capitalised with a hyphen does not help either.TNMPChannel (talk)16:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Not only is this SOP, but in most contexts the translationavow is not in the right register or gives unwarranted connotations. A straightforward literal word-by-word translation, such as “state clearly” or “tell openly”, is almost always preferable. ‑‑Lambiam18:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Slovak. The entry was created as an alleged suffix extracted fromkostra. However, after revising the etymology ofkostra on the basis of credible sources (Rejzek, Králik), it is clear that the word is not simply segmentable askosť +-ra. No evidence supports the existence of such a suffix elsewhere in the language, and the formation of kostra is explained through inherited Proto-Slavic material rather than productive Slovak morphology. The suffix entry therefore lacks justification. The inflected forms should be deleted too.TomášPolonec (talk)20:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Undefined characters from the Latin Extended Additional block
Latest comment:11 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Per @Polomo's RfD above, I'm nominating several articles linked fromAppendix:Unicode/Latin Extended Additional that have no definition, or that have a translingual section with no definition. Instead of a definition, these pages have the Unicode name or a similar physical description of the letter, but no description of usage.
I have been asked to RfD such character articles together rather than individually. I'm restricting myself to this one Unicode block for now, but there are similar non-definitions of characters from other blocks.
I recommend deletion unless people find examples of usage that we can describe. (I have looked for all of them; those above are the ones that remain unaccounted for.)
In the case ofḁ, we do list the IPA usage, but this is sum-of-parts and as such is ineligible for an article/section.
ḝ,ṥ,ṧ,ṩ are used in the ISO 259:1984 Romanisation ofHebrew.
For the others it’s not always super clear why they are as single characters in Unicode, besides some other Romanisation or phonetic transcriptions. --Moyogo (talk)10:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for adding those. Most articles are now just for section deletion.
For ṻ, I can't access Oniani 2005, but Palimaitis & Gudjedjiani 1986 and Tuite 1997 both have ǟ, ȫ, ǖ with the macron on top. Omniglot seems to be an outlier in using ṻ, perhaps because the Unicode character was available, or interference from the Georgian script.kwami (talk)22:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Zulu.
We have a Zulu entry for this because this Greek "Q" letter kinda sorta looks like an obsolete letter that Norwegian missionaries used to spell a click sound, and Unicode doesn't have a codepoint for that. I'd rfv it, but its use dates to long before the digital era and so this is basically the equivalent of a scanno.Chuck Entz (talk)19:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Tempted to say we should speedy this. @Kwamikagami has a long-standing habit of assuming that Unicode codepoints are a free-for-all if there's some kind of vague resemblance between characters, despite that being against one of the primary underlying design principles of Unicode, which is that codepoints refer to character identities, not the glyphs used to represent them, which is why Latin A, Greek Α and Cyrillic А are three separate characters, for instance.Theknightwho (talk)00:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
My understanding was that our articles are supposed to be about letters or symbols, not Unicode characters, and that whether Unicode unifies or disunifies uses or forms of a letter/symbol is not directly relevant for Wiktionary.
Delete — SAMEER(・・؏)21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
} or {printed 𝐍, handwritten ℕ} or anything like that. Which isn't surprising – this is no different from how new full-fledged words and meanings are gained, e.g.#.
![[33]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fba.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2f%25D0%25A4%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B9%25D0%25BB%3aBash_Yanalif_text.JPG){kind=link}