View source for Testwiki:Tea room/2016/February

{{archive notice}}
{{discussion month}}

== [[law of one]] ==

How general is this? I can only find it discussed with relation to a particular book, "The Ra Material" (supposed taped interviews with the spirit of the Egyptian sun-god). [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 12:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

== index word? ==

[[File:Nouveau Dictionnaire Larousse page.JPG|right|180 px]]
What is the English term for the "index words" that are often found at the top of a page of an encyclopedia or dictionary, as for example CYPHELLE - CYPRINIDES on top of the right-hand page of this sample of [[Larousse]]? Are they simply index words? --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 15:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
:They're called [[guide word]]s (a term we don't have, but see [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guide%20word]). —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 15:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[grimace]] ==

Just noticed we have {{IPAchar|/ɡɹɪ.ˈmeɪs/}} as one of our pronunciations. Any dictionaries have this? Who pronounces it this way? [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 22:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
: While we're at it, I assume "A distortion of the countenance" is from the Webster's 1913 dictionary as it's so old fashioned. I mean, countenance rather than face, lucky for me I know what that means. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
:: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grimace Merriam-Webster], [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/grimace Oxford Dictionaries], and [https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=grimace American Heritage] all include the {{IPAchar|/ɡɹɪ.ˈmeɪs/}} variant. Can't say I've ever heard it myself, but it's in them. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 13:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Open challenge to anyone who can find evidence of this on the Internet. YouTube, facebook videos, Vimeo (etc.) would be great. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 20:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: [//english.stackexchange.com/questions/151567/how-do-you-pronounce-grimace This stack exchange thread] provides some references (and at {{b.g.c.|"gri-mace" "grim-ace"}} there are more) suggesting that /ɡɹɪ.ˈmeɪs/ was the pronunciation in the 1800s, but that people must have already been changing by then to the current pronunciation /ˈɡɹɪm.əs/, since prescriptivists were railing against it. There've been a few cases ([[bon appétit]] is one) where dictionaries claim one pronunciation can be used, but we've removed it from the pronunciation section due to a conspicuous lack of real-world use. The poster of that stack exchange thread claims to use "gri-MACE", though. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::OED has ''only'' /ɡrɪˈmeɪs/, including the attached sound file, both for noun and verb [http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/81480], [http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/81479]. Maybe it's a UK vs US thing? --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 19:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Renard is British and hasn't heard of it. And Angr names two American dictionaries that have it. I think it's an 1800s (/ɡɹɪ.ˈmeɪs/) vs 1900s (/ˈɡɹɪm.əs/) thing, with apparently a few pockets of speakers preserving /ɡɹɪ.ˈmeɪs/. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Well there's also Forvo [http://forvo.com/word/grimace/#en] and acapela [http://www.acapela-group.com/voices/demo/] but of course I don't know how reliable they are. --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 14:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: I just checked the New Oxford American Dictionary app on my computer: it has "{{IPAchar|ˈɡrɪməs}}, {{IPAchar|ɡrəˈmeɪs}}" [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 14:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: Well, references that are uses, not mentions. An audio file of someone who's told to pronounce a word a certain way defeats the object about as thoroughly as you can defeat an object. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 17:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

:Scottish poet {{w|Robert Fergusson}} (1750–1774), in a poem, rhymes "na: rather gleefu' turn your face, / forsake hypocrisy, grimace". John Mitchell, in a work published in 1838, rhymes "without a hindrance or grimace, / a ready grave in every face". I haven't seen more recent examples. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:FWIW, I've heard it pronounced this way several times ‘in the wild’. [[User:Widsith|Ƿidsiþ]] 14:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::''{{w|Garner's Modern American Usage}}'' quotes someone who claims that /ɡɹɪˈmeɪs/ was the preferred pronunciation until the 1970s and it was only the introduction of the character Grimace in McDonald's advertising that switched the pronunciation to /ˈɡɹɪmɪs/, but I don't believe for a moment that McDonald's singlehandedly all but eliminated the older pronunciation from modern speech. I wonder what the oldest dictionary is that sanctions the modern pronunciation. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 11:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

== woodwind player ==

There are entries for [[woodwinder]] and [[woodwindist]], both I have never heard of, but "woodwind player" wins hands down on Google: 74,300 untested results for woodwind players, 243 for woodwindists, and 668 for woodwinders. I think it's worth an entry. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 09:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
: I should have known: woodwinder and woodwindist are WurdSnatcher creations. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 10:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
::Being widely used isn't one of our [[WT:Criteria for inclusion|Criteria for inclusion]], but being idiomatic is. And a woodwind player is still just a [[[[woodwind]]]] [[[[player]]]], so there's no need for a separate entry. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 13:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
::: How odd, there is an inexplicable aversion to the use of ''[[player]]'', yet there's entries for ''[[woodwind instrument]]'' and ''[[wind instrumentalist]]''. But never mind, translations for ''woodwind player'' can go on a different site which doesn't have this kind of phobia. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Those other entries existing doesn't mean they are approved of by all. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 20:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Nor is the aversion "inexplicable"; it has been explicitly explained more than once. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Off the top of my head I can't think of a single idiom ending in 'player'. X player is a player of X, no matter what X is, be it one word or several. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 17:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: ''[[bit player|Bit player]]'' has a figurative sense. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 10:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::In that case we're missing a sense at ''[[brass]]'', which only talks about "a class of wind instruments", I think a ''[[brass player]]'' only plays one instrument at a time. --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 10:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: That has to be true, a brass player has only one mouth, different from a [[percussionist]] who may play more than one instrument. A brass band, of course, has several brass players, as well as drummers. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 12:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

== Infiniverse neologism? ==

This might be one of the countless random entries added by young enthusiasts backing what is either an obscure science fiction reference or an inside joke of some sort, there is this page on the word "[[infiniverse]]", an obviously unprofessional addition. It looks like the definition of "universe", also confusing it with the notion of "observable universe", with an extra mystical mention of "dark matter and energy", which I, random everyday user as I am, took the liberty to edit out.
This definition has apparently existed since October 2005. Looking through the history of edits, I am growing more dubious as of the legitimacy of the word at all. Search engines return mostly trademarks. Unless coined by a confirmed source, should the "infiniverse" page event exist?
22:45 2 February 2016
: Well we're not professionals so looking 'unprofessional' is like a dog that looks like a dog. Also if the word passes [[WT:CFI]], it doesn't matter who made it or whether we like 'unprofessional' due to the inclusion of this single word among millions of others that we have. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 22:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

: I can see some (not very many) hits in a Google Books search. You can use [[WT:RFV]] if you want to challenge its existence with the given meaning. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 00:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

: Same random everyday user again. Google Books does return the use of the word "infiniverse" as early as 1888, capitalised or not (also countable, really as a substitute word for universe). My apologies if my first comment was counterproductive. Let me rephrase. "(Tibetan Buddhism) Everything that exists, seen or unseen.(dark matter or energy) The universe is the observed part (material substance) of the infiniverse" is not an acceptable definition. 10:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[spot on]] ==

Is this really common in American English? It rings British/Australia to my ears. [[User:Tooironic|---&#62; Tooironic]] ([[User talk:Tooironic|talk]]) 23:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

:It's common in American media. Unless it was originally limited to Britain, I would just remove the context label — if it's common everywhere, there's no need for a label. On that note, can you shed any light [[Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/January#is_.22smoke.22_meaning_.22beat.22_used_in_the_UK.3F_Australia.3F|in last month's thread]] on whether "smoke" as in "we really smoked (beat) the other team" is used in the UK / Australia? It seems to me like it is, in which case it's another word that's used everywhere and can drop its regional label. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
::To my American ears this sounds fine. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 01:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

:::Then I support removing the context tag altogether. As for this supposed usage of "smoke", I have never heard it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. [[User:Tooironic|---&#62; Tooironic]] ([[User talk:Tooironic|talk]]) 02:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

== "carrot" as an example of pronunciation ==

Please see [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation]]. It uses the word {{m|en|carrot}} as a (simplified) example of a pronunciation section that is being proposed to be added to [[WT:EL]].

Current discussion about using {{m|en|carrot}}: [[Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation#Suggested changes]]. There, {{ping|Tharthan}} said "Carrot is improper [...]" and gave their reasons. Can we keep that example or should we change it?

Please check if the pronunciation information of {{m|en|carrot}} in the vote is accurate and good as an example entry. I'm also open to using a different word if other people want. I'd just like to use a single entry with all the information (IPA, audio, rhymes, homophones, etc.), since the [[WT:EL#Pronunciation|current pronunciation section in EL]] has the information a bit scattered in different places with different entries.

Thank you! --[[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

:Why not use "was", "of" or "off"? Those words have differing GA and RP pronunciations. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 02:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

::That idea is good, but can we use a word with two or more syllables? It would demonstrate the use of the hyphenation template. --[[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 02:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

::: The problem isn't with "carrot", by the way. It was with how Angr listed the pronunciation transcriptions. Merged pronunciations (such as the cot-caught merger, hurry-furry merger, merry, Mary, marry merger) come after the unmerged pronunciations.

What about cauliflower? [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 02:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:Hmmm. In my speech, ''marry'' (/e/) and ''Mary'' (/e/) sound the same but ''merry'' (/ɛ/) is different, so I'd say /keɹət/ not /kɛɹət/ (which would be spelled ''kerrot'') or /kæɹət/ (not possible). But I suppose I'm in the minority here. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 02:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::OK, I see Tharthan made the same point basically. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 02:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Tharthan}} As for cauliflower, you could say that cot-caught mergers in the US have either [ɑ] or [ɒ] (or [ɔ]?) depending on the speaker. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 02:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Benwing2 In response to your" ''/kæɹət/ (not possible)''" I notice that with speakers with the merry, Mary, marry merger, they are often literally ''taught'' the merger as children, as in they are taught that /æ/ cannot come before /ɹ/. I have always found this amusing; that a merger would be ''taught'' to children, so as to stop them from pronouncing the words in the original, unmerged fashion. I would be like if I were to teach my children that "sh" cannot come before a consonant, and that instead it is pronounced as "z" so that when they read "shmoe", they read it as "zmoe". Anyways, my point is that it is very strange that a merger would be ''taught'' to children. At best it's misguided, at worse, I daresay it could be malicious. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 02:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

*You have stepped, apparently unintentionally, into a minefield (namely the minefield of how to represent those confusing M''ar''y, m''arr''y, m''err''y sounds; even the agreed-upon IPA symbols we use aren't really good representations of how many pronunciations of some of them actually sound). If all you're looking to do is give an example of format, pick some other word. :) How about ''[[lever]]'' or ''[[privacy]]'', which have different GenAm/US and RP/UK pronunciations? [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 03:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
*: To recap what I said in [[Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation#Suggested changes|the discussion I linked above]]: if it's not asking too much, I'd like a single example entry with all pronunciation items simultaneously: 1) IPA pronunciations; 2) audio files; 3) rhymes; 4) homophones; 5) hyphenation. (I hope I didn't forget anything?) Thanks for all the suggestions, but cauliflower, lever and privacy don't seem to have homophones, so I can't use them as example entries with {{temp|homophones}} in them. The word carrot seems to be perfect because it has all the items, including "caret, karat, carat" as homophones (assuming this list is accurate). Only one or two homophones would be okay. If there's actually no "perfect" entry like I asked, I would settle with using multiple example entries. --[[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 03:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Carrot is fine with me. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 03:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::BTW, yes, caret, karat and carat all sound the same as carrot. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 03:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Yes, Benwing2 is correct, "caret", "karat", "carat" and "carrot" are all homophones. The choice of "carrot" is fine, so long as the pronunciations are properly listed. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 03:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: "Properly" meaning giving your preferred pronunciation first, as opposed to the one used by the majority of Americans? —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 06:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::No, properly meaning giving mergerless pronunciations first just as we do with other entries. Unless you are also going to suggest that the initial pronunciation given for "caught" to be the same as for "cot", and the pronunciation for "both" to be the "bolth" pronunciation, having /pɔɹ/ before /pʊɹ/ in the "poor" entry, or the "melk" pronunciation for milk, etc. etc. The number of people who use a merged pronunciation is irrelevant to whether a pronunciation ought to come first or second. For instance, a major city in a country might have a certain pronunciation be used that is not the traditional pronunciation, and that city may have loads and loads of people in it. However, in other places the traditional pronunciation is still used on a daily basis, and so that pronunciation should be listed first, especially if there are other dialects in other countries which also use that same pronunciation (and that pronunciation is the only pronunciation used in those other places). It gives entries a neat and tidy look as well to do it that way. It is simply good form.
:::::: Mind you, this is not just in regards to English. Look at German "stark", and how the pronunciations are listed there. Now I don't know about you, but /ʃtaɐ̯k/ and /ʃtaːk/ are the pronunciations I have most heard of that word, yet nevertheless /ʃtaʁk/ is the traditional pronunciation, and is a pronunciation still in use, hence it is placed before the "newer" pronunciations. Again, it is simply good form. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 14:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: Where did you get the idea we give mergerless pronunciations first? I'm unaware of that convention and have never followed it. Especially in a pronunciation labeled ''General American'', a nonmerged pronunciation is quite marginal, since most Americans without the merger don't speak GenAm, but rather a Northeastern or Southern variety. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: Question: Would you list the "cot" pronunciation of "caught" before the "caught" pronunciation of "caught"? Would you list the "melk" pronunciation of "milk" instead of the milk pronunciation of "milk"? Would you list the "bolth" pronunciation of "both" before the "both" pronunciation of "both"? If you would, then you would be in the minority because that's not how pronunciations are generally listed across the English Wiktionary, irrespective of the language (as far as I can tell). If you wouldn't then don't be hypocritical in this scenario.
:::::::: The number of Californians means that the "cot" pronunciation of "caught" probably number-wise has more speakers in the United States. But, y'see, that's biased. The population of California, and Californians themselves, are not indicative of the rest of the country. Same thing with the Midwest, for instance. The Midwest may like to pronounce ''route'' as /ɹaʊt/, but that doesn't make the pronunciation list order  /ɹaʊt/, /ɹuːt/.
:::::::: The other thing is that, as -sche noted: the number of different merged pronunciations for words hit by the merry, Mary, marry merger is ridiculous. Why list '''''your''''' preferred merged pronunciation /kɛɹət/ over other merged pronunciations /keɹət/ / /keəɹət/ / /kɛəɹət/ etc.? At least if we used the unmerged pronunciation, we don't have these problems. Same thing with the cot-caught merger: do we use /ɒ/, /ɑ/ /ɑː/? No, we just use the unmerged pronunciation, which doesn't have those problems.  [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 15:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

:How about ''[[queue]]'' (one syllable), ''[[aloud]]'' (two syllables but not broken up by hyphenation), or ''[[wholly]]'', ''[[symbol]]'' or ''[[altar]]'' (broken up by hyphenation)? Surely at least one of these is uncontentious... :p [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 17:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks, any of these would be great to me! (because they all have IPA/audio/rhymes/homophones/hyphenation as I requested) I'd be happy with any of these examples, I'll let other people choose. I'd settle for the one that is less controversial if that makes any sense, whichever allows [[WT:EL]] to be updated quicker. :) --[[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::{{m|en|queue}}, {{m|en|aloud}}, and {{m|en|symbol}} don't have separate lines for RP and GA, and the latter two don't have any homophones. It might be confusing to illustrate the use of {{tl|hyphenation}} with a word that doesn't hyphenate. {{m|en|altar}} has the same problem as {{m|en|carrot}}, namely two different pronunciations in GA (depending on presence vs. absence of the cot-caught merger this time instead of the Mary-marry-merry merger), but really at this point the only controversy with {{m|en|carrot}} is which GA pronunciation to list first, and I don't think that's an important enough issue to disqualify it from being used as an example. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Yeah, like I said, ''carrot'' is fine with me, for one. Also, you never addressed "wholly". That has two homophones: holy and holey.[[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{m|en|wholly}} and {{m|en|holy}} aren't homophones in some accents. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 20:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: What, is it a homophone of holly in those other accents, then? [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 20:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: No, {{m|en|wholly}} has a new phoneme in those accents: see {{w|Wholly-holy split}}. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 21:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
: I agree with -sche that we should use a word with a less controversial transcription as an example, such as {{m|en|lever}} or {{m|en|privacy}}. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 20:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:: One of Daniel's desiderata is a word with homophones. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 21:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Even then, isn't it just being read as "whole-ly" or something? And /ɒʊ̯/ is a phoneme I have never seen, but wouldn't it sound something like "au-ww" (I'm reading it as /ɔəʊw/) or something? How on Earth did that come about? [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 22:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::: What about [[censor]]? [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 04:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::: ''[[lever]]'' is homophonous with ''[[leaver]]'' in British accents. There's also ''[[marten]]'', which seems to be homohonous with ''Martin'' in all accents, while simultaneously being pronounced differently in the US and UK. Google <tt>site:en.wiktionary.org English pronunciation US UK "IPA" "audio" "rhymes" "homophones" "hyphenation"</tt> and page through the results until you find something you like. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 05:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

:If it's okay with everybody, I'm going to start [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation]] on the scheduled date, which is February 9. The word {{m|en|carrot}} looks fine to me. This is a wiki, so the example entry of [[WT:EL#Pronunciation]] can be changed in the future if people want. --[[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 04:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::I used the words suggested here to create [[Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation#Poll: example word|Poll: example word]]. --[[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 05:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[ambush]] ==

I came across this paragraph in ''{{w|Treasure Island}}'':
: And now I began to feel that I was neglecting my business; that since I had been so foolhardy as to come ashore with these desperadoes, the least I could do was to overhear them at their councils; and that my plain and obvious duty was to draw as close as I could manage, under the favorable '''ambush''' of the crouching trees.
Here the word ''ambush'' has no implication of attack or surprise, but only of hiding under cover. We don't seem to have any such sense. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 20:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

: Chambers has "a place of lying in wait". [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:: So the couch, when lying in wait of the pizza delivery guy? It seems a little underspecific. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 21:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Well, it means [[lie in wait]] in the idiomatic sense. Not for pizza. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 22:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Oh. Well it seems that our entry for [[lie in wait]] also implies an attack. So that definition doesn't help much. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 22:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambush Merriam-Webster] has “the persons stationed in ambush; ''also'' :  their concealed position”. —<span class="Latf" style="font-size: 100%">[[User:JohnC5|John]][[User talk:JohnC5|C5]]</span> 21:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:: But that refers back to the the first definition, which does mention a surprise attack. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 21:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I'm pretty sure this is a metaphorical use. —<span class="Latf" style="font-size: 100%">[[User:JohnC5|John]][[User talk:JohnC5|C5]]</span> 21:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: It's not a very metaphorical book. Otherwise, that would have been a good explanation. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 21:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: What about "crouching trees"? That seems at least a tad metaphorical to me. Either that, or Jim-lad has a lot more to worry about than pirates... [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 07:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Looking at some 200 of many hundreds of uses of ''ambush'' at COCA, there were some few uses that did not involve physical attack, but there was at least a metaphorical attack involved. I don't see how there is not some kind of implication of attack even in the ''Treasure Island'' quote above. The "crouching trees" support this implication IMO. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: There is no such implication in the quote. He very explicitly says that his intention is only to eavesdrop. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 01:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::If a word is normally (say, 99% of the time) used with a specific meaning, then in the other 1% the word can bring the normal meaning to what would seem to be an inappropriate context. An author or speaker counts on the reader or audience being influenced by the normal usage and exploits their expectations. That's a large part of creativity in the use of language: somewhat inappropriate, unconventional use of words that nevertheless communicates because of the shared expected meaning. 
::::::::Pursuing every instance of such creativity is not just losing sight of the forest for the trees, it's losing sight of the trunks for the twigs. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  15:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 
::::::::: There's nothing wrong with taking interest in an unusual twig. It may be that this is an unconventional usage, but I wouldn't know until I've asked the question. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 15:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:This quotation seems to be using a sense more along the lines of the "a place..." ones mentioned above, and they seem to cover it, even insofar as they imply that an attack either literal or figurative is involved. This quotation does seem to be invoking an attack metaphor, as John and DCDuring say. He has penetrated their defences to observe them; they are unaware and would be surprised. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 14:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[warp]], [[cast]] ==

What is a "cast of fish" as in the second definition of {{m|en|warp}}, which reads "A cast of fish (herring, haddock, etc.); four, as a tale of counting fish." For that matter, what does the whole definition mean? [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 21:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
:Pinging {{ping|Leasnam}}, who {{diff|16223567|15424371|added it}} - I can't make head nor tail of it either. [[User:Keith the Koala|Keith the Koala]] ([[User talk:Keith the Koala|talk]]) 22:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::It was taken word for word from Century 1911, usually not a bad source. I don't understand this one. I have a link to Century at the bottom of our entry. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::: No idea either. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
::::[https://www.google.com/search?num=30&safe=off&biw=1138&bih=693&tbm=bks&q=%22a+tale+of+counting+fish%22&oq=%22a+tale+of+counting+fish%22&gs_l=serp.3...6201.14430.0.14945.25.25.0.0.0.0.138.2042.22j3.25.0....0...1.1.64.serp..0.10.800.q2g90DYHPgs This Google Books search] has some discussion and may generate some cites. I don't see how we can let the wording stand. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  00:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::This is an instance of a rare, archaic or obsolete sense of a word (''[[tale]]'' ("count, enumeration") being used in a definition. A ''warp'' is a group of four fish used to speed the counting compared to counting by individual fish. It may offer some benefits of averaging (lower standard deviation of weight). We need to weed these out, though I don't know how to identify rare, etc senses of common words. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: What do you suggest as a new definition? Should it be general ("a group of four"), or specifically refer to fish? There's evidence that it has been used in reference to weeks, but I can't find any actual uses of that. I'll have to take a look and see if I can find cites referring to something other than fish. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: [edit conflict] I see now that {{m|en|tale}} is meant in one of the archaic/obsolete/rare senses having to do with counting and numbering, and that "four, as a tale of counting fish" may mean something like "approximately four fish," making {{m|en|warp}}, in this sense, something like "dozen" or "couple" but for four. This is supported by [https://books.google.ca/books?id=Fu62AAAAIAAJ&q=%22a+tale+of+counting+fish%22&dq=%22a+tale+of+counting+fish%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi695yXq9_KAhVGKWMKHSR-Dx4Q6AEIJzAC one of the results for "a tale of counting fish"], which notes that "a warp of weeks" is a month, or approximately four weeks. Searching [https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22warp+of+fish%22# "warp of fish"] yields a few results, as does [https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22warp+of+fish%22#hl=en&tbm=bks&q=%22warp+of+weeks%22 "warp of weeks"], though the latter are all from dictionaries or wordlists of some sort. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 00:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::''Notes and Queries'' (1893) reports: "The fish are counted by taking two in each hand and throwing the four together in a heap. Thus: “Four herrings make a warp. Thirty-three warps make a hundred, or one hundred and thirty-two fish." Hence the value of elementary education in arithmetic. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  00:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Century also shows a sense of ''[[cast]]'' ("an allowance; an amount given, as of food: as, a cast of hay for the horses"). HTH. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  00:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I think both ''cast'' and ''warp'' refer to throwing, as mentioned above "The fish are counted by taking two in each hand and throwing the four together in a heap." We might call it a "toss" today. [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 02:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::"an allowance; an amount given, as of food: as, a cast of hay for the horses" --Same here, the amount equal to that which can be tossed out at one time/instance [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 02:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

== Unusual pronunciations ==

=== [[bring]] ===

This word and several of its rhymes say that in the US they can also be pronounced /ˈbɹiːŋ/ (/[[thing|θiːŋ]]/, etc). Really, with the first part sounding like [[brie]] cheese? It's not in the US dictionaries I checked. Is this GenAm or a specific (sub)dialect? [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
: There was an editor recently promoting this supposedly Californian phenomenon (and a seemingly rare one) of "-ing" beeing pronounced "-eeng". I've always been skeptical of it. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 15:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::Was it the same editor who was trying to convince people that "cole" and "(mono)cle" sounded the same? [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 15:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I think so. [[User:Gilgamesh~enwiktionary]] it seems, who did in fact {{diff|21282711||add this pronunciation}} to [[bring]]. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: ...and who was the one behind the "cole" pronunciations. I am going to remove those pronunciations, then, since I can't find them in dictionaries and the user is known to have ideas about pronunciation which are ... idiosyncratic. There are also a lot of /æ/ words like /ˈæŋkɚ/ ([[anchor]]) to which /eɪ/ variants like /ˈeɪŋkɚ/ have been added, labelled "US". I'm guessing that's the same editor. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 16:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Actually pronouncing /ˈæŋkɚ/ as something like /ˈeɪŋkɚ/ (in general pronouncing /æŋ/ as [eɪŋ]) is very common in æ-tensing accents. See Wunu's pronunciation [http://forvo.com/word/anchor/#en at Forvo]. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 16:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

:What about the alternative /-iːŋks/ pronunciations listed at ''[[lynx]]'' and some other pages? [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 17:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:: {{diff|26594237||Also added by him}}. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:: FWIW in my idiolect these are the pronunciations used (both /ˈbɹiːŋ/ and /-iːŋks/ instead of standard /ˈbɹɪŋ/, /-ɪŋks/), and some fellow (native speaker) students in linguistics courses have noted the same phenomenon in their idiolects. There doesn’t seem to be any regional consistency, though (one speaker was from Texas, one from California, and my dialect’s from northwest Indiana and possibly influenced by Serbo-Croatian), and it seems quite rare in any case. [[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] ([[User talk:Vorziblix|talk]]) 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

=== [[both]] ===

The pronunciation /ˈbl̩θ/ is almost certainly spurious and part of the "cole" issue discussed in the section above this. But is /boʊlθ/ valid? For which accents? [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
: I have no idea how widespread it is, but I've always suspected that some people throw in an /l/ (although I've never consciously noticed it). I've even noticed that I myself sometimes ''almost'' let an /l/ slip in. As for the process itself, first of all, in these accents, /oʊ̯l/ is already monophthongized as /o(ː)l/ or /ɔ(ː)l/, and in the case of ''both'', the /ʊ̯/ of /boʊ̯θ/ is simply hard to distinguish from /l/ (which is really something like [ɫˠ]), so the /l/ is stuck in instead of the /ʊ̯/, merging with the /o(ː)l ~ ɔ(ː)l/ phoneme. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 17:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

=== [[wolf]] ===

Added by the same user who edited the entries named above: [wɫ̩f]. Has anyone heard it pronounced that way? [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 20:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
: You can kill it. Incidentally, I have always pronounced this as /wɔlf/ and pl. /wɔlvz/, in contrast with "Beow[ʊ]lf" and "w[ʊ]lverine", but cannot find any dictionary that attests to that pronunciation, but it's exactly like JessicaMS's pronunciation at [http://forvo.com/word/wolf/#en Forvo]. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 20:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:: That seems like it might be a spelling pronunciation. —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 21:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
:: In [//forum.wordreference.com/threads/wolf-pronunciation.2289705/ this wordreference thread], someone from the Pacific Northwest says they use that pronunciation (sort-of... they also say it's /o/ and that it's the same vowel as "wool", sic). OTOH, I can't find anything more reliable that would confirm that either in the specific case or as a general {{w|Pacific Northwest English}} phenomenon. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 21:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I think he's saying that in the Pacific Northwest they pronounce /ʊl/ as /ɔl/, since he says that it's the same as both ''wool'' and ''coal''. As for me, I do make a distinction, as I said, I pronounce {{m|en|wolverine}} with /ʊl/, which makes it seem that the spelling pronunciation theory is insufficient as an explanation, since ''wolf'' is a more common word than ''wolverine'' (despite X-Men, think), but spelling pronunciations tend to affect uncommon words. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 21:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
: It seems like a phonetic variant one might hear in rapid speech. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 01:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[kaufen]] vs. [[käufen]] ==

This is both a TR and an ES question really, I decided to put it here.

I have occasionally heard an umlauted form of this verb, in particular I remember hearing it in the parody song "wir käufen alle bei ALDI". I wonder if an entry for it is merited, and how widespread it is. As for the etymological question, I wonder if the umlauted version is old or is it only a recent phenomenon? An entry for {{m|gem-pro|*kaupijaną}} was just created, which ''could'' be the ancestor of this umlauted form, but of course only if it has been in continued use since Germanic times. Old High German didn't write down umlauts, but Middle High German did, so are there any traces of an umlauted form in MHG? —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
: In Gerhard Koebler's OHG dictionary I find entries for both {{m|goh|koufōn}} (class 2 weak) and {{m|goh|koufen}} (class 1 weak). Umlaut would be expected in the latter form. Now the question is whether the modern {{m|de|käufen}} descends from old {{m|goh|koufen}}. —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 17:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The forms formed by ''strong conjugation'' (käuft, käufst etc.) are regional nonstandard variants. [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 23:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
: But what about ''wir käufen''? —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 00:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
: I've looked around Booble Gooks and found quite a few hits for the umlauted form and its inflections. So I've created an entry for it now. I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable to specify where and when this form is actually used. —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 01:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:: That seems to be a regional variant too, but from my experience it's far less common than the conjugated forms with Umlaut. [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 12:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[by the way]] ==

How is this a prepositional phrase? --[[User:Fsojic|Fsojic]] ([[User talk:Fsojic|talk]]) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
: Because "[[by]]" is a preposition, and "[[the]] [[way]]" is a noun phrase that is the object of that preposition. This is the very definition of a prepositional phrase. Now to be more specific, it is an adverbial prepositional phrase, and should be labeled as an ===Adverb===. We really shouldn't use ===Prepositional phrase=== as a POS header. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 20:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks. I thought "prepositional phrase" meant a phrase that behaves syntactically like a preposition. Another question: how is the supposedly British meaning ("irrelevantly; off-topic") under the header "Adverb" different from the first one? And "off-topic" isn't even an adverb itself, why use it to define an adverb? "off-topically" (if it does exist) I could understand, but not this. --[[User:Fsojic|Fsojic]] ([[User talk:Fsojic|talk]]) 22:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::: It's just a poorly written entry overall. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 22:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
::::I had changed the PoS from Adverb to PP. Although many PPs are used both adjectivally and adverbially, I don't think this one is used as an adjective. I could not find it used after a form of ''be''. Though there may be some examples somewhere, it is misleading not to make clear that it is basically (or entirely) adverbial. Whatever changes are made, please make sure it appears in [[:Category:English prepositional phrases]], wherever else it appears. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  04:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::That's why I never understood why we have the heading Prepositional phrase at all. What information does it give me, except that the first word is a preposition? I can learn that by clicking on it. Perhaps there is a reason but I'm unable to fathom one out. --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 11:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Most prepositional phrases can be used both adjectivally and adverbially. Why would you want to be adding and maintaining duplicate semantic content? [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  13:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Because looking at Category:English prepositional phrases I'm not sure those that can be used both adjectivally and adverbially form such an ovewhelming majority. I can imagine even ''by the way'' used attributively, as in "in a by the way manner", but is it adjectival? Wouldn't that imply that a noun used attributively turns into an adjective? --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Don't ascribe to much reality to word classes, especially as we apply them to phrases. I don't know whether there are ''any'' dictionaries that label phrases with word-class labels. IMO the focus should be on presentation to the user, avoidance of duplication (for user and contributor), respecting user expectations and, to some extent, reflecting changes in lexicographic fashion (eg, determiners). Lexicographic fashion is far, far behind linguistic fashion, probably because it is more constrained by user expectations. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  15:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::User expectation is what troubles me - when I see Adverb or Adjective, I expect some kind of behaviour; when I see Prepositional phrase I think "So there's a prep, and?" But it may be just me; and there's something in what you say about avoidance of duplication. As regards our treating noun phrases as Nouns, verb phrases as Verbs and so on, that's why I'm ready to put up with almost anything here POS-header-wise, only sometimes I can't help grumbling a bit, sorry for that. I'm getting too old and fogeyish I guess. --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 16:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::We had a vote, but there's no reason why we couldn't go back to the former approach. It would be much easier to decide if we had some facts about users. As it is, we depend a lot on imitating other dictionaries.
::::::::::The adoption of "Determiner" as a PoS heading was more controversial (I initially opposed it.). Part of the decision was based on a few dictionaries (all UK-based, BTW) adopting the practice. I think Oxford uses "determiner" as a label in some of their UK editions, but not in (any of?) their US editions. One advantage I've found is that I've learned a good deal more grammar since we've adopted "Determiner". [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

== lesser mortal ==

Does anyone have a good definition for this? It's listed twice in requested entries, in 2011 and 2016 (the 2nd one by me without noticing the first) [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 10:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:Isn't this just {{m|en|lesser}} + {{m|en|mortal}}? We may be missing a sense at {{m|en|lesser}}, but unless there's a use of it that I'm not familiar with, I would think it's SOP. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 18:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::I have the feeling it could be idiomatic - "we lesser mortals"  for instance. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::What makes that evidence of idiomaticity? Consider "we members of the City Council". [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  20:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Not in the same league IMO. Not the same as ''[[mere mortal]]'' either. I did find a wee bit here [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lesser] - "You're looking down your nose at us lesser mortals". [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 00:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::OK. how about the very attestable [[we Members of Parliament]]? Is that any less idiomatic? I still don't see why you think the Oxford Dictionary usage example for "lesser" makes [[lesser mortal]] idiomatic? It would seem just the opposite: they wouldn't use an idiom to illustrate the meaning of a component term. Eg, ''He kicked the bucket'' would not be used to illustrate the meaning of ''bucket'' or ''kick''. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  00:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: Hmm, right, whether it's an idiom or not is debatable. But it's apparently also regarded as humorous [http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/mortal_2] (unfortunately this site is ruled by the advertisers). Anyway I thought an entry for ''[[lesser mortal]]'' is worthwhile, so I created one, adding an example sentence which can be altered, and some quotations would be useful. By the way, Andrew Sheedy is right in saying there is a sense missing at ''[[lesser]]''. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 14:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
: That's not the definition I'm familiar with. I often see it used about someone who's particularly brilliant at what they do, a {{w|Serena Williams}}, {{w|Albert Pujols}} or {{w|Ronnie O'Sullivan}} for example. 'A lesser mortal would have crumbled under the pressure' isn't someone of inferior social status but someone who isn't as [[virtuosic]]. If the lower social status sense is real, could someone add a couple of citations just to put my mind at ease? [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 15:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:: I have added "ability", which I very nearly added in the first place. That should cover your point, I think. It can always be revised further. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Added {{tl|rfquote}} to the entry. I'm not sure whether it should be "rfquote" or "rfquote|lang=en"; I did the latter. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 19:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

== male-only disease ==

Out of pure curiosity, is there a word like [[gynecopathy]] for a male-only disease? --[[User:Ce mot-ci|Ce mot-ci]] ([[User talk:Ce mot-ci|talk]]) 10:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

: [[andropathy]] --[[User:Catsidhe|Catsidhe]] <sup>([[User talk:Catsidhe|verba]], [[Special:Contributions/Catsidhe|facta]])</sup> 11:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::Cheers Cat. --[[User:Ce mot-ci|Ce mot-ci]] ([[User talk:Ce mot-ci|talk]]) 19:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[.e]] ==

See [[.e#Etymology]]. I avoided using using {{temp|etyl}} and {{temp|m}}, on purpose; with the current guidelines, Loglan cannot be documented and therefor cannot have a code. How exactly should this be handled? [[User:Xbony2|-Xbony2]] ([[User talk:Xbony2|talk]]) 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
: We can have etymology-only languages. Or using plan text as you've done. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 00:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:: There's not much point using {{temp|m}} if it can't be linked to, so... plain text it is. [[User:Xbony2|-Xbony2]] ([[User talk:Xbony2|talk]]) 19:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
::: There is still some point. {{temp|m|lang||unlinked word}} would still tag the text with metadata (at the HTML level) that is in the language with code "lang". This could be useful information to screen readers and other such things, indicating that it is not English. The code <code>und</code> can be used for an undetermined or unsupported language. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 20:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Well, alright. [[User:Xbony2|-Xbony2]] ([[User talk:Xbony2|talk]]) 21:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/korabjь]] (vs. korabljь) ==

I sort of thought Proto-Slavic was normally reconstructed with l's between labials and /j/, and that the lack of such sounds in certain languages (e.g. West Slavic) is due to them dropping out later.  [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
: It doesn't seem likely that they would have dropped out later, precisely in the locations they had been added in the first place. But we do tend to include the *l in our entries (like {{m|sla-pro|*zemlja}}). This in particular is an unusual case because the *l is lacking in variants of the word in some languages (Serbo-Croatian and Ukrainian), where it would have been expected to be there, although it can also be explained through inter-Slavic borrowing. This word also came in relatively late in the history of Proto-Slavic, as an early borrowing from Greek. Previously, we didn't even have an entry for this in Proto-Slavic and handled each descendant as a direct borrowing from Greek. See also the [[Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2015/July#корабль|previous discussion we had in the ES]]. I'm not sure what we should do here. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 23:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:: At least in theory, there are possible cases of inherited -blj- and -plj- sequences. Proto-Balto-Slavic underwent a change of -eu- to -jau-, so this could produce -bljau- and -pljau- from -bleu- and -pleu-. If such cases can be identified, with other Balto-Slavic cognates to confirm it, then we can tell by the outcome in West Slavic what is actually going on. —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 23:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Wikitiki89|CodeCat}} Thanks. Note that a change like [pl] -> [pʎ] -> [pj] may have occurred in Italian, so it's not so far-fetched for labial+/l/+/j/ to have simplified to labial+/j/, and there was analogical pressure to do so. Note that in general sound changes getting reversed isn't so strange, esp. when there are easy analogies to do so; e.g. it's often said that Yiddish reversed the final devoicing of obstruents. Or the Old English changes ɑ -> æ (Anglo-Frisian brightening) -> ɑ -> æ (second fronting in Mercian and such), where we only know such back and forth changes occurred because of intervening changes that interacted with them. [[User:Benwing2|Benwing2]] ([[User talk:Benwing2|talk]]) 00:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: It's not far-fetched, it's just less likely. But like CodeCat said, if we were to find instances of original *-blj- or *-plj- sequences, then we can know for sure. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 04:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but these four words have ''blj'' or ''plj'': [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/čaplja]], [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sablja]], [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/stьbljь]], [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/pljьvati]]. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: In {{m|sla-pro|*čaplja}}, {{m|sla-pro|*stьbljь}}, and {{m|sla-pro|*pljьvati}}, the {{m|sla-pro||*l}} is epenthetic, but {{m|sla-pro|*sablja}} could potentially be just what we were looking for. It does seem interesting that Bulgarian and Macedonian still drop the {{m|sla-pro||*l}}, but all the West Slavic languages keep it. But we have to account for the possibility of later borrowings into West Slavic, and it would be nice if the direct source of the word in Proto-Slavic were clearer. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 23:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: I did some further researching and apparently Latvian has the lateralisation too. For Latvian {{m|lv|pļaut}} there is the Lithuanian cognate {{m|lt|piauti}}, and for {{m|lv|spļaut}} there is {{m|lt|spiauti}}, matching Slavic {{m|sla-pro|*pljuti}}. Greek evidence confirms the PIE sequence -py- here. —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 01:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::: Although they are redlinks, various entries also mention [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bljuvati]]/[[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bljьvati]], [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bljuzgati]], [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bljuščь]] and [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/pljunǫti]], if that gives you any ''blj''/''plj'' leads to look into. There's also [[Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/pljuťe]], which my previous search missed because it was added after the last database dump. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::Kortlandt’s account of the development of Proto-Slavic has this (j > ʎ / [+labial] _ ) as a common development across Proto-Slavic, hypothesizing that /j/ was entirely lost as a phoneme by late Proto-Slavic before arising again. The [http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art066e.pdf original paper] and [http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art288e.pdf partial revision] are worth reading. <br>Regarding concrete evidence that this change occurred everywhere but was later reversed in West Slavic, there are toponyms and foreign spellings with 〈l〉 where the modern languages have /j/, cf. [[:cs:w:Vidovle|Vidovle]] for expected *Vidovje. Writing the sound as lj is a bit silly in any case, since it probably only merged with the sequence l+j when the latter had already become a single phoneme *ʎ. (Unless lj just means ʎ, but then why do we have ť, ď and not tj, dj?) [[User:Vorziblix|Vorziblix]] ([[User talk:Vorziblix|talk]]) 00:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Thanks. And yes, ''lj'' just means /ʎ/ or /lʲ/, whichever IPA you prefer. The reason for the difference with ''ť'' and ''ď'' is simply because that's the way most conventional sources on PS spell these sounds. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 19:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[roads]] ==

Is there a special definition of "roads" being used in sentences like "[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/deaths-british-roads-rise Deaths on British roads rise by 13%]"? It's not necessarily literally true, since it doesn't refer to, say, people who had a heart attack on the street. Instead it means "Deaths due to road vehicles increased". Does this deserve a separate definition like "(''by extension'') Road traffic as a whole"? [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|talk]]) 07:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:I'd be reluctant to add this kind of metonymic usage. ''On roads'' means something like "in the system of roads and vehicle". I would find it hard to come up with a substitutable definition of ''roads'' that could be part of a prepositional phrase headed by ''on''. IMO ''deaths on roads'' conveys its meaning successfully because it brings to mind "deaths <u>typically</u> closely associated with <u>typical</u> activities on roads". I think that typicality is a common element in the use of words to communicate among humans. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  11:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

:: Reminds me of [[on camera]] (recently raised regarding [[on TV]]). [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I think that [PREP] + [bare NOUN] often has a more figurative or abstract than [PREP]&nbsp;+ [DET/ART]&nbsp;- [NOUN]. There are a lot of them [[at home]], [[to work]]/[[at work]]/[[from work]]/[[during work]], to/at/from/during church/school/hospital (UK English), [[by car]]/train/plane/boat.
:::In/on/for TV/television have the same "feel". 
:::''[[CGEL]]'' has a section "Restricted non-referential interpretation of bare NPs" which covers this class of usages of singular count nouns without determiners ("bare"). One type is "role" NPs, eg, ''president'', ''office manager'', which can appear after the preposition ''as'' and some others. Other types are fixed expressions or fixed frames of everyday life:
:::# activities linked to locations: hospital, school, stage
:::# indications of status: off/on target, in/out of place
:::# means of transport and communication: by email, by bicycle
:::# meals: lunch, brunch, supper
:::# times: dawn, siesta, noon, two o'clock
:::# repeated nouns: arm in arm, side by side
:::# matched nouns: from father to son, from beginning to end
:::(I don't think this categorization by any means exhausts the possibilities.) The number of nouns that can be used in these ways is large, with varying, short lists of prepositions for each category, sometimes not working with all the nouns in the category.
:::I think one implication is that we need to test our definitions for some of the nouns involved to make sure we have suitable definition for it in this kind of use preferably with a usage example. It is conceivable that some would want entries for these, but it cannot be because they cannot be readily understood. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  18:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

:I agree with DCDuring; I wouldn't add a sense for such usage. Compare "the Kenyans won the World Cup qualifying match": not all of them, almost all of them didn't play, but we shouldn't add a sense "[a member of] Kenya's World Cup qualifier match team" to [[Kenyan]]. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 05:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Yes you have to be careful about retrospective logical analysis. The reason is, that's not how language works. We can all find alternative interpretations for language after the fact. A bit like "I have a cat's head on my T-shirt". No I don't, it's a picture of a cat's head. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 19:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::: In this particular instance, "deaths on British roads" we're talking about a quality of the utterance as a whole, not the word 'road' in particular. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 17:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:I think we've already got this defined. I think this is a different definition of [[on]], rather than of [[road]]: etymology 1, preposition, definition 15 "Denoting performance or action by contact with the surface, upper part, or outside of anything; hence, by means of; with". [[User:Goldenshimmer|Goldenshimmer]] ([[User talk:Goldenshimmer|talk]]) 19:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

: It's a bit like deaths in the sky being those that occur in a plane. It isn't actually untrue (requiring an idiomatic def); it's just some journo slang. If people regularly died on Wikipedia they'd probably do the same metonymy and call it "death in square brackets" or something. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 22:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

== About the meaning of amigo/a ==

I have always thought "amigo/a" only meant "friend". Google translates "amigo" to "boyfriend" and "amiga" to "friend", so I looked things up. Wiktionary agrees with my old belief. However, looking at [https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/amigo#Espa.C3.B1ol spanish Wiktionary], I see only the "boyfriend" meaning (quoting, «Hombre con quien se tiene trato sexual habitual sin el vínculo del matrimonio», «Man with which one has a habitual sexual intercourse until the bond of matrimony», and just under that «Relacionado: amante.», «Related: amante», amante meaning lover), plus a technical meaning and a euphemistic «penis» meaning. So I wonder: is this true? What is the meaning of "amigo": "lover" (as is even backed up with [http://dle.rae.es/?id=2LsqDPa a citation on the Spanish entry]) or "friend"? Both, perhaps? And is there an asymmetry in the meaning between masculine and feminine?

[[User:MGorrone|MGorrone]] ([[User talk:MGorrone|talk]]) 16:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

: It can mean both ''friend'' or ''lover'' and there is no gender asymmetry. BTW the Spanish Wiktionary lists ''lover'' as the 5th sense, the first beeing ''friend''. [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 17:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


Right, I should have mentioned that Spanish wiktionary distinguishes between four senses as a "adjetivo" (adjective) and 3 as a "substantivo" (noun), and the "friend" sense appears under "adjective". So perhaps the Spanish Wiktionary just forgot to duplicate the meaning and misnumbered the meanings since when starting the "noun" section the numbering should restart from 1. So should I take it it is only the Spanish entry being sort of untidy, and the "friend" meaning being valid both for "amigo" as an adjective and as a noun?
And also, this means "amiga" can also mean "lover" (female lover), sense which is missing from both entries, right? [[User:MGorrone|MGorrone]] ([[User talk:MGorrone|talk]]) 22:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
: Yes, that's right, however it's common practice at the Spanish Wiktionary not to duplicate adjective senses in a following noun section, as a lot of adjectives are also used as noun with mostly the same meanings. They simply add a usage note ''se emplea también como sustantivo'' (also used as substantive). [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[sub]] ==

Defined as an English preposition meaning "under". How is this in fact used in English (outside of fixed borrowings like [[sub rosa]])? Can we add examples? Does it need a gloss, e.g. legal, formal? Is it just wrong? [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 17:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:They must have been thinking of "first man to run a sub four-minute mile" or "a sub second gamma spike". Those are among the very few uses to be found at COCA. The second one is normally spelled ''sub-second'', probably because it is (always?) used attributively. "Sub-second speeds" is 8 times more common at Google Books than "subsecond speeds". There aren't enough of those collocations for Google n-grams. OneLook doesn't have an entry for ''[[subsecond]]'' (or ''sub-second''). I found some predicate use of ''sub-second''.
::Wouldn't that be "a sub–four-minute mile", with an en dash between "sub" and "four"? [[User:Goldenshimmer|Goldenshimmer]] ([[User talk:Goldenshimmer|talk]]) 19:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
:I conclude that ''sub'' can be used in terms that are used attributively and may sometimes also be used in terms used as predicates. The usage seems limited to quantitative thresholds. I think that usage can be interpreted as prepositional phrases with ''sub'' as the preposition. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:: A sub par performance? [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 22:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

::: That one is using a [[sub-]] prefix, I think. [[subpar]]. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 22:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Relatedly, I think our entry for [[subsecond]] wrong. First, one can have "sub-two-second pit stops" and "sub-two second pit stops". Second, ''[[subsecond]]'' seems to be used as a countable noun, so the "adjective" use might be better interpreted as attributive use of the noun. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::It think ''[[sub]] par'' preceded ''[[sub-par]]'' and ''[[subpar]]''. The earlier forms remain in use as predicates after forms of ''be''. It is interesting that ''par'' is also a kind of threshold level, though often used less quantitatively than in golf. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

== APPENDIX ==

what is the difference between appendices and appendixes?
: [[appendixes|Appendixes]] does actually cover this. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 19:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[abort]] ==

Anon has questioned "{{lb|en|intransitive}} To [[miscarry]]; to bring forth offspring [[prematurely]]. {{defdate|First attested in the mid 16<sup>th</sup> century.}}"

Is this really not obsolete? In general, the whole entry could do with having the most common definitions first. With commons words, we're really bad at this! [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 20:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
: I see -sche's already started on it. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 20:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::But is this really obsolete? OED lists this citation from 2005:
:::"2005 ''Gynecol. Oncol.'' '''98''' 5/1   Five patients (62%) aborted spontaneously without the need for surgical intervention."
::—[[User:Pinnerup|Pinnerup]] ([[User talk:Pinnerup|talk]]) 00:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Good search phrase ("aborted spontaneously"); I can see other uses from the 1960s through the 1980s. I've changed the label to "now rare outside medicine", since in a non-medical context it does seem to imply intent. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 02:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::::[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22fetus|foetus+aborting|aborted%22&num=30&safe=off&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&biw=957&bih=892&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:2000,cd_max:2099&tbm=bks&ei=-3TEVvq2DcbUeIKAj4AJ&start=30&sa=N&dpr=1 This 21st century search] suggests to me that the intransitive use is comparatively uncommon compared to the transitive, often passive one, but ''not'' absolutely uncommon. Also, it appears in general works, including fiction. IOW, IMO, neither "rare" nor "medical" apply. 
::::The subject in intransitive use can be the fetus or the mother, and they can be human or animal, almost always mammalian. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  13:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
*While the "First attested" information against the various senses is of interest, I find the repetition of the full wording over and over again a little distracting. Would it not be possible to use a more concise label? [[Special:Contributions/81.152.224.85|81.152.224.85]] 03:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[behalf]] ==

Translations have been redirected to ''[[stead]]'', but when looking under stead I can't see anything relating to behalf. Am I missing something? [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 11:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I see [[stead]] is mentioned in the definition, which may explain it. But I think the definition needs a lot of revision anyway. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have opened a new translations section with a provisional title. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 12:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:The list-of-synonyms approach to definition is a problem. Some on the list don't work as simple substitutions for ''behalf''. The list of synonyms should appear under Synonyms. Only a near-perfect synonym, with the same grammar (eg, complementary preposition), preferably not incompatibly polysemous, could be a good definition. I wonder whether that "definition" is an unedited copy of the Webster 1913 entry. There are quite a few. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  13:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:: It may be a difficult one to put "in a nutshell". I have added a reference for the time being. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 15:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:: The definition doesn't seem to be from Webster, it's more or less the same as first entered in 2004. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 15:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:::As it was in Webster 1913: 
:::"Advantage; favor; stead; benefit; interest; profit; support; defense; vindication."
:::As we have it now:
:::"Advantage; favor; stead; benefit; interest; profit; support; defense; vindication."
:::Very common for our first waves of definitions, many of which are substantively untouched. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  16:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Hmm, OK, it's only 102 years out of date. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 18:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Some basic words don't change very much in a hundred years. Webster 1913 is copyright-free, so fair game for legal copying. Wiktionarians are not really all that great as lexicographers, so copying has been and remains a natural alternative for building up a large mass of definitions. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: A note saying the definition came from Webster should be added, I think. But there's no reason why the entry can't be updated and generally improved. If Wiktionarians have a reputation as mediocre lexicographers, there's a challenge. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 10:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[can't whack it]] ==

I'm having difficulty deciding what to do with this - "[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22can%27t+whack+it%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=dRC-VoXEEsGqU7zJmaAI can't whack it]" roughly means "can't beat it", but [[whack]] (attempt) doesn't exactly mean [[beat]] (win). (See also [https://twitter.com/vizcomic/status/556866757508743170 this classic Viz cartoon].) [[User:Keith the Koala|Keith the Koala]] ([[User talk:Keith the Koala|talk]]) 17:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

:"Whack" does mean "beat", though. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 18:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
: The term ''[[bushwhacker]]'' springs to mind. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 10:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[crack]] ==

The example sentence for the noun's eighth meaning ("vagina") really isn't the best, is it? --[[User:Fsojic|Fsojic]] ([[User talk:Fsojic|talk]]) 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[blogmaster]] ==

Couldn't ''blogmaster'' be something different from "blogger", just as a ''webmaster'' can be different from the main poster on a website?

What I mean is this:

Couldn't a blogmaster just be someone who ''maintains'' a blog, rather than being the blogger themselves? [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 19:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
:BUMP. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 15:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

:It seems so, e.g. in these citations.
:* '''2013''', Marty Weintraub, Lauren Litwinka, ''The Complete Social Media Community Manager's Guide'', page 61:
:*: [Write something and] pass it off to the company '''blogmaster''' for formatting, add a thoughtful introduction and a headshot, hit publish, and let the fun begin[.]
:* '''2007''', ''Time'', volume 169, issues 3-16, page 378:
:*: PROFILE AMANDA MARCOTTE, 29 / OCCUPATION High-profile blogger / BLOG SITE Was pandagon.net, then [...] <br> She had joined the John Edwards campaign as '''blogmaster''' to manage and help write the official blog and advise the campaign[.]
:[[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 02:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Thanks, -sche. I modified the entry to fit the reality. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 14:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[gamester]] ==

Could a {{m|en|gamester}} be someone who "games" something. For instance, could someone who "games the system" be pejoratively referred to as a "gamester"? [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 19:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
: BUMP. I think that this is quite relevant, as if a distinction between "gamer" and "gamester" exists in this way, then I think that it ought to be noted. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
:: BUMP. This really is quite relevant, folks. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 17:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

:[[w:Wikipedia:Gaming the system]] uses it that way, and has been quoted in at least one book. (Wikipedia articles don't meet CFI, even if they've been printed in book form by some unreputable publishers... but a scholarly-ish work which quotes a snippet of policy might be citable.) But I can't find any other citations. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 02:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[in school]] ==
Does this warrant an entry? In a sentence like "he has three kids, two of them are in school, one's not in school yet." it doesn't mean that the two kids are in the school right now, just that they go to school. [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:3653:8920:558D:3E52:6937:8C37|2602:306:3653:8920:558D:3E52:6937:8C37]] 02:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:I feel like this is more a function of the ambiguity of the verb "to be"—that it can be either habitual or episodic—than anything idiomatic about the phrase "in school". A similar ambiguity is found in "He's working", which can mean either "He's at work right now" or "He has a job". —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 07:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:: That's common with -ing forms e.g. "She got a driver's license and is now driving.". However "he's in church" always means he's there right now, never means that he goes to church. Same with "he's in class". [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:3653:8920:558D:3E52:6937:8C37|2602:306:3653:8920:558D:3E52:6937:8C37]] 16:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::: "in church" and "in class" are never used for the general case of a long-term status. "He's in finance" has the opposite property (unless he works somewhere that has a department called 'finance'). [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 23:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::At [[Wiktionary:Tea_room#roads]] I summarized my interpretation of what [[CGEL]] 2002 has to say on this kind of thing. ''Some'' singular count nouns can function as NPs without an associated determiner (det PoS, article, cardinal number, possessive) in connection with a preposition. ''Driving'' in the above sentence does not fit this type of construction, being part of a progressive aspect verb phrase (''is driving'').
::::We could decide that we need entries for all of these if we accept the translation-target argument or the producing-idiomatic-speech argument. There are several semantic types of these in CGEL (and possibly more types) and numerous nouns for each semantic type. ''Some'' of these have become true idioms (ie, non-SoP), but many are in no dictionary, not even idiom dictionaries.
::::The differences in meanings among ''in/to/from/at/outside of/outside school'', ''for/of/through/like/including/regarding school'', etc are clearly more attributable to the preposition than to any differences in the meaning of ''[[school]]'' in these phrases. Note that adding an article or a determiner changes the meaning. I don't think we have a sufficiently vague gloss or non-gloss definition to capture how ''school'' is used in these phrases.
::::A non-gloss definition might be something like:
::::* "used to refer variously and not necessarily specifically to a physical place for education, to the processes that take place there, and the associated stage of life", or something shorter.
::::Many other very common nouns are used this way and might benefit from such a definition. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  00:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[trichiliocosm]] ==

Lucid and accurate definition.  

Thanks,

Did you try Google Books?

Building blocks: {{confix|en|tri|chili-|cosm|t1=three|t2=thousand|t3=universe}}, apparently to be read as "1,000<sup><small>3</small></sup> universes".

From ''On Being Buddha: the classical doctrine of buddhahood'', by Paul J. Griffiths, 1994:
* '''trichiliocosm''' ({{m|sa|त्रिसहस्रमहासहस्रलोकधातु}}), a cosmic system consisting of one thousand million four-continent worlds (caturdvlpaloka), or planets, with all their attendant heavens, hells, and living beings.{{...}}.roughly equivalent to a galaxy in western cosmology.
:What it means spiritually in Buddhism is for those above my pay grade. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  13:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[Bangalored]] ==

[[User:Titodutta]] added an adjective sense, which I reverted as duplicating the "past participle of [[Bangalore]]" sense. After discussing this with that user, and after looking on Google, I thought I would get some other opinions.

On the one hand, most of the usage seems to be in forms "get Bangalored" or "be Bangalored", and there are online dictionaries that define "Bangalored" as an adjective

On the other hand, there are enough Usenet hits to support the existence of [[Bangaloring]], which can't be an adjective form (there's also one use on Google Books of Bangaloring as a humorous variation on the sexual sense of [[banging]], but I don't think it's attestable for our purposes). Thoughts?  [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 01:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

:In theory, ''Bangaloring'' could be an adjective; there are adjectives that end in ''-ing'': the test would be, as it is for ''Bangalored'', whether it's used in distinctly adjectival ways. Can one industry be "more Bangalored than" another? Even on the web, I see almost no hits of "more Bangalored than" and other [[Wiktionary:English adjectives|tests]] (except inconclusive ones). [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 01:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

== движимый vs. двигаемый ==

I have in my notes that the Present Passive Participle of двигать is exceptionally движимый, and that двигаемый is "not really a word". I did some research on Google, but I couldn't clarify the matter for myself, except that there are many more hits for движимый.

So should we delete the page for двигаемый? Should we correct the conjugation table of двигать?

:{{l|ru|дви́гаемый}} is the present passive participle of {{l|ru|дви́гать}}, while {{l|ru|дви́жимый}} is the present passive participle of the obsolete verb {{l|ru|дви́жити}}. Both forms are good and {{l|ru|дви́гать}} is correct. [[User:Stephen G. Brown|—Stephen]] <sup>([[User talk:Stephen G. Brown|Talk]])</sup> 01:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

::Thanks, [[User:Stephen G. Brown|Stephen]]! --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 02:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

:::I think we need a usage note or an etymology section to explain the differences between движимый and двигаемый. --[[User:KoreanQuoter|KoreanQuoter]] ([[User talk:KoreanQuoter|talk]]) 06:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

:::: Based on [http://feb-web.ru/feb/sl18/slov-abc/05/sl604404.htm this entry in a dictionary of 18th century Russian] and on some Google Books searches, it seems that {{m|ru|дви́жимый}} has always been the more common form and {{m|ru|дви́гаемый}} was a rare alternative. {{m|ru|дви́жимый}} was certainly used as the present passive participle of {{m|ru|дви́гать}}, along with a conjugation of {{m|ru|дви́жу}}, {{m|ru|дви́жет}} (compare {{m|ru|бе́гать}}, {{m|ru|бежу́}}, etc., which has a similar situation of varying infinitives). So I think it is safe to say that {{m|ru|дви́жимый}} is the present passive participle of {{m|ru|дви́гать}}, and that {{m|ru|дви́гаемый}} is just an alternative that may even be obsolete. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 15:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Atitarev|Wanjuscha|Yurivict}} I believe we need more native Russian speakers who can determine this. --[[User:KoreanQuoter|KoreanQuoter]] ([[User talk:KoreanQuoter|talk]]) 08:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::::::Stephen has briefly described the etymologies but the usage differs for both words. {{m|ru|дви́гаемый}} is a true present participle of {{m|ru|дви́гать}} and {{m|ru|дви́жимый}} is the word that's used instead quite often but it has also figurative senses, like "moved by some motives". --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 08:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I don't mind if {{m|ru|дви́жимый}} is added as a suppletive past passive participle of {{m|ru|дви́гать}}. The old conjugation ({{m|ru|дви́жу}}, etc.) <s>is no longer used</s> is no longer used in the same sense. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 08:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I have just added a new conjugation (type 6a) to [[двигать]]. I had to add дви́жимый manually, overriding the default. Some forms, like 1st person sg "дви́жу" are seldom used. --[[User:Atitarev|Anatoli T.]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev|вклад]])</sup> 08:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[smallpox blanket]] ==

The figurative sense failed RFV, but I'm not clear on whether the literal sense of a blanket infested with smallpox is SOP or not. Thoughts? —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 22:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
: When you read it in context it doesn't seem idiomatic to me. We define words here in isolation and we sometimes forget that use of language in the real world, which hopefully is what we're hoping to explain, has context. Out of context 'smallpox blanket' has two possible meanings, a blanket that protects against smallpox, and a blanket that carries smallpox. But when you look at it in context it only has one possible meaning, which is easily derived from the sum of its parts. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 23:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

== pothole and pot-hole ==

Is it a mistake that there are entries (slightly different) for {{m|en|pot-hole}} and {{m|en|pothole}} with and without the hyphen? [[User:Maitchy|Maitchy]] ([[User talk:Maitchy|talk]]) 01:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
*Yes. The first one should be defined as an alternative form of the second. [[User:SemperBlotto|SemperBlotto]] ([[User talk:SemperBlotto|talk]]) 08:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

== "Huh" pronunciation ==

The pronunciation of the English entry "[[huh]]" is given as /hʌ̃/. First of all, is the vowel always nasalised, or does this depend on dialect? Secondly, the link to the IPA key does not include /ʌ̃/, so that link is unhelpful. &mdash; [[Special:Contributions/91.238.123.116|91.238.123.116]] 16:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

:Yes, always nasalized, at least in the U.S. The IPA link goes to [[Appendix:English pronunciation]], where you will find /ʌ/ (without nasalization). The nasalized vowel is quite rare in English and I cannot think of any words that have it other than [[huh]], [[uh-huh]], and [[huh-uh]], which I think would not be helpful as examples. [[User:Stephen G. Brown|—Stephen]] <sup>([[User talk:Stephen G. Brown|Talk]])</sup> 01:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

== Can something be simultaneously a euphemism and vulgar? ==

I just created [[get the dirty water off one's chest]], and I was trying to work out how to label it. Does it make sense to say that it is both a euphemism (because it avoids any direct reference to sex) and vulgar (because it relies on rather scatological imagery), or is a vulgar euphemism a contradiction in terms? [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|talk]]) 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:It seems to me that vulgarity or offensiveness is a matter of degree, depending as it does on speaker and audience attitudes and the relationship between speaker and audience. I think euphemism is a comparative standard, so perhaps ''roger'' is a euphemism for ''fuck'' and ''have sex'' for ''roger''. I'd think that ''roger'' is both vulgar (at least for some) and a euphemism (more or less objectively). [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  17:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::I don't at all agree with the premise of this. An euphemism is the use of milder language instead of harsher, more blunt, or more offensive (or more vulgar) language. So OBVIOUSLY one vulgarity can be replaced by another (which is simply less vulgar (or less harsh)). The problem is that "get dirty water off one's chest" is NOT an euphemism. There is no obvious connection (it seems to me) between the act of sexual intercourse and the process of removing something from (the surface of) someone's chest. An euphemism must (imho) be accurate, but less precise. Pass over (or away) for die (in a culture which sees Death as a state distinct from Life) is an euphemism. Dirty water could be a euphemism for, say semen (or perhaps vaginal secretions), but off one's chest has nothing to do with the genitalia, hence the phrase fails to be accurate by any stretch of my imagination. As to the question asked: yes, obviously; especially since "vulgar" is a matter of opinion. Many would say that 'vaginal secretions' is a vulgarity...[[User:Abitslow|Abitslow]] ([[User talk:Abitslow|talk]]) 16:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
:::What you say seems to be a challenge to the meaning of the term, not whether or not it is a euphemism. If the connection is not obvious to the uninformed that might make it a better euphemism or a form of coded speech, somewhat analogus to Cockney rhyming slang. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  17:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
::* A euphemism certainly doesn't have to be literally accurate, and many are not. Few if any people literally [[kick the bucket]] when they die, pregnant women only literally [[have a bun in the oven]] if they happen to be baking, and it would be very weird if you went to [[see a man about a dog]] in the toilet. [[User:Smurrayinchester|Smurrayinchester]] ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|talk]]) 10:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

== English audio for ''[[lichen]]'' doesn't contain pronunciation ==

I deleted the silent audio there but it was restored by someone claiming that it isn't silent. French one plays fine, but English one only has noise. [[Special:Contributions/73.71.174.75|73.71.174.75]] 19:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:I wonder if the issue is on your end (computer, browser)? For me, the English audio works (someone is saying /ˈlaɪ.kn̩/). [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 19:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Me too, it works for me. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 20:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
:: English audio files haven't been working for me for days (I mentioned it in the Grease Pit), but I found that Swedish audio files do work. The audio boxes have turned black as well. I thought it may be a server problem. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I tried both Arch Linux and Windows, and both chrome and firefox, and it just doesn't work anywhere. I downloaded both and looked at both in "sweep" program. English looks broken: https://i.imgsafe.org/9429f60.png (no sound wave shape, stereo with only one channel and it is shifted down) and French looks fine: https://i.imgsafe.org/58b1383.png I don't know how come both of you say it works. I hear all audios fine normally, but this one is a problem. This is the URL of the broken audio: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/En-uk-lichen.ogg [[Special:Contributions/73.71.174.75|73.71.174.75]] 20:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
: It’s worth noting that the French audio is much louder than the English one. — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|falai]])</sup>'' 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::I can hear the English audio file, but it is rather noisy and considerably quieter than the French. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 22:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Might be some hearing irregularity, like [[otoacoustics]] interference or some other mysterious thing. I only hear static. And visuals that I posted above only confirm that English audio is irregular. Speech usually looks like the French one, not like the English one. [[Special:Contributions/73.71.174.75|73.71.174.75]] 22:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Are we talking about the same file? This one? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:En-uk-lichen.ogg
::::It plays fine here, and it's quite clearly a man saying something along the lines of /ˈlaɪ.kn̩/ – there can be no mistaking it for interference or static. —[[User:Pinnerup|Pinnerup]] ([[User talk:Pinnerup|talk]]) 00:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: I can hear that particular file. Why can't I hear the one in the entry? [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 11:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Ok, I found the reason. The audio is stereo with only one channel playing sound, and another channel is static. As it turned out, my speaker is half-broken, doesn't play one side. I will cut out the right channel and update the audio to be mono. [[Special:Contributions/73.71.174.75|73.71.174.75]] 01:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: Fascinating! I'm glad you figured out what was going on. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 02:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: Maybe that's my problem, I have had one dodgy speaker for ages. It's probably time to renew them. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 10:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[abattoir]] ==
The OED claims this is chiefly British. Do Americans not use the term? [[User:Tooironic|---&#62; Tooironic]] ([[User talk:Tooironic|talk]]) 05:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
: For what it’s worth, I live in the U.S.A. and I can’t remember seeing or hearing this word before. But I’m also somewhat demented (due to my medications). --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 05:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::[[abattoir]] is hardly used in the U.S. [[User:Stephen G. Brown|—Stephen]] <sup>([[User talk:Stephen G. Brown|Talk]])</sup> 06:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I use this word from time to time and am American, but I don't think that particularly counts. I always assumed it was a very rare word used chiefly in literary or academic contexts, but if it is used often in the UK, then I guess not. —<span class="Latf" style="font-size: 100%">[[User:JohnC5|John]][[User talk:JohnC5|C5]]</span> 06:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:Comparing Ngram data from the [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=slaughterhouse%2Cabattoir&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cslaughterhouse%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cabattoir%3B%2Cc0 US] and [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=slaughterhouse%2Cabattoir&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cslaughterhouse%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cabattoir%3B%2Cc0 UK], it seems it was only a bit less common than ''slaughterhouse'' is both countries until the 1920s: after that, it has remained (only) a bit less common in the UK, but in the US, it's now only about a fourth as common. Data from the Corpus of Contemporary (1990-2015) American English confirms this: 137 hits for ''abattoir'' to 549 for ''slaughterhouse''. We could say {{tl|lb|en|chiefly|UK}}, but "a fourth as common" is rather common, so perhaps a usage note is better: "In the US, such a facility is about four times more likely to be called a ''slaughterhouse''. In the UK, the terms are used with roughly equal frequency." It does seem to be more formal than ''slaughterhouse'' in the US, as John notes. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 07:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::It's certainly part of my passive vocabulary, but since I pretty much have nothing to do with slaughterhouses, neither ''abattoir'' nor ''slaughterhouse'' is really part of my active vocabulary. I have no sense at all of one being significantly less common than the other, since they're both very rare in my speech. One fourth of practically nothing is practically nothing. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 07:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I'll point out that almost every usage I can recall was in the metaphorical sense. Off the top of my head, the line from Watchmen by Rorschach: “Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.” I would never use the word if I didn't want to highlight some terrible characteristics of the comparanda. —<span class="Latf" style="font-size: 100%">[[User:JohnC5|John]][[User talk:JohnC5|C5]]</span> 07:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Interesting. In the UK, farm animals are "taken to slaughter", but at the abattoir, not the slaughterhouse. [[User:SemperBlotto|SemperBlotto]] ([[User talk:SemperBlotto|talk]]) 07:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:User:JohnC5 has this exactly right. In American English, the term ''does'' appear but almost exclusively as a literary image of slaughter. Thank you, though, [[User:-sche]], for running the ngram: data is always useful in conversations like this and you're completely right that the figurative use is not primarily British by any stretch.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 09:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
* In Australia both abattoir and slaughterhouse seem to be in use, with abattoir being more common as evidenced by this webpage [http://www.aussieabattoirs.com/facts/directory this webpage]. [[User:Tooironic|---&#62; Tooironic]] ([[User talk:Tooironic|talk]]) 10:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::::It is used in the USA. But the term is French. It would follow from proximity arguments that it's more common in the UK than in the USA. I believe I once read that it is more common in the meat packing industry (or was it butcher shops?) than in general. Personally, I'd expect a slaughterhouse to be large and "industrial" while an abattoir would be a (small) single room, but that's just me.[[User:Abitslow|Abitslow]] ([[User talk:Abitslow|talk]]) 16:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

==[[Template:fact]]==
First, the current text needs editing to remove the current surplus of bitchiness towards new editors who are attempting to be helpful. Second, if you lot don't like {{tl|fact}}, you still need ''some'' tag to mark dubious or questioned entries while discussion occurs here. (Deleting the sense in its entirety doesn't seem like an improvement.) Once that's done, that template (by whatever name) is where {{tl|fact}} should link.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 09:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
: I was going to edit it to clear this up but it's protected (!!). {{temp|rfv-etymology}} like it says is for etymologies, {{temp|rfc-sense}} is for cleanup of a sense, {{temp|rfv-sense}} is for the proposed verification of a sense, and {{temp|rfd-sense}} proposed deletion of a sense. It would be quite easy to explain all this but not since it's protected! I think {{temp|fact}} used to redirect to {{temp|rfv-sense}} but then people were using it for pronunciations or details within a definition (without disputing the existence of the definition). [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 12:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:: {{temp|citation needed/documentation}} could be created and left unprotected. Request for admin. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 12:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

:: This previously redirected to {{temp|rfv-sense}}, which was functional, since uses got picked up by people checking its Whatlinkshere or, failing that, via me pruning the "Oldest tagged RFVs" list. (Incidentally, the person who changed that redirect simply silently deleted the template from all entries, rather than verifying the flagged content or posting the entries to WT:RFV or WT:ES.) I wouldn't mind restoring the redirect to {{temp|rfv-sense}}, though I understand the impetus behind channelling people into posting in the forums Wiktionary actually uses, where their concerns will actually be noticed more quickly. It's an issue that Wikipedia uses one cleanup template for everything, in a tag-it-and-forget-it fashion, whereas Wiktionary uses different templates for each type of cleanup and all but requires requests to be posted to central fora. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 00:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I've made {{temp|citation needed/documentation}}  but I can't link to it as {{temp|citation needed}} is protected. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 16:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{done}} --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 16:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[casse-briques]] in English? ==

I wasn't sure what to call this in English. They're sometimes called "Breakout clones" or "Arkanoid clones" (after two famous early games in the genre), and while searching I came across "brick breaker" and "brick buster" but didn't think they would meet [[WT:CFI]]. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 10:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
*I think the English terms might be SoP (and shouldn't the French plural be "casses-briques" I wonder). [[User:SemperBlotto|SemperBlotto]] ([[User talk:SemperBlotto|talk]]) 16:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

*: "Brick breaker/buster" would be okay if attestable (they sound more like industrial equipment!). I think the plural is correct as is; compare [[ouvre-boîtes]]. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 00:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
*::Yup, "casse" is a verb form, so it remains as is. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
*::: I've added a compound noun section to [[Appendix:French nouns]], which hasn't been touched in years. I will AWB it in a little while and hand format the rest. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 10:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[forget]] ==

Has anyone actually heard the pronunciation /fɔɹˈɡɛt/? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forget I see it listed in Merriam-Webster], but I can't even imagine anyone saying that. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 16:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:I can only imagine saying it that way if I had already said it normally twice and the person I was talking to still didn't understand me. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 18:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
: I've heard it before. Although, it must be said, people far more often say /fəˈɡɛt/ or /fɚˈɡɛt/. I've also have heard it in derived terms, such as forget-me-not. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 23:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:I've heard it occasionally, though the pronunciation with the schwa is more common. The existence of jocular extensions (on the web) like ''fiveget'' suggests that some people do pronounce it like ''four-get'' (compare the google results for ''[[forgive]], fivegive''). To my ears, it sounds like [//www.youtube.com/watch?v=17UL5ks9amY this British singer] uses /ɔ/ twice at 0:43-0:44 and then switches to a schwa at 0:47, and [//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0vPEgwzjQ this] might be an /ɔ/ at 0:48; a schwa is more common and was used in the Jeff Buckley, Slipknot, Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato and Shakira songs I just checked. I also hear ''forgotten'' pronounced with /ɔ/ sometimes, possibly more often than I hear ''forget'' pronounced with /ɔ/. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 23:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
::I hardly ever hear ''forgotten'' pronounced with schwa + r, personally. Also, they pronounce it like "four-get", -sche? So they say "fower-get"? ;) [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 03:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Be real. I've only heard "fower" once in my life. Usually it's pronounced exactly the same as stressed "for". --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: I still hear it from older Massachusetts folks. But hey, it was a joke! Give me a break. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 18:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Ha, interesting; it seems like a pronunciation the Southern US might arrive at, too (from preserving the old Middle English two-syllable pronunciation or from breaking the one-syllable pronunciation?). [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 18:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: In New England, I would guess it's most likely a dying relic of the Middle English two-syllable pronunciation, but I guess it could have originated from the breaking of the tenser ''hoarse''-vowel. In Southern English, they break a lot of vowels, so I would more likely attribute it to that. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 18:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

: Would everyone be ok with tagging this pronunciation as "(over)enunciated"? --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:: I'm not sure that it is over-enunciated, though. Isn't it more that the unstressed pronunciation is under-enunciated? That notwithstanding, I agree completely that it is far less common than the unstressed form, but to say that it is over-enunciated might be pushing it. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthan]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 18:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::: That's why "over" was in parentheses. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 18:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:: I would just tag it as less common; also, one of the videos I cited is of a British singer, so it's not limited to the US. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 18:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I think "when enunciating" would be an accurate and more specific tag. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 18:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: In ''[[a]]'' and ''[[the]]'' we use the wording "unstressed" vs "stressed", which might work here. The songs don't exactly seem to be enunciating or stressing it any more than the other words, though (unless one assumes the premise and argues that they must be enunciating it because they're pronouncing it with /ɔ/). [//www.youtube.com/watch?v=17UL5ks9amY Marina] even uses /ɔ/ at first and then switches ''to'' a schwa when she draws out the word. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 19:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Singing is a common place to enunciate. The "stressed" and "unstressed" that we use for "a" and "the" don't apply, because "a" and "the" can be stressed in ordinary non-enunciated speech, and when "forget" is stressed, it is the second syllable that is stressed. If you are stressing typically unstressed syllables, I would call that enunciating. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 19:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[kawula]] ==

This and a number of other Malay terms used {{temp|qualifier|unused}} in with at least one definition. What's this for? If it's unused how can it be considered a 'word' in any sense? Or if it doesn't refer to the term being unused, what does it refer to? [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 18:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:Pinging Malay speakers {{ping|Amir Hamzah 2008|Johanna-Hypatia|Malaysiaboy}} for input. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 01:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::Perhaps although it's unused in Bahasa Malaysia—I never heard it during my years in Malaysia—it is used in Bahasa Indonesia. It isn't in my Malay dictionary, but it's in my Indonesian dictionary: 

:: '''kawula''' (''Java.'') '''1'''. (''obsolete'') servitor. '''2'''a. I, me, my. '''2'''b. we, us, our. '''3'''. people, subject, citizen. — ''Belanda'' Dutch subject. '''4'''. group. — ''muda'' young people. — ''gusti'' the patron-client pair. — ''negara'' (''obs.'') national (of a country; replaced by ''warga negara''). '''''kekawula-negaraan''''' citizenship. — ''swapraja'' (''obs.'') dependency (the state of one nation being a dependency of another). '''''kekaula-swaprajaan''''' being a dependency.

:: I think the question could be resolved by removing the Malay heading (along with the "unused" Johor-Selangor pronunciation), and substituting Indonesian and/or Javanese. [[User:Johanna-Hypatia|Johanna-Hypatia]] ([[User talk:Johanna-Hypatia|talk]]) 02:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::: {{l|ms|kaula}}, {{l|ms|kula}}, two more, a wiki-search for {{temp|qualifier|unused}} should find all of them. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 10:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: I did find ''kula'' in my Malay dictionary, with the definition as above and noted as Javanese. In this case I'd suggest removing the "unused" tag. I wonder if by "unused" the editor intended the meaning "obsolete." [[User:Johanna-Hypatia|Johanna-Hypatia]] ([[User talk:Johanna-Hypatia|talk]]) 13:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: I'm sorry for the late reply. Based on ''Kamus Dewan'', kawula is an archaic Javanese term which means people, {{sense|singular 1st person}} I and citizen. Its alternative form is kaula. --[[User:Malaysiaboy|Malaysiaboy]] ([[User talk:Malaysiaboy|talk]]) 09:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

== Mathematical translations at [[exponent]] ==

The entry currently has 3 'mathematical' definitions:
* (mathematics) The [[power]] to which a [[number]], [[symbol]] or [[expression]] is to be [[raise]]d. For example, the <math>3</math> in <math>b^3=p</math>.
* The [[result]] of a [[logarithm]], between a [[base]] and an [[antilogarithm]]. For example the <math>4</math> in <math>\log_b(a)=4</math>.
* The [[degree]] to which the [[root]] of a [[radicand]] is found. For example the <math>2</math> in <math>\sqrt[2]r=b</math>.
but only one related translation table headed "(in mathematics)". Can someone with more maths than me consider whether the translation table shouldn't be split in three as well (presumably ttbc-ing all the translations there)? --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 00:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
: Only the first makes sense to me. I really cannot understand the second: what does ''between'' a base and an antilogarithm mean? In the example given, it is true that if 4 is the log to base ''b'' of ''a'', then ''b'' raised to the power 4 is ''a'', by the definition of logarithm, but I cannot see that there is any distinct sense of "exponent" here. Similarly, in the third definition the exponent is actually 1/3; raising to the power of 1/3 means taking the cube root. I can believe that sloppy descriptions might use the word "exponent" to refer to any small superscripted number, but this seems to me to be an error, just as it would be to refer to a footnote <sup>5</sup> after the value of pi as an "exponent". I think that unless clear references can be found supporting them, these two definitions should be removed. [[User:Imaginatorium|Imaginatorium]] ([[User talk:Imaginatorium|talk]]) 04:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
: I agree with Imaginatorium. The second and third definitions do not make sense and/or are wrong. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.61.197|109.151.61.197]] 03:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::BTW, the <math>2</math> in <math>\sqrt[2]r=b</math> is usually called the "index", I believe. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.61.197|109.151.61.197]] 04:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Thanks, I [[Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#exponent|proposed deletion]] in the RfD room. --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 03:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[trypophobia]] ==

Is anyone opposed to the creation of {{m|en|trypophobia}}? It's been [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=trypophobia&action=edit&editintro=User:Yair_rand/usenec deleted] a few times, but it seems to have [https://www.google.ca/search?q=trypophobia+holes&hl=en&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2000%2Ccd_max%3A2013&tbm=bks#q=trypophobia&hl=en&tbas=0 widespread use]. It barely meets CFI, though. I found the following citations:
#'''2014''', Charlotte Pritchard, ''A Dark Hole'', page 45
#:Daniel paused for a moment and then continued, “There is a term that is associated with a fear of holes. It's called '''trypophobia'''. Marcy appears to have this fear of holes.” “Oh, come on, Doctor. This is utterly ridiculous.”
#'''2014''', Marian Cox, ''''
#:These are actually potentially dangerous so could be viewed as being in a different category. A common irrational phobia is of holes, anything containing holes: buttons, crumpets, cheese, honeycomb, drainpipes... This is called '''trypophobia''' ...
#'''2015''', Irena Milosevic Ph.D., Randi E. McCabe Ph.D., ''Phobias: The Psychology of Irrational Fear: The Psychology of Irrational Fear''
#:The prevalence of '''trypophobia''' in the general population is not known. However, preliminary research suggests that the tendency to experience aversion in response to trypophobic stimuli is relatively common.

Is that good enough? I came here looking for a definition, so that in itself is a reason for keeping it. I just wanted to make sure it isn't going to be deleted right away. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 03:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

: The two 2014 citations are mentions. Given the popularity of this word, we should probably include it in some appendix and redirect to it using {{temp|no entry}}, at least until adequate citations are found. — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|falai]])</sup>'' 03:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
::I feel like it would make more sense to have some policy whereby neologisms could be kept conditionally, and placed in some category to be revisited a year or two later to determine whether or not to keep them. The reason for this is that during their brief periods of popularity, people likely want to know what they mean. I know that I often look up these sorts of words if I see them multiple times, and am sometimes disappointed to find them absent from dictionaries, including this one. Most dictionaries can't or don't add things as easily/quickly as we do, so it would make perfect sense to include neologisms while they are in widespread use, then keep them if they meet CFI after a year or two, and otherwise delete them. What do people think of this? [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 03:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

::: We already have this: the "hot word" template. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 03:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Thanks, I'd never seen that before. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 04:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:I found another pair of citations, which are not independent because the authors are the same, so, they only count as one citation towards the [[WT:CFI]] requirement of three (but they do show that use has spanned more than a year). With a third citation, and the last of the citations above, I've restored the entry. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:: Definition may need tweaking. "Fear of holes" might suggest somebody who is afraid of falling down a hole while walking down the street, but this is more a fear of visual patterns of small holes. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 04:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
* So that explains my dislike of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arranged_Sweetgum_balls_%2811402491544%29.jpg sweet gum tree seeds]. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  12:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
** My dislike of the fruits is due to have stepped on them while barefoot a few too many times. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 14:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::''Fruit'' in the botanical context; ''seed'' in more general ones? [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  15:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

== spatel ==

I am editing the WP article [[w:Japanese units of measurement]], which refers to "spatels" as a carpentry tool. SOED does not list "spatel", and en:Wiktionary only gives [[şpatel]]. But it seems clear this is a Germanic form of "spatula": there's [https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatel spatel] (Swedish WP), which links to the Japanese for a pharmacist's measuring spoon(?), which says that something else is also known as the German ''spatel''. So perhaps a Germanic speaker can add an entry? [[User:Imaginatorium|Imaginatorium]] ([[User talk:Imaginatorium|talk]]) 05:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:I've created a Danish entry for [[spatel]]. As far as I can see, the German sense is the same, but I'll allow a native German speaker to verify that. –[[User:Pinnerup|Pinnerup]] ([[User talk:Pinnerup|talk]]) 01:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[project]] ==

Should Etymology 2 be merged with Etymology 1? I can't see why not. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 14:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:I put the content in Etymology 1. Do you think that's better? [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  14:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:: So Etymology 2 can be removed now? [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 14:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I'd like to know what other people think, because I have inserted etymologies like 2 in other entries. So give folks a little while to react here. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: I noticed that entry the other day and was wondering the same thing. I have no problem with it being merged, but maybe you should mention in the definition that it's a shortening of "housing project." [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 06:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Never mind; I hadn't noticed that it was in the etymology. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 07:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::I've never liked leaving etymological sense-development notes in definition lines. Webster 1911 sometimes had them there. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  09:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: Absolutely, this sort of thing is not helpful for readers and that sense ''is'' from the same etymology as the other senses. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 10:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::We usually show as different etymologies homonyms that come from the same, typically Latin, origin, but via different routes and with sufficiently different semantics. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  13:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: One of the problems, as I see it, is that unless one scrolls right down to the bottom of the entry, below the verb, it can be missed. And it's still derived from the noun "project" as RM pointed out, no matter how you look at it. It's not a sense I am familiar with, by the way. [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
: Made it so. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 13:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

== Perder   ==

Latin is listed as Ladin

The conjugation chart is wrong re Spanish.

In the past participle the columns singular and plural should be changed to masculine and feminine. The rows masculine and feminine should be changed to singular and plural. 

I have not screened that entire page for errors, but in view of those errors it would likely indicate that the page was not carefully proofed. 

Dr Katherine Rogers {{unsignedip|108.64.250.212|18:07, 18 February 2016}}

: Ladin is a real language. — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|falai]])</sup>'' 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
: I’ve fixed the issue with the Spanish conjugation table. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|falai]])</sup>'' 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:: Thank you for noticing the error in the Spanish conjugation table. Note that {{w|Ladin language|Ladin}} is a different language from {{w|Latin}} and is not a misspelling. The Latin entry for the equivalent verb is at [[perdo]] (and the infinitive is [[perdere]]). --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 18:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:: Our readers make this mistake all the damn time. Can we just rename the bloody language to Ladino, Ladino Dolomita, Rhaeto-Romance or something? (And rename our Ladino to Judeo-Spanish.) --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 06:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I oppose renaming Ladino for the sake of Ladin. I also oppose renaming a language for no better reason than users repeatedly confusing it with Latin. Didn't we used to have an edit filter preventing changing Ladin to Latin? --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 14:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

:::: If you have a superior solution, you are more than welcome to tell us. --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 14:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Like I said: edit filters. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 14:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: It's abuse filter #45. It only tags the edits; we could change it to block them. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 14:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::: Based on the notes on that filter, it looks like it was intended to be eventually be changed to block. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 15:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: I looked at the filter's log and found that many of the edits were doing something else entirely: {{diff|35527497}}, {{diff|35533315}}, {{diff|35993664}}, {{diff|36584709}}, {{diff|36584760}}, {{diff|36584765}}, {{diff|36636005}}. So instead of changing it to block, I added a warning message (whose text can be edited at [[MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-Ladin]]). Hopefully a warning will be enough to prevent anons from doing this. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: In case anyone cares, since I made the change to the edit filter, the warning message has successfully prevented three anons from changing "Ladin" to "Latin" (and successfully annoyed editors doing 9 completely unrelated edits). --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 15:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::: Yes! But I am perplexed as to why somebody would disable them (assuming that we ever used them for this). --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 14:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[challenge]] (an exam) ==

I think we're missing a sense that covers this, but I'm not sure how to word it. Is it a regional thing? I've used and heard it so often I'm surprised we're missing it. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 03:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

: New to me. Does it just mean any exam ("I've got a challenge tomorrow"?) or is it a specific type? Where are you from? [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 05:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:: It's a verb, so I would say that I "challenged the final exam for math" if I did not take the math course, but took the exam anyway to see if I could pass it and thereby earn credit for the course without taking it. One could challenge exams for prerequisites one needs for a course to avoid taking the prerequisites themselves. I live in Alberta, Canada. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 06:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Citing it first would be a fine thing. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 17:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

:::: "Challenged the exam" in Google Books finds three results, all irrelevant: "the student who challenged the exam" (for a corrected score), "challenged the exam as being racially biased", "a black firefighter who later challenged the exam in court". [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 18:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

: Sense #3 ("To dispute something") covers it. To dispute the exam procedure, result, etc. [[Special:Contributions/73.71.174.75|73.71.174.75]] 18:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

:: It doesn't: Andrew is talking about a different sense, meaning taking an exam without taking the preceding course first. See above. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 18:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

::: I see. This should be in the separate article ''challenge exam'', noun, an idiom. [[Special:Contributions/73.71.174.75|73.71.174.75]] 19:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

:::: I have just created [[challenge exam]]. Andrew, if you think this is a verb as well, can you find any citations? [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 19:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: The verb sense would be under [[challenge]], as it wouldn't be said without an article. So far, I have found two clear examples of it searching for "challenge an exam," and I should be able to find a third. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 05:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are some citations:
* {{quote-book|en|year=1996|title=Senate Legislative Record ... Legislature State of Maine|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=7JNLAQAAMAAJ&q=%22challenge+an+exam%22&dq=%22challenge+an+exam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_xrbz1IrLAhVJKWMKHXpSA5oQ6AEIITAB|text=I mean if you go in and want to '''challenge''' an exam it cost you half of your course money. If you don't pass the exam, that money is credited toward taking the course. What have you got to lose to '''challenge''' an exam, or do a competency exam?}}
* {{quote-book|en|year=1997|author=Carol Gino|title=The Nurse's Story|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=vwcFUVNPQeQC&pg=PT230&dq=%22challenge+an+exam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_xrbz1IrLAhVJKWMKHXpSA5oQ6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=%22challenge%20an%20exam%22&f=false|text=The only time I went to class was to '''challenge''' an exam. My marks were good. But there was one class I never missed, “Nursing Process and the New Philosophy in Nursing.”}}
* {{quote-book|en|year=2006|author=Diana Huggins|title=Exam/cram 70-291: Implementing, Managing, and Maintaining a Windows Server 2003 Network Infrastructure|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=Cnermk7UGrcC&pg=PA2&dq=%22challenge+the+exam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNv8C314rLAhUB7WMKHV_WAAYQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=%22challenge%20the%20exam%22&f=false|page=2|text=Although we strongly recommend that you keep practicing until your scores top the 75% mark, 80% would be a good goal, to give yourself some margin for error in a real exam situation[…]. After you hit that point, you should be ready to '''challenge''' the exam.}}
There are more, but these should be sufficient to cite it. There seem to be uses of it in the US, but I'm not sure how exactly how widespread it is. I'm still not quite sure how to word the definition. I'll have to think about that. If anyone wants to give it a go, I'd appreciate it. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 06:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
: I have defined it as ""(''Canada'', ''US'') To write (a final exam) in order to get credit for a course without taking it." Is that satisfactory? I included ''US'' in the label, based on the fact that a number of the citations I found were from the US, but I can only personally attest to its frequency in Western Canada. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 06:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[minigun]] ==

Why is it called a '''mini'''gun when most of them are pretty damn big? I always found that weird. --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 05:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

: The Wikipedia article talks about this: "In order to develop a weapon with a more reliable, higher rate of fire, General Electric designers '''scaled down''' the rotating-barrel 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon for 7.62×51mm NATO ammunition." [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 05:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:: In the military, aren't they usually careful about not referring to handheld firearms as "guns", reserving that term for big things like cannons? Compared to cannons and the like, miniguns are pretty small. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 13:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::^ Correct ! [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 14:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

== Long phrases ==

Should long phrases be added to Wiktionary? The one I had in mind was "I'll go to the foot of our stairs!", which is an interesting and colourful exclamation of surprise, but I don't know if it's too long for here. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.61.197|109.151.61.197]] 18:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
: Length doesn't matter as long as the meaning can not be determined from its parts. I did some googling and {{m|en|I'll go to the foot of our stairs}} seems like it would be a good addition. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 18:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::I wouldn't have thought so. We never could organize a phrasebook (where we might have SoP phrases). This seems SoP. Our entry for {{m|en|foot}} has an adequate definition and a usage example:
::: (''countable'') The [[base]] or [[bottom]] of anything.
:::: {{ux|en|I'll meet you at the '''foot''' of the stairs.}}
::Our entries need proofreading, more and better citations, more contemporary wording, checking for completeness, and lots of things that one would find as one went along. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::: {{Ping|DCDuring}} I think you just proved that it's not SOP. This an exclamation of surprise, not a literal declaration of one's intention to move to bottom of a stairwell. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 19:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::But that could be any sentence! It is a property of punctuation in writing, of tone and accent in speech. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  23:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: The fact that you said that is why we should probably keep the controversial [[WT:CFI#Attestation vs. the slippery slope]]. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 23:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: It couldn't be "any" sentence. This is a fixed idiom for surprise. It's not something random like "I'll feed a goldfish to my foot". It's more comparable to "I'll be a monkey's uncle". [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 23:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::I hadn't allowed for the possibility of Pondian difference in meaning. Sorry. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  01:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for adding it. Yes, as Equinox says, it is a fixed idiom, not just any random sentence. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.61.197|109.151.61.197]] 02:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
: {{l|en|give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime}}. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 17:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

== quick change (aviation) ==

What's the meaning of [[quick change]] in aviation? Is it an airplane that transports both cargo and people?

Sources:
* http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.43792?journalCode=ja
* https://www.google.com/patents/US3381921

--[[User:Daniel Carrero|Daniel Carrero]] ([[User talk:Daniel Carrero|talk]]) 18:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:As I recall, it as an aircraft fitted out so that the main compartment could be rapidly switched among all-freight, all-passenger, or one or more mixed configurations in response to demand for each type of payload on each route and at various times of day (or week, month, or season). Usually used only for a long flight segment or sequence of segments. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

::Versão cargueira/passageiro de mudança rápida. [[User:Stephen G. Brown|—Stephen]] <sup>([[User talk:Stephen G. Brown|Talk]])</sup> 19:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Regarding the red link, a [[quick change]] act is a variety act where the performers change their outfits in a matter of seconds. Probably citable, might be [[quick-change]] but [[quick change]] looks right to me. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 17:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

== Pronunciation of [[Tunisia]] ==

The pronunciation information given for [[Tunisia]] was incomplete, and I made some edits in an attempt to fix this, which you will see. However, then I realised that the original pronunciation, /tjuːˈnɪzɪə/, which I believe is intended to be the UK pronunciation, was incorrect anyway. As I understand it, 'ɪ' is supposed to represent a short 'i', as in 'bit', but no one in the UK pronounces it -ɪə, and, in fact, this is virtually impossible to say. However, I hardly know anything about IPA, and looking at various other -ia words, which do not seem to be treated consistently, I have become confused, so probably it is better if someone else looks at this. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.61.197|109.151.61.197]] 04:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
: What are you actually advocating? You've said it's wrong but refuse to say what's right? {{IPAchar|/tjuːˈnɪzɪə/}} looks fine to me, I'm guessing you're thinking of {{IPAchar|/tjuːˈnɪzjə/}}. I might try making an audio files if that helps. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 17:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::"refuse to say what's right" seems rather an extreme reaction to what I wrote, given that I tried to explain as best I could what the problem was. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.61.197|109.151.61.197]] 21:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
: You mean the vowel in the diphthong /ɪə/ is closer to /i/ than to /ɪ/? Yes, but it's still conventional to write /ɪə/. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 18:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::A "convention" that gives the wrong representation of the sound is of dubious value, in my opinion. However, I see that someone has now changed it to /iə/. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.61.197|109.151.61.197]] 21:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::I've just noticed also that it has been left in a state where one of the rhymes no longer matches the IPA. I won't try to fix this myself. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.61.197|109.151.61.197]] 21:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Yes, {{IPAchar|/iə/}} seems right now I think about it. See [[#louer]] (French) which I'm about to post. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 13:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[ἄρκτος]] ==

That Greek noun also has a doubtful masculine gender, cf. LSJ "the instances of the masc. are dub.". Of course this should be noted somehow (as that's better than stating it's feminine and sometimes masculine). But how should it be noted? Just a usage note? Masc. gender in the header and a usage note? Usage note with some examples which other sources (dictionaries, grammar books) think are doubtful (like "Arist.Col.798a26" which LSJ mentions)? -[[Special:Contributions/91.16.59.251|91.16.59.251]] 16:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[shoulder-day]] ==

Used in the definition of [[pantyliner]]. What does it mean? [[User:DTLHS|DTLHS]] ([[User talk:DTLHS|talk]]) 18:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

: I can't seem to find anything on this. It's been in the entry since day one. I think it's a mistake of some kind. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 18:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Way out of my area of knowledge here, but from context I suspect it means one of the first or last days of the period, when the flow is at its lightest. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 18:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Just like ''[[shoulder]] period'' in seasonal resorts, intermediate between off-season and peak. I eliminated it in the definition of ''pantyliner'', instead contrasting ''low-flow'' with ''heavy flow'', which was already in the definition. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Do we have this particular sense listed in [[shoulder]]? [[User:DTLHS|DTLHS]] ([[User talk:DTLHS|talk]]) 00:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::No, nor do most other dictionaries.
:::::RHU has shoulder = [[shoulder period]]
:::::Here's what OED has:
::::::"A poorly resolved subsidiary maximum interrupting a part of a graph otherwise having a fairly uniform or smoothly varying slope."
::::::(What is a "subsidiary maximum"? A [[local maximum]]? If so, that's not a ''shoulder''.)
:::::It seems that this kind of shoulder is derived from a certain shape on a graph of a variable, most commonly over time. The ''shoulder'' is distinguishable segment of the graph, having the appearance of a physical shoulder relative to a human head, at which the value of the variable is at or near a value between the maximum and minimum. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  02:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
[[File:Katowice - klimat.svg|thumb|the [[opad]]y "rainfall" bars form a peak in period VII, a left '''shoulder''' in periods V & VI  and a right '''shoulder''' in period VIII]]

== [[spaceman]] ==

We have two senses: "(childish) An astronaut" and "A male astronaut". What does this mean: that it's only childish when used of female astronauts? I think a merge is in order: the sense might be "An astronaut, especially a male one". (I'm not sure that "childish" is correct either: okay, NASA probably doesn't use this word, but some adults do.) [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

: I agree, a merge would be best, and ‘informal’ would be more appropriate here than ‘childish.’ --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 19:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Exemplifying childish usage might convey the particular kind kind of informality that is often involved. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Take a look. I've merged, relabeled, and exemplified. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[if]] ==

Consider:
:'''''If''' that's how you feel, go see the doctor.''
:'''''If''' you are sick, why did you come in to work?''

Which of our definitions for ''if'' fits these usages? I suppose the last: "As is the case, since", but ''[[since]]'' is polysemic and ''as is the case'' is not substitutable in either usage example, though it is with the addition of ''that''. Is there a better definition, possibly a non-gloss definition? [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  21:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that no definition of ''if'' that is exclusively connected with [[truth value]] fits these non-declarative sentences, the first of which can only be a speech act and the second of which can be analysed as any of several speech acts. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  21:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

: I would say it's the final definition, yes. And I don't think that robotically literal word-for-word substitutability is necessary in definitions (after all, that would turn us into a thesaurus): we just want the given definition to be able to form a ''similar'' utterance of the same meaning. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 23:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::It just seems to me that the doubt we have about the definition must be worse for someone who lacked our experience and interest.
::Here are the definitions we offer for ''[[since]]'':
::#From the time that.
::#: ''I have loved you '''since''' I first met you.''
::#Because.
::#: '''''Since''' you didn't call, we left without you.''
::# (obsolete) When or that.
::The closest is the "because" sense and it's not very close.

::I find "as is the case (that)" to be really hard to decipher: three (four) function words and ''case'', or ''[[as]]'' + ''[[be the case|is the case]]'', an idiom, whose definition ("exists as an independent fact of (external) reality.") is not very elucidating. 

::I think this ''if'' expresses a (polite) lack of commitment to the truth of the conditional, but not the implied disbelief were the verbs subjunctivized. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  00:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::Another example:
::: '''''If''' there are cars on the road, don't try to cross.''
::Longmans DCE has a definition "supposing that", which is closer than anything I can make out of the definitions in our entries. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  02:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I think that the even stronger "given that" could be appropriate for these examples. [[Special:Contributions/109.151.61.197|109.151.61.197]] 21:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Stronger might be better, and ''[[given that]]'' is a good synonym, but it is polysemous: we show "although" as one of the two definitions of ''[[given that]]''. I'd prefer that our definitions be less ambiguous. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[oak]] ==

(1) Meaning 3. gives: "A rich brown colour, like that of oak wood." Well, this is fine, in that around the world people making things this colour out of plastic (mostly) call it "oak colour", but it isn't fine in that if you find an oak tree, cut it down and look at the wood, it is not this colour. It is a light colour, with (usually) beautiful grain, which if simply protected with clear varnish remains this light colour for at least 50 years. I think traditionally oak was probably either stained or left completely unprotected, and after the passage of centuries it can indeed be an indefinitely dark colour. So it seems to me this needs changing.

(2) The translations section gives a number of possibilities for Japanese, but does not distinguish deciduous oak (which is what "English oak" etc refers to) and evergreen oak (or "live oak", which is perhaps the US designation for the different tree that grows on the US east coast among other places). There is a famous mistranslation of "oak" in English stories, of people sitting among the fallen autumn leaves, as ''kashi'' (樫), which refers to evergreen oak. It would be nice not to be helping this along, but I'm not sure how to do it. Lexicographically "oak" referring to an oak tree is one word, but botanically it's a number of species. [[User:Imaginatorium|Imaginatorium]] ([[User talk:Imaginatorium|talk]]) 10:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:1: The only question for us is whether there is one (or more) color or (one or more) range of colors that, ''by widespread convention'', are called ''oak''. In my direct experience there are two ranges of color for oak, [[red oak]] and [[white oak]]. The most intensive usage of such a term is at a time of construction, remodeling, or refinishing, so I would not have expected aged oak to be what usage of the term included. Any fine definition of color would probably be one limited to decorators, their suppliers, and their customers. I am familiar with the darker color, having had dogs roaming the wood floors of my house occasionally permanently darkening some areas, using one of the means by which such darkening was traditionally achieved.
:2: I have always assumed that, in English, a tree was identified as an oak by the shape of its leaves, the presence of acorns, and, possibly, the strength of its wood. We are fortunate that biologists seems to have found that the popular definition more or less corresponds to contemporary phylogenetic definitions of the taxon ''[[Quercus]]''. Being [[deciduous]] is an important, but secondary attribute for the trees known in cool temperate English-speaking areas. ''Live oak'' is an interesting way of naming one kind of oak (oak being "normally" deciduous) that is evergreen. English doesn't seem to need or, at least, have any single common term to name deciduous oaks. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  12:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

:: Usage doesn't always follow logic; we record usage as a dictionary, not logic, so I may I suggest that your definition does not belong in a dictionary. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 13:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
: (1) The [[oak]] color is that of [[fumed oak]]: oak wood that has been darkened by exposure to ammonia fumes.
: (2) There are three traits that define oaks, conceptually: leaf shape, acorns/membership in the genus ''[[Quercus]]'', and massive, solid tree habit. Those are all there in the English oaks, but aren't all present at the same time in everything called an oak, especially in formerly non-English-speaking areas such as the US and Australia. 
:# The oaks native to England are deciduous, with flat, lobed leaves, so this is the default, [[unmarked]] meaning. The other main type of oak has rounded, undivided, leathery leaves, often with prickly points on the margins. These generally are named for their resemblance to holly, as in the Mediterranean [[holm oak]] or [[ilex]], or for their evergreen nature, as in [[live oak]]s (which is what we call them in the US). The [[poison oak]] in the US is so named because of its flat, lobed leaves, but it's botanically a type of [[sumac]] and the plant is a vine or shrub. 
:# Botanically, oaks ([[genus]] ''[[Quercus]]'') have [[bracts]] fused into a cuplike structure around the end of a single nut called an [[acorn]]. The [[genus|genera]] ''Lithocarpus'' and ''Notholithocarpus'' are similar, but have the bracts on the outside of the cup sticking up rather than lying flat as the oaks do. We have [[scrub oak]]s in the US that botanically are oaks, but have leaves more like live oaks and they're shrubs.
:# The other notable characteristic of oaks is their tendency to be large, spreading trees with very solid wood. In Australia they have [[silk oak]]s and [[she-oak]]s, which don't have oak-like leaves and aren't botanically anywhere near the true oaks, but are massive (not necessarily spreading) trees with solid wood.
: The problem is that English doesn't have any lexical way of marking which of the three traits are present or emphasized, so translations that are based on only one or two of them have nothing in the entry to attach to. In England there's no general term for the evergreen oaks, they're called [[ilex]]es/[[holm oak]]s, [[kermes oak]]s, etc. In the US, we call them [[live oak]]s, but mostly think of such trees as local natives. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 17:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::How do all the California ''Quercus'' species of oaks match up with the "typical" oak? [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  18:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::: We have a bit of everything: [[scrub oak]]s are shrubs, we have several species with leathery, holly-like leaves that we call [[live oak]]s, most of which are massive trees, and we even have a few [[species]] with flat, lobed deciduous leaves that would fit right in with the English oaks. We also have [[poison oak]], a [[sumac]] named for its leaf shape, and [[tanbark oak]], which isn't a ''[[Quercus]]'', but has acorns in structures similar to acorn cups and is related to true oaks. I think Australia has more non-''Quercus'' trees called oaks because they don't have any of the true ''[[Quercus]]'' oaks. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[louer]] ==

The dictionary pronunciation of this is also {{IPAchar|/lwe/}}. Lmaltier on the French Wiktionary asked a very simple question. Does anyone actually pronounce it like that? For non IPA people, basically the English word {{l|en|way}} ({{IPAchar|/weɪ/}}) with {{IPAchar|/l/}} straight in front of it. Nope, never heard it pronounced as a single syllable (though I physically can do it). [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 13:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

:That's…exactly how it's pronounced. I mean, it's a diphthong, so yeah it's a little longer than a simple vowel, but I would always ‘feel’ it (and hear it) as a single syllable. It also works that way in French poetry, for instance. [[User:Widsith|Ƿidsiþ]] 17:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Treat "ou" as how French write "w" (cf. Eng west, Fr ouest). This is still the case although the "ou" came from "o" in Latin (locare > *lougaire > louer), because the French don't care about where this word comes from when they pronounce it. --[[User:Kc kennylau|kc_kennylau]] ([[User talk:Kc kennylau|talk]]) 13:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
::: That's kind of overkill. {{m|fr|gouter}} is not pronounced {{IPAchar|/gwte/}}. The real reason here is that in French adjacent vowels usually merge together into diphthongs. Same as {{m|fr|hier}} or {{m|fr|tuer}}. But I would say we would best transcribe them as vowels rather than semivowels, as we do for most other diphthongs. --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 15:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

: No one says it /lwe/ instead of /lue/ in standard French (of northern France). There is a whole series of semi-vowels now prononced using a true vowel pair, or both (semi-vowel between vowel pair, as in /prije/ <prije>). More generally, there are number of phonological changes, still active and for several generations already, that are not at all reflected in works about the language, even some supposedly descriptive instead of prescriptive. These changes progessively affect other european forms of French (Belgian, Swiss, Southern), but Quebec is more conservative. {{unsigned|Denispir|08:48, 15 March 2016}}
:: {{Ping|Denispir}} Do you have more examples? --[[User:Wikitiki89|Wiki]][[User talk:Wikitiki89|Tiki]][[Special:Contributions/Wikitiki89|89]] 14:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

== Euphrates? ==

I was looking at the Hebrew word for "Hebrew". I read that the Hebrews crossed the Euphrates into Canaan. Unless my years of Scripture study in the seminary were all for nought, they crossed the Jordan River.[[User:Caeruleancentaur|Caeruleancentaur]] ([[User talk:Caeruleancentaur|talk]]) 17:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:The page he's talking about is [[עברי]]. {{w|Eber}} also says the name may have been given "in reference to those who crossed the Euphrates river with Abram from Paddan Aram to the land of Canaan." —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 17:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::Yep, those are two different crossings. The Jordan crossing is in the book of Joshua (Joshua 3) when – after having wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and after Moses' death – Joshua leads the Israelites across the Jordan into Cana'an. The Euphrates crossing speculated about in [[עברי]] is much earlier, when Abram sets out from Ur of the Chaldeans/Harran to go to Cana'an, described in Genesis 12:1. –[[User:Pinnerup|Pinnerup]] ([[User talk:Pinnerup|talk]]) 22:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[scriptwriter]] vs. [[screenwriter]] ==

Our entries suggest these terms are synonyms, but are they? [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 23:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
: Theoretically, no, since plays also have scripts, but I've never heard of a playwright being referred to as a [[scriptwriter]]. I'm not sure where video games and commercials/adverts fit in all of this. Finally, it would help if we had something, somewhere that explained what "the screen" means. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 00:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
: Some of us still listen to the radio. Scriptwriters work in that medium too (but not screenwriters). [[User:SemperBlotto|SemperBlotto]] ([[User talk:SemperBlotto|talk]]) 09:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Looking in Oxford [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scriptwriter], [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/screenwriter], and [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/screenplay] it says a screenwriter writes the screenplay. But is the screenplay an adaption of the scriptwriter's script? I imagine the script is written first. And can a scriptwriter wear two hats, perform both tasks and be a screenwriter too? [[User:Donnanz|Donnanz]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 09:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I think the screenplay ''is'' the script, but I'm no expert on screenwriting. I suspect that all screenwriters are scriptwriters, but there are definitely scriptwriters who aren't screenwriters, as SemperBlotto has demonstrated. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 14:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[language isolate]] ==

Is this locution borrowed from an Italic language? --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 02:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

* Not quite sure what you're asking.  It parses to me as a native English phrasing: {{m|en|isolate}} can be a noun, as I believe it's being used here, with {{m|en|language}} being used as another noun to modify {{m|en|isolate}}, to indicate an {{m|en|isolate}} of a {{m|en|language}} type -- much as in the compound noun phrase {{m|en|dog food}}, indicating {{m|en|food}} of a {{m|en|dog}} type.  ‑‑&nbsp;[[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr&nbsp;Útlendi]]&nbsp;│<sup>''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala&nbsp;við&nbsp;mig]]''</sup> 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

:: That’s actually a good point. It’s just that I don’t usually see ‘isolate’ used substantively, and the ‐ate termination makes me think that it’s supposed to be adjectival. --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 20:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I've always interpreted it the same way as Eiríkr. Certainly the only possible plural for me is "language isolates", never *"languages isolate" (parallel to "attorneys general"). —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 21:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: I just ran across a very natural occurrence of "isolate" alone as a noun; [[w:British_Latin#Lowland_zone]]. [[User:Imaginatorium|Imaginatorium]] ([[User talk:Imaginatorium|talk]]) 05:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: Yes, though not in the sense of "language isolate". —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 08:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositive_adjective lists "language isolate" as an example of a postpositive adjective. (I'm not saying this is necessarily correct, just mentioning it.) [[Special:Contributions/86.152.161.122|86.152.161.122]] 18:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

== Three Derived terms sections at [[turn]] ==

The entry has illogically two Derived terms sections under Noun, one just above Translations and one just below. Could someone merge the words from the latter one? I'd do it myself, but to be honest with most of them I'm uncertain whether to merge them into the Derived terms under Verb or under Noun. --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 13:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:Interesting case. I think the contributor(s) of the three DT headers intended to have three: one for terms that are clearly de-verbal, another for those that are clearly de-nominal, and a last for those whose derivation was ambiguous. For now, I have simply changed the last from an L4 header (which made it look like a mistaken duplication of the de-nominal DT section) to an L3 header (from which a user ''might'' infer at least that it was not a mistake). I'll work on the text display on the show-hide bar to make it clearer what the entry is trying to do. 
:This a case not well covered by any rules simple enough to be widely understood that we could put in WT:ELE. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:: I believe [[WT:EL]] does cover this. You can have derived terms at the end of the entry (well, near the end) at level 3 (===Derived terms===) if there are multiple parts of speech OR use level 4 under each part of speech. I think in fairness WT:EL isn't as precise as what I've written. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 15:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Does it make clear that you could have one in each location? That is, is "OR" exclusive or inclusive? 
:::I suppose we should make it clear that we have "statutory law" (voted-on policy), "common law" (policy not voted on), "practice", and "judge-made law" (assessments of efforts to apply the rules in specific cases, as in the Tea Room or BP). Or perhaps we only have some of those. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  16:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[abuseable]] ==

Isn't this a misspelling of {{l|en|abusable}}? What's the justification for the additional 'e'? [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 15:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

: I suspected that this was archaic, but there are precious few results for it on Books. [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=4TAJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA448 This is the oldest citation that I can find.] I think that this entry is better off converted into a misspelling‐of. --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 15:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

:: [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=abuseable&curid=5370483&diff=37419392&oldid=37419370 The anon has converted it.] --[[user:Romanophile|<span style="color:#000198">'''R'''omanophile</span>]] [[user talk:Romanophile|♞]] ([[special:Contributions/Romanophile|contributions]]) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

: Compare [[useable]]. [[User:Equinox|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 00:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

== <s>[[nirvana]]</s> ==

An anon changed the etymology in the English section with the result that all other languages have a different etymology. Anyone here who could judge which, if any, is correct? --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 18:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
:Dictionary.com has this: from Sanskrit: extinction, literally: a blowing out, from nir- out + vāti it blows. This is almost the same that we had earlier. I'm tempted to revert. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 18:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
::Rolled back 8 edits, it seemed that the person is guessing. --[[User:Hekaheka|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka|talk]]) 18:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

== Solbrillor + Swedish Pluralia Tantum ==

I have two concerns:

[[solbrillor]] - Is this really a Swedish word? In the Swedish wiktionary it appears as a Danish word [[:sv:solbrillor]].

The category Swedish pluralia tantum - I think this category should be dispensed of. Possibly the only "true" pluralia tantum in the list is [[mygg]], but in fact even that one does neatly qualify as such, as morphologically it has the form of a singular noun (so it is a collective noun).

:Sorry to disappoint anonymous contributor (you forgot to sign your post), but as a Swede, I guarantee you that this truly is a Swedish word albeit familiar/slangish (Google gives us some 184.000+ results[https://www.google.se/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=ic7OVsKfFrOr8weC-YTwBw&gws_rd=ssl#q=solbrillor&safe=off&tbs=li:1]). Concerning plurale tantum in Swedish, there are several examples of "true" pluralia tantum, e.g. [[glasögon]], [[kläder]], [[inälvor]], [[pengar]], [[kråkfötter]], [[genitalier]], [[vegetabilier]], etc. So let's not dispense of this category just yet. --[[User:Robbie SWE|Robbie SWE]] ([[User talk:Robbie SWE|talk]]) 10:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[floriated]] ==

There wouldn't happen to be a verb, {{m|en|floriate}}, would there? —[[User:CodeCat|CodeCa]][[User talk:CodeCat|t]] 01:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
*No. That's the original form of he adjective (according to the OED). [[User:SemperBlotto|SemperBlotto]] ([[User talk:SemperBlotto|talk]]) 06:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[opaquest]] ==

There is no need for a superlative for "opaque".  It is an absolute.  While I concede that there exists a variable, "opacity," the maximum value for this quality is "opaque."  Along with "perfect" and "unique," superlatives are superfluous. {{unsigned|67.198.92.251|19:11, February 26, 2016}}
: Needed or not, people use both the comparative and superlative for all of those words. I still remember this phrase from the Preamble of the US constitution that was taught to me in school when I was a child: "in Order to to form a more perfect Union". This is a descriptive dictionary, so we're not about to remove those forms from our entries. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 01:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
:: There's also the meaning "unclear, unintelligible, hard to get or explain the meaning of". I don't think it's ungradable, "absolute". --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 01:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
::: You're entitled to your opinion but it has nothing to do with the Wiktionary entry [[opaque]]. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 12:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Chuck Entz}}: "More perfect" in the U.S. constitution means "more nearly perfect". Thomas Jefferson was not claiming the union was already perfect; he was saying it was not perfect, but that the Constitution would bring it a bit closer to perfection. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 16:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
:Irrespective of the gradability question, comparative and superlative forms of adjectives with more than one syllable tend to be awkward. "opaquest" is a case in point. [[Special:Contributions/109.152.149.220|109.152.149.220]] 14:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
::Neither the opinion that "opaque" is alleged to be an absolute nor the opinion that it sounds awkward changes the fact that it is amply attested: [https://books.google.com/books?id=LQMhAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA184&dq=%22opaquest%22&pg=PA184#v=onepage&q=%22opaquest%22&f=false], [https://books.google.com/books?id=GYuUA9gn1hUC&lpg=PA677&dq=%22opaquest%22&pg=PA677#v=onepage&q=%22opaquest%22&f=false], [https://books.google.com/books?id=Iz5uBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT5&dq=%22opaquest%22&pg=PT5#v=onepage&q=%22opaquest%22&f=false], [https://books.google.com/books?id=wDiDCnOP6lIC&lpg=PA124&dq=%22opaquest%22&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q=%22opaquest%22&f=false], [https://books.google.com/books?id=uS4v3Aeyi1oC&lpg=PA20&dq=%22opaquest%22&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=%22opaquest%22&f=false], [https://books.google.com/books?id=qyi0eroIbncC&lpg=PR33&dq=%22opaquest%22&pg=PR33#v=onepage&q=%22opaquest%22&f=false]. That fact is sufficient in itself for us to include it. —[[User:Angr|Aɴɢʀ]] ([[User talk:Angr|''talk'']]) 16:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I've added a usage note with a Google N-gram comparison to the ''[[opaque]]'' and ''[[opaquest]]'' entries. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  17:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
:::The primary practical purpose of dictionaries is to help people understand what they read and to choose the correct words when they write. Therefore, to the extent that it is agreed that "opaquest" is unusual and/or awkward, it is helpful, as has now been done, to state this, rather than presenting "opaquest" and "most opaque" as equals. [[Special:Contributions/109.152.149.220|109.152.149.220]] 02:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Correct and awkward are just too subjective for a dictionary. Opaque actually does have [[opaque#Usage notes|usage notes]] and then I think 'less common' is a good way to word it as to cuts out of the opinion pushing stuff. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 22:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::You make it sound as if these usage notes always existed, but actually they have been added since my original comment, possibly as a result of it, as I tried to indicate. [[Special:Contributions/109.145.180.69|109.145.180.69]] 18:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[stay]] ==

Is there any distinction between senses 4 and 5 of the second etymology? They are defined as "A stop; a halt; a break or cessation of action, motion, or progress." and "(archaic) A standstill; a state of rest; entire cessation of motion or progress." respectively. If there is in fact a distinction to be made, the definitions could stand to be clarified. [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 07:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
: Senses 1 and 2 of etymology 4 also do not seem distinct. They are, respectively, "(Britain dialectal) Steep; ascending." and "(Britain dialectal) (of a roof) Steeply pitched." [[User:Andrew Sheedy|Andrew Sheedy]] ([[User talk:Andrew Sheedy|talk]]) 07:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
:::FWIW the adjectival sense is also known in Scots, but the DSL only links it to "a hill, cliff, road, ascent, etc." and claims it's "now obsol. or liter., except in the proverbial phr. ''to pit'' or ''set a stout hert to a stey brae'', to face difficulties with resolution" [http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/stey_adj] --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 00:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Can it not also mean "straight (up)", "stiff", "proud", "resolute" ? [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
::Well, sense 4 seems to refer to briefer stops, pauses(?) and sense 5 longer or "total, entire" ones, so the synonyms would be different. Perhaps usage differs geographically or over time. One wouldn't use ''ascending'' of a roof, though ''steep'' is fine. ''Steep'' can include vertical, whereas I don't think ''pitched'' would. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
:::etym 4, the comparative and superlatives of the adverb have an ''l'' in them. Should those be removed to {{m|en|stayly}} ? [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 23:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Why do you suggest that? Do you evidence that it exists? [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  00:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Well, isn't it transparent, as ''stay'' + ''ly'' (adverbial suffix) + ''-er/-est'' ? Is it correct the way it is ? If so, then ok [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 01:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::I mean, I was not aware that we had another example of an irregular adverb, similar to ''far/farther/farthest'' [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::I think you are putting a morphological cart ahead of the attestation horse. 
::::::I see no evidence of attestation of a word ''stayly''. 
::::::For that matter why don't we have some attestation for any of the four senses proposed under Etymology 4. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  01:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::So the forms in the comp and sup (staylier & stayliest) are an error, as I suspect ? [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 02:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe we should ask the contributor what the source was. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  11:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::That sounds like a baited question...it might've been me :D [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 15:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Yeah, guilty. The adverb was from Scottish usage, but I don't know where the ''l'' forms come from...all I can think is I might have been trying to pipe in "|" and used an "l" by mistake ? I'll fix those now. [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::Actually it exemplifies a typically slightly obfuscatory use of the rhetorical question.
:::::::::::Scottish usage seems distinct enough to merit a more specific label than ''dialect''. Someone here pointed out [http://www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/browse/ this source] from which it might be possible to attest such dialect. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::You'll probably only find anything searching for the usual Scottish spelling [http://www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/search/?word=stey&search=Search stey] though, I've tried "a stay", "stay path", "stay slope", "stay hill" and "stay stairs" and got nothing. --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 22:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
* For ''[[stey]]'' I find it immediately followed by ''[[brae]]'', ''gate'', and ''stair''. ''[[stay brae]]'' seems to be an idiom and ''[[set a stout heart to a stay brae]]'' a proverb. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  22:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
::I found something searching for "an high and stay rocke", so it's possible there are others using ''stay'' [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 22:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

== detené not in conjugation for detener ==

According to https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/deten%C3%A9 the Spanish word detené is the second person singular imperative of detener, but the conjugation at detener says otherwise.

There are two things I don't know --
1) How to be sure which is right
2) How to edit the conjugation at detener, which is based on a regular -er verb template.

Can anyone give me a pointer or two?
: Let's start with linking to {{l|es|detener}}. The Spanish Wiktionary [[:es:detener]] lists {{l|es|detené}} as a {{m|es|vos}} form, therefore it's used in parts of Latin America, and NOT in Spain. Google Books has enough hits to pass it although it's pretty rare for a conjugated form of a very common verb, so I suspect {{l|es|deten}} is just much more common. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 17:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[minh ti]] ==

The label and definition say "fiction"; is this actually limited to modern fiction books, or is it supposed to say "mythology"? [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

== [[head]] (and [[point]]) of a sermon ==

I first encountered this in Ian Maclaren's ''Beside the Bonnie Brier Bush'': "criticised everything in the technique of the pulpit, from the number of heads in a sermon to the air with which a probationer used his pocket-handkerchief", "they were sayin' [his sermon] hes mair than seeventy heads, coontin' pints, of coorse, and a' can weel believe it", "fourth pint under the sixth head" &c; now I've come across it in Walter Scott's ''Old Mortality'': "The discourse was divided into fifteen heads, each of which was garnished with seven uses of application, two of consolation [&c&c]" - what's it all about? Do "heads" and "points" in these contexts simply mean "topics"? Or is there a specific technical usage, as the references to "dividing (heads into points &c)" seem to indicate? Is it perhaps something particular to Presbyterian sermons? I've searched here and in the ''OED'' and Oxford Dictionaries Online and ''Dictionary of the Scots Language'' and Wikipedia but I can't make it out. --[[User:Droigheann|Droigheann]] ([[User talk:Droigheann|talk]]) 14:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
:I think a ''head'' is a topic (an NP?) and a ''point'' is a proposition (sentence?). Threy may have been conventional terms in textbooks on constructing sermons, speeches, legal briefs, and other texts that were arguments. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  15:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
::I find this post confused. In my sOED (1993) definition 16[obsolete]a. The beginning of a word, passage, etc. def.17 Top of a page,passage of text, etc. Also a title appearing there, a heading. - It might be worthwhile to research whether a sermon was traditionally written in a specific format, I suspect there was a formal template, and it included what we today would call headings.[[User:Abitslow|Abitslow]] ([[User talk:Abitslow|talk]]) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
:::In what sense does an orally delivered speech have heads? What about one that is extemporaneous? [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small >  17:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)