Overview: This page is fordisputing theexistence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets theattestation criterion as specified inCriteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted toWiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in theEtymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in theTea Room.
Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template{{rfv}} or{{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and thenmake a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it:Google Books is a good place to check, others are listedhere (WT:SEA).
Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement ofattestation as specified ininclusion criteria, do one of the following:
Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
Cite, on the article page, usage of the word inpermanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; seeWT:CFI.)
In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.
Recording negative findings: Editors who make a fair effort to find citations but fail to do so should state their negative result on this page (even if it only repeats another editor's negative result).
Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:
Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
Adding a comment to the discussion here with eitherRFV-failed orRFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time. In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors useRFV-resolved for such situations).
Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using theaWa gadget, which can be enabled atWT:PREFS.
Latest comment:3 months ago15 comments4 people in discussion
As categorized by UNESCO and as discussed inWikipedia, fluent speakers of the actual Jeju language were all born in the 1940s or earlier. The following terms relating to modern concepts are not likely to be found in traditional Jeju, which was spoken solely by impoverished peasants. As what is now spoken in Jeju Island—an indubitably Korean dialect—is not what we mean by Jeju in Wiktionary, I believe these entries should all be deleted unless someone can provide an actual early attestation (preferably from the very first academic studies of the dialect, in the 1960s). TheDigital Museum for Endangered Languages and Cultures orthe NIKL dictionaries ported at Urimalsaem is not necessarily reliable in this regard, since they do not really make this distinction.
To anyone who's going through these, please donot delete them for now, as I'm finding cites and am planning on making a complete update soon, but have been behind recently. Thanks!AG202 (talk)07:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I know that your opinions have changed a lot since this comment and that we've been able to find a TON of material made in Jeju, so I don't fault you at all for making them at the time. Since the start of the revitalization efforts, there have been more materials being made in native Jeju by Jeju natives (and not in제주 사투리) and more lexicons being made, so I don't necessarily agree with saying that everything must be from pre-1960, as even if the only Jeju speakers were born in the 1940s or earlier (there are younger Jeju natives but they're more rare), they'd still be able to make up new terms for things that have come into play since then. However, I have deleted the senses that I am completely unable to find and don't think that I will find, per the RFV guidelines. Additionally, the cites that I have found have been written by-and-large in native Jeju and not Jeju-tinged Korean, by or the with consultation of native Jeju speakers and have been published either by the Jeju Preservation Society, the Jeju Provincial Government, or in related Jeju studies.AG202 (talk)00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
"Demon, Devil". Has Christian connotations to me as a native speaker of Korean, and not found in제주도무속자료사전 or other sources on Jeju religion; the very concept is alien to Jeju religious practice. Likely a late Christian introduction; the date is unknown, but Christianity was very marginal in Jeju until the 1950s and is still not particularly important there. If it fails RFV, should be changed to the Korean header with{{lb|ko|Jeju}}.
Reopening all. I apologize that it's taken this long, but as the only person who works on Jeju, I am still working on these RFVs, albeit much more passively. Please do not delete these entries or mark them as closed until I have properly gone through them, as I've previously stated.AG202 (talk)04:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
It has been almost five years since these were nominated. RFVs without citations can be closed after 30 days. I think these should be closed, and if you eventually find citations, the entries can be recreated. —Granger (talk·contribs)12:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am the only one working on Jeju citations, I would rather not have to recreate them. However, I'll give myself a month from today to get them done; if not, they can be deleted.AG202 (talk)12:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
WT:CHEM requires chemical formulae attestation outside of scientific/technical publications.The vote's rationale states "although many dictionaries cover at least some chemical formulae, no general-interest reference work would cover the millions that exist. The idea is that the rule will still allow the inclusion of chemical formulae that are in common use in publications written for a general audience." I understand this to mean that we should only attest terms if the general population could come across it.carbon only has quotations from general publications.
These terms can function much like prefixes and suffixes. It is satisfactory to attest prefixes/suffixes if they are part of other words, such as Esperanto's-ujo and English'sex-
I am not an expert in Dutch or chemistry. However, based on these findings, I conclude that the citations listed in this discussion do not meet CFI due to lack of conveying meaning. I recommend if one opposes based on belief and not on policy, then to engage this discussion at theWiktionary:Beer_parlour. Leaving the discussion open for challenge.TranqyPoo (talk)00:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not an expert, butin the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It's tricky, because it isn't part of the standard Latin-basedLinnaean nomenclature. TheAngiosperm Phylogeny Group uses English in the names for their taxonomic entities rather than Latin, and they're more interested in the tree structure than in assigning standard names for every rank- but they're describing things that don't have a name otherwise. I would call the result a parallel, unofficial naming system, but it's used in multiple languages, which makes it translingual. It's notthe system for taxonomic nomenclature, but it has its role.Chuck Entz (talk)16:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
It functions just the way the officially (ICZN, ICTV, LPSN, etc) sanctioned taxa do, aslamiids,rosids,eurosids, and a score or more of other APG clade names. It is neither here nor there, but I "feel" it to be a formal taxonomic name, as much as, say, the names of species of viruses (eg,Human alphaherpesvirus 1, which looks like a normal English NP, with an English adjective preceding the head).DCDuring (talk)16:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
RFV-failed. Last updated 2 years ago; cleaning upWT:RFVN. No citations provided that meetWT:CFI foreudicots. According toWT:AMUL, citations under Translingual can be from any language. It does not specify whether each citation must be a separate language from other citations. If you want to dispute whether it belongs under Translingual, please make a post inWT:RFM orWT:RFD. Otherwise, please provide citations before archival.TranqyPoo (talk)00:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Two of the citations linked refer toEudicots. I believe the previous comments indicate to assign those toEudicots, noteudicots. The other is a section title, which I don't think that meetsWT:CFI'sconveying meaning clause (please inform me if it does, I'm still learning). To me, the majority of this discussion seems like aWT:RFM request.TranqyPoo (talk)12:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
bàrzilo is already said in the first volume of{{R:sh:RJA}} to occur only inVuk Karadžić’s dictionary, it is an occasional formation along withbarzeša,barzica,barzulijca, and should be deleted. I have added the better-used base adjectives tobardhë which should suffice.
brdoka as well asbardoka have allegedly been used in Kosovo, but it is too specific to be found.
kàluša is usedhere andthere defined: Kaluša redovno ima veću pegu i na telu, najčešće na grudima, na trbuhu, na sapima u blizini korena repa, tamne noge do kolena i skočnog zgloba ili su noge poprskane pegama kao i kod ostalih domaćih pramenki. The bibliographic information and digitization status of these works is insufficient for me to format quotes.
strȕga has many attestations, e.g. quoted in{{R:sh:RSHKJ|page=37a|volume=6}}.
diza,dročka,hira are too hard, specific cheese manufacturing terms it seems, with much homonymy, so one can’t try too much.tȇša I see related by mentions inVanja Stanišić’sbookSerbo-Albanian language relations page 106 as a rather recent word but used by Albanians only in few places, so it is not worth it.
drȅteza only in works discussing Albanian words in Serbo-Croatian, and again fromVuk Karadžić.
šȍtka was the normal word for duck in some spots of Serbia, a whole isogloss but rural enough to escape the purview of the written language, however surely attested; I have added one quote from a Croatian who wrote a lot and probably picked it up there.
frȗs is mostly known fromVuk Karadžić’s dictionary, where it is given as Montenegrin – from a time whenMontenegro was a bunch of mountain shepherds barely anybody of whom could read and write; however you findфрус in brackets afterдобрац(“measles”), which looks like some Serbian doctors knew that it is called so in Montenegro. With the advancement of medicine, a lot of disease names have vanished, as is a common experience if you deal with them in any language. Evidently, the word must be labelled “obsolete”.
Here, on the other hand, I repeat my opinion of one year ago: I don’t think Lumbardhia made anything up, or intended to do so—while Surjection’s general suspicion of agents of the Albanian cause introducing fakes seems to be true, as there must be the liars somewhere and Albanians are known as deranged due to their recent history—, but these words are all traceable to dialectological literature, and to the extent I have outlined that one day one year ago the words are found in literature.Fay Freak (talk)04:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Re-added{{rfv}} to the following terms:struga,šotka. As stated byUser:Surjection, please add citations to meetWT:CFI. Serbo-Croatian is one of theWT:WDL. FromWT:ASH: "All words which meet Wiktionary's general criteria for inclusion are allowed, regardless of which dialect or subdialect/standard variety they are used in."TranqyPoo (talk)00:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TranqyPoo: This does not in turn mean that others are disallowed, or there are no special inclusion criteria for dialect or historical nonstandard varieties, e contrario indeed this implies some relaxation; bysystematic interpretation ofWT:WDL well-attestedness can only start to the time and to the extent when literacy pervaded a language community: As say Persian is included there even though printing books started long after 1800, while Arabic is explicitly subjected only as Modern Standard Arabic. Even in literalist understanding ofWiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Number of citations, the languages inWT:WDL are not meant in toto but in general.
Alsostruga is already securelycited even if the cites are not in the entry. Above I gave the reference including verbatim quotes. You should respect that it already took hours to work through such a long list.
Another point is that you should not make Wiktionary depend on Google’s database; to date we still cannot find theMacedonian word forNorth Macedonian after the country's renaming. It’s “unattested”, but I don't RFV because this is trolling, hence we see that we just be sure what entries are true; which causes you to doubt the philological status ofšotka?→ Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, in particular on Wiktionary when the language science has already been served.
You re-adding RFVs because “the discussion is still ongoing” is disingenuous. Over this decade I have not seen people adding Serbo-Croatian systematically, let alone quoting it, but incidentally when adding related terms; will we delete everything RFVed because nobody is there? Or will we keep RFVs forever? That's why I rough-handled the list.
Due to corpus limitations and the habitual userbase as the bottlenecks enabling us to add content, and comprehensive coverage of the obvious coverage gaps in major languages on the other hand, there has been little reason to assume that three quotes are currently expected in most foreign languages other than English, even if they are listed inWT:WDL. I may even contend thatWiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Number of citations in combination withWT:WDL is now largely ineffective, interpreted properly. You read and apply it incorrectly and against the rules (we intend to include all words …).Fay Freak (talk)16:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: I will attempt to address your points in a systematic fashion. Please let me know if I misinterpret them, as I will approach it with theprinciple of charity.
1. "Even in literalist understanding ofWiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Number of citations, the languages inWT:WDL are not meant in toto but in general." | From that reference states "Forlanguages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is usedis the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary". From aliteralist's perspective, this statement would be interpreted as amust, instead ofshould. Usingis without any further clarification speaks universally, not generally. Since Serbo-Croatian is considered one of theWT:WDL, this rule applies. If you disagree, please state so with references for evidence. If you do not believe that Serbo-Croatian should be listed as one of theWT:WDL or there should be further clarification on its attestation standards, I recommend consulting the Beer Parlor.
2. "Alsostruga is already securelycited even if the cites are not in the entry." | As statedhere, one must add the citation to the entry in order for it to be attested. There is no clarification that indicates it is a general rule (except for if the language has differentWT:CFI requirements), so it is interpreted as a universal statement. I am not discrediting the length in time it took to find citations. However, from my perspective (a person trying to clean upWT:RFVNIAW policies and guidelines), there isn't enough citations to meetWT:CFI. Please provide references that I may be lacking, so that I can be a more educated editor.
3. "The cites only need to exist, they need not to be easily found by us or at all" | I agree with this statement. Originally, I understoodWT:" as it needing the text of the citation, but nowhere states that it is required. Only words likeideally,should be,in general. It brings up a good question: Do citations require the text to meetWT:CFI? Can they simply just refer to the source without a passage? I think I'll take this to the Beer Parlor if you think not. Additionally, you may argue itsobsolete label. However, according toobsolete guidelines, it is still subject to theWT:CFI requirements. Unless you are claiming this word is considered part of an extinct language, it still must have three citations.
4. "which causes you to doubt the philological status of šotka?" | The lack of citations listed in the entry.
5. "You re-adding RFVs because “the discussion is still ongoing” is disingenuous" | One should not remove the{{rfv}} until the RFV discussion is closed, as statedhere. I re-added them to the entry just in case another fellow editor looking at the entry could contribute to the discussion, as it is technically still open. Even in the{{rfv}} banner states "do not remove{{rfv}} until the request has been resolved.". No one marked the request as resolved, nor was it mutually agreed.
6. "I may even contend thatWiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Number of citations in combination withWT:WDL is now largely ineffective, interpreted properly." | Please do so (preferably using the Beer Parlor) and I will subscribe. I am severely interested in how this place is supposed to work and what others think.
I find it amusing that you make the claim "I read and apply [the rules] incorrectly and against the rules" and you seem to purposely forget to finish the remaining quote, which is: "include all words in all languages,subject to the following criteria". I understand your frustration as you do not want to lose any work created here. If you want to discuss how Wiktionary should be handled, I would love to take this topic to one of our talk pages. Otherwise, please address my comments above with the proper policies and guidelines linked.TranqyPoo (talk)21:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TranqyPoo: 1. Three is just, as it says,the minimum one, for the regular case; only if the amorphous mass of language is defined, which is according to taste, the must can come into play. But even then the demand is only for uses to have existed; this implies some public process, then again relaxed for the amorphous nature of the concept of a language as a corpus.
2. What is written in the presentation ofWiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English is merely introductory for readers and not voted upon or otherwise generally considered to represent community consensus constituting regulations; an unofficial collage, after multiple splits of the page. It explains how the process would be neat and tidy, an ideal. Yet it is well known that a quote does not need to be on the article page, there is a whole namespace for citations; or sometimes terms are in table or chapter titles and hence too unillustrative though definitely attesting, therefore noted in talks to satisfaction. So thereare citations. I cannot provide for your inability or unwillingness to read them after already interpreting the rules explicitly.
3. You can have the quotes either finely formatted in the article page, in the citations namespace, in the talk pages for requests (and omitted for said lame title reasons or sometimes political considerations like influencing current elections by including quotes referring to candidates), or as here for some words already printed verbatim in other dictionaries (requiring to mirror would entail resolving their abbreviations at least, even more ideally sighting the original materials, and possibly plagiarization). Often I only add a linked page number as a cite of an edition because typing it off is extra work of choosing the beginning and end of the passage particularly in view of missing punctuation in medieval sources, and we cannot type all scripts and languages equally well.
4. You can conjecture the existence of further usage existing foršotka. It is irrational to assume it made up for this occasion;Occam's razor says we see our limited corpus here: certain common things people have used to upload in the last quarter of a century, and OCRed correctly: I have added fully cited Arabic words which had zero web hits, in spite of the web’s thirty years age and the hundreds of millions of speakers (not equalling readers, let alone archivists and online pirates): we are alone.
5. I closed the discussion after (and in so far as) I ascertained the veracity of certain terms, which is the intention of theverification process, and for scientific stringency has this fall-back in edge-cases, where it is more likely that a thing existed but we don't directly see as much as would like to, than it being a protologism or ghost-word. You can't generally explain to readers that we know a dialect word even with a clear quote but unfortunately could not point to this knowledge in an entry because it was only one or two uses but not three we could show.
6. You put arbitrary formalist emphasis on “there is a [WDL] section → hence three needs to be added if requested” without recognizing the criteria formulation as a manual for editors to avoid mistakes in copying fabricated content—hence in fact the emphasis on the use–mention distinction unknown from other Wiktionaries, but well illustrated by the recurring requests and actions of driveby editors to add their own new words—and manage their limited resources on the other hand (somehow a word must be defined and other Wikimedia projects demarcated). We observe workarounds not documented in the manual.Fay Freak (talk)22:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I can see him citing Omari's literature. I'm not sure how reliable that book is. Does anyone here have this book for verification?Chihunglu83 (talk)01:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
While Modern Standard Arabic is awell-documented language and therefore subject to stricter attestation rules, according to my understanding Classical Arabic is exempt. So, under the more lenient standards, this could probably pass, but that would require someone to actually add the quote from Ibn Manzur and/or Ibn Khalawayh to the entry, and maybe to label the term as classical/archaic/rare if applicable.70.172.194.2508:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
RFV-failed. Cleaning upWT:RFVN, last updated 2 years ago. No citations added to the entry. There is a claim that the term is possibly Classical Arabic, which could lessen attestation requirements. Please provide objections or add citations to the entry before archival.TranqyPoo (talk)01:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Searching on Google appears to yield many results of modern-style writings (that is, ones that might be dismissed assolecisms). There are, nevertheless, a few medieval-style resultslike this one that seem to capture the meaning of "fleshy plant products". Modern Standard Arabic occurrences though are far more frequent in this sense.Roger.M.Williams (talk)19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Roger.M.Williams: Fix your link! I abstain from this issue, dealing with so microscopic a sense distinction. If you see such senses then it is perhaps you who could … ehm add at least one clear quotation. If it’s from the web maybe an occurrence by an image makes it clear.Fay Freak (talk)22:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
“It's possible, but the form would obviously be irregular in High German. As of now it is not given in the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. The source is not scientific and it doesn't strictly say that the word is High German. It only says that it was found by a contributor to the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch, which doesn't rule out that the gloss may be Old Saxon or Low Franconian.”
Well, the word is given as an example of a German word and attestation in an Old Dutch work is particularly unlikely, so the real problems are the apparently irregular form and the fact that this is a rather unusual source.←₰-→LingoBingoDingo (talk)16:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Source has:
"Zahlreichedeutsche Wörter aus dem achten bis zehnten Jahrhundert sind nur als Anmerkungen und Übersetzungshilfen am Rand oder zwischen den Zeilen lateinischer Texte überliefert. Tausende dieser sogenanntenGlossen wurden erst in letzter Zeit entdeckt und untersucht. Zu ihnen gehört „cunta“, eine vulgäre Bezeichnung für das weibliche Sexualorgan, die als Übersetzung von „pudenda“ am Rand einer kirchengeschichtlichen Handschrift desneunten Jahrhunderts auftauchte."
It's only saying "German", and doesn't clarify whether it's "High German" or "High and Low German". And if it's the latter, it's open whether Low German would be "Old Saxon" or "Low Franconian and Old Saxon". Also as it's only a gloss: If there are no other glosses near to it with clear Low or High German features, who knows what language the gloss is in?— Thisunsigned comment was added by2003:de:3721:3f17:7586:a748:4156:7e79 (talk) at16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC).Reply
I agree. Thesource cited makes it clear the authors consider it Old High German. They don't discuss why it hast rather than the expectedz, but since Middle High Germankunt also has at (and is unambiguously a High German form since the poem cited at that entry also contains the wordslāfen withp →f), the presence of thet by itself doesn't preclude this from being a High German form. —Mahāgaja ·talk09:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am challenging the meaning 'Tai Laing'; the previous discussion established the meaning as 'Mon', but we are now facing an edit war over the meaning. It's conceivable that the word has had both meanings, but I see no evidence of the meaning 'Tai Laing' being used in Burmese. Moreover, 'Tai Laing' shows every appearance of being anautonym, though I don't know how seriously we should take the claim that they are a branch of theTai Daeng of Vietnam. --RichardW57 (talk)22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't see that the previous discussion established that; the only evidence pasted directly into the thread (by someone who didn't sign their post) was Judson'sBurmese-English Dictionary, which has "တလိုင်း, n. a Peguan Talaing, [..]" (a dictionary being enough for a LDL). I've tagged the "Mon" sense with RFV, too, so both senses are now tagged: let there be citations/references added to the entry for whichever one(s) are attested (I added the reference for the Tai Laing sense).- -sche(discuss)02:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Keep 'Mon'. Actually, you added the well-nigh clinching reference for the 'Mon' sense! I can't see which bit ofTalaing you didn't understand. I've used the Judson template to link to a later edition of the dictionary. I'm not sure whether to add amention to complete the definition ofTalaing.— Thisunsigned comment was added byRichardW57 (talk •contribs) at07:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC).Reply
Re "I can't see which bit ofTalaing you didn't understand": well, as I don't like to time travel, at the time I commented I c0uldn't see any part of that entry that you created several hours after my comment, but I realizenow the Tai Laing and Talaing are distinct.- -sche(discuss)19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57,Did you know that Ta Laingတလိုင်း is a hate speech invented by the extremist Dog Burmese people? the fact that you are trying to express the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း, coined by the extremist Dog Burmese people, is a human animal that encourages extremism, if you are trying to express the Ta Laingတလိုင်း term coined by extremist Burmese people, it means that you are also trying to attack the Mon people. I did not believe that you would become an educated animal, if you are a real human being, you will never ruin someone else's history. The fact that you are now fabricating the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း as Mon just shows that you are an extremist terrorist, do you have strong evidence that the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is Mon? when the Mon people object that the term Ta Laingတလိုင်း is not Mon, you are trying to be Mon is an extremist act, have you received a vote from Mon people to describe the term Ta Laing as Mon? Ta Laingတလိုင်း is an objection because is not Mon. Do not show propaganda books published by extremist Dog Burmese people as evidence of Ta Laing terminology, there are many Ta Laingတလိုင်း related propaganda books published by extremist Dog Burmese people. Those who believe in the propaganda Ta Laing book released by extremist Burmese people are ignorant animals, you should collect votes from Mon people to describe the term Ta Laing as Mon, now you are accusing Ta Laingတလိုင်း of being Mon, this is very rude, if you are a real polite person, you should describe Mon as Mon, you are very rude when you now describe Ta Laingတလိုင်း as Mon.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk)12:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The issue of this term being offensive and another term being preferred seems like something to resolve by adding the label "(offensive)" or "(now offensive)"; also, we should expand the etymology to note the folk etymological interpretation which has led to it being considered offensive. But apparently the sense does exist (in the past) after all.- -sche(discuss)19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't be surprised if the term still existed as a way for Burmans to bait Mons. According to WP it still exists in a technical sense for poetry. --RichardW57 (talk)20:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dr Intobesa has given a different account inUser_talk:RichardW57#Stop trying to lie တလိုင်း. I think we've been misled because of the development of the Burmese digraph "ui". It seems that the Shans and the Mons became allies in a revolt in 1740 and consequently came to share an appellation. If this story is correct (I've verified none of it as yet), then we can even merge the two 'etymologies'. We still need verification for the initial and linking senses of the word under the new explanation, and the 'synonyms' for Etymology 2 need to be checked. --RichardW57 (talk)14:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57, Tai Laing is the spelling of ထႆးလႅင်, there are two types of spelling of Shan people. The Shan people use the spelling of the Shan language vocabulary used in English in two different spelling words, ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆးယႂ်ႇ or ၽႃႇသႃႇထႆးယႂ်ႇ, the spelling of the word ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး was used by the Shan people to mean the whole Shan language. The Burmese people call Thai and Shan is ရှမ်းShan, but in the literature they are divided into Shan, Thai. The Mon people call Thai, Shan, Laos is Siemသေံ, but in the literature they are divided into သေံSiem, သေံဇၞော်Siem Hanok, သေံလဴSiem Lav, see definition below.
(သေံSiem) definition=Thai
(သေံဇၞော်Siem Hanok) definition=Shan/ the spelling word Siem Hanok is the same as the Thai spelling ไทยใหญ่Thai Yai.
(သေံလဴSiem Lav) definition=Laos
The word Tai Laing is probably the pronunciation of ထႆးလႅင်, so it could be Ta Laingတလိုင်း, see also the following explanation for words with the same spelling pronunciation in English, Shan, Thai, Burmese.
(Shan=ထႆး) (English=Thai) (Thai=ไทย) definition=The (ထႆးThaiไทย) spelling shown here is the same for all pronunciations.
(Shan=လႅင်) (English=Laing) (Burmese=လိုင်း/example=Ta Laingတလိုင်း) definition=The (လႅင်Laingလိုင်း) spelling shown here is the same for all pronunciations, Shan people can use two spellings ထႆး or တႆး. example=Shan languages can be said to use this ထႆးလႅင် or တႆးလႅင် term, consider the current spelling usage of Shan people in Burma and Shan people in Thailand.
Shan=(ၽႃႇသႃႇထႆးယႂ်ႇ) English=(Thai Yai language) Thai=(ภาษาไทยใหญ่) definition=(Shan language) explanation=These are the spelling words used by the Shan people in Thailand.
Shan=(ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆးယႂ်ႇ) English=(Tai Yai language) Thai=(ภาษาไทใหญ่) definition=(Shan language) explanation=These are the spelling words used by the Shan people in Burma. I am a qualified writer in literature, learn the vocabulary spelling that I have explained in detail, I would also like to warn you to avoid accusations that hurt a certain ethnic group on Wiktionary. The Wiktionary is a dictionary website, so only dictionary terms are appropriate, it is totally inappropriate to write accusations that hurt an ethnic group on Wiktionary, thanks.--Music writer Dr.Intobesa of Japanese idol NMB48 and BNK48. (talk)10:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
And you should be aware of the Shan word တႆးလူင် (I hope I've spelt it right) used for the main Shan group. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding it in Thai or Shan script. The literal Thai transliteration would beไทยหลวง; the form I encounter in English is 'Tai Long' and I can even find a section of theTai-Lōng Tipiṭaka.— Thisunsigned comment was added byRichardW57 (talk •contribs) at20:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC).Reply
@RichardW57, The term Tai Laing has nothing to do with the term တႆးလူင် and ไทยหลวง, the correct pronunciation of the word ไทยหลวง is Thai Luang. Similarly, the correct pronunciation of the word တႆးလူင် is Tai Luang, the definitions of တႆးလူင်Tai Luang and ไทยหลวงThai Luang are different, check out the following definitions of တႆးလူင်Tai Luang and ไทยหลวงThai Luang.
(Thai=ไทยหลวง pronunciation=Thai Luang) (Burmese=ထိုင်းတော်ဝင် pronunciation=Thai Taw Win) (English=Thai royal) (other spelling words=Thai=ราชวงศ์ไทย/Burmese=ထိုင်းတော်ဝင်မိသားစု/English=Thai royal family) (definition=The term ไทยหลวงThai Luang and Rachngs Thaiราชวงศ์ไทย means members of the royal family of the King of Thailand.)
(Shan=တႆးလူင် pronunciation=Tai Luang) (Burmese=ရှမ်းစော်ဘွား pronunciation=Shan Saw Bwar) (English=Shan royal) (another spelling word in Burmese language=Shan Nang Dwinရှမ်းနန်းတွင်း or ရှမ်းနန်းတွင်းသူShan Nang Dwin Thu) (definition=The term တႆးလူင်Tai Luang refers to the ancient Shan King Family.
There's a discussion of the naming ofTai groups at[8]. As I would hope you know, Shanတႆး(tái), Thaiไทย(tai) andไท(tai), EnglishThai,Tai and pinyinDai are all essentially the same word, but to varying degrees specialised to designate specific groups of speakers. In some Tai dialects (I can confirm it for Northern Thai, i.e. the dialect of Lanna), the cognate of Thaiหลวง(lǔuang,“high”) has replaced the cognate of Thaiใหญ่(yài,“big”) as the usual word for 'big'. As the article says on p27 from journal, northern Shans "เรียก พวกตนเองว่าไทใหญ่ (Tai Yai) หรือไทโหลง (Tai Long) โหลงเป็นคําเดียวกับคําว่าหลวง" (call themselves 'Tai Yai' or 'Tai Long'. 'Long' (โหลง is the word corresponding to the [Thai] wordหลวง.)
It would seem that Thais useไทโหลง because of the royal meaning ofไทหลวง.
Latest comment:10 months ago12 comments5 people in discussion
There is an obsolete meaning "to support a person in the advancement of their career". But the only use of this sense that remains today is sense #3. I would either delete sense #1 completely or change the description to the more general sense I stated above and mark this meaning as obsolete.Berndf (talk)13:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
German. Never heard this one. As far as I know,promovieren is strictly related to a doctorate degree, but the linked sense is clearly more general/broad. Duden, pons, DWDS and de.wikt also don't make any mention of this sense.In case this RFV fails, also remove the translation inpromote. --Fytcha (talk)14:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The transitive use occurs in the traditional formula conferring the degree, as seen here:„Auf Grund der von Sr. kaiserlichen und apostolisch königlichen Majestät der kön. ung. Tierärztlichen Hochschule allergnädigst gewährten Ermächtigungpromoviere ich Sie im Namen des Professorenkörpers dieser Hochschule zum Doktor der veterinärmedizinischen Wissenschaften.“[9] Here is a more recent, less formal use:‚Schließen Sie Ihr Studium ab. Dannpromoviere ich Sie.‘[10] --Lambiam15:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Which was, I guess, the intended meaning of sense 1, the only transitive sense listed before you added this third sense. This supposition of mine is supported by the label(education). However, in the second use I cited, it is not fully clear that the promotion is to an academic degree. --Lambiam09:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oh you're right, it is a possibility that this was the intended meaning of sense 1 by the previous editor. To me they are so semantically different (the English explanations, that is) that I didn't think this was what was intended but I can see the connection now.
The context makes it clear that the second use you've cited is also about an academic degree:
Was hat Sie dazu bewogen, die Professorinnen-Laufbahn einzuschlagen? - Die Initialzündung dazu hat ein Professor gegeben. Der hat mir noch während des Studiums gesagt: ‚Schließen Sie Ihr Studium ab. Dannpromoviere ich Sie.‘ ―What has motivated you to opt for the career path as a professor? - The first impetus was given to me by a professor. Still in my studies he told me: 'Finish your studies. Then I am going topromovieren you.'Fytcha (talk)12:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
But a professor does not have the power to confer a degree by themselves. The intention may have been, “I’ll be happy to be your PhD adviser”, presumably including an offer of a paid position as doctoral student. Used as such it would be – IMO – an abuse of terminology. --Lambiam09:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Obviously this was used in the 16–18th centuries just like in Latin, from which the doctorate senses are only particular applications. If you only look at de.Wiktionary, there are three old quotes. Maybe regard less what you have heard and more what was heard in former centuries? I find this usage very natural, however the gloss is wrong, I don’t know what they mean with “promote”, one shouldn’t gloss with just one word or anyone thinks of it what he wants to think of it, it’s actually no meaning at all but an “etymological equivalent”.Fay Freak (talk)16:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The sense that I have submitted to RfV is not labeled as(dated) or something comparable, neither is the translation provided inpromote that I've made mention of. I find it absurd that you suggest me to regard more what was heard in former centuries when the discussion circles around the modern form of the language. Moreover, I don't think there was anything on my part to explain your gruff tone towards me.Fytcha (talk)18:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha: You are right, as I said it is badly glossed and labelled, but editors often do not know if something is really not used now and only whether it has been used at all, so you should expect obsolete senses not labelled obsolete, but really, it is kind of easy pickings to conclude that back in the day – in the Baroque styleFruchtbringende Gesellschaft fought against – people just used any sense of the Latin word and then the doctorate sense developed, not just borrowed from Latin discourse.Fay Freak (talk)19:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
de.wp: "ein subsidium oder hilff [...] zulassen" – source: "einſubſidium oder hilff [...] zůlaſſen" – the Latinate term is set in another front and inzů- there's an small o above the u.
de.wp: "Bruderschaffe S. Jofephs" – source: "Bruderſchafft S. Joſephs" or simplified "Bruderschafft S. Josephs" – withBruderschafft (cp.Bruderschaft) andJoseph.
BTW why don’t you correct the typos, as it is a wiki? You have looked into the scans, so do it. Antiqua in Fraktur though is of course hard to mimick, and no grounds to exclude words, as many words which we needs include, or all wälsch words, were written this way.
Latest comment:4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
The given sources are Latin or Greek and havebricumum, βρικίνη (with variants),briginus, none of them hasbriginos. Thus it's *briginos, reconstructed from Latin/Greek "deformations". Compare how it's also Vandaliceils with alternative form*heils. --Myrelia (talk)18:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
This is not*briginos, this isbriginos. Scholars use to not put a star in front of this term, you are just abusing the terms “reconstructed” and “attested”.
The given sources being Latin or Greek does not hinder anything, since languages can be attested from mentions. It is no difference whether I put the Latin or Greek texts as collapsible “quotes” or mere ”citations” in a reference section, but the former is more customary for ancient works; yourself you just put Latin quotes in Vandalic entries and German in Old Prussian and the like.
The exact form is also attested, in the third quote.briginos, writtenbriginus because the author identified the Gaulish ending with the Latin ending, butthis does not make it Latin, the quote literally says it is Gaulish. And it is well known that sometimes an exact lemma form is not attested but only “a deformation”, also known as inflection.
Why this antic anyway of moving to the reconstruction space if it is attested? Something mindboggling for you: The word is attested, but none of its forms are. But the forms of a word do not need to be attested all. None need to be. I haveattested the term. This is as much as theCFI require.Fay Freak (talk)19:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Wort – Text – Sprache und Kultur has "Gall.*briginos/briginom war mithin schlicht die 'kräftige (i. S. v. sehr wirksame) Pflanze'", with star and two reconstructed forms, and here scholars too use a star.Mithridate / Mithridates (1555) has "Cf. [source], s.v.bricumos, briginos ? «armoise»", with a question mark.
And BTW: I haven't put any Latin quote in a Vandalic entry. Also not in Old Prussian (Elbing Vocabulary which I cited is in Middle High German and Old Prussian). --Myrelia (talk)19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
You are just citing friends who are also unsure how to use the star. Simultaneously you refer to one source which lacks the star, so you see that it is not necessary, only your personal preference. Under some conventionthe star would be putafter the term. On the other hand, often people do not even exactly know how a term is attested, therefore they star forms just to be cautious, without having sighted the loci. But this then does not even tell us whether the term or form is attested, in their view.
Still you dodge the fact that the CFI do not require particular forms nor spellings to be attested, only terms.
@Lambiam: How pedantic do you want to be? It is attested in the Latin quotation. Lemma-forms aren’t even attested always, what if it is e.g. in the plural or genitive? The lemma form would not be a reconstruction. From this derives the rule that we can disregard the inflectional part. And in the genitive the ending in Latin and Gaulish is the same, isn’t it too arbitrary to assume that then there is no “deformation”? But it is still not Latin in any case, whichever form is chosen, there is no evidence for it being Latin but for it being Gaulish. It literally says, “the Gauls call it briginos”, exactly this form, and not “the Gauls when speaking Latin”, the most natural interpretation in this glossary. If a Latin reader in antiquity reads “the Gauls call it briginus it is implied that the ending there is a wee bit different, as quotation practice was not like today. For antiquity standards this is how one has to abstract from the details, the intended meaning of the text. The text behind the text. It says that. Textual witnesses aren’t in that good a state either. Have youlooked how the Punic inPoenulus is attested? It’s a forest of gibberish through which you have to look through to see the trees, it may be even up to the point of a small inexactness the author himself smuggled into the first text(s).A variant reading is not a reconstruction. And it would be an exaggeration to speak of a conjecture, emendation or reconstruction here. That man has no sense of proportion.
It is a simple test to decide whether a word goes to the mainspace or reconstructed space: Is it attested? This word is, it has (even three) quotes for it, so it is situated in the mainspace. Only kids that blow their tops when they don’t get everything they want try to bend the rules and make representations when they face some edge that diverts them from furnishing their dollhouse.Fay Freak (talk)18:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is given as an Assamese word in the Ahom script. A literal translation of the word would be [i]oṃrīta[/i]. As we do not list Ahom as a script of Assamese, I believe such an entry needs to connect to an attestation. Unsurprisingly, Google finds nothing but clones of Wiktionary - it takes time for text to appear in Unicode. As @Msasag added the spelling, I hope he can oblige us with such a connection. --RichardW57m (talk)12:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
“As we do not list Ahom as a script of Assamese” → non sequitur. We do not list all every scripts in which a language has been written. If I assess that Ahom script was used for Assamese – which on first glance makes much sense but we also haveMiddle Assamese, so perhaps it does not apply to the present chronolect – I may just add it, and your argument vanishes utterly into thin air. (And then, as you yourself seem to acknowledge, by Pali experience, we don’t always seek an attestation for a word in every script, but I say this as others do not realize this situation.)
Anecdotally yes, this is a somewhat known name/title of the prophet (based on some interactions I had irrespective of what the traditions or exegeses say). In any case the name is very common in poetry (maybe more so among Shia Muslims?). I will add two more references and remove the request, feel free to re-add it if there's still a problem. --Almuusawi (talk)20:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Is this really an Ancient Greek suffix? 1. re: The definition of the term "suffix": It's not attached to the stem (or another analysable morphological entity), but the outcome of regular sound change involving the closing consonant + a suffix -jō (or of a surface filter operating for a longer period of time; I don't know if this would make any difference). 2. re: Its productivity in Ancient Greek: Can it be shown that there are words formed with -σσω in Ancient Greek rather than in one of its pre-stages? There are candidates for this in the "Derived terms" section (e.g.φαρμάσσω,ἱμάσσω). --Akletos (talk)12:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
There're alsosix thousand,nine thousand,níu þúsund - they show the correct spelling (with space or not?) and the formation (9 * 1000, not 90 * 100). --05:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I think maybe the inclusion criteria for numbers are a bit too restrictive. I'm pretty sure we used to make exceptions for numbers above 100 that were sufficiently "interesting". Obviously that is in the eye of the beholder but 10,000 seems it should qualify. Cf. Russianде́сять ты́сяч(désjatʹ týsjač), which also exists (and given the complexity of Russian numbers, should arguably exist to help users correctly decline the number and its complement, if any). BTW Englishten thousand qualifies regardless as it is a translation hub.Benwing2 (talk)04:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Turkish has both a suffix-ci and a variant-ici. The latter is attached to the stem of causative verbs (anlatıcı,canlandırıcı,çökertici,parlatıcı,sağaltıcı,uyuşturucu), and tends to form words that are primarily adjectives, so the neologismuçurcu is IMO more plausible thanuçurucu. The suffix-ci is usually attached to a noun, though, and although the participleuçur can grammatically be used as a noun, it is not in actual use as such. (Compare the wordsçıkarcı anddönerci, in which the first component is a participle that has an independent existence as a noun.) As tofezagir, one of the ambitions of President Erdoğan is to send a Turk into space to kick off the Turkish National Space Program, and wouldn’t it be nice if they then could refer to this space voyager with an ur-Turkic term, instead of one with (blech) Greek roots. At the end of a lengthy speech, in which he revealed that astronomy and trigonometry had been invented by Turks, Erdoğan said: “Since a compatriot of ours will enter space, it is now necessary to find a Turkish counterpart for the words ‘astronaut’ or ‘cosmonaut’. From here, I call on our linguists and say, come, let us find a Turkish name for Turkish space travelers. Let our 83 million citizens too participate with their original ideas in this quest.”[11] This led to many suggestions, such assemanot,göknot,gökoğul,gökbey,evrenot,gökalp andcacabey.[12]Serdar Hüseyin Yıldırım, the administrator of theTurkish Space Agency, proposed the termfezagir.[13] That is, as far as I see, the status offezagir on sources we accept for attestation: mentions as a proposal for a neologism. --Lambiam17:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
when i saw the "uçurcu" i thought it was an ungrammatical form of uçurucu, neither of them used for astronaut nor meaningful so i undid the edit. Then i learned that the translation dictionary of Pamukkale University does have the words "uçur" and "uçurcu". I dont know how does "uçur" means "universe, space" (aorist of uçmak which is intransitive of "to fly" is uçar "he/she/it does fly, something that flies") or where did they found the word but both of the words doesnt exist in the offical dictionary.
As for fezagir, Lambiam wrote how it came up, they probably took the word from Uzbek and proposed but nobody uses it as much as i know.MhmtÖ (talk)10:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
How do we label Turkish words proposed as replacements for foreign borrowings, used three times per CFI, but not in common use? I don't likenonstandard here because some of the words were proposed by a government committee to create and possibly enforce a language standard. I would not be surprised to find some newspapers did use the government's proposals; at least one newspaper published periodic lists of coinages saying they would henceforth use them to replace Ottoman words. Yet most of those words did not enter common use.Vox Sciurorum (talk)20:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Page 441 of the 1879Dictionnaire kurde-français[14] has "هردایم her-dàim, toujors". This is likely a more northern dialect, the dictionary being prepared largely in eastern Anatolia. A modern Northern Kurdish dictionary hasher dem.Vox Sciurorum (talk)00:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Saam-andar In other words, کتب لغت is the plural form and کتاب لغت is the singular form? (SOP is a question for RFD, but if we can't find citations in the first place then there's no need to bring it there.) —Granger (talk·contribs)20:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual. Most of the entry could be taken are referring toProteaceae a long-established plant family. Almost all Google Books hits are forProtoeaceæ (ie, ae ligature). If we are to have an entry we need citations. I've spent time looking, but haven't exhausted BHL or similar sources. So far each alleged hit forProtoacea turns out to have the ligature on close inspection.DCDuring (talk)01:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I have emended the entry based on my readings of material at BHL. Although I have not added citations they are available as snippets from the BHL link provided. Is this good enough?DCDuring (talk)14:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Romani.Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla,Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade, andROMLEX only list variants ofmorthǐ as the Armenian loanword for "skin". --YukaSylvie (talk)08:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
@YukaSylvie The entry lists two references, an Armenian etymological dictionary and what looks like a Romani-French dictionary. Romani is anLDL, so a single mention in an appropriate source is sufficient for keeping the entry. Are either of those references considered adequate for Romani? —Granger (talk·contribs)04:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Romani. I can't find this word onWörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla,Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade,ROMLEX, or a Google Books search. --YukaSylvie (talk)02:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
One will find quotes relating to occupations in Persia and farther east; noting the references I added. This will be about the same level as “Arabic”سِپَاه سَالَار(sipāh sālār).وَٱلكَرَّانِيَّ، وَهُوَ الْكَاتِبُ / وَٱلتُجَّارَ وَٱلرُؤَسَاءَ / وَٱلتِنْدِيلَ وَهُوَ مُقَدَّمُ ٱلْرُجَّالِ / وَسِپَاه سَالَارَ(wal-karrāniyya, wahuwa l-kātibu / wat-tujjāra war-ruʔasāʔa / wat-tindīla wahuwa muqaddamu l-rujjāli / wasipāh sālāra) in the quote at كَرَّانِيّ(karrāniyy).Fay Freak (talk)17:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hebrewקוץ means "thorn or thistle", which is makes it semantically more plausible. From the discussion of the word on their talk page, it's apparently slang- so they might not have known its proper written form. That said, if everyone spells itכוץ, that's how we should spell it.Chuck Entz (talk)20:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
The term was used in that spelling in a question on the Turkish version ofWho Wants to Be a Millionaire?. The question was, “Of which of the following is this a synonym?”, with a choice between A: the Moon, B: Venus, C: a comet, D: the Pole star.[17] Many uses found online are quoting this quiz question, as seenhere orhere, in articles that otherwise use the spellingkirli kartopu. This calque ofdirty snowball does (in some contexts) mean “comet”, just like the English original.[18][19][20] TheTurkish Language Association considers the spellingkirlikartopu the correct spelling[21] and lists it like that in its authoritative dictionary, but the spellingkirli kartopu is quite common. --Lambiam22:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
An interesting case. First, the language: We call the language "Rarotongan", while Wikipedia calls itCook Islands Māori and says calling the language "Rarotongan" is controversial, as Rarotongan is supposed to be one of three dialects of the Cook Islands Māori language.WT:LT doesn't mention these languages, so it may have never been discussed by Wiktionarians.
This dictionary labelsVerengiteni as "Mangaia(n)", which is apparently a sub-dialect of Rarotongan.Another site gives "Poneke" as the name for Wellington, which would be from MāoriPōneke.
lol @ protologism. The last link in my previous reply proves that "scho öppis vorha" is used in this way and all other words are separately attested; slight variations of the complete phrase are also found on the internet. Exactly the same argument is true forsind Sii ghüroote, see e.g.isch ghüroote. RFVing a phrase that is obviously and patently correct, that is found (with slight variations) on the internet, and whose constituents are attested is just a complete barrator move. @Widsith,Chuck Entz —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉16:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance,what is your name is clearly a summation of its parts.
Phrasebook entries are supported in the criteria of inclusion by a passage dedicated to them in the section "Idiomaticity"; they may not meet the requirement of idiomacity other than for the dedicated passage.
I don't really have a great interest in Phrasebook entries. Since I was tagged I can only comment that I have certainly heard the phrase used and it's clearly correct and useful for learners, but I am neutral on its inclusion as I have never quite understood what the attestation/SOP requirements are for phrases of this kind.Ƿidsiþ08:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well, logically at the very leastWT:CFI (one use or mention for a LDL) must be fulfilled. Otherwise people could translate phrases into any other language. Then we could get(my English isn't) theyellow from the egg(“(my English isn't) the best”) (cp.[24],[25]). Ormay the Force be with you translated into all kinds of other languages (extinct languages like Gothic, conlangs like Esperanto, living LDLs). And then the situation with phrases would be like with Navajo animal terms (cp.A,B,C,D) or Scots (E,F).
There's a difference between adhering to the letter and the spirit of the law. Of course we should be wary of nonsensical literal translations such as the ones you've mentioned, but this isn't a concern here as this phrase is clearly idiomatic and in widespread use (not only confirmed by two speakers but also by analogy as"Ich ha dänn scho öppis vor." is attested). The fact that you've moved another patently correct articlebisch du ghüroote to a slightly different spellingbisch du ghüüroote (diff) while ignoring the fact that the variant in question (ghüroote) isalso widely attested, is pretty strong evidence that idiomaticity and barring protologisms isn't your concern with this ordeal at all. Anyway, I have more productive things to do than squabbling over my native language and wading through the combinatorial jungle just to find that one attested altform among the thousands of correct possibilities. —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉10:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I propose that we close this under the clear widespread use clause. There might be some variation of this phrase that is attested letter by letter but I'm not going to bother searching for it (even justöppis has many synonyms, all of which have multiple alt-forms). My above comment from 14 March 2022 explains it pretty well. This phrase is legitimate. —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉09:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This RFV affectsXoangotei,Xoantako,Xopeiza,Xorut,Xoro,Xoroko andXuntako. All of them have a source (which I don't have access to), but they don't seem to be in use (not even mentioned) anywhere. The closest thing to an attestation I've found isthis use of "Xoroko" as a nickname (an affectionate form ofzoroko(“fool”)). The author of the book given as a source is a serious scholar so I suspect most of these supposed given names might actually be nicknames.--Santi2222 (talk)14:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Looking into it, I'm not even sureдѣти(děti) is attested with all of the meanings listed there.дѣꙗти(dějati) appears to be the more common form, andдѣти(děti) is mostly just attested in the reflexive phraseдѣти сѧ(děti sę). —69.120.66.13100:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ladino. I could find sources describing a Ladino word "aver" meaning "air", which I added as references to the page. There is also "avel" meaning mourning ([28],[29],[30]). I could not find any sources describing a word "avel" meaning "air".
If deleted, should be moved to aver as the content is good other than the title. If kept, it must be a secondary form and the main entry should be at aver; unless, of course, it is actually a separate word and not just a variant.70.172.194.2502:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ladino.karuvim is in the source I added.keruvim (in the form keruƀim) is inDHJE, but only with the meaning "cherubs", and I did not find any other spelling variant that could be this word. (Note that in Hebrew כְּרוּב and קָרוֹב have different initial consonants, in addition to the subtle niqqud change.) If deleted, should just be moved to karuvim.70.172.194.2501:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Ladino. Same story as the previous two; a word like it definitely exists, but I can't find this particular form. In this case,mabul is the seemingly right form.70.172.194.2502:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm not exactly an expert on Hebrew, but when I seen a double vowel in a language that has glottal stops, it makes me think one might be present, as in "ma'abe". Another consideration is thatמ־ is a very common prefix with a number of functions, so you would want to check words starting with aleph or ayin as well. That said, I didn't see anything obvious along those lines, so you might already tried that and not bothered to mention it.Chuck Entz (talk)05:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I agree. It feels like it would be from the root ע־ב־ה or something. Well, the ending is unclear because it could be clipped. Anyway, here's a neat site that lets you search for words belonging to roots with multiple possible characters in each slot, allowing for some guesswork:[31]. I'm not seeing anything, but I might not be looking in the right places (well, if I include yodh, I can find the mabul one, but I assume we're looking for other possible etymons).Special:PrefixIndex/Mem-Ayin-Beth andSpecial:PrefixIndex/Mem-Aleph-Beth don't show anything promising either.70.172.194.2505:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fruitless Forest aboutΆρβερΣκιπιτάρ = if there is a PoS 'Transliterations' for nongreek words,similar to Romanizations, probably they could be created with your ref. I am not sure how such unadapted and rare occurrences are handled at en.wiktionary. On the other hand,αυτοχθονία is a normal noun (Standard Modern Greek), spellt with αὐτο- in old polytonic spelling, the word since 1815. (cfαυτόχθων(aftóchthon).
@Thadh,SKA-KSI I thinkαρbε̰ρ,αρbε̰ρισ̈τ,αρbε̰ρίσ̈τ should be deleted &replaced for the following reason: These 'greek' scripts with added latin characters & diacritics mimicking phonetics were created by lexigographers of past centuries and, alas, by theDialect Dictionary of the Academy of Athens (which ended ingloriously somewhere at letter delta). As far as I know, they have been abandoned for some decades. I understand that the contemporary practice is to lemmatise the closest usual greek script + I.P.A. accompanying it. Here these scripts, could be mentioned (with {lang}, no link) at the main corresponding Albanian.dialect lemma, with their IPA as described in the dictionary from where they were retrieved. They would be αρμπερ (don't know where the accent was), αρμπερίστ (I cannot see the difference of the two) atarbërisht etc.Source and IPA are very crucial for the presentation of dialects, precisely because a script did not exist.
Thewikipedia article'Arvanitika' has a list of characters for these script, probably reproduced in more wikis and sites. I tried to find scanned pages of the correspondance referred at @en.wikt via third sources, (I doubt that the particular writers used umlauts and nongreek diacritics when writing arvanitika), but icould not find a scan. If so, the phrase in some lemmata 'script used by Arvanites', ...more likely: 'script proposed by X dictionary'. I cannot be sure; I would need to read the introduction of the source-dictionary. All other similar scripts I have encountered, are constructed by lexicographers, never used by native speakers (who for most dialects, were illiterate).
ButI am not the right person to verify all this. Whether their lemmatization is justified or not would need verification by a professional expert. @Dr Moshe -sorry to trouble you, Sir, just for the legitimacy of lemmatizing-.
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Coptic. Ⲉⲑⲱⲙ/ⲁⲑⲱⲙ are reconstructions. Ⲟⲛⲟⲩⲣⲓⲥ is a transliteration of a Greek rendering of an Egyptian god’s name. ⲧⲟⲩⲏⲣⲉ/ⲑⲟⲩⲏⲣⲓ are etymologically correct forms, but never used in the sense of the goddess Tawaret in Coptic texts. Ⲅⲉⲃ just looks like the Egyptological pronunciation of gb written in Coptic letters.Rhemmiel (talk)03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
ⲑⲟⲩⲏⲣⲓ is attested by Coptic Dictionary Online. It is important to remember that Jean-François Champollion spoke Coptic and he was the one that reconstructed the ancient Egyptian language, and it is likely that ⲉⲑⲱⲙ, ⲁⲑⲱⲙ, ⲅⲉⲃ, and ϩⲛⲟⲩⲙ are the translation of Atum, Geb, and Khnum in Coptic.Ⲁⲡⲟⲗⲗⲟⲇⲱⲣⲟⲥ (talk)14:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Old Englishdīeġan is missing from both theDictionary of Old English and Bosworth-Toller; this appears to be because it is entirely unattested; assmeortan, the OED has a note to this effect. Now as was done with that verb, we could relocate it toReconstruction:Old English/diegan in the very likely event that cites do not end up emerging. However, I question whether the reconstruction of such a verb is necessary; the obvious justification for doing so is the existence of Middle Englishdeyen, but that could be easily be from Old Norsedeyja. This is the standard etymology given by the dictionaries, and I see no reason be at variance with them. With Middle Englishdeyen taken out of the way, we are thus left without any justification for the reconstructing*dīeġan. It may be worth using{{no entry}} atdiegan, though, as it appears to be frequently brung up in online discussions of Old English (only some of which note its tenuosity).Hazarasp (parlement ·werkis)11:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Neither of those explanations are satisfactory to me; instead, I prefer to takedēog as the past tense of a verb*dēagan(“to hide”) (< Proto-Germanic*dauganą; c.f. Old High Germantougan(“hidden”)). TheDOE supports this hypothesis preliminarily, but remains noncommital, but I believe the poetic context means that it is the only hypothesis that rings true to me: interpretingdēaðfǣge dēog as "doomed to death, he dyed" makes little sense, while "doomed to death, he died" is conceptually repetitive doggerel (it is also not clear that the past tense of a putative*dīegan would result indēog). Moreover, despite Bammersberg's statement thatdēog has "no generally accepted interpretation", the "hid" hypothesis seems to be usual in the recent literature (e.g. inA Guide to Old English,Beowulf and the Hunt,Blogging Beowulf: Fit XIII, Lines 837-924,Eldum Unnyt: Treasure Spaces in Beowulf, andThe conceptualisation of emotions in Old English: dream 'joy' as LIFE, PRIVILEGE and HEAVEN in Anglo-Saxon prose and poetry).Hazarasp (parlement ·werkis)13:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The term occurs in the heading of an official German regulation published in theBundesgesetzblatt 2021 Vol. I nr. 62, page 4077,[34] as short (!) forBesondere Gebührenverordnung des Bundesministeriums der Finanzen zur Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht. This should be considered a proper noun, the(nick)name of a specific entity. Since the regulation provides for a convenient abbreviation of the short name,FinDAGebV (see usedhere), I guess we won't be seeing many uses of the term. --Lambiam11:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Confirmed in so far it occurs in neither Beck Online nor Juris. However this is a hot word since the regulation is in effect since 01.10.2021. On the other hand it must have been applied somewhere and thus the FinDAGebV must beon record at some authorities somewhere, as if there are laws someone follows them, in Germany. A written abbreviation is enough since the short name Finanzdienstleistungsaufsichtsgebührenverordnung is how the abbreviation FinDAGebV is pronounced. Chinese pronunciations themselves aren’t supposed to occur in writing either yet pinyin gets entries.Fay Freak (talk)18:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Yamphu. This is given under a Yakkha header but with a Yamphu language code and reference. The given reference[35] has two Yamphu words for "bird":सोङा(soṅā) andसोङ्वा(soṅwā), but notसाङ्वा(sāṅwā). So is this actually Yakkha, or a Yamphu typo, or a dialectal variant, or ...? @Hk5183This, that and the other (talk)02:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The third possibility is that this was supposed to go at Yamphuसोङ्वा(soṅwā), but the contributor was distracted by the similarity of the spelling (सो vs सा) into adding it to the wrong entry. Looking at their edit history, it was halfway into over an hour of creating nothing but Yamphu entries (the Yakka page creation was 9 days eatlier). By the way, @This, that and the other: you seem to have your language codes switched.Chuck Entz (talk)06:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Btw, seethis discussion for some related info, such as Latin toponyms with this "suffix" that were borrowed from Celtic, some of which should probably be listed in the event that a reconstruction page is created. Note that these are-brīga in Latin, with longī, unlike the shorti currently transcribed atbrigā (which might just have been a baseless assumption on the part of the entry creator). —69.120.66.13122:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
According to Turkish Language Association's Kişi Adları Sözlüğü (Personal Names Dictionary) it means: 1. Görkemli, kuvvetli, muazzam. 2. Yiğit, kahraman. 3. Rütbe, unvan.4. Bir tür kaplan.— This comment wasunsigned.
So far as I am aware, it is an assumption rather than a good guess that the Sanskrit word refers to the script known asKharoshthi in English. Any Sanskrit examples of usage in this sense would be from the last two hundred years. (On the other hand, the cited quotation is the ultimate known source of the English word.)
I think the word may actually have two senses - whatever script it meant in the original sense (if it isn't a word likejabberwocky), and the Kharoshthi script as known today. However, we don't have a quotation for the latter! --RichardW57m (talk)14:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Should we have an entry forמשכונות by itself? I can't quite figure it out; could it be cognate toמִסְכֵּן (compare Mozarabicמשכון(mškwn))? From the uses it seems to have three meanings: (1) pawn (security for loan)[36]; (2) pawn shop (perhaps by shortening ofחנות משכונות); (3) neighbourhood. Cases of the last one are probably misspellings ofמשכנות. --Lambiam09:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
You can find “♂ Biennial” and “♃ Perennial”here, as well as “☉ Annual”, thus extending the correspondence between the plant’s longevity and the astronomical object’s orbital period, undoubtedly the origin of the association of these symbols with plants. “♄” is also listed, but as simply meaning “Shrub or Tree” – all of which, however, are perennial anyway. Likewisehere andhere, although the latter has a toppled Jupiter in the table; later uses in the book are upright). --Lambiam14:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Taking the three sources together, I'd suggest that we amend♂ to readbiennial plant for the sake of consistency. All three sources seem to give a mix of noun and adjective glosses for these symbols, and they're not consistent with each other when it comes to the same symbol. Given that they're not used within running text, it doesn't really matter which style we choose, butbiennial plant is more elegant thanOf a plant, binennial.Theknightwho (talk)15:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual. Rfv-sense:(botany,obsolete) herbaceous perennial plant (the orbital period of Jupiter is 12 years)
Not sure how the two halves of the sense relate to each other, to be quite honest. I guess herbaceous plants live longer than 2 years (see♂) but less than woody plants (see♄)?Theknightwho (talk)23:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Translingual. Rfv-sense:(botany,obsolete) woody perennial plant (the orbital period of Saturn is 30 years)
Also unsure how the two halves of the sense relate to each other, but I assume it's to do with woody plants living longer than herbaceous ones (see♃).Theknightwho (talk)23:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, that helps. Based on that I suppose it is the symbol defined as "A true tree; as the Oak" and "An under shrub; as Laurustinus." I still don't think we have any uses of the symbol with this meaning, only two mentions. —Granger (talk·contribs)15:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wrote to niki simpson, who knows the lit. i don't remember the sources i've seen (none of which i have on me), and a gbooks search doesn't work because they get hits for 'jupiter' and 'saturn'.
BTW,this (p. 1604) mentions the orbital periods in conjunction w the botanical meaning (though there are some obvious copy errors).
@Mx. Granger Okay, Simpson responded that she's mostly seen these "handwritten on very old herbarium sheets." One old printed example is LinnaeusSpecies Plantarum. ♃ (perennes) is very common, ♄ (fruticantes) less so, but appears for e.g. Salicornia #2, #4 on p5 of vol I.
Perennis andfruticans BTW would be the authoritative definitions.
It looks like the info is right based on the reference, but they should have made a new L3 header for the noun instead of sticking it in the etymology. The quotation from the c. 1500 manuscript ("AM 625 4") is shown in the panel on the right of the reference, but someone more knowledgeable should confirm it I guess.98.170.164.8800:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Arabic. Rfv-senses: "to berevealed ordivulged, to becomeknown", "(of a secret) to leak out". There was an edit war over whether to include these intransitive senses, in addition to the transitive sense of "toreveal, todivulge, todisclose", which is currently the only one that remains. To be clear, I was not involved in the edit war.
Latest comment:2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
An apparent calque offirearm, and synonymous withFeuerwaffe andSchusswaffe. But attestation of this word is scant (89 hits on Google, including those generated by the Wiktionary entry itself). It is not to be found in the usual dictionary/corpus database sources (Duden, Pons, DWDS, etc.), and the audio on the page is forFeuerwaffe (presumably copied across from that page). Can we find attestation to support this entry's existence?Voltaigne (talk)14:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Saek.
No evidence is presented that this spelling has ever been used, nor any explanation of why any recorded pronunciation with the alleged meaning 'five' should be written in this extraordinary manner. --RichardW57 (talk)17:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
This is correct written word and there are a lot of evidences. Since Seak hassix tones (or seven but one is for fixing the right tone) so they need two more tone marks. I have all Saek orthography rules, dictionaries, and lores. They are defined many years ago.[43] See Fulltext.pdf page 62 for description. If you stick only with western authors, you won't see these. --Octahedron80 (talk)01:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Mariupol Greek. (As will probably be obvious from the section header.)
I created those by transliterating the Cyrillic entries forфукрум andяло, respectively, using the table inWT:GRK-MAR TR to convert Cyrillic into Greek script, assuming, rather naively, that this was a mechanical one-to-one conversion following the rules in the table.🤦♀️
@Whoop whoop pull up: I have found and added a quote for both. Mariupol Greek seems to have a surprisingly large corpus of books published in the '30s - makes me rethink the fact that we lemmatise at Cyrillic.Thadh (talk)16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thai. Rfv-sense:Accipiter spp.
Word might mean "dove", according to Hippietrail. I looked up all fiveAccipiter species found in Thailand, according to Avibase, which has vernacular names in many languages, and didn't find any Thai terms. Some English vernacular names for predatory birds contain the name of their prey in their name, likegoshawk andsparrowhawk.DCDuring (talk)13:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Non-domestic fowl normally prefix the classificatory wordนก(nók,“bird”) to their names, as obscurely mentioned in the entry forเขา(kǎo). So Hippietrail is right about the word meaning 'dove', and googling finds plenty of confirmation for the meaning 'columbid'. However, if one looks up นกเขาน in the Thai Royal Institute Dictionary, one will find it defined roughly asAccipiter, with the speciesA. trivirgatus,A. badius andA. gularis getting specific mention. The connection seems to be a similarity in plumage.
BetweenМонгол хэлний зөв бичих дүрмийн журамласан толь andБольшой академический монгольско-русский словарь I've found 50 - all of them are Russian borrowings. However, I've found evidence ofцэдэнбализм(cedenbalizm,“Tsedenbalism”), which I suspect was coined in Mongolian.Theknightwho (talk)23:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
(@Kwamikagami since you added them) Honestly a very interesting number system, reminds me a lot of the Yorùbá number system. I looked for the source that's listed, "MacLean (2014)Iñupiatun Uqaluit Taniktun Sivuninit /Iñupiaq to English Dictionary, p. 840 ff", but I've been unable to without buying it or going to a physical library. I did find, though, "Edna Ahgeak MacLean (2012),Iñupiatun Uqaluit Taniktun Sivunniuġutiŋit North Slope Iñupiaq to English Dictionary, University of Alaska Fairbanks: Alaska Native Languages Archives", which seems to be a precursor to the prior source, anddoes have all the numbers cited. However, I don't have the energy right now to add them to every entry, so I'll leave it to y'all to decide if it's officially cited or not.AG202 (talk)14:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
The large numbers certainly aren't traditional. I imagine the language was extended to cover large numbers so that it would be adequate for science and mathematics. Something all languages with large numerals have done.kwami (talk)04:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Zhuang. Etymology 2: "seaweed; algae" and "green (as seaweed or algae)". Added by @Octahedron80. I could not find this in 壮汉词汇 or 壮汉英词典. It might be a misinterpretation of 古壮字字典, wheredaeuh is given as a syllable that can be used withraez in the worddaeuhraez; it does not show any independent use ofdaeuh. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }14:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I believe it is from your source gave me in 2019, where I saw sawndips, that is now unavailable. My sources do not state it either.daeuhraez might be the right word. (and how is it formed?) --Octahedron80 (talk)00:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Octahedron80: I wonder if all the Zhuang varieties should be put under "Zhuang" (like "Chinese") or if we should actually separate them. I've been assuming that Zhuang functions the same way as Chinese in that it is a macrolanguage with all Zhuang varieties under it (with the appropriate labels for the regions). For exampleraemx seems to include most Zhuang varieties. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }23:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nong Zhuang, Dai Zhuang, Zuojiang Zhuang have more consonants and vowels than Standard Zhuang. Northern Zhuang (in Northern Tai) and Southern Zhuang (in Central Tai) are not the same group; it is obviously not able to unify. --Octahedron80 (talk)01:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Old English. "Old Englishcyningrīċe" is only attested askynyngrīches(genitive) in a ostensible charter of KingEdward the Confessor. The OED states that the charter is "probably a forgery of the late 11th or early 12th cent.". After a admittedly brief and superficial examination of the text, I concur with the OED and would lean towards a later dating; the text appears to be nothing more than Early Middle English sprinkled in with a few archaisms, which leaves us with with no basis for a entry atcyningrīċe.Hazarasp (parlement ·werkis)03:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the existence of Old English*cyningrīċe is certain enough to create such a form. Note thatkingriche is barely attested in Early ME (which would be unexpected if it was a old formation, as words for "kingdom" and "authority" occur profusely in early ME texts) and the earliest attestations vary between forms in nominativeking, genitivekinges, and dativekinge, suggesting a new and unsettled compound.
Let me digress for a bit now. I don't think the OS and OHG forms are relevant here, given that they could be modifications of earlier Old Saxon*kunirīki and Old High German*kunirīhhi (attested aschuneriche) with replacement of the mysterious unproductive Proto-West Germanic*kuni- with reflexes of semantically transparent*kuning. Contrastingly, OE speakers wouldn't've felt the need to replacecynerīċe with*cyningrīċe because the reflex of*kuni- (cyne-) was still productive in that language. Further proof for this theory is thatkingriche only starts to appear with any real frequency afterkine- (the ME reflex ofcyne-) ceased to be productive, suggesting that it it is a modificationkineriche along similar lines.Hazarasp (parlement ·werkis)13:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hrm, alright. Well,I'll probably still create a reconstruction for the OFS, OSX, GOH (*kuningarīkī) as a late remodelling of the original*kunirīkī. I think we should still leave the OE entry as an unrelated reconstruction though, since it's mentioned in so many places and folk will be looking for it, and no-doubt keep re-creating it if they do not find it. We can add a detailed Usage note explaining that it's most likely not real (?)Leasnam (talk)17:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
We can use{{no entry}} to dissuade people from creatingcyningrīċe; no reconstruction page is needed for that purpose. As for Old Norsekonungríki; I'm not sure about its status; I'd need more research into its attestation pattern to make a decision. Finally, I'll note that my theory about*kuningarīkī originally being*kunirīkī, while compelling (to me at least) is not something that I'm entirely dead-set on. It could be that*kuningarīkī is old (or at the very least a old remodelling) and was just lost in OE. It's even possible that there could've been a*cyningrīċe; the important thing is its existence isn't likely enough to justify sticking a stake in the ground by creating a reconstruction.Hazarasp (parlement ·werkis)19:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I just took a look at the MED forking-riche. I think this is a borrowing/calque/partial-calque from Old Norse. Many of the forms are clearly Norse-like. Timeframe matches up as well. What do you think ?Leasnam (talk)19:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Octahedron80: The only one of those sources of mentions that looks durably archived is Buddhadatta'sConcise Pali-English Dictionary, which I think screams out for the use of{{LDL}}. At least the PTS directs one to actual usages. Unfortunately, I suspect Buddhadatta's entry is itself a misspelling, or rather a typo. The preface says, "In compiling this work I have constantly referred to the Pali-English Dictionary,...", so why does Buddhadatta's work omitaggaḷa? --RichardW57m (talk)11:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Now, it is possible that Buddhadatta's work is sufficiently important that his errors will be repeated in modern compositions. If such compositions are to be included in our coverage, then it is helpful to users to include them. Additionally, there are very probably Sinhalese Pali manuscripts that use the dental instead of the retroflex. Accordingly, I propose categorising the spelling with a dental as a misspelling. We therefore should not record it as an alternative form in the correctly spelt lemmas. --RichardW57m (talk)11:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
The heading "Aggaḷa, & Aggaḷā (f.) (also occasionally with l.)" comes from the PTS, but the remark with 'l' (which looks like an obscure abbreviation because of the full stop!) might only apply to the feminine form. Childers[1] gives the masculine and neuter forms with the retroflex, but the feminine with the dental. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)RichardW57m (talk)12:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. @Fenakhay From what I foundژاژومک is defined in dehkhoda dictionary as (translated) "(noun) beans, which are called لیاء in arabic. Seebeans."[46]. It's also listed as a synonym for لوبیا (beans),[47]:
...لوویاء. لوبیه. غند ماش. تُلک.ژاژومک که به عربی لیاء گویند...
He also says that people of the city Termez in Uzbekistan refered to لوبیا (beans) as ژاژومک
...و اهل ترمد او را ژاژومک گویند...
A site lists other forms of ژاژومک (dehkhoda and amid) and according to Amid dictionary it's an old Biology term:
ژاژوک (žâžôk) (dehkhoda and amid)
ژاژک (žâžok) (dehkhoda)
Dehkhoda quotes a poem couplet with an unknown meaning he found in the Asadi Persian Lexicon attributed to poet "Abul-Abbas" (probably Abu'l-Abbas Marwazi)
ماه کانون است ژاژک نتوانی بستن / هم از این کومک بر خشک و همی بند آن را
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Old English. Not in theDOE and apparently unattested as a adverb (rather than a inflected form ofġeon). Bosworth-Toller has a entry forġeonre (providing no quotes), but it probably originates from a misinterpretation of the aforementioned inflected form. In any case, the Middle English forms (such as Chaucer'syonder instead of*yondre) seem to indicate Old English*ġeonor, notġeonre; the presence of epenthetic/d/ is no counterargument, as it can originate in contexts such asyonderand (/ˈjɔn(d)r‿an(d)/).Hazarasp (parlement ·werkis)07:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. A search of the Dictionary of Old English Corpus yields only "Aris, & gong togeonre byrig;", which is certainly a declined form ofgeon.
This is the kind of thing that Stephen G. Brown and @Metaknowledge were always arguing about, because the former was a professional translator whose job was to come up with a translation, not to inform people about the patterns of usage or non-usage in a given language. @Eirikr, who has studied the language.Chuck Entz (talk)21:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've actuallytaken notice of this problem back when Metaknowledge was still active. Without knowing a shred of Navajo, my opinion still is that absent any evidence that native speakers use these words (or even just understand them and deem them natural) we should not include them and I would hope this is the majority view here. Wiktionary is not a playground where people can publicize their inventions. If it actually is the case that these two terms are made up too, I would be pretty upset consideringthe traction they have gained on the internet. —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉22:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
A few of those threads cite Wiktionary ([53],[54],[55]), so if this turns out to be unattestable, which remains to be seen, then we aren't completely blameless in the spread of dubious information. I think the bigger culprit may be Navajo Wikipedia, but I can't really fault them for using circumlocutions to describe things their language has no word for. It's not like they should be prevented from documenting concepts just because there's no word for them in printed Navajo dictionaries. As for what Navajo people would say in actual speech if they wanted to refer to a tank, I have no idea, but I'd be a little surprised if they always went with this exact phrase just because it happens to be the one used on nv.wikipedia and here.98.170.164.8801:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Oddly enough, theCode talkers probably had a term for it, but that's not the same as use in ordinary Navajo text or speech. Still, there were a good number of Navajo veterans who no doubt would have talked about their experiences in the war.Chuck Entz (talk)02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Good point about the code talkers. For whatever it's worth, I foundthis word list, which says the code word for "tank" was "CHAY-DA-GAHI" ("tortoise"). I think this ischʼééh digháhii. As an aside, I wonder if it's worth incorporating the sense of "tank" into the entry in any way; it's not really normal language use, but code talking is probably among the most notable uses of the language and there are likely to be several references. (Are there even surviving recordings we could cite?)
More to the point, if those Navajo veterans wrote books about their experiences in the Navajo language, we could consult those. If not, then I guess we could try to get in contact with a native speaker, preferably one who is unaffiliated with nv.wikipedia to avoid potential bias. CFI doesn't have a provision for adding words based on personal anecdotes that haven't been published, but I personally feel like a direct interview with a native speaker of a LDL may deserve at least as much weight as a Usenet post. At the very least, we could at least use the information to tell if removing this term is the right move.98.170.164.8803:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
To address your point about what word ordinary speakers would use, my strong suspicion that they’d simply use the word “tank”. Obviously the code talkers situation may affect things (didchʼééh digháhii become the conventional word?), but it seems unlikely that these lengthy terms could be anything other than a novelty.Theknightwho (talk)18:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
The full phrase / termchidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí isn't visible in the page text as rendered in the browser, but only in the alt text ona couple images -- view the source and search that to find the term. This appears a couple times in the source of the page, repetitions of the same sentence (emphasis mine):
Very rough translation:“There is a war and a soldier sits on top of a[tank / the thing that's a car that crawls about and has a cannon and people sit on it], and one [the generic "one"] runs along after it.”
Notably, this is content from the Jehovah's Witnesses, a group that makes an effort to translate texts into the languages of the groups they are proselytizing, so it is unclear to me if the author was a native speaker. That said, this is an instance of the term used in running text, and for anWT:LDL, that might suffice.
I agree that an effort should ideally be made to contact the community of people actually speaking Navajo and get their input. However, I haven't the contacts needed to engage in such an effort, nor do I have sufficient bandwidth for the foreseeable future. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig17:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Incredible find! I'm curious how you came across this, since it doesn't appear to be indexed by Google or even jw.org's own search engine.98.170.164.8817:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
As it’s such a descriptive phrase, could it be that this was the original source? Or does Navajo commonly use lengthy descriptions as set terms?Theknightwho (talk)18:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
98's find ofthe Navajo newspaper article is from 1943, which uses this long phrase with the variantchidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫhtsoh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí, adding on the modifiertsoh(“big”) to the nounbeeʼeldǫǫh(“gun”). Considering the construction of the phrase, removal of thetsoh would not render the result unintelligible: it would change the meaning from something like "the caterpillar tractor that hasbig guns sitting up on top of it" to just "the caterpillar tractor that has guns sitting up on top of it".
Considering the 1943 quote with thetsoh(“big”) variant, the Jehovah's Witness usage with the non-tsoh variant, and Navajo's status on EN Wikt as aWT:LDL, do we think that these two terms pass RFV?
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Gaulish, tagged but not listed. I assume the situation is that the term is attested (perhaps in a work designated as "Autun"?), but with unclear meaning. The referenced book says it "appears probable" that the second element means "seat" and relates it tosella and𐍃𐌹𐍄𐌻𐍃(sitls), but makes no attempt to interpret the first element. Can we get the context sentence into the entry, if it exists?__Gamren (talk)10:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Czech. Sense: (dialectal) Beating or fighting stick (Word used to threaten with or initiate a fight)
I suspect this sense does not meetWT:ATTEST. @Kreyren. I will note for the newcomer that authoritative dictionaries do not count and that we need quotationsin use and that they need to be from print (incl. Google Books) or from Usenet. If this gets deleted, the discussion will be archived to the entry talk page, so the hypothesis will be available there to the interested readers. --Dan Polansky (talk)09:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
To clarify: Because Hantec is very dynamic language as it's developed by natives who take a word they like and then make it sound like moravian-ish to then get situations when there are like 20+ terms for women breasts.. Thus the only sane approach should be to look into the origin of the word and contest it on the bases of history and linquistics. --Kreyren (talk)10:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
The difference between "prigl" and "prygl" is merely in spelling: it is the same word. In so far as Hantec is an uncodified dialect, there is no "correct" spelling, and we have to look atactual use, consistent withWT:ATTEST. From normative perspective, one may note that "r" is usually followed by "y" and not "i", and from that standpoint, "prygl" and "prýgl" are preferable spellings, and this may explain why they are easier to find in print in Google Books. I added the sense of Brno Reservoir toprýgl since that isattested in use; whether someone considers it "wrong" is beside the point in a descriptivist dictionary such as Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk)10:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
prigl vsprýgl are two very very very different words which are spelled differently and pronounced very differently like "jet basem na prigl" vs "Dostaneš prygle vole!" with notation on the "Y" in "prygle" to near english accent in nature. --Kreyren (talk)02:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual. Rfv-sense:androgyne, intersex (especially when male in appearance). This has been/is the target of some edit-warring which is probably best solved by adding supporting quotations. —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉21:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Just noting that this has been slightly redefined to "androgyne, gender-neutral,intersex." but it still has no cites of use. It's sourced to a work by McElroy, which was also used to source some other supposedly-trans symbols which turned out to not actually be used, or to not even be in McElroy (see2023 Info Desk). If we can't find actual evidence of use, we're probably best off removing it.- -sche(discuss)06:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I restored the zebra sense and added the spaceless alt-form (though that may have been a mistake, I'd prefer to wait for someone knowledgeable in Navajo before doing more edits). The other IP user also pointed to additional usable sources in the tea room thread. I added an older version (1943) of Young & Morgan to the entry because that is conveniently citable off of Google Books using your script. I don't know whether there's a standard{{R:nv:...}} template for this reference. —Fytcha〈 T| L| C〉03:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Russian. Rfv-sense: "Block Island". I can find use in Russian ofостров Блок(ostrov Blok) andБлок-Айленд(Blok-Ajlend), but does this usage extend toБлок(Blok) on its own? In a quick search I wasn't able to find e.g. "на Блоке". Also, even if this sense does exist, someone should check the animacy (the word is currently marked as animate, but place names in Russian are generally inanimate).98.170.164.8800:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
The Russian Wikipedia seems to have article titles for all but one of the New England islands indexed as simple titles, as seen atw:ru:Категория:Острова_Род-Айленда. Presumably the same is true outside New England. Whether this reflects actual speech in Russian, or an idiosyncracy of the Russian Wikipedia, I dont know.—Soap—23:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Don’t these uses of “Блок” in the combination “остров Блок”[63][64][65] count as attestations, just like in English the use of “Bali” in the combination “the island of Bali” should qualify? --Lambiam11:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, yeah, I did find use in such contexts but wasn't sure it counted. If Russian-language editors think it should count, then I'm fine with it.
Another example where "остров" is an essential part of the name isостров Принца Эдуарда(ostrov Princa Eduarda), and it would be weird to put that underПринца Эдуарда(Princa Eduarda). There are alsoостров Врангеля(ostrov Vrangelja) andостров Колгуев(ostrov Kolgujev). Ithinkостров Блок(ostrov Blok) is similar to these in that it is always preceded by остров and the word Блок itself doesn't get inflected. But I could be wrong. A dissimilarity with these other examples is that they have the name of the island in the genitive, but OTOH two of them are originally surnames, which also applies here.98.170.164.8813:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Russian: I can't find references to either of those two meanings. The dictionaries I have available give the translations "to get lost", "to be astray".78.69.121.420:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Nyuhn: Not one quote has been added to the entry, until every sense gets at least three quotes (/references), they are technically not RFV-passed.Thadh (talk)15:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"ČR" is a well-established abbreviation for Česká repubilka, "Czech Republic" and this meaning absolutely prevails. The names of the other three republics do begin with the same letters in Czech language, but the frequency of the usage of those other republic names is extremely small compared to the frequency of the usage of "Czech Republic", so that the abbreviation ČR meaning "Chechen Republic” etc. would have to be explained in context. I sincerely doubt that the abbreviation "ČR" is used in the sense of Chechen Republic” etc.Amsavatar (talk)16:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Does the fact it's used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrewשׁוֹר(šôr,“ox”) count? See e.g. Exod. 21:35, "ἐὰν δὲ κερατίσῃ τινὸς ταῦρος τὸνταῦρον τοῦ πλησίον, καὶ τελευτήσῃ, ἀποδώσονται τὸνταῦρον[…]" in the LXX, "ox" in thevast majority of English translations though Strong's glosses it as "ox, bull, a head of cattle"[66]. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)13:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've added the quote and translation from the standard critical editions of Matthew and I've noted that Bauer's New Testament lexicon says the same thing about the word, so I'll call thiscited. I've changed "perhaps" to a non-gloss note "chiefly as a sacrificial animal" per Bauer. A separate question, which might need further research, is whether the sense should be explicitly tagged as Koine. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)12:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. A complication is that Englishox has two distinguishable senses: (1) a male bovine, used as a draught animal, typically gelded – as such a hyponym ofbull; (2) any bovine animal – as such a hypernym ofbull. In Modern Greek,ταύρος(távros) is strictly a bull, so one wonders if this sense as a sacrificial animal is indeed specifically Koine. --Lambiam12:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Navajo, meaning "Star Wars". The headword is given as "Sǫʼtah Anaaʼ", but the page title is "Sǫʼtah Anah". But are either of these even attested? And even if they are attested, do we really want an entry for this (cf.WT:NSE, etc.)?70.172.194.2518:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Apparently there is a Navajo dub of the original 1977 film, which may bolster the case for inclusion, although I'm still not sure. Which spelling did they use, btw?This article uses "Anah", butthis one uses "Anaaʼ" (in an image).70.172.194.2519:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion
This is obviously morphologically incompatible with our Proto-Brythonic reconstruction. The inscription containing this name has case endings; in our reconstruction they're gone already. It's clearly not in the same language as our Proto-Brythonic and thus shouldn't be sorted under "Proto-Brythonic". —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)22:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
...It's not Proto-Celtic either. Not only is Proto-Celtic itself dated too early for the inscription to be Proto-Celtic (the inscription was written around Roman times), the inscription itself has the wrong accusative singular ending (-in instead of -am). It is almost certainlynot attested Proto-Celtic. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)03:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
It should certainly be put under ‘Brittonic’, it’s much to late to be Proto-Celtic. That’s just a fact, it’s not pedantic, it’s just correct. You wouldn’t put a French noun under ‘Latin’…Silurhys (talk)20:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
As we're discussing in another thread here, Proto-Brittonic/Brittonic should be a daughter of Proto-Celtic and the hypothetical parent of Brittonic (attested from the 4th/3rd century BC and lasting until the mid 6th century AD, when it gave way to Neo-Brittonic). Uindiorix dates to the Brittonic period and should be labeled as Brittonic. Wiktionary ridiculously calls Archaic Neo-Brittonic (mid-5th century AD through the end of the 8th century AD) "Proto-Brythonic"; both inaccurate and idiosyncratic, as no professional Celticist uses this term to refer to Neo-Brittonic.M.Aurelius.Viator (talk)20:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've moved it back to Proto-Brythonic. It's true that attested Proto-Brythonic forms don't match up with our reconstructed forms, but we call them both Proto-Brythonic anyway. —Mahāgaja ·talk18:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Proto-Brythonic. Attested in LatinADIXOUI DEUINA DEIEDA ANDAGIN UINDIORIX CUAMENAI, but - in the same vain asArtognou - that seems to make it a Latin transcription of a Proto-Brythonic name, and not a Proto-Brythonic term in its own right.Theknightwho (talk)16:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: You are technically right if it is a Latin sentence, so this page would have to be split into a Latin page and a Proto-Brythonic reconstruction. But the inscription’s language has been controverted. So it could be anUndetermined language lemma as some other names includingΒΟΥΗΛΑ. There would be no gain in information with either option. Technically it is an attested term with arguable header attribution.Fay Freak (talk)17:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak I would prefer to have the Proto-Brythonic entry at a reconstructed normalised spelling, with a Latin entry atUindiorix that states it's a Latin transcription of the Proto-Brythonic name. That would keep the distinction clear, better matches the expectations of users who work in one language or the other, and also leaves room for discussion as to what the best normalised form actually is.Theknightwho (talk)17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho, as a minute of research would tell anyone, the sentenceUindiorix is attested in is today universally agreed upon by scholars to be in Celtic, not Latin. The only question is if it's too old to fit in howwe on the project define Proto-Brythonic, and not dialectal Proto-Celtic. @Mahagaja --{{victar|talk}}22:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The sentence isn't Latin at all. The clearest evidence is found in the lexemeandagin, composed ofan- "un" anddagin "good (accusative)".Kwékwlos (talk)11:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sudovian is barely attested, only inone word list (that scholars aren't even sure is Sudovian) anda few short sentences fromone medieval book (that are likely actually Old Prussian, and academic Old Prussian dictionaries treat them as such, e.g.[67]). The form they added for Sudovian, "tove", was apparently an unattested invention of Suduva.com; I have replaced it with an attested spelling from the word list.
Old Curonian is in a similar situation, only having one representative text (which isn't even securely identified as Curonian), but possibly a great deal of words could be legitimately academically reconstructed from onomastics and the significant regional influence it had on Lithuanian/Samogitian and Latvian. Luckily, the one purportedly Old Curonian text is the Pater Noster, so the word for father is attested ("thewes"), but it doesn't even match the spelling added by the user ("thæwæs", which has no other hits on Google) unless I'm missing something.
Kursenieki is definitely attested, and even has two living speakers, but it's still rare so it nonetheless sets off a bit of an alarm. The particular Kursenieki form "teve" may be attested, as searching for "teve mūses" on Google brings up some hits, mostly various Wikipedias and one 2017 self-published ebook (funnily enough cited onw:lv:Kursenieku_valoda, but surely an instance of citogenesis since thetext has been on de.wikipedia since 2012), but I have no idea the original source/authenticity of this Pater Noster translation.ALEW, which I trust more but still isn't an ideal source, gives "têvs" as the Kursenieki cognate of Lithuanian "tėvas". Dictionaries and texts in the language exist but I don't think I can access any of them. The form is superficially plausible, although I have to wonder whether "teve" is supposed to be the vocative instead of the nominative (lemma form), which I would have expected to end in -s. For example, the Lithuanian Pater Noster starts with "tėve mūsų", instead of the lemma form "tėvas". But in Latvian, of which Kursenieki is a dialect, the nominative and vocative are both "tēvs", so IDK.
This Twitter post makes me think the term might be real. Dunno about the etymology. Whether it's citable to our standards, IDK either. The current citation is terrible (the title of a random YouTube video consisting of various clips of dancing women; the word isn't even spoken in the video, nor is any word other than "one, two, three, four"(?) at the start).70.172.194.2521:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Ancient Greek.
I can't find any evidence of this, but I don't have access to good resources on Ancient Greek proper nouns. Given the religious proscriptions on use of the Divine Name, I'm skeptical, but I don't know enough about Koine usage to be sure.Chuck Entz (talk)16:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hellenistic Jewish writers still needed a form to write, asיהוה is, and those proscriptions don't exist for non-Jewish sources, cf. the citations atἸαω, so there's nothing inherently implausible about it on purely religious grounds. This particular form is quite difficult to track down, though. The claim atIehova that it's attested in the GnosticPistis Sophia (which survives only in Coptic in any case) appears to stem from an earlier Wikipedia misinterpretation of Charles William King's 19th-century studyThe Gnostics and Their Remains, which, while discussing thePistis Sophia, mysteriously states that "The author of the 'Treatise on Interpretations' says, 'The Egyptians express the name of the Supreme Being by the seven Greek vowels ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ'". (Wikipedia now correctly states "Charles William King attributes [it] to a work that he callsOn Interpretations", but previously ascribed it to thePistis Sophia.) Unfortunately King gives no indication at all as to what the 'Treatise on Interpretations' is, and it's never mentioned again. So I'm inclined to delete this, in the absence of any better evidence. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)18:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think the place to look for this would be the Greek Magical Papyri, which are absolutely littered with all sorts of theonyms, including many variations on the Tetragrammaton, as well as all sorts of ‘magical’ sequences of the seven Greek vowels. I haven’t found this exact form myself with a cursory glance, but if it would be anywhere, that would be the most likely set of texts to search. (Also note that King refers to ‘the Egyptians’; the Magical Papyri themselves originate in Greco-Roman Egypt.) Another source that may have some information about where this comes from, if anyone can dig it up, is Gesner’s 1746De laude dei per septem vocales; various more modern books refer to this when discussing this particular form. —Vorziblix (talk ·contribs)02:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Edit: I’ve dug up the above-mentioned treatise by Gesner; it can be found on p.245 ofthis work (Commentarii Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis vol. 1). Unfortunately I don’t think my Latin and Greek are quite up to the task of wading through it, but if someone else wants to give it a try, perhaps there might be some useful references there. —Vorziblix (talk ·contribs)03:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I found ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ (in all caps) onpage 254 of Gesner's thesis, but the thesis is written in Latin, and the term is only mentioned, not used. I don't know whether this is sufficient for inclusion. —Mahāgaja ·talk09:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not perWT:CFI: "one use in a contemporaneous source". Io. Matthias Gesnerus lived in the 17th/18th century; Greek ended in the 15th century (developed/degenerated into New Greek). If Gesnerus would quote some old text (maybe now lost/destroyed), it could pass; but not if it's just Gesnerus.--08:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Uh, this is difficult, how would you distinguish in quotes? Both are asumed faces. It is sure though that in some cases it is the former due to typing so lazily as to omit pressing the shift key.Fay Freak (talk)11:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then let's forgo defining it as “synonym of” aught and relegate the uncertainties, concerning which actual symbols it is related to, to the etymology.Fay Freak (talk)13:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Did we all see the comment onTalk:Unsupported_titles/:d? Because I was skeptical too. I dont play that game but the explanation makes sense. And, as for other online games ... I can see how an originally capitalized emoticon could evolve to lowercase for ease of typing in a fast-paced video game, especially these days when we rely so much on more colorful emojis.—Soap—10:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Pali. Rfv-sense: swim
Pali. Rfv-sense: float
I can't find this meaning in any dictionaries, and I've looked in PTS, Childers, Maung Tin and Buddhadatta. Wiktionary does have this meaning for the cognate Sanskritतरति(tarati). The meaning was added for Pali by @LolPacino. --RichardW57m (talk)12:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An unadapted English loanword in the extinct languageCochimi of western Mexico. The cactus was given this name in English at just about the time when Cochimi was going extinct, so I wonder if it's even meaningful to say whether the word is or not part of the language. It's also a bit strange that a language native to the cactus' habitat would need to borrow from English to describe it, so it's possible this is an error of some kind and that the scientist never intendedboojum to be part of the Cochimi language. The Spanish and Nahuatl wiktionaries also list this word as belonging to two other languages of the area, so for those who edit other wikis, this RFV could be applied to those languages as well.—Soap—12:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thai. Rfv-sense: a transgender woman.
As a (native) Thai speaker, I have never found anyone using the term to refer toany transgender woman. Also, a Google search did not return any use of the term in such a sense. --Asembleo (talk)15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I tried myself to verify the existence of this name but I was unable to find anything reliable on it, I've also never seen it in any charters or the Domesday Book and to my knowledge the elementǣdre isn't used in any other Old English names.Pirsicola T. (talk)22:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Lisu. This doesn't make sense within the Fraser script orthography, and I can't find any evidence of it online. The "transliteration" is very clearly taken fromA Dictionary of the Northern Dialect of Lisu, but in actual fact that uses a separate Latin orthography altogether that follows quite different rules.
Latest comment:2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Polish. Partial verification request for the definition.Kaci is the relational adjective of the nounkat, which has two distinct meanings: literal, "executioner," and figurative, "tormentor." It's pretty easy to find usage of the noun in the figurative sense, but I can't seem to find occurences ofkaci as relating to it, only to the literal meaning (especially in collocations likekaci topór — executioner's axe,kaci kaptur — executioner's hood, etc.).Hythonia (talk)13:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Quote from[68] (1840): "Kiedy miano czarownice i czarowników próbować torturami, kaci zabobonnicy i guslarze wielcy, golili im na sam przód włosy" (English: "When witches and sorcerers were to be tried by torture, tormenting superstitious [people] and great guslars shaved their hair first."). Here "kaci" is definitely used as an adjective from "kat" in the sense of "tormentor", and not "executioner", but still the meaning is literal.
In another example, we can see contemporary usage in the figurative sense, but it's just a random quote from the internet, and a kind of poetry, so it may not adhere to the strict language rules:[69].
Still, I believe "kaci" is just a standard creation of an adjective from a noun "kat", so there is no reason why we shouldn't use it in all possible senses. It's just rare, so it's hard to find examples.Olaf (talk)10:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Olaf Per ourWT:CFI, eachdefinition needs three examples, just just the entry as a whole. If the only definition is "of or relating to a executioner", we need three examples of that.Vininn126 (talk)10:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
[70], look for "kacia": "Lecz czy dzielić się musiał wymiotem? Skąd ta wiedza, ta pewnośćkacia, ze stojąc pod płotem sam nie grzęźnie po uszki otulon swych projekcji błotem?" - refers to an unpleasant situation, but not an execution.
[71], look for "kaciej", second item: "w pewnym momencie poczujesz bunt, potem nienawiść do swego krzywdziciela, a nawet chęć zemsty. Dążąc do ich realizacji "przyobleczesz szaty" kata, by w kolejnym żywocie odpłacić się temu człowiekowi za wszelkie krzywdy, jakie ci uczynił. Po pewnym okresie swejkaciej działalności może pojawić się poczucie winy."
(Sorry, this took a bit to type up, the reply interface lags a lot on this page.) @Olaf: Addressing the latter part, I was a bit unsure about this request, yeah. It is a rather standard derivative, so maybe the definition was fine like that? Still, I was slightly alarmed by the fact WSJP lists two definitions forkat ("executioner" and "tormentor"), whereas forkaci it specifies that it refers to the sense "executioner", so I felt that it's better to be safe than sorry.
The latter two examples seem fine; the first, hm. It seems ambiguous? It might be employing the adjective, but given it speaks of what's happening during an execution, it seems more likely that it's a noun concord (i.e. two nouns --kat zabobonnik in the singular -- because, like, there would assumedly be torturers present, and they'd be superstitious as well). I don't know if the Criteria for Inclusion would allow the second quote, but at the very least it's proof the word's used that way.Hythonia (talk)11:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oh, oops -- never mind. Hadn't seen your last comment prior to typing this up. Yeah, this looks like a closed case. Thank you.Hythonia (talk)11:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Urdu. This word must be kept on!This word is found on Hindustani Dictionary.— Thisunsigned comment was added byগহীনঅরণ্য (talk •contribs) at 9:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC).
@গহীনঅরণ্য: The original RFD nomination, which I have changed to RFV, says "Not Urdu. Transliteration ofयोग्य(yogya)." Urdu is only half of Hindustani, and it is not just Hindi spelled with a different script. We need to see evidence that this is used in Urdu, not just Hindi.Chuck Entz (talk)10:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thai. Unattested at all. No usage of the term is found anywhere. Google search returned no usage of this term. --YURi (talk)20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is in the reference, p.85. ROYIN didn't add the word from the air. I agree it hard to find. I think it only appears in offline novels or movie dubs; it's a kind of dated term. --Octahedron80 (talk)01:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Turkish. Tagged byUser:Xenos melophilos. Defined as a misspelling. As a standalone term it has more than three apparently citable uses. It's harder to tell if it is a rare misspelling (RFD material), common misspelling, or alternative form.Vox Sciurorum (talk)20:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Verificated inkuantum.TDK is a government foundation and whatever it says is the official language. If the words taken from foreign languages are taken in a late period, TDK generally prefers to take their spelling close to the original. Quantum is already an academic word, we don't use it in our daily life. So,kuvantum can not be a dialect. It's a misspelling. We spell it kuantum and read this word as it is written.BurakD53 (talk)22:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
At some stage the renaming caused a storm of memes in Ukrainian and Russian at some period but the sense is wrong, IMO. Google "Горішні Плавні мем" to see meme examples. Since the name sounded funny, someone may have assigned that meaning but I don't think it was anywhere widespread.— Thisunsigned comment was added byAtitarev (talk •contribs).
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Oriya. Tagged by an IP editor years ago with the comment "ṣô + nukta becoming /ɻ/ does not make sense". This may be meant as a request for verification of pronunciation /ɻɔ/.Vox Sciurorum (talk)16:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay: Deffo present in Jordan.Carrefour Jordansells it. Something aboutfishing in Jordan, and acooking show, although this is some nice Modern Standard Arabic the girl is talking; it is generally correct to assume terms for flora and fauna to belong to either literary language or dialect if found in one unless there is contrary evidence. My search is"الجمبري" "الأردن", as Jordan is between Egyptian and Hijazi Arabic where it is used because of influence from Egyptian Arabic; apparently here borrowed from Egyptian into Jordanian phonology, hence unexpected/d͡ʒ/.Fay Freak (talk)16:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Proto-Brythonic. It's a given name attested in the inscriptionPATERN[--] COLI AVI FICIT ARTOGNOU COL[I] FICIT, which is Latin, which strongly suggests this is a Latin transcription of a Proto-Brythonic name, and not a Proto-Brythonic term in its own right. By comparison, the reconstructed form would be*Arθgnọw.
I should note that this has been RFV'd before ([72] - discussionhere), but the notice wasremoved after 2 days with the baffling reasoning that it is attested, without actually addressing the fact that the dispute is over which language it's actually attested in. Can we please clear this up once and for all?Theknightwho (talk)16:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Proto-Brythonic. According to the etymology, it's attested in a Koine Greek text as a transcription of a Proto-Brythonic given name. Same issue as#Artognou and#Uindiorix, in that the attestation makes it a Koine Greek term (which we group under Ancient Greek), and not a Proto-Brythonic term.Theknightwho (talk)17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've traced the spelling with the aspiration back to Duroiselle'sA Practical Grammar of the Pāli Language, Third edition, 1921. Paragraph 251 gives the form as 'sattha', while Paragraph 275 gives it as unaspiratedsatta. I suspect interference from adjacentchaṭṭha(“sixth”) andaṭṭhama(“eighth”); their underdotting in the text has to be taken on faith - it is not visible in the scan of the original. --RichardW57m (talk)09:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think I created this entry by mistake while sourcing missing lemmas from older works, and then realized the mistake and immediately added the archaic label.Vis M (talk)19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Maybe this is obvious, but the hiatus is because both parts of the compound are negated, not just the first. I dont know this language ... would anā normally swallow a followinga, even if that /a/ is a very important morpheme?—Soap—14:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep Some of the X-not-X compounds have looked very unclear, but I forgot the first rule - try Google. I've now found seemingly good quotations and will put at least one of them up tonight. --RichardW57m (talk)15:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@soap: It's an SoP (as in the looming German/Swedish/Sanskrit problem) and coal mine mess! First durable source hyphenates, and also hyphenates the feminine form of the positive, but not the neuter form of the positive. --RichardW57m (talk)16:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Soap: I misread the accusative of the feminine form as a neuter form. The Sinhala script version has the phrase or whatever as a single word, so we now have quotes for one word in the Sinhala script, and for hyphenated and two words in the Roman script. They're not independent. --RichardW57 (talk)00:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Gamren: If you're up to identifying the tradition, go ahead and label it. I'd be tempted to say it's a Buddhist term, but for all I know it might just be a Theravadin concept. It might not Sanskritise well. --RichardW57m (talk)12:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, it's got two descendants listed at the bottom of theचतुरङ्ग page. Would these two be better explained as direct loans from Sanskrit?—Soap—09:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
It works - dating of the loans would help. The compilers of Thailand's Royal Institute Dictionary gave up on trying to decide whether words were borrowed from Sanskrit or Pali. In this instance, I think borrowing via Thai would also be possible. The word exists in Thai, though not on Wiktionary. The homonymous adjective in Pali has a ghostly existence - it can be seen as an intermediate element of compounds, but is also borderline SoP. --RichardW57 (talk)10:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Pali. Rfv-sense: to say
Bothvacati andvatti appear to be grammarians' fancies, and Childers writes, "Saddiníti gives the present formsvatti andvacati, neither of which I have yet met with in texts,vadati in Pali being generally substituted for the present of वच्."[1].
Geiger makes no reference tovatti in his discussion of athematic verbs. In his grammar, Thomas Oberlies uses the expression '(*)vatti' to refer to the forms from the stemvac. Neither grammar makes any mention ofvacati.
As the Saddiníti refers to them, there may be some merit in fashioning an explanation of the terms on Wiktionary. (Note that Oberlies' usage is in English.) --RichardW57 (talk)17:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Burmese.
The on-line version of the dictionary has a different spelling,သန္ဒေ. Is that also correct, or perhaps a common misspelling? I'm breaking the hard link for a Pali word form; someone else (e.g @Hintha) will have to add Burmeseသန္ဒေ(sande) if such a word exists. --RichardW57 (talk)11:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
SEALANG erroneously spells the word asသန္ဒေ(sande), likely due to a clerical error when digitising the Myanmar Language Commission's dictionary's contents. Other dictionaries, including my paper copy of the 2012Tet Toe English-Myanmar Mini-Dictionary (p. 296), corroborate theသန္ဓေ(sandhe) form. -Hintha (talk)20:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Can you please record the relevant dictionary definition. The best I could do was to find the word on p996 of Judson, where it merely says 'See ပဋိသန္ဓေ', which doesn't read to me as meaning 'means the same as'.
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Old English. I'm unaware of any attestations of this verb outside of the past participleġefylċed, which is attested sufficiently late that it could represent a vowel-reduced form ofġefylċod, the expected participle of the class 2 weak verbfylċian. This seems probable, as class 2 verbs tend to oust class 1 ones in late Old English; even if the verb was inherited from Proto-West Germanic*fulkijan (which is far from certain), it could've changed class at some point.2407:7000:942C:8000:4B9:8AE8:9E3D:8FC403:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I understand what you're saying, but likewise,fylċian is only attested once, also late (1066, same year as above) asfylċade. How then do we know which is right ? Odds are 50:50. At leastfylċan(wk1) has reflexes outside of Old English (OHG & ON), whichfylċian does not.Leasnam (talk)17:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Let's be clear on what the policy (WT:CFI#Constructed languages) says: We need one use in a durably-archived work for this to pass. (The cite given in the usage note is a reference to a dictionary, so not a use.) In practice, given the scant physical publications in this language, it means agreeing to accept online-only sources (theoretically one, but in practice several) if they can be found.This, that and the other (talk)10:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
The antonym. Also listed at RFDO, with comment "the word is very rare (i've never seen it outside of comprehensive lists)". I'm putting it as a subsection because I suspect the two entries will live or die together.This, that and the other (talk)10:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I've added the blindingly obvious quotation, and moved the difficult part of the definition to the headword, where it's unchallengeable (but unprotected). --RichardW57m (talk)09:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's not an instance of use, and in any case IMO we don't need a quotation, just a definition. If the article does not contain a definition, it should be deleted until someone comes along who wants to create actual content.
Actually, withmy correction the article is still only marginal (rather than outright false, as it was when I found it), though it should ideally have enough content to be minimally informative to the reader. The link to the Unicode proposal at least gives them something to follow up on if they want an actual definition, so I removed the 'deletion' tag.kwami (talk)23:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, it is an instance of use, and here it is in more detail:
A letter used in Rumai Palaung.
2005,(some Rumai Palaung reader); reproduced in Michael Everson, Martin Hosken,Proposal for encoding Myanmar characters for Shan and Palaung in the UCS[75],2006, Figure 5:
The moratorium stops me expanding the citation on the page; I have adopted editor-hostile formatting to get round a bug in line-trimming when previewing the edit.
Or do you have some reason for denying that it was an instance of use? I take it you did look at Figure 5.
Transcribing that text in a language I don't know in an alphabet I'm not acquainted with is hard going.
This entry has been made the subject of an RfV, so unless we accept 'clearly widespread use', and you clearly didn't before, we need a quotation or a suitable mention. --RichardW57m (talk)14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Mon.
Keep. The vowel letter blatantly obviously exists. I shouldn't have had to waste my time adding quotations. @Kwamikagami would have got a strong hint of that from even a glance atWT:About Mon. Incidentally, for the sake of a letter lemma, I don't why we have to worry about how it's pronounced. --RichardW57m (talk)14:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57m It's not whether the letter exists, but whether the article has any content. Spurious articles should be deleted, regardless of whether a good article could be written. If the articleapple only said "Translingual: a word spelleda-p-p-l-e," then that article should be deleted regardless of the fact that we could craft a legitimate article on that word. Or, you could be the one to add lexical content, if you like. But it does no harm to not have a spurious article, and IMO it's better that way: when people see all the red links, someone may be inspired to create actual, informative articles on these letters.
BTW, I never said you needed to add quotations. At the very least, identify the language or languages. The pronunciation would also be nice, though not strictly necessary.
As for why I'm doing this, I've found Wikt articles on supposed letters that apparently don't exist inany language. Not many, but a few. And I've found hundreds more that have fake definitions or empty definitions that don't actually provide any information. That makes Wiktionary look like a joke.kwami (talk)21:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami: were you aware that{{rfdef}} exists? You're deleting entries because they lack adequate definitions when you could be tagging them with{{rfdef}} and a hidden note explaining what would constitute an adequate definition. FloodingCAT:D with trivial single-character entries that admins don't know and don't care about is annoying and rather disruptive. I'm certainly not going to waste my time on them.Chuck Entz (talk)03:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
That would be fine for missing definitions. But these are bogusarticles. I would delete them myself if I were able to.
I got started with emoji articles that were nothing more than the Unicode definition, or what the emoji happened to look like in a particular font. Consensus was that such spurious articles should be deleted.
I've been criticized for removing false information and then tagging the article for deletion. But often once the false information is removed,there's nothing left. What exactly am I supposed to tag with {rfdef}? In many cases we don't even know what language uses the letter. In other cases we don't know if the letter is used inany orthography. I suppose I could replace the entry with an "Undetermined" header and then tag that with {rfdef}, but that seems rather ridiculous -- what definition would we expect for an undetermined language?
There are editors who are willing to delete bogus articles -- it's not like it takes any effort. But they've stopped when criticized for deleting spurious or unverified claims. Why not just delete any article that doesn't meet Wiktionary standards, and leave it to someone who actually has some information to recreate it?kwami (talk)03:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami,Chuck Entz: Because when recreating apage, one needs to know why the article was deleted, and not everyone can see the reason.
Corrupt entries like this should of course just be fixed or deleted, but RichardW57m is edit-warring over imposing a Burmese-nationalist bias on Wikt, so better for a third party to fix it.
RichardW57m was instructed,when he asked about this issue at the Beer Parlor, that the translingual header is for translingual entries, and that individual languages belong under their own headers. Yet he insists that Burmese does not belong under a language header, but should be presented as some kind of translingual entity, and that all other languages of Burma are secondary to it. I've tried fixing, e.g. by changing the 'translingual' header to 'Burmese', but RichardW57m reverts that and complains I am 'deleting' the entry. He also deletes Burmese entries as 'redundant'. (Somehow deleting Burmese does not count as 'deleting'.) I've fixed 'Burmese alphabet' (which RichardW57m intends specifically as the alphabet of the burmese language, not as the translingual Mon-Burmese script -- this isn't a matter of him being confused by the name) to the translingual Mon-Burmese script (arguably it's actually the Mon script), but RichardW57m reverts it back to his favored language, arguing that the Burmese alphabet is representative of the Mon script and so should be presented instead. There's also the problem that Mon, Shan, Karen etc. are not pronounced as Burmese. In this single case he has made the grudging concession of labeling the pronunciation as 'Burmese', but of course it should still be moved to a Burmese header. He's also called for me to be banned for opposing his nationalist bias, which has no business dictating the format of Wikt.kwami (talk)18:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The likes of Translinguali(letter) are defined by reference to well-known alphabets; the current and early definition of th (vowel) letter are by reference to a well-known alphabet. (He appears to be frustrated that the Mons were definitively defeated by the Burmese after attempting to assimilate the Burmese, so that Burmese culture is better known to English speakers than Mon culture.)
There is currently a moratorium on editing one-character letters, such as this, so here is evidence of translinguality:
As for the history, I contend that simplyundoing an improper edit is perfectly reasonable - @Kwamikagami had replaced 'translingual' by 'Burmese' without raising an{{rfm}} or anything suitable. If he had simply added a Burmese language section for a letter, I would not have changed his edit except perhaps for uncontroversial edits, such as fixing typos or supplying omitted items.RichardW57 (talk)20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep. (I was interrupted by a computer problem).
As to the matter of citing pronunciations, that is something that can be improved. We are slowly discussing it inWiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/July#Pronunciation Labelling in Translingual Items, where on 15 July @Kwamikagami conceded, "If under 'translingual' you wanted to give the pronunciation of the various languages that use the letter, that would be technically correct, but that's why we have sections for individual languages." The discussion is moving to the notion of focussing on abstract sounds, and not using sound clips at all, which tend to be cluttered by irrelevant details of individual languages. --RichardW57 (talk)21:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I could not find the reference to support it. In fact, I don't think Central Thai dialect ever use this word in that sense. Even in the contemporary Northern Thai, the use of this word to mean "because" is rare. I think the user @21janvier1793 put the meaning here because he misunderstood that Isaan was a dialect of Central Thai.Noktonissian (talk)13:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Does anyone feel up to writing the Isaan entry? I wasn't up to translating the examples I could find. It looks as though the simple word is both preposition and conjunction, though Becker just givesย้อนว่า (in Lao script) as the conjunction. --RichardW57 (talk)14:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I do not think the meaning "because" belongs here. พจนานุกรมฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน does not mention this meaning. I think we should remove it. --A.S. (talk)13:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Paiwan. This language does not appear to use the letterf: see a long text at[76]. The phonemev is apparently used, so it is possible that different orthographies exist. The wordalofo (with lowercase) may belong to a different Taiwanese indigenous language, such as Amis.This, that and the other (talk)11:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Undetermined. Having deleted the entry for the Chinese upper case 'letter', @Kwamikagami added the tag{{rfv}} with the explanation, 'Lacking a language orthography'. Now if Yorubaǹ(letter) is valid, we need a good explanation as to why the corresponding capital does not exist or is not translingual. Incidentally, Translingualǹ(symbol) existed until @Kwamikagami deleted it out of process on 2 June 2023. --RichardW57m (talk)12:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Welsh. This is certainly a proper noun used as a house and farm name[[w:Mathafarn]|but I can't find any record of it as a common noun, specifically in Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru.Llusiduonbach] (talk)16:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Belarusian. Belarusians may occasionally use this word in their Russian speech, but I doubt that it can be considered a proper Belarusian word. The synonyms of this word exist in Belarusian dictionaries, so it's not vulgar enough to be excluded from dictionaries on the basis of being vulgar. And yet the Belarusian dictionaries don't seem to have "жопа".Ssvb (talk)16:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ssvb: Hi. The Belarusian entry was added by me. It can be marked as rare or "Russianism". The more common synonymду́па(dúpa) is listed under synonyms. It was possible to find usage in Belarusian. Folklore: "Ах, мілка мая, вярціжопаю, як я. Стара будзеш — пазабудзеш, вярцець жопаю не будзеш." Another usage: "Раптам бачу, круцяць міма насжопамі".
More common vulgar forms like "пайшла ў жопу!". It is verifiable in different forms, if someone wants to keep it.
I don't mind keeping Belarusian less contaminated by Russian, though, if it's decided to delete the entry. I am neutral but remember we describe the language the way it is, not the way we want it to be.Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)08:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
RFV-failed. The discussion has been open for more than a month (2 years, in fact), so I believe I can close it.
Addressing the question of “keeping Belarusian less contaminated by Russian”: the real issue here is not “how we what Belarusian to be“, but “do we consider this Belarusian?”. Is a Russian word inside Belarusian a code-switching (and needs to be described in Russian part of the dictionary) or a borrowing (and can be considered a part of Belarusian)? The lines are often blurred.
The issue is not unique to Belarusian, it’s relevant for any language whose community is bilingual. For example, Tatar. Let’s take a common Russian word and try finding it in a Tatar text:
2006 August 4, ANGDOR,Udaff.online[77], archived fromthe original on6 November 2025:
2021 March 18, Juli Ibragim, “Ильсия Бадретдинова”, inVK.com[78], archived fromthe original on6 November 2025:
Ильсөянең рэпчитать итергә исәбе бар быгай😎
İlʹsöyäneñ repçitatʹ itergä isäbe bar bığay😎
Looks like Ilsöyä has a reason forperforming rap 😎
I’ve found 3 entries. It formally fulfilsWT:CFI. So, should we add Tatarчитать(çitatʹ) orчитать итү(çitatʹ itü) as a synonym ofуку(uqu)? The problem is, basically any Russian word can be borrowed into Belarusian or Tatar this way (since almost all speakers are bilingual). Do we really need a copy of Russian dictionary in Tatar and Belarusian sections of Wiktionary?
@Хтосьці: A few comments. I added this RFV a long time ago, when I was just a beginner here. TheWT:ABE#Criteria for inclusion is not an official policy. Right now it's just a draft written by me to fill the void. It can be challenged and changed if necessary. As for the word itself, I feel like its attestability might be similar to the attestability of the English termamigo. --Ssvb (talk)16:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
The difference between amigo and жопа is that most English speakers do not, in fact, know Spanish or Portuguese. So when a Spanish or Portuguese word enters English, it's a rare situation worthy of description.
Almost all Belarusian speakers, on the other hand, know Russian, so the bar is much lower. Russian words in Belarusian are a daily occurence, and I don't see much value in documenting it.
However if you want to challenge my decision to remove жопа, feel free to undo my changes. I just wanted to close a RFV because no one seems to close them and they just seem to rot forever, which is IMHO not ideal.Хтосьці (talk)17:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RichardW57 Neither are several of the other scripts given. Why are you only RFV’ing this one? If you’re only doing it because you disagree with the move to use the conventional Mongolian I instead of the Galik one, then I should point out that exactly the same issue applies to that version as well. It seems very clear to me that it would be more productive to get rid of the automatic Sanskrit alternative generator instead of these sorts of piecemeal nominations, wouldn’t you agree?Theknightwho (talk)04:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
In this particular case, we can now read the word as hand-written, and attempt to work out what is actually written. And here we also get mentions for Manchu and Tibetan for free from your example.
After seeing @AleksiB 1945's confession atWT:GP, I realised there was a whole bunch of unsupported transliterations to investigate.
While the automated generation of alternative forms tends not to be trustworthy, it does seem to be more trustworthy than the equivalent manual generation of red links, and is better than having private code generating wikitext that is then pasted in manually. And continual improvement is available for automatic generation. I do however see false blue (only orange if one's logged in and has so chosen) links as a reputational problem. One solution for them pending the location of evidence is{{no entry}}. --RichardW57 (talk)22:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Telugu, as mentioned in the deletion summary, no results in CPB or Andhra Bharati repo, not found on internet or gbooks, Tamil Lexicon and Burrow (DEDR [2910]) don't identify any Telugu cognate; it is specifically a South Dravidian word, is not even loaned to Telugu and Telugu doesnt have the phoneme /ɲ/, the word is a literal transliteration from Tamilஞாயிறு(ñāyiṟu).AleksiB 1945 (talk)09:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@AleksiB 1945 I agree I can't find any attestation of it. However I don't understand why it redirects to a Malayalam word now? Shouldn't it be redirected? Also, @Getsnoopy is the page creator, can you clarify why you created this entry?Brusquedandelion (talk)11:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@AleksiB 1945 It'sin CPB. And Telugu most definitely has the /ɲ/ phoneme, which is why ఞ exists. As for the redirect, I also am confused as to why a Telugu term redirects to a Malayalam term. I've noticed that you've made quite a few such changes that are incorrect without consensus; please do not do that and get consensus on the talk pages first.
>Telugu most definitely has the /ɲ/ phoneme, which is why ఞ exists.
ౡ also prob exists for the same reason, it is phonemic because of a single sanskrit loanwordञ(ña)
>without consensus
this discussion above has been open for over 7 months,another one for 11 months
>to show the etymology of the term పడమర
CP Brown who knew Tamil was giving an analogical explanation from the Malayalam word for west paḍiññāṟŭ which is from paḍum+ñāyaṟŭ. It is not about the Telugu word's etymology itself. The original cognate of ñāyaṟuisnt there in Telugu as the word is restricted to SD1, apart form that ñāyaṟŭ cannot become -mara. Just because the etym of a word isnt known doesn't mean whatever etym should be enteredAleksiB 1945 (talk)20:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Sanskrit.
Distinctly implausible given Sinhalese spellingශ්රී(śrī). If no defence of this spelling can be provided, I recommend that this page simply be deleted, rather than converted to an invocation of{{no entry|sa}}.
ශ්රී looks like an improperly rendered version ofශ්රී, the url shows it as "ශ්%E2%80%8Dරී" and both use the same letters just that the middle "%E2%80%8D" makes the first one a ligature it seemsAleksiB 1945 (talk)09:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@AleksiB 1945: Yes, that's the spelling difference. Sinhalese mostly forms consonant clusters using⟨0DCA⟩, the visible al lakuna - strictly speaking, killed consonant plus normal consonant with vowels: Pali mostly, or at least traditionally, forms consonant clusters using⟨200D 0DCA⟩ - touching letters: Sanskrit seems to mostly form them using full-blown conjuncts⟨0DCA 200D⟩, but I'm not sure whether it (i.e. the user) falls back to touching letters - to be researched. Additionally, some of the conjuncts seem to be repurposed for prenasalised consonants, and have indecomposable Unicode encodings for when used for that purpose. Just to complicate matters, it seems that Pali and Sinhala mostly use the full-blown conjunct encodings for clusters with 'r' or with 'y' in second place. There are at least seven combinations besides those ending in 'y' and 'r' for which Pali uses 'conjuncts' rather than touching letters. Some of these combinations are to be found in contractions rather than normal words, where they have been almost or mostly assimilated away, e.g. -kv- (no words, I think) and -nv- (only one verb and its compounds that I am sure of).
Oh, and there's the complication that the Windows font Nirmala UI supports neither touching letters nor full-blown conjuncts not used by Pali, so it falls back to visible al-lakuna. At least Windows now puts the preposed vowels and vowel fragments after the al-lakuna following the first consonant.
you should workout withModule:sa-convert#Example, as for the Mlym script it seems the chillus/dot reph are used but not the anusvara for final m as in Malayalam or the chillu m, instead മ് is used; also ive heard some saying word final t/d, ṭ/ḍ are represented with chillu l and ḷ but that might be a Malayalam only thing (not used in the samples either). Samples:1,2AleksiB 1945 (talk)11:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@AleksiB 1945: What we need to do is to populate the testcases, and that needs people to work from Sanskrit texts in the relevant scripts. In some cases, e.g. Sinhala, the examples are almost useless for checking because we lack the fonts to read them properly.(NotifyingAryamanA,Bhagadatta,Svartava,JohnC5,Kutchkutch,Inqilābī,Getsnoopy,Rishabhbhat,Dragonoid76):. I've got two pieces of Sanskrit in Sinhala script, and the chances of my misreading them are very high. My best chances are with the text at the foot of p26 ofhttps://www.aathaapi.net/tipitaka/28.OTSPKN_Khuddaka_Patha.pdf, and I don't know what type of Sanskrit it is - it could be Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit for all I know. At least I seem to have a Pali translation of that text in the verses above. --RichardW57m (talk)13:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Beware of the Sanskrit Bible on the Internet. It is automatically generated from a Devanagari master, and is only as trustworthy as their conversion code. I've found one version with a couple of sibilants swapped round! --RichardW57m (talk)13:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The first sample may be better; they are aware of the presence of pitfalls - "We are aware of the limitations of this automatic conversion from one language script to the other". --RichardW57m (talk)13:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Module:sa-convert/testcases/Sinhala demonstrates 3 failures out of 11, and that's working from a lower bar - that the Devanagari and Sinhala have the same Roman transliteration. Basically, we either have a very modern spelling, well under a century old, or the transliteration to Sinhala is deeply wrong. I believe it is deeply wrong. I'm disinclined to fix that detected bug until I can fix other bugs I've seen that are not amenable to automatic conversion. --RichardW57m (talk)13:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Mon. Rfv-sense: 'school' as a meaning in Thailand. Halliday[1] gives its meaning as "a monastery, a school (in Burma only)". Now, the Thai Mon entryแพฺ-อา by @Octahedron80 does give 'school' as a meaning, but without any source. This could have been inherited fromဘာ when he split the Thai Mon entry off.
Did Anusorn add (or subtract) something to the entry in the translation[3]? The entry in Edition 2 is the same as in the original[1]. I can't locate the text of other references you added[2][4]. What do they say about the word? (Exact text, please.) --RichardW57 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)RichardW57 (talk)22:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The sense development is plausible, as it happened in Burma. However, I could also see it developing a specialised sense - 'school where the teaching is in Mon', as opposed to a state school where the teaching is in Thai. So, what's the evidence that in Thailandဘာ has meant 'school' in general, given that Halliday wrote that the word didn't mean 'school' in Thailand. --RichardW57 (talk)22:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Octahedron80: What reason do we have to believe that Anusorn is anything more than an imperfect copy of Halliday Issue 2? If there is no claim to be anything other than a translation of Halliday Issue 2, or strong evidence that it is more than a translation, then we cannot cite it in contradiction to Halliday Issue 2.
Champi provides no evidence that the word in question means 'school'.
That leaves Phuan, as represented in some database, who contradicts Halliday, who seems to have received his information from Haswell. I also worry that Phuan may have used Halliday's dictionary. A word that makes me suspicious isဘာသာသနာ, which Halliday translates as 'mission school', i.e. a school run by missionaries. Have I translated the Thai translation of the meaning in Thailand correctly? The word as given for Thailand seems odd, as though Phuan saw it in a word list, felt he had to include it, and changed the meaning as though he didn't understand the English or thought it seemed odd. --RichardW57 (talk)10:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Phuan was a local Mon person that did not contact to any farang. (He lived in 1889-1976.) The dictionary is made by a group of Thailandish Mon people which is based on Phuan's study. His memorial and how they did is also printed in the book. If I have time, I will take some pictures of those pages. --Octahedron80 (talk)01:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
↑3.03.13.2อนุสรณ์ สถานนท์, ร้อยตรี[Anusorn Sathanon, Sub-Lt.] (1984),พจนานุกรม มอญ-ไทย[Mon-Thai Dictionary]; Thai translation ofHalliday, R. (1922),A Mon-English Dictionary, Bangkok: Siam Society (2nd ed.: Rangoon: Mon Cultural Section, Ministry of Union Culture, Govt. of the Union of Burma, 1955).
We also have more forms than those:[85][86][87][88]. About စှ် and စှော်, I think they might be interchangeable, not strict to use only form per number. IMO, Old Mon စသ် turned into Modern Mon စဟ် at the beginning and then ဟ became subjoined by Burmese rule (?). In the other hand, စှော် happened because someone started adding explicit vowel to စှ်. Tall AA form also derived from the Burmese rule either.--Octahedron80 (talk)07:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Octahedron80: None of what you just quoted, so far as spellings go, contradict the observation that forms with /ɔ/ means '10' or '-teen', while forms with /o/ (Shorto is reported as having /u/) mean '-ty'. The only place that contradicts this ishttps://www.omniglot.com/language/numbers/mon.htm. Even dictionaries that lack an entry forစှော် etc. show the behaviour. I don't know how far back the distinction goes, though presumably not before Middle Mon. --RichardW57m (talk)12:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Digression:
Subscripting final consonants is or was pretty widespread; I don't think it's a particularity Burmese habit. It's even seen in Kharoshthi! Khmer used to do it, and an instance leaked into the Unicode standard. Lao did it with ຽ. Tai Tham still does it, even it is now less popular for /uːp/ and /up/, and some consonants get out of the way below by superscripting. I did wonder if the historical connection between Mon and Tai Tham was relevant. --RichardW57m (talk)12:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Old Coptic. Would like some source where it can be verified that this particular form of the word exists; the final vowel seems irregular with respect to the given Bohairic and Sahidic Coptic forms, and I can’t find mention of it on a quick search through the usual references. —Vorziblix (talk ·contribs)20:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Mon. There is no evidence of the Thai script being used to write Mon, except as a transcription or transliteration system. Furthermore, no evidence of existence has been recorded for the words in these spellings. --RichardW57 (talk)21:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
These words are in the Thai script, but no evidence has been presented that the Thai script has been used for communicating in Mon. While a dictionary reference has been offered, these alleged words are almost certainly merely the pronunciation expressed in the Thai script. --RichardW57 (talk)17:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Mon. There is no evidence of the Thai script being used to write Mon, except as a transcription or transliteration system. (Examples of usage as a transcription has been presented atဘာ above.) --RichardW57 (talk)18:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Translingual. RFV of the gender / asexual sense. A very similar sense previously failed RFV, this one was (re)added without citations of actual use, and even its inclusion in the reference cited for it may be fictitious according toWiktionary:Tea_room/2023/October#Some_gender/sexuality_symbols . (If at least three symbols — alsothe Eris one — have been added citing that book but appear to not be present in the book, perhaps we also need to examine other entries which claim to be sourced to that book...?)- -sche(discuss)13:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
^Mayrhofer, Manfred (1996), “YOJ”, inEtymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen [Etymological Dictionary of Old Indo-Aryan][2] (in German), volume 2, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, page417
Please seeModule:checkparams for help with this warning.Wackernagel, Jakob (1896-1964),Altindische Grammatik [Grammar of Ancient Indian] (Indogermanische Bibliothek. 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher) (in German), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, page286: “§149b)β)”
^Otto Böhtlingk; Richard Schmidt (1879-1928), “योगस्”, in Walter Slaje, Jürgen Hanneder, Paul Molitor, Jörg Ritter, editors,Nachtragswörterbuch des Sanskrit [Dictionary of Sanskrit with supplements] (in German), Halle-Wittenberg: Martin-Luther-Universität, published2016
I know it's the kind of stuff you need to dedicate serious study to to even begin to understand it. But what to do with this request? Say it exists and call it a day? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk)21:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
For me, that's okay, though I don't think there was ever a debate on whether all meanings given by MW as 'L.' should be included. But Mayrhofer frequently gives etymologies for words that only occur in glossaries, so...Exarchus (talk)21:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:कालमैत्री, It's a dialectal vulgar tadbhava term. It is not likely be a word in common (definitely not cultivated) usage, especially outside of Haryana-Punjab (don't know if McGregor is enough to classify it as purely Bangru/Haryanvi however). It's well attested in linguistic literature, as early as 1790.Chariotrider555 (talk)03:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
عورت / ʻaurat , " (orig.) The private part or parts (so called because it is abominable to uncover or expose them)" in John T. Platt'sA Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English (1884), published by W. H. Allen & Co.,[92]
عورت / aurat, "1. The pudenda of man or woman, that which is concealed through modesty." in John Shakespear'sA Dictionary, Hindustani and English (1834), third edition, published by J. L. Cox & Son,[93]
عورت / ‘au'rat, "nordity parts of body that should go covered" in Bashsir Ahmad Qureshi'sKitabistan's 20th century standard dictionary (1971), published by Kitabistan Publishing[94]
@Chariotrider555 That doesn't verify. Platts mentions it originally( inPersian?) meant private parts. But do we have any citations etc. to verify this sense to been in use, especially in urdu. This1827 grammar also only mentions its use as womanकालमैत्री (talk)04:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
What isnordity? Is the use of that word any indication that this dictionary might not be the highest quality, or is it a rare, specialized word that we just don't list? Thanks,—Soap—08:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, scanno fornudity is very likely; it looks like that link isn't great at reproducing punctuation either. The whole definition says "woman female wife nakedness; nordity parts of body that should go covered", which I interpret as "woman, female, wife; nakedness, nudity; parts of body that should go covered". And honestly, that's probably the most misogynistic semantic shift I've ever heard of. It's as if some future stage of English would havecunt as its unmarked, everyday word for "woman". —Mahāgaja ·talk08:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. And yes, that's what brought my attention to this RFV. I've heard that some feminists want to replace this word with the Persianزن (zan) or a similar word; seethis page or a search for phrases like "don't say aurat" for newer articles, such asthis one which applies to Hindi. I dont know how common this sentiment is, or whether it's worth mentioning with a label or with a usage note that some people find the term offensive. The impression I get from the linked article above is that there is no easy replacement for it, and the impression I get from the Google search is that the etymology is not widely known. (Also, for what it's worth, it's plausible that Englishwife is cognate to a Tocharian word for genitals, though we can't reconstruct the meaning of the original PIE from just two cognates, if they even are related.)—Soap—09:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Soap This offensive feeling is very uncommon, only in some feminists and as for Hindi fringe groups who dislike Persian loanwords. Normal people just use it.Word0151 (talk)10:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja: – FWIW, I don't think it literally meant 'genitals', or like the word 'cunt'. I would tag it with a religious sense.UDB has defined at asجسم کے وہ اعضا جن کے دیکھنے دکھانے سے شرم آئے ( مرد کا ناف سے ٹخنے تک اور عورت کا تمام جسم باستثنائے چہرہ ) ۔ (jism ke vo a'zā jin ke dekhne dikhāne se śarm āe (mard kā nāf se ṭuxne tak aur 'aurt kā tamām jism bā satisnāe cahra).), ie. The parts of the body which are embarrassing to be shown (from the centre/stomach/belly button till the ankles for men and the entire body except the face for the women). They've given two quotes for this, one dated 1744, and the other 1867.نعم البدل (talk)16:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Old Hindi is not awell-documented language, so dictionary entries may suffice for inclusion. This does not hold for Urdu. If the sense existed in Old Hindi, it is plausible the sense existed in "old" Urdu (basically the same language as Old Hindi), but did not make it to present-day Urdu. --Lambiam16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam Does the word exist in old Hindi?. The dictionaries (of 19th century hindi which is not old-hindi) tells of it meaning originally(Persian?) and then writes what it means in Urdu/Hindi as in[95]. And its more of a why/context the new dictionaries give when they write this and not from the view of Old-Hindi. We are only able to verify it only meant as woman.कालमैत्री (talk)17:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Since the word exists both in Hindi (asऔरत(aurat)) and in Urdu (asعورت), it is reasonable to believe it had an ancestor in Old Hindi. Actually,the etymology section at Hindi औरत states that that ancestor is Old Hindiऔरत(aurata), spelled the same but with a slightly different Romanization.Morphology and Syntax of Old Hindī, to which this is sourced, only give the sense “woman” (for the stemaurat-).[96] But this is not a dictionary. I do not know if there are any Old Hindi dictionaries. --Lambiam18:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A cursory search seems to show that this is a proposed "official" term which does not receive much usage. I've found it in a dictionary from the 1960s, but not in "running text". Hebrew is a WDL so we'll need more than dictionary entries.Корсикэн-Уара (юзэр толк)21:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
"stsl. kamy a kamenь" means "Old Church Slavonic kamy and kamenь". I haven't found any attestation of kámy and it would be a great surprise for me if there were any. The consonant patterns of the feminine and neuter gender have kept their nominative (r-stem –máti; n-stem –břiemě, t-stem –kuřě) distinct from other cases (mateře, břěmene, kuřěte). I think the reason for the disappearance of the masculine nominative was the Proto-Slavic contrast between nominative and accusative (*kàmy ~ *kàmenь), which isn't seen in any other masculine patterns and was impossible to retain. I haven't seen an example of masculine n-stem which would've kept the original nominative. If there is no attestation of kámy, the page should be deleted.Zhnka (talk)15:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
it's a placename in the Taos language. The English name is just a literal translation of the Taos. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no more information on it as I remember it. It's very possible that there will be no real English name for the place since Taos people have traditionally been secretive about their culture from outsiders. Furthermore, the placename is from a book of traditional folktales, origin origins, religious myths, etc. It also possible that living Taos people don't know what the name refers like the way Western folks don't know where thegarden of Eden is.Ish ishwar (talk)05:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
It has one. It's from Parson's bookTaos tales. All other Taos lexical entries that do not contain the mention of Parsons are from Trager's body of work on Taos, which include a grammatical sketch and few articles on mostly phonology, morphophonology, and prosody. I included some info from Parsons because she gave her text to Trager who checked some of her transcriptions with speakers. (Trager was a famous structural linguist who has good ears while Parsons was an anthropologist who apparently couldn't hear the difference between ejective and non-ejective consonants.) However, I will say that I hardly added anything from Parsons – just the first several pages. There are probably many words that could be added that may not be in Trager's publications. Somebody has to go through it.Ish ishwar (talk)05:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Regarding your desire for subset categorizations of placenames, you are simply not going to get the detail that you want for a language like this. Now, since the story that contains this word contains what we might consider magic, you might could guess that this placename is mythical placename. However, that would be pure speculation on our part. The only way to get your information would to travel to Taos and convince some native speaker to answer your questions. That might be hard to do given the traditional secretiveness of the culture to outsiders. (For example, if you look at Parsons's papers housed at the American Philosophical Society, most of her Taos notebooks are restricted access presumably at the request of the Taos government.) It's better to just call it a placename and leave it that.Ish ishwar (talk)06:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ish ishwar You need to add a citation from the book you quoted from that illustrates the term, otherwise the term is liable to be deleted. I also think if we can't even determine whether it's a real or fictional placename, it shouldn't be included, but I am not an expert onWT:CFI; others will have to chime in.Benwing2 (talk)06:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you understand the degree of documentation of Taos. Parsons's book is a book of traditional Taos stories written in English that includes the occasional word from the Taos language. Almost all Taos words from that book do not occur in the context of Taos sentences, the words sometimes occur in the context of English sentences and most often in footnotes as a Taos single word with morphemic glosses provided by Trager. What you want doesn't exist. Her book appears to finally have been scanned, take a look at the page:https://quod.lib.umich.edu/g/genpub/agy7796.0001.001/30
I would guess that there are no published texts in the Taos language – exception being that maybe some hardcore US Christians (like the Wycliffe Bible translators) have attempted a translation of the Christian bible. The Taos community probably has materials that are private. There are probably unpublished texts from linguists' fieldnotes.
If you include the wordEden here, then you should includehìwkwíalto because they likely have the same degree of determination of whether it's meets your 'real' definition. (It might be insulting to call it 'fictional.' I think Christians usually elevate their religious texts to be outside of fiction.)Ish ishwar (talk)08:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ish ishwar You need to readWT:CFI. We are quite liberal about allowing attestation of limited-resource languages, but there is a limit.Eden is nothing likehìwkwíalto because there are a zillion attestations of the former. If the words are included only in footnotes and mentions, then you need to quote those footnotes and mentions. If the meaning is uncertain, as it sounds likehìwkwíalto substantially is, use{{def-uncertain}} with best-guess meanings following; but in this case it should not be categorized as a placename. We can't just ignore the rules because work is required to follow them.Benwing2 (talk)09:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the scan of the source, I don't think it even is a place name. I think it's just a common noun that means literally 'stone fence' and might idiomatically mean 'shrine'. —Mahāgaja ·talk10:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you need a zillion attestations, then you will have to delete all Taos entries. Most are listed only a single time in every source. All words in Parsons are included in the main text of each story in Parsons's inaccurate phonetic transcription, the footnotes contain Trager's rechecking and phonemicization+morpheme identification of Parsons's phonetics. The meaning seems to be certain – I don't know where your uncertainty is coming from.
The 'Shrine ?' note that follows the morphemic gloss is presumably Parsons's. It's not clear what means. My interpretation was that she meant that this may be a shrine location. The following note to look at page 99 shows that another character also lives at the same place. If Trager has an uncertainty, then there will be a question before the '(T').' which you can see on some footnotes.
If you read the preface to this book, you'll see that Parsons says that usually Taos language stories start by mentioning the characters and the places that they live. She explicitly uses the termplace name. Additionally, in her English translation, she uses the locative noun without a definite article which is typical of how English placenames are treated grammatically. Thus, I conclude that these nouns are placenames. I use the termplacename in a semantic sense because placename nouns and non-placename nouns are identical except for the addition of a locative suffix/postclitic-to. I don't think you should second guess the authors – just report what the sources say.Ish ishwar (talk)06:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ish ishwar Please readWT:CFI. You do not need a zillion citations for low-resource languages like Taos, only one. I agree with reporting what the sources say, but as you mention, the sources don't say it's a place name, it's just some assumptions you're making. I think it's important that all assumptions like this are noted and that citations are given appropriately, like I said before. I agree withUser:Mahagaja that this is more likely to be a generic "stone fence"; presumably the author would have capitalized Stone Fence or otherwise made clear it was intended as a specific place name (and would presumably have given some indication of where the place name is). Also you have consistently adopted a somewhat hostile attitude towards me from the beginning; I'd ask you to tone it down and assume good faith on my part. I am trying to improve the quality of these entries, which are old and in need of cleanup, by giving you some ideas as to how to clean up the entries.Benwing2 (talk)07:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The source does say that stories start with character names and a placename. This noun + postposition does occur at the start of a story. Therefore, according to the source, it is placename. It's not an assumption since the source explicitly says so. I'm fine with putting your doubts in the entry, but it should be clear that the doubt is a supposition.
Your assumption that some indication of where the placename is should be given seems unreasonable. I would find it likely that Parsons doesn't know where numerous places were in the Taos territory. Although it's a different language & culture (but in the same Southwest region), Keith Basso wrote a book about placenames in the Western Apache language in which you can see that there are hundreds of specific geological formations/areas have that names with no corresponding name for the place in English (e.g.Goshtł'ish Tú Bił Siką́né 'Water Lies With Mud In An Open Container,'Gad O'ááhá 'Juniper Tree Stands Alone,'Tséé Dotł'izh Tę́naahijaahá 'Green Rocks Side By Side Jut Down Into Water,' etc.) Nobody not from Western Apache culture knows where these are since it's all private knowledge. (Basso notes in the book that Western Apache folks didn't want the locations of the names published.) I don't find it improbable that this is similar for hundreds of languages.
I don't see how I've been hostile or how any of what I wrote can be interpreted that way. I haven't agreed with you and still don't agree with you, and I'm just trying to explain why. It's good to improve entries. I just don't think the information should include surmises.Ish ishwar (talk)23:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is no particular one standard to deem the pronunciation of this letter, it's not used very commonly among Tamil speakers, you will find it's usage as (kh) mostly only in Tamil Islamic texts and in Muslim names. For a common Tamilian with no linguistic expertise, it's just (ḥk). And that goes for almost all the Tamil letters, most of them have a different sound based on where they occur in the word. For example, க is pronounced as /k/ in the beginning of the word, but it becomes /g/ when it comes in the middle of a word, but retains its /k/ sound if a consonant(no schwa) precedes it. But if you generally look into the standards, ISO only considers the sound it makes in the beginning of the word as standard. I'd suggest you go with the ISO standard.Godwithus (talk)04:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Polish. Rfv-sense:
night of the long knives (purge in which opponents of a regime or political party are killed or removed)
Not implausible, but in Polish I've only seen it referring to the Nazi purge, or comparing events to it (nonetheless referencing the purge of 1934).Example of the latter (emphasis mine):
Szkoda, że biskup Życiński nie wspomniał o odwołaniu Lecha Kaczyńskiego zorganizowanymniczym noc długich noży z natychmiastowym pozbyciem się jego najbliższych współpracowników i odwetem na mianowanych przez niego ludziach.Hythonia (talk)14:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Stòrlann Nàiseanta na Gàidhlig, the official organization that produces Gaelic-language educational materials in Scotland, has a spreadsheet locatedhere (if you don't want to download an XLS file/aren't using a device that has an Excel or OpenOffice equivalent, the relevant sheet is copied onthis blog post) that lists geographic names of countries in Scottish Gaelic. Finland is provided as bothSuòmaidh andFionnlainn, and my understanding is that Suòmaidh is the preferred name, deriving from the Finnish endonymSuomi. Fionnlainn, meanwhile, is a direct loan-word from Modern English, and at least in educational settings, those are often shunned whenever there is a historical alternative. (In fact,Am Faclair Beag does not list Fionlainn at all.Suòmaidh is the only provided translation for "Finland" in that dictionary.) As to whether either term is more often used in casual conversation by native speakers, I cannot say -- searching BBC Alba pulls up no Gaelic results for any derivative of Suomi, and only one hit for Fionnlainn.Qwertygiy (talk)00:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"The oldest and most sacred part of the Avesta, as mentioned in its place, is the Gathas... The Gathas (Gatha) have become (Gas) in the Pahlavi language, and its plural (Gasan) and its relative (Gasanik) have been mentioned in a descriptive manner. Each of the Gathas poems is also called (Gas). This same word has become (Gah) in the Persian language after Islam because most of the Sins in the Pahlavi language have been changed to "Ha" in Persian, and Gas is also like this."
Latest comment:8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Malay. I've never heard this word before. As far as I know, "teh" is the Malay word for tea, and that's the word I've used and heard whenever I've needed to speak Malay.The dog2 (talk)06:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm a native speaker and you're right, it is "teh"! I've never heard of "ca" before and it's not even listed in the Kamus Dewan, however I saw the word "cha" in Classical Malay dictionary dating back to 1701 and if we were to follow the modern standard spelling, it would be spelled "ca". If the entry doesn't fit theWT:CFI, it should be deleted :oSponge2490 (talk)00:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
^Otto Böhtlingk; Richard Schmidt (1879-1928), “धीर”, in Walter Slaje, Jürgen Hanneder, Paul Molitor, Jörg Ritter, editors,Nachtragswörterbuch des Sanskrit [Dictionary of Sanskrit with supplements] (in German), Halle-Wittenberg: Martin-Luther-Universität, published2016
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Pali.
Formally registered here, but I had overlooked its being recorded in both the PTS Pali dictionary and in Childers. I therefore say,Keep, and think I could find an occurrence in the Milinda-Panha if I made the effort. That may be the oldest occurrence in Pali. Occurrences in the commentaries, reported by the PTS dictionary, may be harder to track down to printed materials. --RichardW57 (talk)00:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Old High German. Not on any of the OHG noun entries and although I'm not very familiar with OHG sound changes I can find no justification for a change from -a- to -u-. Could be from *-uz but the entry specifically states that the suffix applies to a-stems.-saph 🍏15:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do we have a policy (or policy-adjacent recommendation) on the attestation of nonlemma forms? Certainly for Latin, we have tons of bot-created nonlemma forms that may or may not be actually attested. For Ancient Greek, I feel like creating entries for such purely theoretical forms is a waste of time, and I wish editors interested in Ancient Greek would spend their Wiktionary time differently, but once the entries have been created, I'm not sure we should spend time deleting them either. —Mahāgaja ·talk13:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know of an overall policy, but in the case of Latin, I think it is generally agreed not to list certain forms, e.g. the locative, unless they are either attested or part of a word category that is known to productively use this form (e.g. city names). This is because we know the use of the locative in Latin was restricted and not fully productive for all nouns. I don't know what Mnemosientje's point is, nor am I familiar with how ancient Greek used the dual, but if it was a barely or questionably productive category, I could see how a policy of only listing it if attested might make sense. On the other hand, the posts on thisweb page state "the dual is always optional [...] On the other hand, it isn't terribly rare, archaic, or limited to specific referents or registers" and "In Homer, the dual seems to be freely used whenever two items are mentioned", which suggests that whether or not a word's dual form is attested might be more a matter of chance than a linguistically significant distinction from words with attested dual forms.--Urszag (talk)14:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Urszag: If I remember correctly, the use of the dual in Ancient Greek (as in many IE languages such as OE) died out over time: Homer may have used it regularly, but later authors didn't. To know whether a dual form is likely to be attested, you would need to know date and dialect (and possibly whether the writer was trying to come across as archaic). That would make use of the dual as anachronistic for some verbs as "emaileth".Chuck Entz (talk)15:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
My understanding is that our handling of Latin forms an exception in this respect, and even there non-lemma forms have in the past often enough been challenged successfully in RFV; the convention there appears to be an optimistic "assume attestation, but delete if challenged and so shown to be unattested", whereas for other dead languages the treatment is generally pessimistic ("don't assume attestation, only create an entry when certain of a form's existence"). Certainly for the Germanic languages, the convention has as long as I can remember specifically been to avoid creating entries for unattested inflected forms, even when they might be somewhat predictable.
I am not sure it is codified somewhere, but subjecting non-lemma forms to the attestation criterium by default makes sense to me. Not subjecting them to this criterium could arguably be done on the basis of the predictability of morphology: if one form is attested and the forms are readily deduced (i.e. a lemma entry can be created that belongs to a clear inflectional category), why not create all the non-lemma entries for the inflected forms either regardless of attestation? This however also leads to questions of determining on a per-case basis whether a form is "predictable enough" to be included anyway, which seems undesirable to me. I much prefer having our attestation requirement be universal. —Mnemosientje (t ·c)17:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
We know the dual forms of λόγoς which this is a compound of, so I see no reason I couldn't create these forms. I'll also add that if those forms shouldn't be created, they shouldn't be autogenerated by the template and redlinked in the first place.Vergencescattered (talk)18:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual. Rfv-sense:A symbol used for online identification of the Azov Brigade of Ukraine, often to signal support for it.
This is a character from theYi syllabary, but there does seem to be a little bit of use online. Not much, though, and the results are pretty much all in Ukrainian, so I don't think the translingual header is justified.Theknightwho (talk)14:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can find it a lot in a search of my few dozens political/teenage ukronazi channels on Telegram, often in names so you already know allegiance. On the other hand remember that you can find it (stylized this way) on shirts (domestically produced in the circle of ꑭ), hardly so entered in Unicode but I suspect reinforced from it?
So with the names of channels only examples I analyze: Anglophone channel: “ ꑭ Oppressed Lifters”https://t.me/OppressedLifters Ukrainophone:https://t.me/sooproon Супрунята ꑭ Iдея Nауки ⚛️✡️Супрунята ꑭ Iдея Nауки ⚛️✡️ – Where apparently ꑭ is basically a shorthand for українська, the other symbols meaning that he is also a Jew or Philosemite and interested in science. Though on the other hand it occurs right after “Ukrainian” in the English channel name of an Ukrainian-language channel “ukrain1an ꑭ news”https://t.me/ukrain1an_news. Surely however in “𝙄𝙣𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙣𝙞𝙖 ꑭ 𝙉𝙎𝘽𝙈”https://t.me/InsomniaNSBM or “ꑭ ᴠᴀʟʜöʟʟ ✙”https://t.me/vallholl it means the channel is of Ukrainian origin and alledged with the said troops; in the former you cannot even claim a language since it is basically only dumping music. There is at least a point to make about why this symbolic is so frequent.
Latest comment:4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Russian. Rfv-sense:(fiction, usually capitalised)Chaos, demonic entities, their monsters, and armies from theWarhammer franchises byGames Workshop
If it’s anything like EnglishChaos (sense 3) then this might be able to passWT:FICTION, as I’ve definitely heard the English equivalent used outside of direct reference to the franchise. I don’t know if this has the same purchase, though, and it should probably be moved toХаос(Xaos) if it does pass. @Fay Freak - I feel like you might know?Theknightwho (talk)17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dacian.
"A kind of fruit, the small plantain."
This is one of many Dacian entries added 18 years ago by the same editor, none of which have any information as to source. I decided to start with this one because it contains a glaring error that shows complete ignorance of the subject matter. There are two main definitions forplantain: a small edible weed in thegenusPlantago which is native to Europe where the Dacians once lived, and a kind of banana- which definitely isn't. The mention of fruit says to me that this person saw the word in some discussion of Indo-European languages and made an entry out of it without checking anything.
A recent discussion atWiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/February#κινούβοιλα (Dacian) led some to question whether a single mention of a Dacian word in Greek script in an Ancient Greek herbal was worthy of an entry. This is far worse: no indication where it came from, what the language of the text it occurred in was, and no guarantee that this is even an accurate representation of the original. I'm sure there's an Ancient Greek or Latin herbal somewhere that this came from, but without knowing the original script and the method of transliteration if this isn't the original script, it's impossible to know what the "x" represents, for instance. The likelihood that this came from some third-hand discussionabout Dacian rather than the original source adds another layer of uncertainty.Chuck Entz (talk)06:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pseudo-Apuleius maybe? "HERBA PLANTAGO ... Nomina herbae. A Graecis dicitur arnoglossa, alii arnion, alii probation, alii cinoglossa, alii eptapleuron, Galli tarbidolotius, Spahi tetharica, Siculi polineuron, <alii> tirsion, profetae ura egneumonos, Aegyptii asaer, alii thetarion, Daci sipoax, Itali plantago lata, Romani plantago maior, alii septeneruia." ([101])
It's like: "It is calledarnoglossa by the Greeks". Butarnoglossa isn't proper Greek. In Greek it would be something like (*?)ἀρνόγλωσσα(arnóglōssa) (script and spiritus, accent). Also it could be a Latin mistake forἀρνόγλωσσον(arnóglōsson) (2nd decl. neuter ending -on/ον instead of 1st decl. ending -a/α). In other cases there could also be a Latin ending instead of the original one, as in "Galii pinpedonum" whileWP gives the ending as-on. Thus with Pseudo-Apuleius as only source it would be Gaulish*pinpedonon.
Google Books gives text previews with "sipoax and sipotax help to restore the Dacian form *siptoáx: it is a derivative from *sipta < IE *septm 'seven' plus the suffix -āk(o)s" and "Dacian: *septm > Dacian *sipta and -a:k(o)s > *siptoax > sipotax and sipoax (Pseudoapuleius)". So it would be Dacian*siptoax/*siptoáx. --11:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment:1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I've just had the pleasure of removing an Eastern Pwo term spelledka, allegedly representing a term pronounced/kʰaduʔ/, meaning "airplane", derived from a Proto-Karen term with the same meaning. Considering this is obvious trolling or vandalism, I cannot assume this editor acted in good faith, and as such I would propose to save what we can save and nuke all other contributions by this user.Thadh (talk)00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh: look at the edit history. They seem to have started with a copy of the Mon entry above it, swapped out the Mon language codes and changed the pronunciation to that of the word they had in mind, then changed the word "Mon" in the header and the category to "Eastern Pwo Karen", then replaced the language code for Proto-Mon-Khmer with the language code for Proto-Karen, then replaced "fish" with "aeroplane".
I'm guessing this was someone with limited command of English who had no clue what they were doing. The word they had in mind probably starts with that letter but otherwise is spelled differently, and they also didn't grasp the concept of what the etymology was there for.
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can this Pashto word be verified? Is this a dialectal form? I am not able to find this form in a Pashto dictionary. In Pashto dictionaries, I do find the word: 'maǵ' for "ram". Also, the IPA pronuncation and transliteration do not match the spelling.ElkandAcquerne (talk)20:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Creator's comment: in Arabic, it' possible to create such compound time adverbs by sticking together ذاك or إذ together with ظرف زمان into إضافة construct as مضاف and مضاف إليه,I would create even more entries (like أسبوعئذ/أسبوعذاك for "that week") but decided to go only with those entries with إذ I could Google as mentioned in grammar explanation sources by Arab authors, e.g. with[103], and entries with ذاك are just their variations of entries with إذ I created (even if I didn't Google a mirroring entry with ذاك). The template for such derivation is very productive, one can google a ton of compound time adverbs (آنئذ/آنذاك, قبلئذ/قبلذاك, حينئذ/حينذاك, ساعتئذ/ساعتذاك, ليلتئذ/ليلتذاكetc., they're easily googlable). If one wants to remoce entries with ذاك (because they're theoretical and nobody used them in practice), it's fine. But every single entry with إذ should be definitely left since I managed to google and find them mentioned.Fixmaster (talk)05:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Old Tamil.
I'd like to see evidence for when the meaning extended from 'poet' to 'poem'. Moreover, I think most claims of particular Old Tamil words being attested in the Brahmi script are invalid or ineligible. --RichardW57m (talk)11:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Etruscan. Is this based on anything more than Isidore's 7th-century statement that "Lanista, gladiator, id est carnifex, Tusca lingua appellatus, a laniando scilicet corpora"? I feel like, while Isidore's alleged etymology would be reason enough to include this term in some work that aims to comprehensively discuss every scrap of potentially Etruscan linguistic material, it's incautious to have a mainspace dictionary entry on Wiktionary with a native-language spelling for this word if it is not otherwise attested. Even if the derivation of Latinlanista from Etruscan is accurate (which, if the only source is Isidore, is easy to doubt), it seems clear that the phonemic form of the Etruscan original might not have been exactly the same as that of the Latin word. The entry cites Pittau 2018'sDizionario della lingua etrusca, which seems to give the headword as "lanista" (in modern Roman script, not in the Etruscan alphabet). Pittau says "glossa latino-etrusca (ThLE 416)"; ThLE is not a primary source but another dictionary (Thesaurus linguae etruscae) that I haven't checked yet, and I don't know what gloss Pittau or ThLE is referring to.--Urszag (talk)01:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Translingual. Rfv-sense: transgender.
I think it's time to delete this entry. The tag was added in 2022. We could move the ref to 'usage notes' with a note that Unicode gives it this meaning. However, that's based on the Unicode application for the symbol by Evans that didn't provide any evidence or attestation, so it's really just the say-so of a single person. Usually Unicode requires attestation from 2 authors and 2 publishers; I guess they were laxer back then. A number of meanings of alchemical symbols have been removed from the Unicode charts after scholars wrote in saying that those meanings don't exist, so Evans' original applications for the symbols are apparently not RS's.kwami (talk)06:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Lithuanian. Rfv-sense: All plural forms except accusative and locative.
In general, the declension of the plural of nouns in -us is quite different for hard stems and soft stems. Surely ỹlius should follow the pattern for soft stems (so nominative plural ỹliai) rather than for hard stems (whence *ỹliūs as given in the table.) The editing solution is to use{{lt-noun-m-ius-~}} instead of{{lt-noun-m-us-2}}. Notifying @Qehath in case he had evidence for the plural form *ỹliūs. --RichardW57m (talk)09:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
SinceInsular script doesn't distinguish between upper and lower case, the choice between capitalized and uncapitalized spellings of Old English words is entirely editorial. I suppose the question then is whether there are modern editions that capitalize the Old English names of the runes. —Mahāgaja ·talk06:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Although the etymology of Bengali-এ is said to be from Sanskrit, the definition given isezafe, which is aPersianate grammatical particle corresponds to Englishof. However, the examples of its usage in aBengali Wikipedia article indicates that-এ does not function as ezafe. Actually, ezafe is rarely used in Bengali outside certain stock phrases (e.g. শেরে বাংলা, literally "tiger/lion of Bengal", an epithet ofA. K. Fazlul Huq). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk •contribs)10:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dutch. Supposedly an "Abbreviation of's", among other things. That's obviously wrong. I think the intentionmay have been to say thatcomps orcomp's, or maybeComps orComp's, is an abbreviation of ... an inflected or possessive form of "compagnie"? But the execution leaves much to be desired....- -sche(discuss)21:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Lithuanian. Rfv-quote: "Tu mažas pydare, gali ateiti pas mane ir pasilinksminti bet kada."
I don't know if this is a real quotation or an invented example. (If the latter, we may need to drop it.) I like it because of the example of a vocative singular, for which it is good to confirm the form.
Latest comment:1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Lithuanian. Entry instrumèntas.
The accentuation marked on this entry, created by an IP without any evidence for intonation, contradicts what is given in the LKZ, namely instrumeñtas. If this entry be valid, this may pose issues for representing pronunciation, and of course, we will want to know its stress pattern so that its inflection can be shown properly. The entries linked to from its forms will also have to be updated. @Insaneguy1083,AmazingJus,92.239.103.64. --RichardW57 (talk)11:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas gives instrumeñtas as well, which would give /ɪnstrʊˈmʲæ(ː)ntɐs/. Indeed, that's the pronunciation on the Google Translate text-to-speech, and I think I've heard my Lithuanian language instructor say it like that as well. The person who wrote instrumèntas may have confused it with some other loanwords which do use è. Do with this information what you will.Insaneguy1083 (talk)11:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Insaneguy1083 I'm seriously confused by your purportedly phonemic notation, as some seem to think it is suitable to transcribe, as the rime of a closed syllable, /ɛˑn/ for <én> and /ɛnˑ/ for <eñ>. As far as I can make out, <èn> would then be /ɛn/. The phonetic matter at hand here is whether there is a 3-way contrast. --RichardW57 (talk)12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comparesentimeñtas, given as [ˈsʲɛnʲtʲɪˈmʲæ̌ːntɐs]. Stressed <eñ> is pronounced as /æːn/. <èn> /ɛn/ sounds about right, given <ìn> /ˈɪn/. But I'm fairly certaininstrumentas is <eñ>, not <èn>. I would trust the dictionaries on this one. I have yet to encounter <én>.Insaneguy1083 (talk)12:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Insaneguy1083: There's a discussion of the distinction between standard Lithuanian acute and circumflex on pp33-4 in Yuriy Kushnir's successful Ph.D. dissertation athttp://yuriykushnir.com/documents/Y_Kushnir_Dissertation.pdf. (Beware that he transcribes Lithuanian, as can usually be told by the doubled vowels (one symbol per mora), in his own way, so uses only one type of accent mark.) Ignoring suprasegmentals, he contrastsspréndi (voc.s. of "spréndis") [sʲpʲrʲǽˑnʲdʲi] andbeñdras [bɛńˑdras]. I think the acute accents denote expiratory force rather than pitch. He does remark that cicumflexes tend to be longer than acutes: the difference is that the length of the second element of circumflexes is more pronounced than the length of the first element of acutes. At Example 15 inhttps://home.uni-leipzig.de/~yuriykushnir/strucclith/class_2.pdf, the same author uses superscript tone accents to show the differences in (near) monophthongs: In that note he backs up most simple phonemic length differences with non-diacritic vowel aperture differences. --RichardW57 (talk)18:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the possibility of confusion, or perhaps even misreading, but it could also possibly represent a reborrowing, which is why I've raised an RfV. The relevant editor might not be contactable at 92.239.103.64. --RichardW57 (talk)12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's been 37 years since I studied this, but my understanding is that the acute and circumflex are two-mora accents, with the tonal peak on the first mora for acute and the second mora for circumflex, while the grave is a single-mora falling accent. That would mean only acute and circumflex contrast because the grave is only found on short syllables. In fact, I was taking Mandarin Chinese at about the same time, and I noticed that the grave had pretty much the same tonal contour in both languages: a rather sharp and short drop. I would also mention that long syllables include vowel+resonant, so "en" is a long syllable, and that the Lithuanian accents are quite different from the Ancient Greek ones that use the same diacritics.Chuck Entz (talk)21:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz: The first problem with that line of reasoning comes in the dative plural ofdovanà(“gift”), namely "dovanóms", where the final syllable is overlong. Kushnir treats the two mora as being the start and end of the <o>, and regards the <m> as extra-moraic. The next is that as the first vowel of an acute syllable, <i> and <u> get the grave accent because they don't, in good Lithuanian, appreciably lengthen. The story told atw:Lithuanian accentuation#Not lengthening diphthongs is:
In the acute cases of the diphthongs starting in i, u (i, u + l, m, n, r; ui), the first element does not lengthen and tense in a standard language, but an emphasis remains. Since it does not lengthen, the acute accent is marked by a grave. The first element of acute mixed diphthongs e, o + l, m, n, r of a foreign origin, does not lengthen as well:hèrbas – coat of arms,spòrtas – sport.
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Persian. Rfv-sense: "shrine" (not in Dehkhoda). If it exists, probably just an occasional metaphor for a shrine as the saint's palace/court.--Saranamd (talk)22:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Albanian. Rfv-sense:I believe "audiencë" only refers to "audience" as in "formal meeting with a dignitary", not as in "group of people seeing a performance". It's not clear on the Albanian entry which meaning it should be (it only seems to be made clear when looking at the (I believe incorrect) translation of the English term). --Antondimak (talk)22:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sanskrit class 3 verb of rootधिष्(dhiṣ,“to sound”). Mentioned in Apte's dictionary, but Monier-Williams says about the root: "Probably invented to explain dhiṣaṇā, speech, hymn".Exarchus (talk)13:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual. Rfv-sense:I am not sure if this sarcastic usage of ":3" really is specific to the transgender community. I have seen plenty of cisgender people online use it as well.Mayhair (talk)17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Ancient Greek. Listed in Liddell & Scott, who record it at P.Lond.3.909a.7, i.e.London Papyri vol. III n. 909a line 7 as far as I understand, which however does not seem to contain the word. The term itself isn't implausible so it may exist elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. We could resort to a dictionary-only terms' appendix.Catonif (talk)17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The same reference can be foundhere, referencing page 170 explicitly, so this is not directly copied from Liddell & Scott. Apparently, the term is also found, in the combination “κακ λαλ ἄλφα” meaning “ΚΛΑ”, inBGU 153.17,[105] so it is not a hapax legomenon. --Lambiam14:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Catonif,Lambiam: AFAICT, thatBGU citation refers tothis papyrus. However, the transcription of line 17 thereof readsδεξι[ᾷ [σ]εαγόνι(*) κα κλαὶ(*) (*) ἄλφα, ἣν κ[αὶ] παρείληφαν ὅ τε(*), withκα κλαὶ instead ofκὰκ λὰλ. Nevertheless, the English and German translations of the Koine Greek givenat Papyrus.info both render that phrase “Kak Lal”. A scan of the papyrus can be seenhere. It's hard to read, but that part looks more likeκακ λαλ to me than it doesκα κλαι.0DF (talk)19:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Never heard during my 40+ years of office life. It appears to be real though, as it gets more than 2000 hits in a Google search. I think thisshould be kept, but I would simply translate it as "threat or opportunity". --Hekaheka (talk)16:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's only one independent source (since they're from the same podcast), but it'd count as a third source, if we count online sources for this entry. It remains to be decided whether we should (as in whether we think it's common enough to be kept). —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/14:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Translingual.
i think this would qualify for deletion as per our previous decision not to include emojis whose only attestable meaning is the literal one. the person who created this page most likely didnt know that, as i'm not sure it's written as policy anywhere .... there was some discussion at one point though.—Soap—19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
in fact the peson who created this RFV also created the entry, so again i think they must not have known about the nonliteral usage requirement.—Soap—19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Pawnee. Just a non-existing form; also, there is already the correctasaáki. (I added the reference and some info toasakis at first not realizing that there was a correct entry too.)Amtin (talk)16:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Swedish. Rfv-sense:
sexually exhausted. This has been a running joke for a long time, possibly even pre-Internet, appearing on lists of unusual words. This doesnt rule out its existence, butw:sv:pömsig and external sites tell us that people using it sincerely are outnumbered by those using it as a mention ("you know what they say in Sweden?") and perhaps people using in fiction where accurate language usage is not required. also consider that Sweden is so thoroughly English-speaking that there might even be people exoticizing their own language. i apologize i cant really help with finding cites. if we do find cites, i still think we should have a usage note explaining that the derived usage is mostly found in artificial contexts. thanks,—Soap—10:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
also, do we know offhand what the etymology for this word is? is it a children's language game,C1VC2C3-INFL >pVC2C1-INFL, a one-off deformation, or an unrelated word? Thanks,—Soap—12:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Yiddish. Rfv-sense: "a greeting" (noun).
I suspect this was simply a mistake, as the entry was missing the interjection sense (i.e. when the word is usedas a greeting). That's now been corrected, but I guess it's plausible it could be used as a noun to refer to greetings, in the same way Englishhello can ("I gave her a hello").Theknightwho (talk)15:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{R:yi:CYED}} glosses it exclusively as a noun meaning 'peace', but does provide some phrases in which it seems to mean 'a greeting', e.g.(op)gebn sholem 'extend a welcome to; shake hands' andentfern sholem 'return a greeting'. Interestingly, CYED does not mention it being used as a greeting at all; onlysholem-aleykhem is listed as an interjection meaning "hello". Nevertheless, I'd be surprised if no Yiddish speaker had ever usedsholem alone as a greeting. —Mahāgaja ·talk16:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
For a common noun one expects to find uses of a plural (שלומס?) While that term is found, the hits appear to be for the genitive of the proper noun. --Lambiam20:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahāgaja: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Is the presentation “minimolm|inimol” meant to indicate that it's stressedmínimol? Searchinggoogle books:"minimol" yields 4,660 results, which are too many to wade through for the Welsh ones, so I searchedgoogle books:"minimol" "yn" instead, which reduced the number to a more manageable 122, the first two of which are Welsh, which I quote:
Peintiodd Sisley’r ddau ddarn yn ystod dwy flynedd olaf ei fywyd, pan oedd yn dioddef o ganser, ac maent yn dangos y brys a’r cyfansoddiadminimol yr oedd Monet yn eu darganfod yn Ffrainc yr un pryd.[106]
Painted in the last two years of Sisley’s life, when he was suffering from cancer, they display the urgency that was being discovered at the same time in France by Monet.
Lleihau faint o ddefnyddiau sydd eu hangen drwy ddefnyddio dyluniominimol a pheidio ag ychwanegu nodweddion dylunio diangen.[107]
Reducing the quantity of materials which are needed by usingminimal design and not adding unneeded design features.
The first one has a parallel English translation, which I used; however, it's a free-ish translation which omits the “a’r cyfansoddiad minimol” of the Welsh, which I would render “and the minimal composition”.
I'm not sure I would call something listed in a print dictionary published byBangor Univeristy on behalf of theWelsh Language Commissioner "nonstandard", but it could certainly be labeled{{lb|cy|rare}} if someone were to make a dictionary entry for it. Also, at[108] it says, "The vertical line | in a Welsh word indicates that the main stress falls on the vowel following it", so yes,m|inimol means it's pronounced/ˈmɪnɪmɔl/. —Mahāgaja ·talk07:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mahāgaja: Thank you. No, to be clear, I wasn't advocating that we "officially" call the term nonstandard, but only saying that it "feels" nonstandard to me.0DF (talk)15:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@0DF: Upon further reflection, I think if an entry is created for it, "formal" might be a better label than "rare". My impression is of a word that's used in writing, particularly in certain specialized fields, but not really used in conversation or more casual writing. —Mahāgaja ·talk16:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Polish. Protologism/neologism that is barely attested and only limited to internet usage. The exact definition of the term is nowhere to be found.JimiY☽ru07:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've added two cites from journal-sites for now. There are plenty of other Internet hits, which we sometimes accept according toWT:CFI. It's definitely not a protologisms, it's been around since at least 2019 based on the sources. The current definition is fine based on the quotations.Vininn126 (talk)07:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are several entries in the Odia (Oriya) writing system such asକ଼,ଖ଼,ଗ଼,ଜ଼,ଝ଼,ଫ଼ andଷ଼ and there is potential for more. It should be noted that a similar argument was submitted for the ICANN's Root Zone LGR for the Odia script in 2018. I was involved in this public consultation and interviewed several linguists, Odia-language experts including university professors, and Unicode and other technology experts. The outcome of these conversations affirming that the existing କ, ଖ, ଗ, ଚ, ଜ, ଫ suffice for all loanwords and other languages sharing the Odia script are documented in two white papers (1 and2). At the end, the proposed nuqta combination to କ, ଖ,ଗ, ଚ and ଜ werediscarded on the basis of non-availability of citable resource nor widespread use, and only ଡ and ଢ nuqta combinations were allowed. Interestingly, all the nuqta combined non-widely used Odia characters in question (କ଼,ଖ଼,ଗ଼,ଜ଼,ଝ଼,ଫ଼ andଷ଼), exceptଗ଼ which was created by a non-native speaker, were created by IP users. These characters do not comply with any of theattestation criteria. They should be deleted or redirected to existing equivalents.Psubhashish (talk)22:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
“benna”, inWilliam Smith et al., editor (1890),A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London: William Wayte. G. E. Marindin quotes Festus: “Benna lingua Gallica genus vehiculi appellatur, unde vocantur combennones eadem benna sedentes.” lingua Gallica = in/from the Gallic/Gaulish language. Let's discuss if this qualifies as Latin or Gaulish. Similar cases:
nepa (L&S: "acc. to Paul. ex Fest. .., an African word: Afrorum linguā est .."), though this is also attested in proper Latin.
sipoax (Pseudo-Apuleius: "A Graecis dicitur arnoglossa, [...], Daci sipoax, [...]"),sinupyla,𐤒𐤔𐤀
So it's not attested in a Gaulish-language text; it's attested in a Latin text that says "The Gauls call thisbenna". I don't know whether Wiktionary has a settled custom on how to treat attestations like that; it's a gray area. —Mahāgaja ·talk18:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Dutch, only RFV concerning the label 'regional'. Regional (Belgian) variants that no doubt exist are: gelle, golle, gulle, gijlie, gellie. But 'gijlui zijt' in Google Search only gives 3 results: 2 books from 19th century (so archaic) and Wiktionary.Exarchus (talk)20:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
By the way, the translation of 'Gijlieden zijt' as 'You lot are' atgijlieden is inappropriate as the most common context where you would find that phrase is in archaic bible translations.Exarchus (talk)21:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam My first idea when asking this question was actually whether this was used in any regiontoday (like 'gelle' etc. no doubt is). But maybe the intention of that label was simply to say that 'gijlui' is/was archaic, but only in certain regions. That might still be true, because your first two examples are from people from the province of Gelderland. It was definitely more colloquial than 'gijlieden'.Exarchus (talk)06:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
From Gelderland, but in one case a speaker born in 1626 and fictionally speaking in 1642, and for the other case a fictional character born around 1743 and speaking in 1808, so this is not helpful for deciding regional use today. --Lambiam07:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I misread, it's actually шереҥге with a ҥ. Pretty sure old orthographies used н instead of ҥ though, so I'm sure this form is also findable.Thadh (talk)13:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Probably simply a term used in a Latin text, interpreted byKöbler as maybe having OHG origin. That's anyway how I interpret his entry given his 'Quelle' is the same Latin text with the first Latin attestation. There's no 'fello' athttps://awb.saw-leipzig.de/?sigle=AWB&lemid=A00001.
If *fillō/fillijō is too dubious as etymology for Latin 'fello', then I'm fine with having no entry for it, but it's at least a common reconstruction.
And in case there would be any doubt: does one really thinkadfadumire,mallobergus,mortuadus etc. are bona fide Old High German simply because they occur in Köbler's dictionary? (that's why there's "lat.-ahd.?")Exarchus (talk)18:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Coptic. Created by an anon. Since it derives from Ancient GreekἈρσινόη(Arsinóē), I can't help but wonder if the creator made a typo and this entry should actually be atⲁⲣⲥⲓⲛⲟⲏ(arsinoē). —Mahāgaja ·talk14:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don’t think so, it’s a common word. For our less-Slavic readers: Used anywhere where English uses compounds withmountain. It is excluded a priori that no botanical or zoological word came out in the Latin alphabet that has it.Fay Freak (talk)16:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I formally added three Łacinka quotations from three books published by different authors in thisdiff. But the Łacinka spelling can be always derived from its contemporary Cyrillic spelling at least after 1918, because we know the exact conversion rules. --Ssvb (talk)05:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe this could already be resolved? I believe 3 Łacinka quotations (in main article,горны(hórny)) should be enough to prove this form is indeed correct.
Inticket:2024080410004938 (wiktionary VRT queue) a reader writes in, "The word Kozice in Croatian means small shrimp, small goat or small pox. But on wiki dictionary it’s listed as ‘smallpox’ with a link to smallpox the disease. The has led to many menus in Croatia for many years adding the word smallpox to their menus as Google translate uses this definition.". I have not researched this personally.Xaosflux (talk)01:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
“Pa to su kozice. Obične vodene kozice. Zar ih nisi imao kad bio mali?” […] Lječnik je samo potrvdio pretpostavku i zapisao dijagnozu:varicella u dobro razvijenoj formi. […]
“’Tis pox. Commonwater-pox. Hadst thou not had them when thou wast a child?” […] The physician but affirmed the assumption and wrote the diagnosis:Low-grade Varicella. […]
Reliable native-speaker’s Ivan Štambuk gloss is naturally not completely off the wall, but his taxonomic distinctions were limited and coverage of vulgar designations for infectious diseases basic. He added words that he knew fast without possibly disserting the semantic ranges when he would have needed biological reference. Sometimes when the sample size is large enough only you find that specificity is wrong.Fay Freak (talk)14:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Belarusian. It is not verifiable in dictionaries that I know, corpus, books, etc., and it is also not in my daily use.Наименее Полезное (talk)
@Наименее Полезное: The academic dictionaries are very sterile and censored. I have added some quotations from Google Books. Also there'sa page in Vacłaŭ Łastoŭski's dictionary from 1924, which suggests to translate the Russian "залупа" as "залупіна" or "чапец". --Ssvb (talk)19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Ancient Greek. Rfv-sense: fishhook (etymology 2). Apparently listed in Beekes' etymological dictionary, but I can't find it in any general dictionary. All dictionaries list only the sense of etymology 1. —Mahāgaja ·talk20:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Hesychian lemma's are usually treated as an exception, and can be included. Of course, if it can be proven to be connected to the other meaning, e.g. as 'bait, promised reward' rather than 'fish hook', that would make the case stronger. BTW, on Logeion the sense is included in the LSJ entry.
As concerns categorization, I would be in favor of a 'Hesychian lemma' category, perhaps even more so if nested in a larger 'lexicalist/lexicon' category, together with e.g. (the) Suda.AntiquatedMan (talk)07:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also wonder if we can invoke some sort of metathesis to connect it to e.g. Arabicʔibra 'needle'. Of course, we would need to find a source that proposes such an etymology to include it.AntiquatedMan (talk)10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sanskrit. Mentioned in Monier-Williams for a rootविद्(vid) meaning "to consider as, take for". Apparently used inBhaṭṭikāvya, a poem intended to give examples of Pāṇini's grammar. Would that count as a valid enough attestation?Exarchus (talk)08:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Lashi. This seems to only be true for one specific Bible translation that is probably not even accepted by the speakers. Hardly something to make an entry for.Thadh (talk)21:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rfv-sense;Nesselmann haswyr-s, wir-s (i.e.wyrs,wirs)(“male man, male adult human being”). y isn't correct (also not ÿ, but ij or maybe ij), but that's unrelated to the sense(s). --10:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Long enough unattested;RFV-failed. --20:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Long enough unattested;RFV-failed. --20:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I browsed through Nesselmann's dictionary, and as much as he does mention certain sources he allegedly based the entries on, these references appear to be incorrect, eg. pointing at pages in Enchiridion that do not mention the specific word. The spellings/forms in my Old Prussian entries are based to a significant extent on the most reliable source – The Third Catechism, aka Enchiridion, as the facsimiles are available online. Basically, I'm following the rule ofad fontes. I question the verity of Nesselmann's forms.JimiY☽ru06:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair point forioūs andtāns (like it also is for the spelling ofackijwistu andwijrs), hence these two RFVs withdrawn. --13:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Scottish Gaelic. Added back in 2013. Mark (2003) and LearnGaelic state that the only term isbeithe (with a final -e).Dwelly has one hit for the form without an -e, but are we sure it's an actual alternative form and not a misspelling? @Mahagaja,SaoiDunNeachdain, who could give some insight into this.Thadh (talk)00:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
so at the very least it could be called a combining form. Variation betweenbeith andbeithe in this word seems to go back at least as far as Middle Irish[114], so it's not hard to imagine there may be dialects of Scottish Gaelic (perhaps the moribund or extinct ones closest to Ireland) wherebeith is used in isolation, though I can't prove that. —Mahāgaja ·talk07:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
apologies, I never saw this notification at the time.
Alternation between words with -e or -a /ə/ ending and without is common in Gaelic. This can sometimes be a dialectal difference. In the currently widely spoken dialects, there is a trend in Lewis dialect to drop schwa endings whereas they are retained (or even epenthetic) in Harris, Uist, Skye, Tiree, and become [ʌ] in Barra. (I'm not certain what the trend in Islay is, I know very little about that dialect.) It is a phonetic difference akin to the dropping of schwa in Romance languages, e.g.beatha which is /b̥ɛh/ in Lewis is still written with the schwa ending. If Colin Mark considersbeithe to be the fundamental form, then I'll go along with that. Personally I have hardly ever heard beithe in the isolated nominative form anyway, it is more often part of the compound "craobh-beithe" (birch tree).SaoiDunNeachdain (talk)17:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yiddish. I don't doubt that colloquially it might be used, a laביטע(bite), but I went through two dictionaries and couldn't find it. If anyone finds it in the CYED or CEYD, then we should be good.Insaneguy1083 (talk)20:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Persian. Rfv for 'Etymology 2', sense "to save". I can't find this in Steingass or Hayyim, andDehkhoda seems to indicate it as Pahlavi ("پهلوی"). By the way, I'm not sure what the Middle Persian pronunciation should be, MacKenzie gives /bōxtan/. The etymology section apparently uses Avestan script for Middle Persian...Exarchus (talk)21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is worth noting that this entry wasfirst added by the now-blocked user Irman, whosetalk page is filled with various instances of his fabrications and mistakes. The fa-regional template is also clearly incorrect, with the Tajik spellingбахтен(baxten) being obviously wrong (it would be spelledبختین in the Arabic script, being a totally different word and contrary to the norms of Persian infinitive forms).Samiollah1357 (talk)08:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not so suspicious I think. The word exists as a learned borrowing in Norwegian in the exact same way as the entry made by the admin and native Icelandic speaker @BiT:. -Teodor (d •c)14:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Persian. The entry forنوک(nvak) appears to at least have an incorrect latinisation and vocalisation, given that Persian does not have any initial consonant clusters. Additionally, having checked a number of dictionaries and resources, I cannot find "wife of one's husband's brother" as a definition of any term with this spelling. For example, seeDehkhoda Dictionary,New Persian–English dictionary, andVazhaju.Samiollah1357 (talk)06:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Old High German. Just the headword formkrig. The only place I can find this is [here] (along withkriag). If it does exist, is it prevalent enough to be used as the main entry ?Leasnam (talk)18:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
seeltersk.de, mentioningP. (= Pyt) Kramer. But well, the original source could already be gone and then wasn't durably archived (WT:CFI)... --14:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, because themirrored book seems to containoubieldje (with a hgih/iː/) instead, which also seems to correspond toSW's basic verbbíeldje. But it doesn't seem to be a typo, since it appears three times in the first source; Mistake or alternative form?Thadh (talk)14:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Czech. Maybe a bit more technical - I believe a note ("nota") is a symbol for a tone ("tón"), not the tone itself. For example "nota C" should mean "the C note" as in "the notational symbol for the C tone". Does this vary across different languages?CaptainPermaban (talk)19:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd be curious what various Czech sources say. However, even if that sense is missing in those sources, that doesn't mean that it's not a real sense of the word. Ideally checking Google Books etc. should be done.Vininn126 (talk)19:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can find relevant phrases in sources, but it's difficult to discern the meaning. Is "playing a note" the same as "playing a tone"? I guess people often use it interchangeably, but I am not sure whether it's enough to warrant treating the words as synonymous.CaptainPermaban (talk)20:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Historically and etymologically, the termnote in its musical sense referred to a mark representing a tone on a musical scale. Obviously, it can also be used metonymically to refer to that tone. The terms are not just synonyms; the expressionto read notes cannot be replaced byto read tones; the metonymy is one-way. When we read, “her high notes were off pitch”,[117] it clearly refers to the tones. How would this be said in Czech? The equivalent of “the tones she sang for the high notes were off pitch”? --Lambiam19:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Replying to myself, some Googling shows that in this context of tones being off Czech systematically usestóny and notnoty, supporting the claim. --Lambiam19:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's enough bilingualism and consequent borrowing that they can show up a lot when Russian words are used.Gashilova 2017 does include them in its alphabet on page 6, as the 11th and 37th letters.Dylanvt (talk)10:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
by equivalency do you mean like nativized forms? If so, there's nothing systematic in that regard. Gashilova 2017 just has a page at the beginning of the dictionary showing the alphabet, along with the note "the letters ж, ц, ш, щ are used in loanwords from Russian".Dylanvt (talk)14:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
since they're only used in loans, I'm not sure they're needed. this is one of the problems with wording letters as 'nth letter of the X alphabet' [not my preferred wording], when there may be variants of the alphabet with and without letters for loans.kwami (talk)17:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No verification, apparently. Probably because this meaning does not seem to exist. Like I (the IP in question) said in the edit comment: “Remove unsourced meaning added by User:Jamesjiao on 2009-09-02 in revision 7288680. I never heard of it (anecdata), and neither have any of the other dictionaries/aggregation sites (actual data: Van Dale, Encyclo.nl)”78.23.192.6921:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Javindo. Entries with dubious (and at some points definitely wrong) etymologies, created without sources seemingly to support a highly unlikely set of descendants. (I have a feeling I know who the editor is, and if so, it shouldn't take too long for them to expose themselves.) —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sanskrit. Mentioned by Pāṇini but not attested. It's actually not fully clear to me whether this is considered sufficient to pass the inclusion criteria for extinct languages (the guidelines speak about "entries based on a single mention").Exarchus (talk)20:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Adelung gives: "Auch derjenige heißt zuweilen ein Holländer, welcher nach Niederländischer Art die Nutzung der Kühe pachtet, wo denn auch, das Verbum Holländern, diese Nutzung verpachten, üblich ist."
DRW gives: "holländer heißt zuweilen wer die kühe auf einem landgut gepachtet hat"
Grimm dictionary gives: "östlich von der Elbe der milchwirtschafter auf einem gute, meist pächter."
Meyers about 'Holländerei': "Holländerei, in Norddeutschland eine Milchwirtschaft (Meierei) oder das Gebäude, in dem sie betrieben wird. Holländer heißt der Leiter der Wirtschaft. Die Bezeichnung stammt aus dem 11. und 12. Jahrh., wo sich Holländer, die mit der Milchwirtschaft vertraut waren, mehrfach in Deutschland ansiedelten und gewisse Vorrechte erhielten. In andern Gegenden Deutschlands spricht man in ähnlichem Sinne von Schweizereien."
So those are at least related to the senses given. Maybe sense 3 ("the practice where animals are leased ...") is rather for 'Holländerei'?Exarchus (talk)19:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Vedic forms like 'gámanti' are to be interpreted as from the aoristअगन्(ágan), see for example Mayrhofer. But I don't exclude it has been used as a present somewhere in later Sanskrit.Exarchus (talk)11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
German. Rfv-sense:Flemish (a group of Flemish dialects). Added by @Hans-Friedrich Tamke indiff; removed by Sarcelles indiff and by Surjection indiff without correct process, i.e. without a verification or deletion request. Here are already some examples (post 1950) – are they sufficient?
1961,Karl Meisen,Altdeutsche Grammatik: I: Lautlehre, J. B. Metzlerische Verlagsbuchhandlung: Stuttgart, p. 11 ([118]):
Auf nd. Boden wird das Anfr. abgelöst durch dasMittelniederländische (Mnl.) vom 13.Jh. bis etwa 1500 (Hauptdialekte sind seitdem Holländisch,Flämisch, Brabantisch, Limburgisch), [...]
Jan Goossens,Niederländische Mundarten – vom Deutschen aus gesehen (mit 11 Karten im Text und einer Faltkarte); in:1970, Jan Goossens (ed.),Niederdeutsches Wort: Kleine Beiträge zur niederdeutschen Mundart- und Namenkunde, vol. 10, Verlag Aschendorff: Münster, p. 67 and p. 78f.:
Die ganze östliche Hälfte des ndl. Sprachgebiets nun hat Umlaut; nur dasFlämische, das Seeländische und das Holländische kennen ihn nicht.
Im Gegensatz zu den östlichen Mundarten haben die westlichen, dasFlämische, das Brabantische und auch das Holländische, wesentliehen Anteil am Aufbau der ndl. Hochsprache gehabt.
2003,Georg Cornelissen,Kleine niederrheinische Sprachgeschichte (1300–1900): Eine regionale Sprachgeschichte für das deutsch-niederländische Grenzgebiet zwischen Arnheim und Krefeld: Met een Nederlandstalige inleiding, p. 11 ([119]):
Im Mittelalter gab es allerdings noch keine Einheitsschriftsprache moderner Prägung, so dass der Begriff Mittelniederländisch – wie auch Mittelhochdeutsch – lediglich als Sammelbegriff zu verstehen ist: er ermöglicht die Zusammenfassung verschiedener regionaler Schreibsprachen. DasFlämische, Brabantische oder Holländische gehören hierher und auch die mittelalterliche Sprache des Raumes Arnheim-Kleve-Venlo-Krefeld – das „Niederrheinische“, wie es in diesem Buch heißt.
2004, Jeroen Van Pottelberge,Deram-Progressiv: Struktur und parallele Entwicklung in den kontinentalwestgermanischen Sprachen, Gunter Narr Verlag: Tübingen, p. 157 ([120]):
Der Terminus „südniederländisch“ ist in erster Linie dialektgeographisch oder dialekthistorisch motiviert, weil sich die südlichen Mundartgebiete (dasFlämische, das Brabantische und das Limburgische) auf beiden Seiten der Staatsgrenze erstrecken und sich historisch zuerst vom Latein und Französischen emanzipiert haben.
Anne Begenat-Neuschäfer; in:2009, Anne Begenat-Neuschäfer (ed.),Belgien im Fokus: Geschichte – Sprachen – Kulturen: 2: Comic und Jugendliteratur in Belgien von ihren Anfängen bis heute, Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main, p. XVI ([121]):
Auf der einen Seite stand das Französische als Kultursprache mit seinem Anspruch auf Universalität, auf der anderen galten die großen niederdeutschen Dialekte desFlämischen, Brabantischen, und Limburgischen, welche die Sprachunion mit dem Niederländischen als Schriftsprache in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts noch nicht vollzogen hatten.
For context, this editor, who is evading their block, is very likely aperennial POV pusher who cannot be at all trusted to define these terms correctly. Someone else has summed up their goal as "introducing obsolete concepts into articles to aggrandize (Low) German and diminish Dutch". —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is a linguistic minefield. The meaning of the word “Flemish” is highly ambiguous (as is its Dutch equivalent “Vlaams”), and so should not be used as is in definitions. There are currently two senses, neither of which makes sense to me. The citations given by the “PoV pusher” seems to support a sense “the non-standardized dialects of only the former County of Flanders, i.e. the current provinces of West Flanders and East Flanders, Zeelandic Flanders and French Flanders” (copy-pastingfrom Wikipedia), and so could stay in as far as I’m concerned, provided the definition be cleaned up.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)02:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Notwithstanding, they are correct:Flämisch denotes both the standard language and the non-standard varieties of Flanders. In my view the quotations also clearly demonstrate this. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk)00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The quotations given demonstrate a sense “dialects of only the former County of Flanders”, which is quite different from the “non-standard varieties of [current] Flanders”. That’d be a third sense.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Kazakh.
The twenty-sixth letter of theKazakhArabic alphabet.
Tagged for speedy deletion by @Vtgnoq7238rmqco as not Kazakh. Granted, there are lots of "false friends" in various Arabic script Unicode blocks, but this should go through at least a minimal verification so it's not just one person's opinion.Chuck Entz (talk)17:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Phrases of the type “bloemlezing van de X letterkunde” typically refer to literature without there having to be any study. But it’s hard to truly separate the two senses.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, this originates from thew:Numberblocks community out of all possible things. Googling variants of "rho three pi" has only led me to a handful ofReddit orFandom discussions about how this convention, is in fact, not in standard use (with the latter even attributing this and other names for multiples of π to some random user).
This meaning is included in the major dictionary of Icelandic ("Íslensk orðabók", given as "fánareitur fjær stönginni") but not in any other work that I can find. Presumably an obsolete neologism or nonce word.130.208.182.10314:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the word exists at all in Malay, since I couldn't find it in the online dictionary of theMalay Literary Reference Centre. Only verifiable usage is from someTiktok an Indonesian made that I found through a Google search — so its probably just a made up pseudo-English word.
@Benwing2 This is more of a question than a comment: Are 800 year old Old Norse sagas really citable for Icelandic (considering we have a separate Old Norse tag)? I don't think I'd citeBirch bark letter no. 292 for Karelian, and I consider Northern Finnic languages quite conservative, phonologically and morphosemantically speaking.brittletheories (talk)10:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Brittletheories You are right; Old Norse sagas are not valid citations for Icelandic any more than Chaucer is for modern English. But the 5 examples of figurative usage are modern, and do count.Benwing2 (talk)11:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
apparently non-existent terms on reconstruction pages
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Terms that I wasn't able to verify: - Old High Germanpīna at Proto-West Germanic*pīnā - Middle Persian𐫅𐫡𐫏𐫄(dryɣ/darīğ/,“sorrow, suffering”) + Parthian𐫅𐫡𐫏𐫃(dryg/darīg/,“sorrow, suffering”) at Proto-Iranian*járati Exarchus (talk)10:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Icelandic. Created byUser:Hvergi, said to mean "tits" in a vulgar sense. Not in any dictionary I can find and I looked in the corpus[126] and the few hits from Twitter seem to refer to tournaments of some sort, not to women's breasts.Benwing2 (talk)08:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are these citable?
[127] "Gugga er þrítug gella með sögu um sílíkon íbrullunum" (YouTube video, timestamp 15:30)
[128] "Ég held að karlmennirnir sem syntu á móti mér hafi átt afar skemmtilega sundferð þar sembrullurnar sátu úti eins og ekkert væri sjálfsagðara" (blog post)
[129] "eða barabrullur, hvernig væri það?" (forum post)
[130] "Brullurnar á þér eru að gera útaf við þig" (forum post)
Great, thank you! All look to be plural; I wonder if you can cite any of them singular, if not maybe I should make it a plural-only word. Can you explain what things like this mean?
It probably only exists in the plural, but there's nothing ungrammatical about a singular as such, similar to the equally vulgar Englishbazonga.
All of the results from the RMH corpus are a slang shortening forbrauðstangir(“breadsticks”), per[133][134] ("Voru brullur í stúkunni eftir leik?" is odd but the only way I can parse it is "Did you eat some breadsticks in the bleachers after the game?")130.208.182.10311:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hawaiian.
This is said to be borrowed from an English cosmological term which was coined last year from a phrase in an old Hawaiian chant. Yes, this originally came from Hawaiian, but are Hawaiians using it as Hawaiian as opposed to just talking about the English term?Chuck Entz (talk)02:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Vietnamese. Tagged two years ago with reason: “Few (if any) actual example in Vietnamese, seems like another case of Sinitc words transcribed into Vietnamese using Sino-Vietnamese.Thiên Thượng Thánh Mẫu is attested but that's like sayingnihilō is an English word becauseex nihilo is used in English.”MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great! I'll take this as cited but label it as rare, since we have only the bare minimum 3 cites you were able to find. Thanks again for all your help.Benwing2 (talk)11:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Icelandic. Created byUser:BiT. This has six hits in MÍM, all of which are mentions (not uses) and all appear to stem from the same source (probably Wikipedia):[144] The normal term for Holy Week isdymbilvika. This feels like aprotologism (creative invention) on someone's part.Benwing2 (talk)08:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems to just be a very rare obsolete term. From 1938:[145] "Dymbildagavika mun hún hafa verið kölluð, þó í almanökum sé nú nefnd dymbilvika." ("It was supposedly originally called dymbildagavika ..."). Included in a 1924 dictionary[146]. No actual uses that I can find.130.208.182.10311:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Icelandic. Created byUser:Numberguy6 (whose general record with Icelandic is not good). This is said to mean "Icelandic as spoken by Danes" and I'd expect a lot of hits, but a google search turns up only ~ 8, of which all but one go back to Wiktionary. The one that's independent is this:[147] but I can't find the mention offramsóknardanska on the page. Is this real or just a protologism?Benwing2 (talk)09:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm also very doubtful about this term. In your source the term appears (under the heading Nordisk Roð) as the punchline to a humorous stanza, which is a very weak cite. There are a couple of forum posts where people seem to reference it[148][149][150] but given the 1) absolute lack of any "real" cites (especially given that it sounds like a concept that would have been discussed/lampooned quite a lot in the early 20th century), 2) the fact that no one I asked this morning (including older speakers) have ever heard of this, and 3) the fact that these forum posts all post-date 2015, I'm voting for this being a protologism invented by comedian Ari Eldjárn in his 2015 standup (timestamp 1:20): "Icelanders speak something which for a lack of a better word is called framsóknardanska"[151]130.208.182.10311:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sanskrit. This present verb is mentioned by Monier-Williams and Whitney, but the Rigvedic form 'móṣathā' is nowadays interpreted as aorist subjunctive (see for example Mayrhofer or LIV).Exarchus (talk)19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The argument in favor of keeping this would be that Monier-Williams (at 'śiṣ') gives "in later lang. pr. p. śeṣat" and Whitney's Roots mentions this too.Exarchus (talk)09:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reason: “Verific[a]tion for both the entry and the etymology. What are some attestations of this compoundnha con? Google is clogged up by unrelatednhà con and the particle use ofnha + con. What about this particular nounnha that apparently means "child"?” (Entry was moved fromnha con after creation.)MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Re-opened thanks to (finally) some quotes. The meaning, however, seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with mind-mapping, but it just means to link things up. I’m not yet convinced this is actually idiomatic.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)02:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Icelandic. This is an incorrect entry added by an IPin August. This is not the Icelandic definition but the Finnish one. This term is not listed in dictionaries. According tothis corpus search it may be a nonce word from 1962 for the Maya civilization but there are no cites available, and the standard Icelandic term for that is "Majar" (plural masculine).130.208.182.10313:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Old English: As far as I can tell this verb isn't actually attested. The page has a reference to the Bosworth-Toller dictionary, but no such entry exists. There is the termonġēanhworfennes, which could theoretically be derived from the past participle of this verb, but there's no reason it couldn't be fromonġean- +hworfen +-nes. In other words, as far as I can tell, there is no reason to believe this verb actually existed.Vergencescattered (talk)05:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sanskrit. Monier-Williams (page 165) already mentions: "the meaning ‘to be powerful’ seems to be given by native lexicographers merely for the etymology of the word indra", so this supposed root is very dubious.Exarchus (talk)16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Icelandic. Created byUser:BiT, whose overall record with Icelandic is not good. Claimed to be a rare variant of obsoleteballur, which does not inspire confidence.ballur is in BÍN, butbaldur is not, and although there are a few hits ofbaldur in MÍM ([153]), they mostly look to be versions of the nameBaldur written without capitalization.Benwing2 (talk)06:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
All of BiT's odder entries were clearly created from a headword list from the Dictionary of Icelandic. These entries are correct, but are quite often missing senses and many would need to be marked as obsolete / poetic. The Dictionary of Icelandic lists baldur as an archaic variant of ballur, as does the Etymological Dictionary of Icelandic. Here is one 18th century cite from a poem[154], page 353: "Taktu þitt í tíma ráð, tæmdu holdið balda".130.208.182.10307:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
On a different matter, expressions likegóður með sig "cocky", can they be put into the comparative or superlative? I find a few examples of "betri með sig" in MÍM but none of "bestur með sig". Similar question aboutbúinn á því "exhausted".Benwing2 (talk)07:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
For "góður með sig", the comparative is acceptable but the superlative is not. "Búinn" is not comparable, so "búinn á því" would require "meira búinn á því" for a comparative, which is acceptable, but "more/most" comparatives are never shown in Icelandic dictionaries.130.208.182.10307:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is there a general principle here?illa séður(“unwelcome, frowned upon”) is based onséður(“clever, cunning”), which is comparable per BÍN. There are no examples of "illa séðari" or "illa séðara" in BÍN but only 125 of "illa séður" so this could be an accidental omission.Benwing2 (talk)08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most of the following are learned references to Jónas Hallgrímsson but they are usable citations nonetheless: Use in another 18th or 19th century poem:[156]. Use in 20th century poems:[157][158][159]. Use in prose:[160]. Entire title of the poem used as a learned reference to insult:[161]. Minor discussions of the use of the term in Jónas's poem:[162][163]. --130.208.182.10309:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Rfv-etym (Indonesian): Etymology must be traced and corroborated by evidence (academic papers, gradual sound changes/loanwords recorded through primary sources, etc.) to establish proof that connects the corresponding etymon(s) to the wordprasmanan.
@Myrrhabeaugh: LWIM lists bothprasman andprasmanan as derived from DutchFransman without specifying an intermediary, perhaps simply because it considers Betawi as a dialect of Indonesian/Malay. It should be noted, however, that in an earlier publication (1981, translated into Indonesian1991) LWIM editor C.D. Grijns explicitly cited Kähler's (1966) Betawi glossary as his source forPrasman, and noted its Dutch origin. Chaer's (1978/2009) Betawi dictionary also listsperasmanan as an entry (he often normalizes entries with consonant clusters by inserting an epenthetic schwa, henceperasmanan instead ofprasmanan).
Prasman is attested in many Malay works by Batavia-based authors:
1815 Anonymous.Syair perang Inggeris di Betawi [The poem of English war in Batavia]. (no specific quotations, used multiple times)
Itu politie resia yang bengis jadi ilang bengisnya dan sekarang ia bicara dalem bahasaPrasman,
That fierce secret police officer soften his voice and is now talking inFrench,
Note thatPrasman can also be found in Javanese and Sundanese texts contemporaneous to the above examples. Still, given its common use in Batavian works, it seems most plausible that Betawi was the immediate donor before it entered wider Malay/Indonesian usage.
As for the semantic shift from "French style" > "buffet", cf. the synonymous dialectal termperancisan, which is much more etymologically transparent (e.g.Perancis +-an) to modern Indonesian speakers.Swarabakti (talk)18:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Remarkable, this seems to be rather sufficient (rigorous) proof of the attestation (and also etymological development).
I have one just one thing to ask for my curiosity, however, as I could not figure what "LWIM" stands for after looking it up.
You alluded to the late C.D. Grijns being affiliated to this institution, however, I could only find his direct affiliation with theRoyal Dutch Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITLV). Is there any way I can find out what this is?Myrrhabeaugh (talk)12:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
My bad, I meant theLoan-Words in Indonesian and Malay{{R:LWIM}}, I'm used to the abbreviation since it's what theonline version use lol.
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Indonesian – Validation is necessary for the definition ofrapat besar as clearly indicating its usage as meaningcongress — provide quotations and/or citations to substantiate its existence.
Currently, there exists no official documentation of this term.KBBI (as of current) does not contain an entry on the term "rapat besar," let alone defining it as an equivalent forkongres.
Any signs towards its synonymity is onlyindicated byKBBI's entry, and theOffice of the West Sumatran Languages under the Indonesian Ministry of Education (of which the latter's usage simply cites the former).
However, I am quite skeptical of this definition being synonymous tokongres (congress).
It is unclear whether sources listed above suggest whether the compound wordrapat besar (in itself meanslarge assembly) exists as abahuvrihi (and is thus synonymous tokongres), or whether its meaning is merelyendocentric in nature (i.e., if itliterally just meansbig assembly).
I have indeed noticed the word being used a number of times — so the term is definitely attested, despite being outside of KBBI.
With regards to the word meaningcongress, however, I am unsure. Attested use has thus far been found within university/student organisational contexts (organisations; e.g.,[1],[2], or[3]) — though not limited to them (see alsohere, though it probably refers literally to abig assembly).
Congress (and its translationkongres) carries a more formal undertone, rather just simply being a synonym ofmeeting (which would be more generally synonymous topertemuan orketemuan in nuance) — referring more to a meeting of experts and/or officials within professional fields (refer tothe Wikipedia page for a more nuanced explanation).
Therefore, I think a more appropriate forrapat besar would've been something likegeneral assembly...?
I haven't done any original research but the word is listed in several Swahili dictionaries I use, includingbab.la, English-Swahili by Fidèle Mpiranya and Learn Good Swahili by Zahir K. Dhalla.tbm (talk)01:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Different dictionaries have different criteria for inclusion.Shifta is obviously in use in Swahili as part of “vita vya Shifta”, and it obviously does mean bandit in Amharic. The question for inclusion in Wiktionary, however, is whether it is ever usedin Swahili to mean “bandit” outside of the phrase “vita vya Shifta”.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)01:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Swahili. Is in Tuki, but can’t find any other trace of it. And in Tuki they seem to claim that the plural is formed by replacing them- prefix withmi-, which must be wrong.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)07:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
It would be best if a native speaker would comment butbab.la shows tarwanda as an alternative form of mtalawanda (which is in mi class). Unfortunately, I can't remember where I saw the word when I added it.tbm (talk)01:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Swahili. According to what I find online, this is just the plural ofkinyuzi, which is the diminutive ofuzi(“thread”). Can’t find anything relating this to pubic hair besides the Swahili Wiktionary.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ukrainian. Rationale was "There is no such abbreviation in the Ukrainian language. This is an erroneous tracing from Russian. Ukrainian "довбойоб", and not "долб-"".Ultimateria (talk)18:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
This entry has existed without a verifiable source for 1 year and 4 days (at the time of writing). No meaningful updates have been made to cite this, so Isupport its deletion.Missileboi (talk)21:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hạ Hòa An (2018), ““Chuyến tàu vét” trước khi nghỉ hưu và sự thanh thản tuổi già [The “Last Train” Before Retirement and Peace of Mind in Old Age]”, inBáo Điện Tử Đài Tiếng Nói Việt Nam [Voice of Vietnam Online Newspaper] (in Vietnamese): “Những năm đầu thập niên 80, ngày tôi còn bé tí, mỗi lần lên cơ quan Ba tôi chơi, nghe các cô chú ở cơ quan gọi ông là “Bôn sê vích”, tôi không hiểu gì và chỉ nghĩ, những người làm Trưởng tàu như Ba tôi đều được gọi như thế. ―In the early 80s, when I was little, every time I came to hang out at my Father's workplace, I heard the uncles and aunties there call him “Bolshevik”; I didn't understand and simply thought that train captains like my Father were all called thus.”
Nam Hồng (2018), “Bố chồng tôi [My Father-In-Law]”, inBáo điện tử của tình Hải Dương [Hải Dương Province's One Line Newspaper] (in Vietnamese): “Mang biệt hiệu “Bôn sê vích” nhưng ông nói thì ai cũng nghe và khen “có lý, có tình”. ―Bearing the nickname “Bolshevik” yet whatever he said everyone heeded and praised as “rational and empathetic”.”
Latest comment:14 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Swahili. Rfv-sense: quiver (arrow container), aTbot entry. All that I find online refers to the Muslimzakat, and the pluralmazaka seems unattested.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Should be easy enough to verify, since it's mentioned in the Old Testament, which has been translated into Arabic. I wonder, though, why the etymology says it's a learned borrowing from an unattested Aramaic word that comes from the Hebrew word, rather than simply saying it's a learned borrowing from the Hebrew word. —Mahāgaja ·talk15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think it's common in Russian, too, but only as a marked anglicism. Is this also the case in Mongolian? And I think it's a good idea to add a quote to the entry.Thadh (talk)09:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: For Russian, definitely not: констракшна has a fairly high number of hits as well. Not sure it's verifiable though, it's mostly very marked, almost like codeswitching. Don't know about Mongolian, but considering the Ukrainian and Belarusian hits, I'm guessing the same is true there.Thadh (talk)17:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@PhanAnh123 I know this term firstly not through dictionaries, but through my relatives who are of Nghe An/Ha Tinh descent. I think it should be listed as "dialectal" because I don't really know where exactly is it used. From my relative's info, I know that it is from the North and it's "tiếng phổ thông" (standard language), but I'm a bit confused about the contradictory definitions inhttps://chunom.net/Tu-Dien.html, so I decided to just leave its{{lb}} as "now dialectal".HungKhanh0106 (talk)07:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:11 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Vietnamese verb meaning "toriot; torampage" (negative connotions) with no attestation. I do a quick search and seem like it is a shortened version ofđi bão, which means "to storm the street to celebrate" (does not have a negative connotation).Duchuyfootball (talk)14:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
That’s exactlywhat the entry used to say, but an IP (looks likeFumiko Take) insisted on changing it. I think we can just revert to the previous definitions rather than deleting this one and then re-adding the old one. It could be the IP is simply too bad at English to fully understand what “riot” and “rampage” actually mean.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)02:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
IP here. As a bilingual English & Vietnamese speaker "riot" is exactly how I would define it. In English the word doesn't always have a negative connotation (for example, a tourist in Vietnam experiencing a bão could exclaim "that football celebration was such a riot" to say that it was an entertaining event, per definition #3 of riot). Whether it has a positive or negative connotation doesn't matter; in this case "riot" is merely a objective description and any connotations are a matter of context in which the word is being used. Furthermore bão or đi bão has been used in sanctioned Vietnamese media to describe actual instances of tumult and rampage[171][172][173] Please note that I am not making any negative judgments on Vietnam at all in regards to the đi bão culture; sports rioting is an established phenomenon that has taken place all around the world (indeed, there was celebratory rioting that occured in Philadelphia after the Super Bowl last week). Đi bão just happens to be Vietnam's version of that.73.240.115.6407:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
“[C]onnotations are a matter of context.” Exactly, and without context (such as in a dictionary gloss), the words “riot” and “rampage” always have connotations of violence. This makes these words completely and utterly unsuitable for a dictionary gloss ofbão. The original gloss (“to go to celebrate on the streets with motorbikes racing around the city (at times of national pride)”) is infinitely better.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)07:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
A storm/typhoon/hurricane is inherently violent as well. Frankly that gloss sounds like someone is too proud that their country won the championship and can't acknowledge the fact that violence (however unintentional) has and does tend to occur during these spontaneous celebrations (as per the links if you had read them - also it would be incredibly rude for me to say that you're "simply too bad at Vietnamese" just because you're at a vi-3 level).73.240.115.6408:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Violence is not necessary for something to be abão in the meaning of what happens after a sports victory; violence is necessary for something to be a riot in the meaning the word is understood without context. Therefore “riot” cannot be a gloss forbão. My Vietnamese is more than good enough to read your links, and from the headlines it is obvious that the articles are about events that happened during abão. The wordbão is used to describe the context of the tumult and rampage, not to describe the actual tumult and rampage. Would it be rude of me to say that you’re “simply too bad at creating accurate glosses”?Fumiko Take certainly was. (And she often used language similar to your “T lạy m éo liên quan gì với chính trị đâu ta.” She even got blocked because of it. Are youFumiko Take?)MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)09:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Don't know who that person is but at leastđi bão doesn't define it as a "riot" anymore. Whatever, if that's too strong of a word for your tastes then stick with "ruckus" and "commotion" then. Giỏi lắm, thôi mệt rồi cậu muốn làm gì cứ việc làm đi.73.240.115.6409:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
To judge from the image atсерафими многоꙮчитїи, this is the spelling found in the manuscript. The ending is that of the long masculine plural, which would be normalized to -ии; this adjective apparently occurs only in this phrase, where the adjective agrees with masculine pluralсерафими(serafimi). —Mahāgaja ·talk20:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Hugo.arg, I am not familiar with Spanish. If it is a term used in Paraguayan Spanish, it might be possible to convert it into a Spanish entry with the label "Paraguay" (Category:Paraguayan Spanish). But can you provide some usage examples? Is it listed in dictionaries (not necessary, but it would help)?RodRabelo7 (talk)21:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Russian. Not that much web hits but it apparently does exist in that sense (all i can find is one Mail.Ru Answers question), just needs some more investigation to ensure that it does exist in that sense.67.209.129.19122:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
someone added an rfv tag to Ariarith without starting a discussion here so it can be resolved, the user writes: "source states: "The adaption of Vandalic forms to the Latin linguistic environment .. for example the typical loss oh-" - sounds like the Latin to Romance development of lossing initial h, hinting that these names are Latin."
This seems to be a specious argument Latin sound changes have spread to Swedish and are not indicative of attribution to any language, and not directly related to attestation. Loss and overcorrective addition of intial and medial h is a fairly common occurrence in ancient and medieval Germanic names. It can make identifying the original elements difficult (in this case it could rather be a variant of Ari-"honor" or Aria- "noble" instead of Hari-"army"), but doesn't change the language from Germanic to Latin. Wikipedia France has a page on the Historic figure, referring to a further English reference workhttps://archive.org/details/plre-01-260-395/PLRE03A_527-641/page/114/mode/2up. the ending in -th rather than -d or -dus or -thus, argues against it being a Latin form of the name.Griffon77 (talk)20:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think it's just a Sino-Vietnamese word. A quick Google search returns only attestations in Hanzi and Kanji translations and quotations (and one normal use case but it seems to aim to be antique.) I'm on the fence here.Duchuyfootball (talk)16:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
This and especiallythis. It's hard to pinpoint what people mean when they use this word, as the idea of "debate" is quite alien. So the perceived meaning can range from something like to argue, to refute, to counterargue to critically debate.Duchuyfootball (talk)17:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
rfv added by another user with the reason: “page 28 and § 28 and Wortregister on p. 181 don't contain this word.”
but no request for verification actually created til now. this issue appears to have been already resolved with corrections to the references which do contain the name, but the rfv tag remainsGriffon77 (talk)20:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:11 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Histoire general de Languedoc, listed by Forstemann as his source, doesn't seem to have any reference to the name Folderich. All i can find isFolderic in a french translation of Orlando Furioso (although it's actually from the included "Extract of DE L’ORLANDO INNAMORATO" in the original 15th C. ItalianFolderico Unfortunately I can really only search books digitized at the BNF. MDZ would be good to check, but it's not working right now.Griffon77 (talk)02:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
now that MDZ is working again I can find Folderich in 19th C. German translations of Orlando Innamorato, and a couple of books from the early 17th C. some referencing the late 16th. Others are too indecipherable to be valid citations, one is clearly Friderich, and the one in Luther is Fo:derich (Föderich?). Nothing in OHG and the oldest seems to be early modern German.Griffon77 (talk)10:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Alternatetransliteration is of course nonsense, it's an alternative spelling, used whenever the character⟨ü⟩ is unavailable. I'm sure it's possible to find attestations of this spelling in print, especially from the 19th century or earlier (or from computer-written texts when only ASCII characters were available), but I think our treatment of⟨ae oe ue⟩ vs.⟨ä ö ü⟩ spellings in German needs to be decided in a general discussion, not on an entry-by-entry basis. —Mahāgaja ·talk07:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
While it is slang used pretty extensively especially in certain regions, I can't really seem to find some kind of semi-official use besides my own experience and comments on social media by other people.
Old High German. Whole descent tree before the misspelled German listing seems to be imagined - no Mindah, except as a variant ofmiddah mentioned in the 16th C., no basis for reconstructing *Mindak or *Mendaks, which are contrary to the cited reference
Old High German. German and OHG name and roots seem imaginary. no attestations for any of these names. Nargell is Swedish (and so relatively recent), Nargil is Persian, Arabic and Rabbinic, Norgel/Norgell possibly German, but not even referenced here (and could be Sorbian/Pomerainian)
Latest comment:11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Old High German. no apparent attestion of Jundil as a German surname or given name before WWI. references in the 19th C. and earlier specifically call it Lithuanian. more apparently spurious etymologies made up by the user out of thin air— Thisunsigned comment was added byGriffon77 (talk •contribs) at07:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC).Reply
Old High German. on p.416 of the Wirtembergisches Urkundenbuch (Forsetmann's source) they alledge this is a gloss of Waganasheim "Aginesheim, Egisheim 12. (vgl. Uuaganesheim)", apparently assuming it is V.(for villa)Aganesheim. The other urkundenbuchs covering the 8th. and 9th C. say Vaganesheim as well.https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb11212597?page=278&q=Vaganesheimhttps://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb10004573?page=514,515&q=Vaganesheim (the same record with a different calculation of the regnal year. Neugart here equates Vaganesheim with Agineshaim)in reference to this the editors of the WU later quote a reference which says "To interpret Uaganesheim as Egisheim is not linguistically permissible; it is probably an abandoned place to be sought near the mentioned villages of Behla and Hausen", however this source, depending on Neugart (who mentions the donation of Agineshaim in 770, but only gives a precis of the original without the name of the village)https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb11486285?page=44,45&q=Vaganesheim
Goldast, much before Neugart and the WU however also has Agineshaim in 770
I can't find a scan of the original manuscript in this case. the Urkundebuch st Gallen suggests it is codex traditiones 30 no.51, but this doesn't get me anywhere
Old High German. appears to be a spurious reconstruction. no documentary evidence of this name outside the Americas where it seems to be a variation of Scottish Taggartuser also uses the form Daugart in link, again, nothing I can find in German documents of any era, only modern (19th-20th C.) France or German Alsace.
German. No evidence for this as a name in Germany, all usage seems to be either Scandinavia, from a town in Denmark, or France, as an isolated variation of Daugart/Daugert/Dagart
Latest comment:11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hawaiian. tagged but not listed. a perfectly reasonable loan, but might be hard to find ... print book searches are overwhelmed with false positives for the unrelated Japanese word since it will match anywhere in an entire document.Lollipop (talk)14:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just a reminder, the only digital source for Old Slovak is{{R:sk:HSSJ}}. If one can't find the word in it, unless this certain Korean IP has a better source, I doubt the existence of the word.Chihunglu83 (talk)19:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
This should be deleted. I have already (since 2025-11-30) made a request for deletion. There seems to be no meaningful progress regarding proper references to sources.Missileboi (talk)15:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
(2023)"Phi hành gia NASA sắp diện thời trang Prada lên Mặt Trăng", quote: "Nhà Prada của Ý sẽ bắt tay vào việcvẽ kiểu bộ trang phụ[sic – meaningtrang phục] đó với sự cộng tác của một công ty tư, là Axiom Space." rough translation: "The House of Prada will begin todesign that suit in collaboration with Axiom Space, a private company."
Latest comment:11 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
We've had a conflict withUser:Наименее Полезное about theсасновы page, and I believe we’re unable to resolve it on our own. Therefore, I’d like to ask a third party to have a look at the article, following the guidelines from theHelp:Dispute resolution page.
I’ve added “(relational) pine” and I believe this is a good definition: it provides everything needed to understand and use the word «сасновы» by relying on the English knowledge. «Сасновы лес» 'pine forest' is 'forest of pines', «сасновая смала» 'pine resin' is resin extracted from a pine, etc. The English usage mirrors the Belarusian usage, so we can keep a succint definition that is easy to read and use.
User:Наименее Полезное has added sub-sections of the meaning by followingТСБМ explanatory dictionary, such as “related to pines”, “derived from pines”, “overgrown by pines”, etc. I believe this clutters the page needlessly, and doesn’t actually help a reader (because English adjectival use of “pine” basically can have all the same meanings, and because these meanings are not exhaustive: it’s possible to come up with new ones, like “looking like a pine” [сасновы узор], “smelling like a pine” [сасновы асвяжальнік паветра], etc.).
What’s more, these meanings are not something unique to «сасновы»: all relational adjectives related to plants will have the same set of meanings. «Ружавы» 'rose', «чабрацовы» 'thyme', «вінаградны» 'grape' will have the same set of possible meanings. In the end, they’re just a variation on the basic theme “related to pines”.
I've tried acompromise approach, shifting his additions into a sub-meanings of the main meaning (even though I don’t think they are useful), but herestored the original layout. After this, we basically had an “edit war” where I’ve refererred toWiktionary:Style guide#Types of definitions, and he referred to the existing practices in the Belarusian section of the English Wiktionary («making the entry longer has never been a problem, we have always done this format»[179]; although I’m not sure how representative this actually is of the Belarusian part of the Wiktionary).
I am not a Belarusian editor but I would like to comment on the issue. I don't understand why there is so much discussion about these glosses, In Czech and Slovak and most other Slavic languages I see patterns like Наименее Полезное's being followed. And personally, I see glosses as a "bridge" that separates good entries from stubs, looking at the edit history of that specific entry, it doesn't seem polluted at all.F. V. Lorenz (talk)13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Of 583 articles, only 20 (<4%) have more than one meaning¹. Of these, most meanings are different in English, andnone separates relational adjective into 5 sub-sections.
Even though it could have. I’m pretty sureborovicový could have had “related to pine”, “derived from pine”, “overgrown with pines”, etc.
I don’t have energy now to check Czech, but Slovak certainly doesn’t seem to follow Наименее Полезное’s patterns.
These entries are only like this because most Czech and Slovak editors create quick and simple entries, they don't even check the entire dictionary, and I'm here to reverse this situation in my language.F. V. Lorenz (talk)15:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Хтосьці I personally like your treatment and this is absolutely not the case ofquick and simple entries. Have a quick look at Polishsosnowy, simple as that, and I will keep doing this in the same manner.Chihunglu83 (talk)09:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think sosnowy is an example of "good enough". I tend to be a maximalist and include a lot of information, look at my recent contributions for examples. That said, were someone to make an entry like sosnowy, I wouldn't be upset at the lack of information or references.Vininn126 (talk)10:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Welsh. This lemma form is not used in Welsh, and only occurs as a direct quotation. Welsh has no "q" in its orthography, and "u" does not correspond to /w/ in Welsh under any circumstances. Also Globse is not a reliable source at all. My suggestion would be to delete this Welsh entry; the corresponding form in Welsh is "cwiar".
To treat 'queer' as an 'unassimilated borrowing' would surely mean treating every casually used English word in Welsh during code-switching conversations as a 'Welsh' word, meaning that poetenially any English word is also a 'Welsh' one, which quickly leads to absurdity, at least in terms of lexicography.2A00:23C7:21B4:FD01:EC9A:5E40:52C9:C18820:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Indonesian. Can't be found in KBBI. Does this word actually exist in Indonesian or is a typo oftumbuh? I suspect that this word is actually of another language.Alfarizi M (talk)06:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Malay.
These entries were created byUser:Duhose, which is now blocked for being a sock puppet of Eiskrahablo. A few IPs tagged these entries for speedy deletion before being replaced with rfv template. What do you think about these entries, @GinormousBuildings? Are they really used in Malay?Alfarizi M (talk)20:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
They are used in spoken colloquial Malay, but never spelled this way. The speaker will just use its English spelling in written Malay. The only sources I've found that uselokesyen as the spelling are all coming from Indonesian sources. By the way,imaginasi is more common thanimejinesen, whilemisyen andlokesyen are more common thanmisi andlokasi in spoken colloquial Malay (atleast in Malaysia).Sponge2490 (talk)08:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Someone has obviously copied the same nonsense from one entry to another. There's also Marathiदाखल(dākhal) in the lists of cognates, but it makes sense. I'm guessing that someone tried to model one of the entries above on the Marathi one, failed miserably, and then that was used as a model for the others.Chuck Entz (talk)01:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Probably it refers to the original/central districts (roughly the boundaries of former Saigon), as with what I've heard. With me, I actually used it liberally though, as to refer to the whole of Ho Chi Minh.HungKhanh0106 (talk)11:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@MuDavid, @HungKhanh0106: Growing up I had been taught in school that Sài Gòn wasHCMC's former name, only in junior middle-school did I learn from my father that the name Sài Gòn was still used informally to refer to District 1. I adduce two sources:
Schellinger, Paul E., Salkin, Robert M., editors (1996), “Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam)”, inInternational Dictionary of Historic Places, volumes 5. Asia and Oceania, New York: Routledge,page353: ““Saigon” survives as the name of the central district of the conurbation and as the conventional transliteration of “Song Sai Gon,” the river on which Ho Chi Minh City stands.”
alex_yue (12 April 2025),Threads[180] (in Vietnamese): “Từ hồi bé nhà mình đều dùngSài Gòn để gọi quận nhất. Bây giờ thì không còn thấy ai gọi như thế nữa. ―Since my childhood, my whole family has been usingSài Gòn to call District 1. Now I see that no one does so any longer.” Many commenters agree with alex_yue.
Hoàng Trọng Tín (30 December 2016),Facebook[181] (in Vietnamese), Comment under Tôi là người Sài Gòn's post: “Nhưng ng SG mình là ng địa phương nên biết rõ rằngSG (gồm Q1 & Q3) là 1 khu vực thuộc TpHcm,[…][Nhưng người Sài Gòn - mình là người địa phương - nên biết rõ ràngSài Gòn (gồm Quận 1 và Quận 3) là một khu vực thuộc Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh,[…]] ―Yet local Saigoneers - like me - know clearly thatSài Gòn (comprising Districts 1 and 3) is an area within Hồ Chí Minh City,[…]”
Tran Anh Vu (1 October 2024),Facebook[182] (in Vietnamese), Comment under Sài Gòn's post: “Điquận 1 = lênSài Gòn ―Go toDistrict 1 = Go up[town] toSài Gòn”
I thinkSài Gòn(“District 1, Ho Chi Minh City[→] an area comprising Ho Chi Minh City's one or more central districts”) meetsattestation criterion #2: "use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages)" as it is attested in three sources: Hoàng Trọng Tín (2016), Tran Anh Vu (2024), and alex_yue (2025).Erminwin (talk)00:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Maasai. Several sources cite the word asoldupai, which is the source of the English variant of the place name,Oldupai. (And I am not even sure that either is a real place name in Maasai, as some white anthropologist might have asked nearby Maasai what the place was called and a description could have been made up on the spot. Not saying this is more likely the case by default, but many similar things are known to have happened and so I can't rule it out.) —2600:4808:9C30:C500:C44:B490:2CA3:CCEB05:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I cleaned up the botanical part of it:sisal is an English word borrowed from Spanish for an unrelated South American plant and the fiber harvested from it- the original etymology incorrectly linked to it as a Maasai word. The common name "wild sisal" refers to an East African plant,Sansevieria ehrenbergii (Wikipedia has it underDracaena hanningtonii) that also produces fiber. The plant that comes to mind when thegenusSansevieria is mentioned is a houseplant better known as "mother-in-law's tongue" (now classified asDracaena trifasciata), but also calledbowstring hemp. If you go to the WP article forDracaena hanningtonii, it discusses the relationship between the plant name and the place name.Chuck Entz (talk)06:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Vietnamese. Very enthusiastically created by @HWJunAN, tagged byPhanAnh123 with comment, “What are some attestations of this in the meaning of "picture book, comics" in contexts that are not obvious foreignism? If it's just a foreignism, it still can be kept but ought to be edited accordingly so ("orthographical borrowing from Japanese", etc.)”.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see the term being attested in a dictionary published in Saigon in 1970[183][184], so maybe there could be extended use since that period (and from which sets it apart from being purely Sino-Vietnamese).HungKhanh0106 (talk)11:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
From my experience, no usage. Maybe it should be labeled archaic. On the other hand, I don't find any attestation of "nghẹ" meaning "soot" either.Duchuyfootball (talk)14:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Such contrived compounds exist only as mentions. This one only exists as an example of the almost unlimited capability of compounding Dutch nouns. One could go further and discuss the tenure of thehottentottententententoonstellingsterreinbewakersbondsvoorzitter (the president of the union of guards of the Khoikhoi tent exhibition grounds), but whoever penned this shorter compound noun must have felt it already illustrated the point sufficiently. UsingHottentotten to refer to the Khoikhoi is politically incorrect; writing it with a lowercase ⟨h⟩ is orthographically incorrect. ‑‑Lambiam08:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Old High German. apparently created as part of a number of unverified etymology trees, this seems to be a US form and frequent typo for Polish Bargiel. needs double checking for OHG citations on MDZ at least
Latest comment:10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Indonesian. Also, I was going to change the header to "Malay", but I didn't do it because it's labelled with 'Id' in Kamus Dewan.Alfarizi M (talk)00:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think "không" in that sense also included compounds outside oftrên không:không phận,không chiến,không gian,không khí,không kích,không lực,không tập,không trung,không vận, hàngkhông, thámkhông, thinhkhông, thukhông. If you wonder where I took all that from, I took them fromhttps://chunom.net (a dictionary aggregator)HungKhanh0106 (talk)15:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
But still, I think the sense could be kept in similar fashion to some other Sino-Viet syllables only found in compound words, e.g. with the label "chiefly in compounds andtrên không".HungKhanh0106 (talk)08:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Duchuyfootball: Not really. What I am saying here is that the word can be given such definition when there are numerous Sino-Vietnamese compounds (plustrên không) having the word with the similar sense.HungKhanh0106 (talk)03:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Were you now? Not sure I understand you, though. My point is that if this sense is only ever used in that one phrase, it should not be listed as a sense, but at most as{{only used in}}.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)01:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Vietnamese. Rfv-sense: electrical resistance. This is attestable, I think, but the sense of “resistor” clogs up search results.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
This showed up in Vietnamese textbook, and it only gives the meaning "resistor" for the word, so maybe the rfv'd sense could just be someone's mistake?HungKhanh0106 (talk)15:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
It wouldn't be accurate to call it "non-existing", yes, but seethis page, where I moved it.
Attested only twice in Old Turkic script, as 𐰢𐰍𐰴𐰀 (mGKa [amġa-ḳa, dative case]) and 𐰢𐰍𐰀 (mGa [amġa]) , I choose the former following Wilkens (2021), who lists this lemma as "2(a)mg(a) (r) † → (ı)mg(a)."
I'll add it as an orthographic variant of mG we already have, if you don't object.
I'm not familiar with these languages but I see that the deleted Old Turkic lemma included an etymology section, a quote and references - I'm wondering if this information was removed in error?Einstein2 (talk)22:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, it wasn't. Two references that were there previously, Clauson (1972) and Tekin (1993) both link this word with Irk Bitig, an Old Uyghur Manichaean work written in 930. Definitely not Old Turkic (and you're not the first one to question this either, but I believe Turkic editors are mostly rolling along with my change to transfer IB-specific words to Old Uyghur namespace.)
I can add the quotation (which will be more accurate than the previous one, with scans and everything,) if you are still unsure/doubtful.
Latest comment:10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Gaulish. I don't know what the two Gaulish dictionaries listed in the References say, but if this name is attested only in inscriptions in Great Britain, surely it's some early form of Proto-Brythonic, not Gaulish. —Mahāgaja ·talk06:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Persian, specifically for its usage as anoun. I have, on the other hand, found examples of adjectival use (though i'm not sure that would be worth including as it seems to be an inflection ofمؤثر) — BABR・talk03:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Albanian. Rfv-sense:
Çabej, E. (1987) “canguletë”, in Studime etimologjike në fushë të shqipes (in Albanian), volumes III: C–D, Tirana, page 10
...Me këtëcangull mund të jetë një, si "send i fryrë, rrumbullak" (inflated object, round object), edhecangull "brâsh, pjepën a shalqi i papjekur", bashkë me frazënme mbetë cangull "ngri trupi".
Keep. Yethấp dẫn must also be classified as fundamentally anadjective meaning "(physics) gravitational". To become a noun meaning "gravity" & "gravitation",hấp dẫn(“(physics) gravitational”) needs nominalizer "sự"; e.g.
"nơisự hấp dẫn lượng tử chi phối" in Nguyễn thị Bình's 2011 Vietnamese translation (1v) from "where quantumgravity rules" from Zeeya Merali's 2009 article (1e),
"Newton hợp nhấtsự hấp dẫn của trái đất và bầu trời" in Anh Vũ's Vietnamese translation (2v) of "Newton unified terrestrial and celestialgravity" in John Carlos Baez's tweet quoted in Dylan Loeb McClain's 2021 article (2e)
Even so, nominalizer "sự" may be elided; e.g.
"lý thuyết của Newton vềhấp dẫn dựa trên một mô hình còn đơn giản hơn" in Cao Chi's & Phạm Văn Thiều's 2000 Vietnamese translation (3v) of "Newton’s theory ofgravity was based on an even simpler model" in Stephen Hawking's book (3e)
"lý thuyếthấp dẫn của Newton, một lý thuyết rất hợp với trực giác và đã được thực nghiệm kiểm chứng nhiều lần [...] Einstein đã giải quyết được xung đột này bằng cách đưa ra một cách mô tả mới vềhấp dẫn" in Phạm Văn Thiều's Vietnamese translation (4v, pp. 6-7) of "Newton's experimentally successful and intuitively pleasing universal theory ofgravitation [...] It was Einstein, again, who stepped in and resolved the conflict by offering a new conception ofgravity" in Brian Greene's book (4e, p. 7).
@Numberguy6 Sorry, but I do not know how a "O@Side-PalmForward" vs "O@Side-PalmAcross" is supposed to look like in ASL. Also that does not really help: even if it were an Across in the picture, it could just be that the pictures are using the wrong sign (again, don't know, it could be a Forward), why does it have to be that the pagename, and everything else was wrong?
O@Side-PalmForward would have the palm facing the viewer directly, but I don't know whether O is ever produced that way in ASL. In[189], for example, every letter except O is palm-forward, but O is palm-across. —Mahāgaja ·talk07:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tajik, specifically the short-lived reformed Arabic spelling. It doesn't seem correct and I suspect it was just a guess. Additionally, it was added byCrash48 who added entries in limited-use orthographies in other languages, some of whichBlueskies006 has marked for RfD as well. — BABR・talk23:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Trần Trọng Dương, PhDNguyễn Trãi Quốc Âm Từ Điển, entry"thác"; quote: "① đgt. <từ cổ> gửi, nhờ, động từbất cập vật. Ai trách hiềm cây, lại trách mình, vốn xưa một cội thác cùng cành. (Bảo kính 151.2)."
Nguyễn Hoàng Anh (2017), “Đặc đIểm ngữ pháp của tổ hợp V+N trong tiếng Hán (đốI chiếu với tiếng Việt)”, inTạp chí Nghiên cứu Nước ngoài (in Vietnamese), volume33, number 1, page 3: “Đây là hiện tượng cập vật hoá của một số động từbất cập vật trong tiếng Hán.”
Nguyễn Ngọc Lân, PhD (December2019), “Nghiên cứu hiện tượng chuyển loại của từ trong văn ngôn tiếng Trung Quốc”, inTạp chí Khoa học Ngoại ngữ (in Vietnamese), number60, page114: “Trong văn ngôn tiếng Trung Quốc, cách dùng sử động đối với động từ tường chỉ xuất hiện ở động từbất cập vật (intransitive verb/nội động từ).”
I don't have any strong opinion, but aren't those exactly the Sinologist and Chinese language learning/research contexts that this term seems to be restricted to? It's whether these language-specific terms should be allowed that I'm not sure about.PhanAnh123 (talk)06:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is this form actually attested in Old English? It's listed in Bosworth-Toller, but the only citations given are other dictionaries. The usual OE name for Cornwall wasCornwealas.Zacwill (talk)10:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I checked the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and couldn't find any examples. There are a couple of instances of dativeCornwealon, which could theoretically represent a singular form *Cornweala, but are probably just confusion with the dative plural. I can't find any OE citations ofCornweal, though. I saydelete.Vergencescattered (talk)01:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I just tried adding some quotations, three for each sense. It is not a terribly common word, so I had to resort to using a few websites as sources, with archive URLs of course. The book "Samuel Bogumił Linde kaj lia provo krei interslavan esperanton" does not have an ISBN that I can find, but proof of its existence can be foundhere andhere, and its title (including the word "interslavan") is also mentionedin the article "Tri legindaj nacilingvaj libroj pri interlingvistiko" fromthe magazine Esperanto, issue 4 of 2003.Spenĉjo (talk)02:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I added three more quotations from books and a scientific journal. The first sense now no longer relies on web sources for attestation requirements. The second sense still only has two non-web quotations, so it would need "a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks" according toWT:ATTEST.Spenĉjo (talk)23:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
"(derogatory) reactionary; a sympathizer of the former Republic of Vietnam", and
"(derogatory, Overseas Vietnamese) a sympathizer of conservative ideologies and parties, especially the Republican Party in the United States".
I reasoned that "def 2[…] is subsumable under "reactionary" (the Republicans are reactionaries hell-bent on rolling back progress). Reactionary in turn (imho) results from semantic broadening of RVN's sympathizers" andre-wrote both defs as:
(derogatory) a sympathizer of the former Republic of Vietnam
(derogatory, by extension) reactionary(Can we verify(+) this sense?)
New sense 1 is firmly established, & I need new def 2 "reactionary" to be verified. While sympathizers of the right-wing, anti-communist former RVN mustneeds be right-wing anti-communists and thus perceivable as reactionaries, not all reactionaries are sympathizers of the right-wing, anti-communist former RVN.Erminwin (talk)16:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why not RFV the original definition 2 instead, and then, if that fails RFV, we can look at broadening it?—Soap—20:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Soap: Well, because "a sympathizer of conservative ideologies and parties, (especially the Republican Party in the United States)" is subsumable under "reactionary". That was why I subsumed orig def. 2 under sub-def "reactionary" of orig def 1, which I then split (EDIT: because not every reactionary is a sympathizer of the former RVN) into:
current def 1 "a sympathizer of the former Republic of Vietnam"
current def 2 "reactionary" (theoretically extendable from and possibly extended from current def 1 but I'm not sure)
I would prefer to see the original definition go through RFV, as it's far more specific and thus potentially more useful for someone encountering the word in use. You could have added your broader sense and RFV'ed both instead of replacing the existing one. However, I suppose while searching for cites for the 2nd sense, we can discern the finer meanings, and if most of them are talking about the US Republican party, we can change the wording accordingly. I have no fluency in Vietnamese but with a quick search of Twitter I can only add that ifbò vàng can refer to Western politics, so can its antonymbò đỏ, as the two phrases seem so often to be used together.—Soap—21:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
(derogatory, by extension) reactionary(Can we verify(+) this sense?)
(derogatory, Overseas Vietnamese) a sympathizer of conservative ideologies and parties, especially the Republican Party in the United States(Can we verify(+) this sense?)
Trần Trọng Dương, PhD.Nguyễn Trãi Quốc Âm Từ Điển, entry"thác"; quote: "② đgt. <từ cổ> gửi theo, nương theo, động từcập vật. Mui thác trăng dương thế hứng, buồm nhân gió, mặc khi phiêu. (Tự thán 101.3)."
Trương Văn Vỹ (2013), “Những biến đổi trong ngữ pháp tiếng Nga hiện nay”, inTạp chí Khoa học ĐHQGHN, Nghiên cứu Nước ngoài (in Vietnamese), volume29, number 1S: “Hiện cũng đang rất phổ biến trên báo chí và các phương tiện truyền thông đại chúng mối liên hệ kết hợp giữa a) động từcập vật và b) động từ bất cập vật với cùng một hình thái bổ ngữ:[…]”
Nguyễn Ngọc Lân, phD (December2019), “Nghiên cứu hiện tượng chuyển loại của từ trong văn ngôn tiếng Trung Quốc”, inTạp chí Khoa học Ngoại ngữ (in Vietnamese), number60, page114: “Trường hợp động từcập vật (transitive verb/ngoại động từ) dùng theo cách "sử động" trong văn ngôn tiếng Trung Quốc tuy có nhưng rất ít gặp[…]”
@Vahagn Petrosyan: We should add the reference to the page then. I think this is exactly the reason why we should add references when we create pages, to avoid people RFV'ing them.Thadh (talk)18:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Surely this is not a suffix in any way; the entry itself notes it is not a suffix. This "suffix" is supposedly a suffix for some foregin words, but it's actually just a bunch of suffixes from other languages (-er, -or, -eur) that happen to become őr in hungarianNS1729 (talk)07:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Perhaps someone could verify whether the instrumental plural should be ukiunik instead of ukiumi, which is the locative singular. This form occurs in the Wikipedia article about the bowhead whale in Greenlandic. This shows that the Wiktionary volunteers would do well to consult other sources such as Wikipedia, Google Translate etc to find the full inflection of words not only in Greenlandic but also in other inflected languagesJohnling60 (talk)20:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Or it might well show that Wikipedia volunteers should consult Wiktionary while writing an article in a language they don't know. I don't know Greelandic, but Wikipedia and Google Translate are definitely not sources we should use in verifying this.Thadh (talk)00:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
This definition was merged with the other definitions (to spectate, to watch). I moved the sense into its own definition as it seems to be anintransitive verb.ReVo andPIV do not indicate that it is defined as "to be a spectator". Please let me know if there is a more proper way to handle this type of scenario.TranqyPoo (talk)00:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:7 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Erzya. Tagged, not listed. Also for some reason all the senses were just removed (still accessible in the history).Thadh (talk)10:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's the problem. It doesn't mean anything, although it serves as the root of words like чапамо 'sour', чапакс 'dough'. According to Paasonen, it can mean the same as чапо 'зарубка', 'incision, notch' in some "a-dialects". Maybe we could add this meaning.Mitronen (talk)06:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
At first glance in Google Books, used in dictionaries and encyclopedias. There is not yet a policy on which (if any) such works count towards CFI. This may take a while. To start, do you accept the top four lines of page ۲۲ inGizli lisan?[190]Vox Sciurorum (talk)19:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
One reason I'm doubtful is the phraseقزلجق آغاجی و چیچكی (kızılcık ağacı ve çiçeği, cornel tree and flower) which suggests the tree word is just a sum of parts.Vox Sciurorum (talk)19:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm just seeing this, but even if the word does exist, it is obviously sum of parts. I think we cansend this to RFD because it seems the creator couldn't find dictionaries listing the wordkızılcık with the plant sense, even though it seems to be used for both.Bartanaqa (talk)19:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also bear in mind that in French the fruit and the tree are different words:cornouille vs.cornouiller, which says more about the way French handles fruit names than about Ottoman Turkish. It might be a good idea to check other fruit-related terms to see if there are any other SOP ones resulting from this (I believe French is also one of the languages that have different terms for groups of plants/trees growing together).Chuck Entz (talk)22:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Delete. Only available source is a Google Book that likely data scraped or maybe did programmatically mixing affixes with some words but the combination of affix-root does not exist and never used at all. One also haven't heard of this, according to talk section. ingeniousness or ingenuity would usually bekatalinuhan orkahenyuhan.𝄽ysrael214 (talk)14:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Old High German. OHG and MHG seem unattested, and only reconstructed from Latin Garwilus (from Corvey, so possibly borrowed from Old Saxon or Old Dutch, not High German). appears to be misinformation from a Belarusian source aiming to de-legitimize Lithuanian identity.
Latest comment:7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Old English. Rfv-sense: "to confound, astonish, stupefy". Probably a erroneous retrojection of the semantics of Middle Englishstonen,stoneyen(“to stun, stupefy”) and modern Englishstun given the absence of such a sense Bosworth-Toller and theOED's statement that the sense ofstonen/stun "differs essentially" from that ofstunian in rejecting the derivation of the former from the latter, which would be nonsensical ifstunian(“to confound, astonish, stupefy”) really existed.Hazarasp (parlement ·werkis)10:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Old English, “meeting” sense; seeReconstruction:Old English/mot (created by @Hundwine). This came to my attention when it was noted onthe talk page on 14 July that “there are two separate words conflated under OE mōt”. The sense was added on 11 October 2024 by Vergencescattered, who did not reply, hence I am moving it here.J3133 (talk)18:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Has digamma ever been used in modern Greek? We mark it as "archaic, obsolete", so was it an intentional archaism at some point in the past?Theknightwho (talk)00:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Serbo-Croatian. Claimed to be a slang and probably derogatory term referring to Black people. I would expect to find this all over the Internet but I can find exactly one blog reference[191] which says it's a dialectal term of Crna Trava and South Morava, Serbia, and gives no specific sources or any indication of how pejorative this term is. Unless someone can find citations, I'm gonna nuke it.Benwing2 (talk)06:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Serbo-Croatian. We have a bunch of random obsolete spelling entries.nohti isn't even a lemma, created 12 years ago by an IP whose entire set of 229 contributions consist almost completely in creating obsolete spelling entries. None of them are cited; I am wont to delete all of them unless they can be cited.Benwing2 (talk)06:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Note that in many of them the non-obsolete lemma is a red link; I gave one example above,popijevka. I have removed all the cases that had citations; none of the above have any citations.Benwing2 (talk)08:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2:ie instead ofje is normal in mid-19th-century books though; the same goes for not expressing assimilation tos, as inzebsti forzepsti: you also wrotesrbski instead ofsrpski. Modern editions – as on Wikisource – may normalize these spellings, similar to post-1918 Russian editions of 19th-century classics, so even the cases where obsolete forms likečlovjek are cited may in fact bečloviek, often depending on whoever digitized and/or transcribed the now niche text first. I frankly don't see anything suspicious at all within this mass, this is not conlanging or something.Fay Freak (talk)17:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ancient Greek.
In English,smooth breathing refers to the phenomenon (i.e. a lack of aspiration on a vowel), and to the diacritic which indicates this. Was this actually the case in Ancient Greek?ψιλή(psilḗ) andψιλή προσῳδία(psilḗ prosōidía) would have certainly been used for the diacritic, so would it really have made sense forψιλὸν πνεῦμα(psilòn pneûma) to have taken on that meaning as well? It's confusing enough to usesmooth breathing for bth in English, but there's also no other English term.Theknightwho (talk)18:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Old Saxon. “Source, "Vorwort": ".. altniederdeutschen Eigennamen .. aus verschiedenen Teilen Niederdeutschlands, aus dem fränkischen, sächsischen und friesischen Gebiete stammen", i.e. containing proper names from Old Low Franconian, Old Saxon and Old Frisian.”
doesn't look like this was added when the tag was placed by someone on the entry
@Rentangan: Most of these terms, despite being used as article names on Indonesian Wikipedia, are most likelydialectal since they derive from regional languages in Indonesia. Therefore, such terms are only used in some regions (and their usage remains uncommon elsewhere — similar to neologisms). Again, the actual reason behind their inclusion by KBBI is popularisation, but this does not necessarily mean that they began to be commonly used by the general population.DDG991203:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
These terms are not attested, though I've seenbokurai,tubin, andkamirawaan. From what I've seen, most of the time,kamirawaan is used by those who live in South Kalimantan, which kind of proves what DDG9912 just said. Forbokurai, it only seems to appear in a bunch of Twitter posts that are referencing another tweet from the Indonesian Wikipedia account. I only see one instance ofbokurai being used outside of Twitter/Wikipedia and it was added a few weeks ago, possibly someone who just learned the term from the aforementioned tweet.Sponge2490 (talk)00:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Many of these (includingpalum which seems to have received significantly far more coverage than the rest) are not yet attestable, at least not in an Indonesian context. Even instances ofbokurai cited by @Sponge2490 are mostlymentions, not use, as they do notconvey meaning by themselves.
At most they are dialectal, but I also doubt this is true for all of them, since sometimes these terms are not even widely used (at least not in the meaning suggested by KBBI) in their languages of origin. For example, as a Palembang native speaker, I know for sure that while KBBI listssenantu(“several days ago”) as aPlb (Palembang) "borrowing", it is simply a rare syncopic form ofsarénantu with the actual meaning quite different from the one recorded in KBBI ("once, a long time ago"). Same goes forselumbari, which is defined as "the day before yesterday" in KBBI but is actually recorded (assalumbari) with the meaning of "the other day" or "several days ago" (not specifically D-2) in Minangkabau dictionaries.
Often these terms are also listed with different POS than in their languages of origin. To takebokurai as an example, instead of a noun, it is quite transparently a verbal/adjectival form, i.e., upper Riau Malay/eastern Minangkabaubo- (= Standard Malayber-) +kurai. A native speaker of that dialect explained the term to me as "to be root-like, to have the quality of a root" (?), and added that it is used rather generally, not specific to describingcrepuscular rays.
To add more to the confusion, sometimes KBBI will also prioritize including these rare "unique" definitions over recording actual use of the terms, to the point that e.g. their entry forkimak only has the Lun Dayeh-origin "gerakan mulut ketika bergumam atau mengomel" as a gloss instead of the more widely used derogatory meaning recorded in our entry forkimak.Swarabakti (talk)16:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As an addendum, introducing neologisms and learned borrowings from regional languages as alternatives to foreignisms is not a novel practice in the history of Indonesian language policy. But this does not necessitate directly including them in KBBI; in fact, it might be counterproductive as the term might not be readily accepted by speakers. If you want, publish them in glossaries (which TBF Badan Bahasa already does via the works of Komisi Istilah, thePASTI website, etc.) and popularize their use in media, literature, etc. first before recording them in KBBI.
Good examples of this practice are the introduction ofsantai andmantan, both of which were first popularized via mass media, literature, and popular culture (including this iconic song from Bang Haji) before they were included in KBBI. Of course, not all proposed terms will be accepted by speakers, and some foreignisms may persist, but this is true for any living language with an active community. If anything, the non-adoption of these terms give opportunity for more alternatives to emerge, which may end up enriching the language even further.
On a more cynical note, I personally abhor the exploitative undertone in our language regulator's use of indigenous languages merely as source for "lexically enriching" (memperkaya kosakata) the national language. It does more harm than good to these languages, which are already heavily underresourced. "Documenting" their words by putting them in a dictionary fora language that is predatory to them is peak linguistic appropriation, and does next-to-nothing to preserve and promote the usage of these languages.Swarabakti (talk)17:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I agree with you. I think KBBI should only include terms from regional languages if they're really attested in Indonesian language context. And similarly, I think these languages deserve their own dictionary instead of their terms lumped together in one dictionary for an official language. I also found similar mistakes that you mentioned, for example they somehow mark "indak", "urang" and "palasik" as nonstandard even though it's clear that they're probably from Minangkabau. And similarly (again) they created the "Minangkabau" (Mk) definition of "bahasa" as "kata yang digunakan untuk menghubungkan bagian ujaran", but I'm quite sure that it's actually a typo of "bahawa" since the distance between "s" and "w" is quite close in the keyboard.Rentangan(talk,contribs)04:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That (Mk) sense for "bahasa" may actually be valid, though, since both "language" and "that (connecting a noun clause)" in Minang arebaso.Swarabakti (talk)17:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah, yea, after checking MCP, I found quite a significant number of examples ofbahasa in this sense in documents by Minangkabau authors. (You can limit the search to Minangkabau-flavored works such asAsal Keturunan Raja Barus andTambo Barus Hilir.)Swarabakti (talk)17:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Vietnamese. Rfv-sense: commune of Hiệp Đức district, Quảng Nam Province. Can’t find any evidence that this ever existed. (I did find evidence that the administrative divisions of the area have undergone a gazillion changes over time, though, so anything’s possible.)MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
German. Abbreviation for "Post-Avatar depressions syndrom".
I added one use inBedeutung Online from January 2023, and have found"Post-Avatar-Depressions-Syndrom" but notPADS inRTL from December 2022. That's all I could find. Can anyone find use of the abbreviation in German?Cnilep (talk)06:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yiddish. I don't know where they get "yolde" from. No such attested thing in CEYD, the Belarusian dictionary, or the Dutch dictionary. The closest things I found wereיולדת(yoldes,“woman in childbirth”) andיאָלד(yold,“fool, sucker”), but a) I can't see how either of those connect to the purported name for this tree and b) neither of them are in the specific form as named in this entry.— Thisunsigned comment was added byInsaneguy1083 (talk •contribs).
No entries in ReVo or PIV. Currently, my skill level is too low to distinguish betweencupcake andcookie in a quotation. It is difficult to believe this RFV'd sense as (1) its etymology does not seemingly indicate so and (2) it would require an excessive amount of context to distinguish between the 2 senses.TranqyPoo (talk)22:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Malay. Rfv-sense: "dimness of vision." Only attested in Wilkinson (1932), which copied most of its Batavian entries from Von de Wall (1877-1884) and simply translated their Dutch glosses to English (sometimes inaccurately). This particular sense seems to be a mistranslation (?) of Von de Wall's gloss "Naauwkeurig zien of duidelijk zigtbaar", which in turn is copied from Batten (1868, an exclusively Batavian Malay dictionary), cf. the Betawi entry in the same page above the Malay entry. In any case the Betawi sense is not used in general Malay context, not even in Jakarta Indonesian.Swarabakti (talk)04:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The term “thickening” is too polysemic; my first association is with the treatment of a sauce that is too thin, and then figuratively of a plot. While “swelling” is a generally usable term and often the best translation (e.g. inbacak şişliği oreklem şişliği), in some contexts one can IMO also translate this as “puffiness” or “bloating”, as in the question, “Karınşişliği neden olur?”[192] It is used there as a synonym ofşişkinlik.
Latest comment:3 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Tarifit. Tagged for speedy byLankdadank (talk •contribs) with the comment "I cannot find this term mentioned in any of the Tarifit sources available. I have personally never heard of it either. Check out "Dictionnaire tarifif-français" by Mohammed Serhoual and "Dictionnaire rifain-français illustré: Le parler d’Ayt Weryaghel (Rif central) Maroc" by Jamâl Abarrou. Ařef in comparison is the term given for "thousand" in those." Originally added byAjellid-n-arif (talk •contribs). —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/21:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for redirecting me here! I have no reason to assume that @Ajellid-n-arif came up with this term himself since he has contributed the most to adding Tarifit entries, so if he could verify this entry, that would be great.Lankdadank (talk)21:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is mistake on my part, it seems that this term is primarily used by (some) of the Riffian immigrant community of the Netherlands. It is an adaption of the word "Duizend", where "Duiz-", phonologically adapted to "ṭawez". It is not widespread, so it's okay to delete.— AjellidnArif (talk)10:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi, thanks for replying and clarifying. I wouldn't oppose keeping this term if it's used. Of course, if we could find a source for it, that would be great, but it's hard for less documented languages like Tarifit.Lankdadank (talk)10:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ballsperre seems to be a very rare word. I found some results on Google. No results found in DWDS-Korpusbelege in manycorpi. InWT:ADE, it has mentioned that,
Semantically predictable closed compounds are also included as articles in other languages, including English: coalmine, headache, schoolteacher etc. Moreover, affixed constructions like chlorineless or conjugated verb forms are also included.
I added a couple cites, but it wasn't easy. The DWDS newspaper archive has very occasional hits starting in 1999, but unfortunately it's only searchable for usage graphs and with only 10 words of context, not enough to use (and none of the articles seem to have made it online). Maybe DeReKo has them? It doesn't help that it also occasionally used in other football contexts (blocking a shot, shielding the ball in a way that's allowed). I limited myself to ones that imply a foul of some sort.
It's an interesting word in that it sounds jargony in a way that (to me) sounds a bit formal, I'd have expected it to be officialized. But instead it seems to be a grassroots term that only occasionally makes it into print in regional sports reporting.PhoenicianLetters (talk)19:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Serbo-Croatian. Created in 2011 byUser:Vorziblix. No non-bot edits since then, not in any dictionary I can find and almost no relevant Google hits; either it's extremely rare, dialectal or nonexistent.Benwing2 (talk)22:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Esperanto. Its current definition statesabandonment, but I do not think that is correct. According toReVo, it is related to a something that is a part of nature. Perhapsnaturalness?Tekstaro provides an abundant number of quotes, but I am too inept to accurately decipher its meaning from them.TranqyPoo (talk)23:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Two more from tearma.ie. I can't find any real-life usage of these words in the sense 'overlord(ship)', where the second element isairem(“nobleman”). There is some very slight usage where the second element isairef(“attention, notice”), but not enough to warrant an entry. —Mahāgaja ·talk16:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Serbo-Croatian. Created byUser:Dijan in 2005 (over 20 years ago!) as a "Bosnian" entry, in a really garbagey form. Not in any Serbian or Croatian dictionary I can find. The closest isнаде(с)ти listed in RSJ as a variant ofнаденути, which does have the meaning "to give a name to someone". It also means "to put (clothing, thread, etc.) onto/into someone/something" which might match the given meaning of "to stick on", and it also means "to stuff (food) with something", which doesn't at all match the given meaning of "to impose". Possibly this is a badly edited version of an ikavian variant ofнаде(с)ти? That's the only thing I can think of but I am tempted to just nuke this unless this specific spelling can be verified with the given meanings.Benwing2 (talk)05:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
According to Wikipedia there may be some linguistic information on Sentinelese in the bookThe languages of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (ed G.N. Devy, M. Sreenathan). The book is not online and I would not be able to access a copy other than by purchasing one.
I would sadly say that Olx does not count as "durably archived" as per our CFI. Whether this is evidence of "clearly in wide use", also up for debate. If quotes from print text, for example, could be found, that would be ideal.Vininn126 (talk)06:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am also unable to find anything on NKJP. Unfortunate. Perhaps soon there will be something, and in the meantime the corresponding Citations page can be started.Vininn126 (talk)07:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
i found another auction with word "kienki" but this times is around Łódź
Again, I don't think this meets either of the two outlined requirements for CFI (which you should please read). 1) Olx is not "durably archived" 2) I don't think a few hits qualifies as "clearly in common use".Vininn126 (talk)14:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
This the subject of much debate on Wiktionary, as far as I remember right now there is a "whitelist" of websites that need additional archiving. I'm not sure archiving alone is enough, fairly sure it's not.Vininn126 (talk)14:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Vietnamese. Rfv-sense: stupid, dim-witted. Has this ever been used outside of Hồ Xuân Hương's poem? It appears there's even disagreement on the actual meaning.MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk)03:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Fenakhay requested verification of "Etymology 2" of this word in Moroccan Arabic. I originally heard it with that meaning from people from Oujda (Eastern Morocco). I searched in Boussellam's Moroccan Arabic dictionary, volume 3, and foundthis entry forياد (also used in Souss region) whose etymology Boussellam is not very clear on. He cites Spanish "ya", Berber "yad", and Arabic "aydi" or "ayadi", all linked to the same meaning. How should we proceed?Ideophagous (talk)09:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Mizo. Created by @AryamanA in 2017; I can't find it attested to actually mean the East India Company anywhere outside of Lorrain's dictionary; I can only find it as the first element ofbawrhsaia be(“okra”). Anyhow, it's also spelled incorrectly (compounds in Mizo are normally written without hyphens). —mellohi! (Goodbye!)05:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Egyptian. Rfv-sense: Triliteral phonogram for šꜣt. Identified in Gardiner as a biliteral phonogram for šꜣ. is there any reason to prefer the former? anything relevant should probably cited if so, since what we have now contradicts with the only referenced work we have on the pageragweed theatertalk,user13:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Polish. Marked as "potentially individualistic" (i.e. used by one author) by Doroszewski and when checking for quotes it indeed seems to be used only by Juliusz Słowacki. @C.Ezra.M as the creator.Vininn126 (talk)14:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Nicodene: it's a little more complicated: people have done similar things long before the internet was invented, but they weren't callsealioning. It might be simply a matter of replacing the term with a description of what the equivalent behavior would have been in ancient times, or it might be thatsealioning is too bound up with the way internet forums work to have a close enough equivalent- I really don't know. The word "sealioning" itself will have to go, of course.Chuck Entz (talk)21:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Merriam-Webster describes sealioning as ’a form of trolling meant to exhaust the other debate participant with no intention of real discourse’. I’d be very surprised to find that the Greek word, describing e.g. a favoured tactic of Socrates (to make the other person examine their beliefs), was used to mean trolling-via-exhaustion.Nicodene (talk)21:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perw:Sealioning § Comparisons:In 2022, English philosopher and academic Sophie Grace Chappell likened sealioning to the Socratic term eirōneíā (from which the word irony is derived but with a different end meaning), which she described as an insincere pretense of ignorance as a way to disassemble an argument, saying "[i]n contemporary internet slang, eironeia is «sealioning»." So the comparison doesn't originate with whoever added it to our entry. Nevertheless, that doesn't justify listing sealioning as a gloss ofεἰρωνεία(eirōneía). —Mahāgaja ·talk07:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The sense of the uses in the quotations for this entry does not seem too different from Socrates' feigning of ignorance, except perhaps for a presumed malicious intention of the sea lion. (The person being harassed by the philosopher may not care for this distinction.) ‑‑Lambiam23:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Polish. Listed in Słownik warszawski 1900 (see entry) with a symbol marking the entry as Middle Polish, however, without quotes - furthermore no Middle Polish dictionary has any entry nor can I find any quotes in the usual places. Appears to be a ghost word.Vininn126 (talk)22:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I completely agree with the additionally provided definition, however I cannot seem to verify how the pastry is directly translated toangel's head? It seems to be a different pastry and I doubt it's a variation, too.
Latest comment:3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Belarusian, supposedly native doublet ofзрок(zrok,“sight”). Almost certainly an reconstruction based on the hypothetical Proto-Slavic form which is not actually used in real-world texts. I can't find it in any texts or in dictionaries (including etymological and dialectal, where you’d expect such forms to be mentioned).
Note that the word formзо́рак(zórak,“of stars”) does occur and is unrelated to this hypothetical*зо́рак(*zórak,“sight”). For example, all the linked mentions in slounik.org [which is mistakenly linked on the pageзорак] are actuallyзо́рак(zórak,“of stars”), not*зо́рак(*zórak,“sight”).
Unfortunately, I do not recall whether if was sourced, as it was a few of years ago when I created this Belarusian entry. It might have been included in some online dictionary but deleted since. Feel free to replace it with the noun form ofзо́рка(zórka) if you so choose.KamiruPL (talk)06:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Here is the page where it's mentioned in the Bosworth-Toller lexicon (page 1174, first entry on the left-hand side of the page), andhere is the source it cites: page 60, line 23 in the left-hand column]: "Nux, hnut-beam, oððe walh-hnutu". Finally,here is Wright's footnote about the manuscript he copied it from.Chuck Entz (talk)04:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I suspect that quote is using sense 4 of Englishgospel: "A message expected to have positive reception or effect, one promoted as offering important (or even infallible) guiding principles." Perhaps that more metaphorical meaning of 'gospel' is whygospelo was used rather thanevangelio, which may refer to a more literal gospel. —Mahāgaja ·talk09:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Esperanto. Creating topic on behalf of @197.27.81.139 for thisedit. Nothing found in Tekstaro and eo.wikisource. Google searches yield commercial websites selling hash. On Internet Archive, there are a plethora of results due to the query "haŝo" including "haso". It appears this term can refer to a computer hash or someone's name.TranqyPoo (talk)20:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
h is spelt withھ, which typically indicates aspiration, but it also seems to representહ(ha) in Gujarati, e.g.پھاڑ(pahāṛ),دھاڑو(dahāṛo),پنکھو(pankho),گھر(ghar),ھيّوں(haiyũ),ھردہ(hirdā).
Created as a translated sum of parts of Wikimedia Incubator project article for ChatGPT as the term does not have an exact translation and the whole point is to make it intelligible for monolinguals, etymology has been added2607:FB92:2506:52E3:8406:12FE:3E76:BD4C08:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is not a title. We were invited by the community to add our new words used by the Ojibwe people in our Wikipedia project. Who speak a major regional language of the indigenous languages of North America. How else can we define things?Growbrousa (talk)03:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Who exactly are you (ie who is "we")? Who exactly invited you to add your new words? Wiktionary and Wikimedia Incubator editorsmust not invent new terms for the sake of Wikimedia projects (if you invent a term and it is usedby other people, only then may you add it to Wiktionary/Incubator/etc.).JGHFunRun (talk)05:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Translingual. Hot word from 2023,Indicates that something is of high intellectual value.
I found mention on Reddit and in various glossaries or catalogs of memes, but no uses. Entry suggests it was (is?) popular on TikTok, but I'm not sure how one would search that.Cnilep (talk)05:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Esperanto. Rfv-sense: "bit". A Google search and Tekstaro yielded attestable results for 'binary'. I could not find any Esperanto texts in my Internet Archive search. No results ineo.wikisource. No entries inReVo orKomputeko.PIV points to 'duuma', referring to 'binary'.TranqyPoo (talk)22:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thai. First time hearing this word as a native speaker. "Airship" is called "เรือเหาะ" in Thai, and "balloon", "บอลลูน". Neither of them is called "รถสวรรค์" in Thai, which literally means "car to heaven". The term is not found used anywhere in relation to airship or balloon. A Google search returns nothing about this term in relation to airship or balloon. --Flamevine (talk)05:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Esperanto. Added 2 quotes from Internet Archive and Google Books. There are more results, but they seem to use the term in a figurative sense:here,here,here andhere. I'm unable to decipher them properly if they are not figurative.TranqyPoo (talk)02:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reminds me of the video I saw once of an American guy in his 20s chatting with a British guy in his 30s. The video was subtitled in Korean, and every time the American called the Brit "my dude" the Korean subtitles translated it with "older brother". —Mahāgaja ·talk09:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Kolami. Tagged for speedy deletion by @Plantman:no source that the trill letter is used, also to a previous edit, there is no code for old kolami or any source for its words. If this is considered a misspelling, though, it’s a matter forWT:RFDN.—Polomo ⟨ oi! ⟩ ·04:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
My mistake. Apparentlyfulvetta is both a common name and a taxonomic name, but the latter is only as a genus-level taxon, and thus capitalized. This should be redefined as "anyfulvetta in thegenusAlcippe", and returned to English- if it's not SOP. After all, it woud be like saying "Hominidae primates" when referring tohominids, or "Cymbidium orchids"- just mentioning the taxonomic name in order to narrow the scope of a common name with multiple referents.Chuck Entz
Latest comment:2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Yiddish. Looked through the Belarusian dictionary, JNW (the Dutch dictionary), the CYED (Verterbukh) and the CEYD, couldn't find it. It's used on the Yiddish Wikipedia, but it's not in any dictionary I have access to. If anyone has access to other, perhaps older, dictionaries, please look in there.— Thisunsigned comment was added byDijacz (talk •contribs) at09:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC).Reply
It's not in Weinreich's dictionary either, but it appears in the penultimate paragraph onpage 105 of this book (and at least 10 more times according to thefull text page). The full text view ofthis book also indicates it's used at least twice there (plus one instance ofאָבלאַסטנאָיער(oblastnoyer), which I guess is an adjective form), but I don't have the patience to try and find it on the scans.Here's a third full-text view where it appears twice. —Mahāgaja ·talk18:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Moksha, tagged a year and a half ago. Nonexistent as far as I can tell (note that Moksha doesn't even allow word-finalо natively), and probably a misreading ofоцю(oću), which can look very close to this in some fonts. --Tropylium (talk)16:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Rfv-sense:(linguistics). Is this sense limited to the phenomenon in the Icelandic language whereby a dative is substituted for another case in certain impersonal constructions? If so, I feel this is simply a metaphorical use of the common sense “illness”. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk)05:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tatar. "Estonia", copied from an ancient Wikipedia page title (the page "Éstonia" itself seems to have been a redirect since first creation in 2007), with É being fromw:tt:Заманәлиф-1, but Заманәлиф-1 also spells the -ия suffix as -iä, and preserves the spelling of originally-Latin-script loans (LatinEstonia?). —Fish bowl (talk)02:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Dutch wiktionary has the example "Bij nominatieve aandelen is de naam van de eigenaar ingeschreven in het aandeelhoudersregister van de onderneming". Probably not exactly the current definition.Exarchus (talk)22:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. I always get confused though, becausemannelijk,vrouwelijk, etc. actuallyare adjectives and “nominatief enkelvoud mannelijk” (noun–noun–adjective) is otherwise a strange word order for Dutch. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk)11:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well Internet citations may not be ideal, but it's better than nothing. I might close this, but finding something more durable per CFI would be great.Vininn126 (talk)12:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tatar.
===Alternative forms===* {{l|tt|карт|sc=Cyrl}}===Etymology===From {{m|tt|хары|sc=Cyrl||hoary}}. Akin to English {{m|en|hoar}}.===Noun==={{tt-pos|noun|c|r|hart}}# hoared, old person; [[hoary#English|hoary]]; white or gray with age===Adjective==={{tt-pos|adjective|c|r|hart}}# [[old]]; [[hoary]]===References===* Dictionary, See entry: Карт, '''харт''' – тюрк.– старый; старик [https://web.archive.org/web/20060630013728/http://www.moscow-crimea.ru/atlas/map/toponim/inostr.html 1]
Two problems:
The website is describing Crimean Tatar, not Kazan Tatar. The entry should be converted tocrh, but
The website seems to be using Russianized spelling, not proper Crimean Tatar Cyrillic spelling. Isхарт correct?
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tatar. Sourced to an ethnography on theKryashens that presents Tatar terms in damaged spelling.
# [[aba]], [[gown]] like [[garment]].
# [[linen]] or dress from linen.
чыба is not inhttps://suzlek.antat.ru/, but also appears in TATARICA (ru,tt:Элекке заманда керәшен татарларында халат рәвешендәге башка кием – чыба да гамәлдә булган.)
Oops. I did mean to rfv the archaic spelling and I've corrected the templates and the heading of this section. Thanks for catching me on this.Crazytales (talk)22:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
This was added, with no headword, back in February. I asked about it in June in the Tea room (WT:Tea room/2025/June#ἄλφα), but the discussion went nowhere.
As I said then, this looks like attributive use of the noun, which is indeclinable, or a spelled-out form ofα(a) used as a numeral. As a numeral, it seems like just a stand-in for the actual word, just as English1 is read out loud as asone. To keep this, we would need usage that's clearly neither. Pinging @Mahagaja, who participated in the Tea Room discussion.Chuck Entz (talk)19:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greek. Moved from RFDN:
I could not find enough references. It seems like a made up word. --FocalPoint (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I believe that correct term isπαρενδυσία, although I'm not experienced enough in Greek to say definitively thatπαρενδυσιομανία is indeed incorrect.– Guitarmankev1(talk) 13:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I am the user who originally nominated the page for deletion, and I disagree with the request being moved to RFV, as I opine that the entry is obviouslynot Swedish, not coming close to being used as a loanword. It’s no different from how running English text may make mention of words from other languages – obviously, no‐one would advocate for creating English entries here for every instance of foreign words appearing in English text, if those words have never been taken up as loanwords. Nevertheless, I will not dispute this move to RFV. If I understand the process correctly, the whole page will be deleted if no‐one can find the required number of reliable attestations within one month. In that case, I should count myself satisfied.VulpesVulpes42 (talk)17:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
All sorts of weird constructions get loaned wholesale in languages, so the argument "it's obviously not Swedish" doesn't really work.Jberkel11:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
For "hunting", presumably this would be related to verbצָד(tsad,“to hunt”), root צ־י־ד (ts-y-d). The "fortress" sense I'd guess might be related to nounצַד(tsád,“side”), root צ־ד־ד (ts-d-d), or perhaps another root altogether.
My questions / requests:
DoesHebrewמְצוּדָה(m'tsudá) have a verifiable archaic sense of "snare, trap"?
If so, could someone please add a reference for that?
Also, how does this relate to the "hunting" sense? Am I misunderstanding the Hebrew Terms Database gloss? Or is this the correct sense, instead of "snare, trap"? Or is this a third sense, in addition to "snare, trap"?
Do these two senses ofHebrewמְצוּדָה(m'tsudá), both "citadel" and "snare, trap", have the same derivation?
If so, could someone add details for how this same word produced two such divergent meanings?
If not, could someone split this entry into separate etymology sections, and describe the derivations of each?
First, you read the reference wrong, מצודה does not mean hunting, it is derived from the verbal root which means hunting (the masculineמָצוֹד(matzód) does mean "hunting", however). Second, the term "snare" is related to hunting, because you use it to hunt animals. Third, I provided the SAME quotes in the Hebrew version of the Wiktionary article (which you could've seen if you referenced THAT instead of the Academy dictionary, which gets updated to remove archaic entries, so obv. it wouldn't appear there...). Fourth, as can be seen from the quotes, both have their oldest usage in BH, and the term "fortress" AFAIK doesn't have cognates...CrescentStorm (talk)22:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@CrescentStorm, thank you for the additional detail and for updating the entry.
I am new to wading into Hebrew; my main focus has been Japanese. I am unfortunately nowhere near fluent enough for the Hebrew Wikipedia to be very useful (or even usable) for me. I did glance at that, and realized from the images that the content seemed to be all about the "citadel / fortress" sense, so I assumed it would not be helpful to even try machine-translating it for any info about the "snare" sense.
Since the "citadel / fortress" sense is apparently unrelated to the "snare" sense, would you be opposed to splitting those out into separate etymology sections? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tatar.
===Noun==={{tt-pos|noun|l}}# A unit of volume: 1 çirektän sigez = 8 [[garnets]] = 26.238 [[litre]] {{lb|tt|archaic}} ({{pedia|Obsolete Tatar units of measurement}})
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
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
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.
Oops I meant the definition under the first section meaning "festival" and not the etymology. The user who added it created multiple nonexistent/misspelled entries in Turkish without any references.Bartanaqa (talk)13:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
German. Rfv-sense for the first definition, "to watch, to view" -- this has a label marking the sense as "intransitive", but then the usex explicitly includes a direct object.
Keep. I think there is a rule in Wiktionary that spelled only with hyphens as difference should be kept. Also English keeps the words with prefixes with "un-" so may not be considered as Sum of Parts.𝄽ysrael214 (talk)06:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here is amention in a list of “Undiscovered, New Generation, Popular, and Unusual Baby Boy Name Suggestions” for 2026 on the website of a major Turkish newspaper:[200]
Have you checked BGC e.g. for "self-made manin" or "self-made mania"? Looks like there's enough hits there. "self-made maneja" gets plenty of hits in just Google web search. —SURJECTION/ T/ C/ L/11:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:18 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Esperanto. Defined as "abortion". Nothing in Tekstaro, and elsewhere I only found definitions/mentions rather than uses. Google results were drowned out by Spanishabortado, though, so it's possible that I missed something.jlwoodwa (talk)01:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the usage notes, it says that this suffix in Latin is used to make feminine nouns in the Imperial era and I can't find any extant example of it.Pinifère (talk)14:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Note that the claim in the usage notes is not that-itta was used to form feminine nouns in general. but specifically feminine proper nouns. PerhapsSaint Julitta is an example. ‑‑Lambiam20:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can't speak authoritatively but this sense is listed in other dictionaries:
Johnson 1939 (p49) says: (1) tease, comb out (2) put out leaves
Fidèle Mpiranya (English-Swahili Swahili-English Immersive Dictionary) (p369) gives two definitions: (1) v. flower, blossom, bloom; open (of a flower). (2) v. comb out. chanuo/machanuo [5/6]. n. fork comb.
Turkmen. This word is not found in any Turkmen dictionaries, and has no results on Google books. Unlike in other Turkic languages,baýrak in Turkmen means prize or reward. Thus,baýrakdar would not mean "flag-bearer", but rather something along the lines of "prize-bearer".— Thisunsigned comment was added byRizozoda34 (talk •contribs).
I found 'lpwk' in de Vaan's article on the animal suffix *-āćá on p.280 as a translation of Avestan𐬎𐬭𐬎𐬞𐬌(urupi). But it doesn't seem to belong on the page anyway.
de Vaan, Michael (2000), “The Indo-Iranian animal suffix *-āćá”, inIndo-Iranian Journal, volume43, number 3, Brill,→JSTOR
Dutch Low Saxon / Low German. Not clear that either of these are attested. I moved the main content to what seemed like the (marginally) best-attested form.- -sche(discuss)19:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dutch Low Saxon / Low German. Are these attested? The forms that nds.WP uses appear to be attested, but these forms, used by nds-nl.WP, I have not managed to find yet. Cf.#Slowaaknlaand, which someone else tagged (but failed to list) for the same reason.- -sche(discuss)19:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The quotations are certainly treating it like an English word inside a German sentence. I also wonder what lect(s) it refers to; maybe just Plautdietsch? —Mahāgaja ·talk09:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Old English. Although Bosworth-Toller lemmatises this adjective atǣlenġ, most other sources (e.g. theOED,O'Keeffe 2011, and the TorontoDOE) haveǣlenġe. Both the pattern of attestation of forms of Middle Englishelenge with final-e and the formation of the adjective (fromǣ-(“without”) +lenġe(“related, belonging”), in turn fromlang +-e; c.f. Middle Englishbilenge) point to the latter form being correct.Hazarasp (parlement ·werkis)12:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Paraguayan Guarani. Created by @Ovey 56. I searched on Google fortembivytu,rembivytu, andhembivytu, but all the results I found were from Wiktionary itself or sites that replicate its content. The dictionaries I currently have access to do not mention the term, except for others with that meaning. A citation or reference is the minimum.Jacaguoçãrana (talk)01:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Paraguayan Guarani. Created by @Ovey 56. I searched on Google fortembijepapa,rembijepapa, andhembijepapa, but all the results I found were from Wiktionary itself or sites that replicate its content. The dictionaries I currently have access to do not mention the term. A citation or reference is the minimum.Jacaguoçãrana (talk)01:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Paraguayan Guarani. Created by @GuaraniNeeha. I searched on Google fortembiechaukakue,rembiechaukakue, andhembiechaukakue, but all the results I found were from Wiktionary itself or sites that replicate its content. The dictionaries I currently have access to do not mention the term. Not even the versions of the Bible available on Bible.com use the term. A citation or reference is the minimum.Jacaguoçãrana (talk)01:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Paraguayan Guarani. Created by @Ndołkah and also edited by @DTLHS. The orthography does not even match modern Paraguayan Guarani standards; it is purely Spanish-based. The dictionaries I currently have access to do not mention the term.Jacaguoçãrana (talk)01:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Translingual. Rfv-sense:
Our current page says
These marks are approximately equivalent to using italics in Latin script, e.g. ⸜ߒߞߏ⸝Nko.
It's not really clear to me what that is supposed to mean. It also has no sources. The one source I do know of says something different:
N’Ko [...] uses a set of paired punctuation, U+2E1C ⸜ LEFT LOW PARAPHRASE BRACKET and U+2E1D ⸝ RIGHT LOW PARAPHRASE BRACKET, to indicate indirect quotations.[1]
I'm not quite sure what's meant by "indirect quotations" here in the mind of that author, but it doesn't seem like any use of italics in Latin script I'm aware of. That's the Unicode Core Spec, which is usually sort of a shaky source anyway. Still, better than nothing. This proposal document uses the term "indirect citations" for the same thing and includes a picture of some text using the marks in figure 8https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2004/04172-n2765-nko.pdf. I haven't been able to find anything else clarifying the use of ⸜ ⸝.— Thisunsigned comment was added byDingolover6969 (talk •contribs) at15:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment:15 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tagalog. Hot word. (derogatory) a Filipino who supports the Chinese government
My search using DuckDuckGo found only this page forᜆ᜔ᜐᜒᜈᜇᜓᜇ᜔ and only this page and a Wiktionary tracking page forTsinadór. Without the diacritic,tsinador turns up some articles in English quoting Filipino analyst Ronald Llamas. Llamas (also writing in English) refers to "Filipinos online" using the term, but doesn't quote anyone. So far I haven't seen anything in Tagalog. Maybe it's used on social media?Cnilep (talk)05:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:14 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
All Western Apache. I know relatively little about Western Apache compared to Navajo, but these entries do not look anything like the orthography of any of the Apachean languages. Most notably, they all contain /u/, even though /u/ is absent in Apachean. To my knowledge, circumflexes and quotation marks are not used in any Apachean orthography. I also found no google results for any of the terms.
I suspect that the last term, which is translated as "tomorrow" is an odd transcription of a term cognate withNavajoyiską́ągo, which has the same meaning. But again, the /u/ in the ending doesn't make sense for a language without /u/.Western Apachetʼabįhgo, which actually has a source, contains that same affix in the form-go, which matches the Navajo. In short, this term probably exists in some form, but not this one.Vergencescattered (talk)06:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't know much Western Apache, but neither did the person who created these entries- he was a rather dim serial block evader using a Western Apache user name as a cover, and cribbing from some online source. I'll see what lexical material I can dig up. @Benwing2 might have some sources.Chuck Entz (talk)07:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
You cansubscribe to aweb feed of this page in eitherRSS orAtom format.![[17]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fstatic.daktilo.com%2fsites%2f71%2fuploads%2f2018%2f08%2f11%2fmilyoner.jpg){kind=link}
![[189]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.shutterstock.com%2fshutterstock%2fphotos%2f2495650967%2fdisplay_1500%2fstock-photo-deaf-alphabet-letter-love-by-hand-the-letter-love-in-sign-language-isolated-on-a-white-2495650967.jpg){kind=link}
