text:
Talk:humoorikas

Request for verification
Tagged (by Opiaterein) but not listed. Allegedly Estonian for humorous. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Why do you question it? It’s certainly Estonian. See w:et:Eri:Search/humoorikas. For example, "Juhansoni reisid" on humoorikas romaan ("Juhansoni reisid" is a humorous novel). —Stephen 21:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I tagged it because the ever-dubious User:Ross Rhodes added it and it didn't strike me as looking very Estonian. (Granted, I don't speak any, but it didn't look like any I'd ever seen) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I question it because I don't speak Estonian. 50 Xylophone Players talk 09:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Striking per Stephen G. Brown. But no one has provided actual citations, so anyone wishing to re-RFV this, please feel free. —Ruakh TALK 18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:humoorikas


text:
Talk:slapdown

Request for verification
The definition given is for "smackdown". None of the first five pages of google hits for slapdown mention wrestling, whereas a search for the term 'smackdown' yields a first page almost full of wrestling-related sites. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've converted the rfv to rfv-sense after adding 3 senses. Please take a look since you know what usage is. Edit freely. DCDuring TALK 03:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. Thanks for the correct senses, DCDuring. —Ruakh TALK 18:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:slapdown


text:
Talk:blud

Request for verification
Both senses - Form of address, and close friend. I've googled "hello blud", "goodbye blud", "ciao blud", "hey blud" and "hi blud" but it doesn't look promising. There's plenty of misspellings of blood, however. Enough to deserve an entry? Maybe --Jackofclubs 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 18:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2011–March 2012
English: "(UK, slang, MLE) A friend, a mate." I see it on the web, but not finding it at or  or (the usex provided by the sense's author). —msh210℠ (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I think it's real (it's a form of blood, i.e. kin) but doubt it's attestable in print. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about converting to an eye-dialect entry? Fugyoo 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 * RFV-failed. It can't have an eye dialect entry unless it's attested. - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:blud


text:
Talk:que si

Request for verification
No French entry for this one yet. I know people who say bien sûr que si, or oh/ô que si, but I'm not sure if this is really an interjection or just two interjections next to each other. I'll leave you lot to think about it. Mglovesfun 20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Seems good to me. —Stephen 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Potentially sum of parts ("but of course!"), but with my limited French I'm not sure. In any case I will try to cite it to pass the "is it real?" part of RFV if nothing else. Equinox ◑ 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

 * It's definitely SOP; "que" can be used this way with any number of expressions, and obviously this is one of the main meanings of "si". —Ruakh TALK 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. I'm somewhat hesitant to RFV-fail something that I'm pretty sure exists, but I tried to find cites, and it's just too hard: "que si" is a very common word-sequence, and this specific use is too rare, even when I tried searches like "que si, dit-il" that seemed like they should pull up mainly the sense in question. If this were a bona fide idiom, that would be one thing, but it's just SOP, and it makes no sense to keep an entry for one very rare SOP use of a very common word-sequence. That would be misleading at best. (If anyone objects, feel free to find three cites and/or to list this at RFD.) —Ruakh TALK 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:que si


text:
Talk:spoofulate

Request for verification
Equinox ◑ 12:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, entry deleted. However, participial/adjectival seems citeable, if anyone is interested. —Ruakh TALK 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:spoofulate


text:
atonale

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  atonal

title: atonale


text:
Talk:ejay

Request for verification
"Aspiring deejays and ejays can get their start by broadcasting shows on the Web." But can we cite from BGC? Watch out for the trademark for certain sample sets (Ejay Rave etc.). Equinox ◑ 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 18:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:ejay


text:
Talk:monkey script

Request for verification
Equinox ◑ 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:monkey script


text:
Talk:yearman

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: Someone who spend [sic] a year doing something. Compare with yearsman. Search reveals "Yearman" as proper noun, scannos, a possible combining form (other sense given in our entry), an apparent fictional-universe sense in works by J. V. Jones. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:yearman


text:
atrabiliare

Adjective

 * 1) irascible, atrabilious, gloomy

title: atrabiliare


text:
Talk:fix a hole

Request for verification
I'm sure we've all jigged along to this Beatles song, but all the searches I get for ("fix/fixing/fixed a hole" heroin drug] are about fixing holes, or websites whicb say stuff like "Fixing a Hole is about heroin". Any decent attestations? --Jackofclubs 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:fix a hole


text:
Talk:interpellation

Request for verification
4 senses. A neologism in French, now in English. Perhaps there is one attestable sense. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, English section removed. (As usual, if anyone can cite this, please feel free to restore the section and do so.) —Ruakh TALK 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:interpellation


text:
Talk:dabiñe

Request for verification

 * Note: the heading of this section was previously "dabiñe, dabine". —Ruakh TALK 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Does not seem to exist, no google hits, and I never heard this word.Matthias Buchmeier 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I have speedy-deleted dabine, since it was a self-identified misspelling. (Admittedly, it said that it was common Internet slang -slash- misspelling; but since the "common Internet slang" part is obviously wrong — I can't find any hits on Google that seem to be in this sense — I'm not worrying myself over that part.) —Ruakh TALK 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:dabiñe


text:
Talk:WorkCover

Request for verification
Tagged nearly two years ago by Keene. Might be considered an RfD. It seems like a proper noun for a specific government workmen's insurance scheme. I think it would need attributive use. There might also be a noun or different spellings.

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:WorkCover


text:
Talk:militarian

Request for verification
An anon has questioned the "reality" of this seldom-edited word. --EncycloPetey 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Though there are many scannos for utilitarian and though no OneLook dictionary has it, the word seems real. I'm less sure about the noun meanings given. I could buy "military man/person". DCDuring TALK 15:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I have IMHO cited the adjective. It might be possible to cite an additional sense that is more specifically pejorative.
 * As for the noun, the original contributor must have been imagining a back-formation from militarianism or Militarianism. I'm not finding it. However, there is a sense of "a person in, connected to, or interested in the military" for which I have provided quotations. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited, thanks. --EncycloPetey 15:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But the four cites for the noun don't support the two senses very well. I will RfV-sense the two noun senses. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Said senses RFV failed, removed. —Ruakh TALK 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:militarian


text:
atropo

Noun

 * 1) death's-head hawkmoth (of genus Acherontia)

title: atropo


text:
attaccabottoni

Etymology

 * compare.

Noun

 * 1)  button attacher
 * 2)  buttonholer

title: attaccabottoni


text:
attaccatutto

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) superglue

title: attaccatutto


text:
Talk:Playmo

Request for verification
Wikipedia article says they are sometimes called this, but I can't find any suitable citations except for one, and it's German, not English. Equinox ◑ 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Playmo


text:
Talk:umlaute

Request for verification
User:Doremítzwr claims that umlaut has a plural umlaute (i.e., like the German plural Umlaute). Is this an acceptable British way of pluralizing umlaut, or is it wishful thinking? In the U.S. I have never seen anything like that being done. —Stephen 11:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 * umlauts appears in BNC (1), COCA (5), and OED citations (4); whereas umlaute does not. Maybe we're looking at a potential justification for . DCDuring TALK 11:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 * He seems to have cited it pretty thoroughly, and while some seem obviously to be treating the word as German, other do not. So...QED.  I would tag it rare.  < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd emphasize seems. In the unhelpful quotation dump are at most three citations that do cite the headword (uncapitalized) without marking it with parentheses (as a gloss), or in italics or quotes (as a foreign word), to wit 1874, 1945, and 1998. (The capitalization of a German noun would also seem to mark it as foreign.) I don't think any of the other quotations belong in the entry, especially as it is not a lemma.

 * The absence of use in the 3 controlled corpora and the 867 raw b.g.c. hits for umlauts would suggest the need to indicate low frequency with a or . DCDuring TALK 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OTOH, although the material should not reside at this entry, it illustrates the difficulties folks have with handling non-English words. In this case, the writers can be presumed knowledgeable. But they (or their typesetters) come to different conclusions about the right way of presenting a plural form of a non-English word to their readers. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of these appear to be wholly unnaturalized usages, judging by italics, capitals, and the use of bold in one reference. At least a couple don't look like English usage to me at all.

We do need an unnaturalized or foreign usage label, indicating words that usually appear in italics for foreignness. —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 01:34 z

 * A number of the sources are linguistic sources. 1900 is interesting because, unusually, it is a non-German linguistic context.  Perhaps this deserves to be labelled foreign, linguistics. —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 03:26 z

RFV passed, but tagged, per Widsith and DCDuring. I've also removed it from the inflection line at [[umlaut]], putting it in a usage note instead. I didn't do the whole "unnaturalized"/"foreign"/"hyperforeign" thing, because I don't quite know how that's supposed to work, but anyone wanting to, please feel free. —Ruakh TALK 02:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC
Most quotes not of headword or are mentions, move to Citations page under appropriate headings, at least. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dealt with long ago, AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:umlaute


text:
Talk:alabaster

Request for verification
The noun form is fine.

But the adj form I'm having problems with.

The first sense of "made from alabaster".

The second sense of "white, pale, ghostly" is problematic for me--especially the addition of ghostly.

74.129.2.63 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I updated the definition. I believe that alabasterness isn't ghostliness, although it may contribute to that quality. —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 01:44 z

 * How do we know that the word doesn't mean "ghostly"? If we change the definition how do we know what is being challenged by the RfV?
 * The originally challenged senses should remain until this has had its 30 days. Any proposed new sense could be inserted, the RfV tag replaced with RfV-sense tags at the challenged senses.
 * Also, the citations now shown do not provide evidence that the term can be a "true" adjective. We would need cites of gradable or comparative use (which are available). The attestation of the adjectivity is not necessary for this RfV, is it? DCDuring TALK 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what constitutes a "true" adjective. I'll admit that I'm not a professional grammarian, author, or wordsmith.  But I was paying attention in third grade English and back then we were taught an adjective is any word that modifies a noun. Now I'll admit that really noun can be an adjective, and it makes little sense to add an adjective section to every noun stating that the word also means "of or relating to" the noun.  Igloo in the phrase an igloo salesman can only be an adjective (I wouldn't however say it is an "untrue" adjective.  The adjective form isn't needed because it is a economic way to say a salesman of igloos.

 * When it comes to alabaster meaning "made from alabaster" I suppose that "alabaster box" it is evident that the box is made out of alabaster. In this sense it interchangeable with alabasterine. (Is that a "true adjective."  But the tendency in English is to drop inflection.  It has happened to alabaster/alabasterine -- a word I've only encountered in MW definition under alabaster listed as an acceptable alternative to the adjective alabaster.  It is happening to leaden, so much that my educated guess is that leaden is used primarily to suggest lead (especially something that is weighty) such as a leaden foot.  Something made of lead usually drops the inflection.  (A Google search of lead bullets in quotation marks yields 88,000+ hits; while a similar search of leaden bullets yields less than 17,000).
 * It is also in the beginning stages with the word wooden. Wooden staircase yields 3 times the hits as wood staircases. In 150 years, it might be reversed. In 300 years, it might be that people will profess only seeing wooden as an acceptable but archaic alternative to the adjective form of the noun wood in dictionaries.

 * I added more quotations to the adjective form of alabaster. When I know the difference between "true" and "untrue" adjectives then I'll be able to intelligently address your concerns and might even be able to drum up some citations showing a "true adjective" form of the noun.

 * Forgive this long and rambling post. But I wanted to fully explain my POV on the subject. SonPraises 23:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 * In "igloo salesman", "igloo" isn't an adjective, period, "untrue" or otherwise: it's a noun used attributively. If a man sometimes sells igloos, but usually other things, you can't call him an *"occasionally igloo salesman". If he's tall and sells igloos, you can't call him an *"igloo tall salesman". If he currently sells other things, but will start selling igloos next week, you can't say he'll *"become igloo soon". (None of these tests is perfect — not all adjectives pass all of them — but if a word doesn't pass any of them, then it's apparently not an adjective.) —Ruakh TALK 02:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Okay, then. I split this definition, since it was two things (but now the intended sense of ghostly is less clear). —Michael Z. 2009-06-06 14:40 z

 * I'll readily admit my inclusion of "ghostly" as a defining sense along with "white and pale" may have been overreaching. It very well could be that it is more of a connotation rather than a denotation.  I added the adjective form when all of the literary examples proved to be adjectives--alabaster boxes, alabaster chambers, alabaster cities.  Reading several uses of alabaster, it seemed to be used within phantasmic contexts such this century-old New York Times headline:  "Ghostly Hands Seen After Writers Left: One Looking Like Alabaster Moved Objects" SonPraises 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed "ghostly", removed; other senses kept with a smattering of cites. (Anyone wishing to re-RFV them, feel free.) —Ruakh TALK 12:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:alabaster


text:
Talk:go by the board

Request for verification
Dated sense just added by an anon: "To estimate the velocity of a boat or ship in knots by casting overboard the knotted line to whose end is attached the lead and thereafter counting the knots in the line as it goes aft along the side boards of the vessel." It sounds authoritative, but I can't readily find any corroboration. Nothing in OED, Webster, or dictionary.com supports this sense and this site suggests otherwise. -- WikiPedant 04:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 19:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:go by the board


text:
Talk:carrot

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: a particularly large cannabis joint. The people on Google Groups who "smoke carrots" seem to be referring to the orange vegetable. Maybe Camberwell carrot from Withnail and I could get some hits. --Jackofclubs 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 19:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The North American industrial carrot is a bright orange, but S.Am. & Asian carrots come in intense red, pale yellow, potato blue, and probably other colors. I read a AARP article that indicated that the orange carrot was developed for its transport & shelf-life durability, and thereby lost most(84%) of its nutritional value when compared to heirloom varieties (although still better than most other commercial tap root vegetables, and any refined grain).

title: Talk:carrot


text:
Talk:manageress

Request for verification
RfV-sense for: A housewife. Quotations? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 * This has been here for over three months. RfV failed. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:manageress


text:
Talk:gunky

Request for verification
"(British) Having slimy filth in one's eye." Gunky eyes, yes, but sense 1 covers that. Can people and pets be gunky? Equinox ◑ 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:gunky


text: attagliando

title: attagliando


text: attagliante

title: attagliante


text:
attagliarsi

Verb

 * 1)  to suit, to fit

title: attagliarsi


text: attagliato

title: attagliato


text:
Talk:absement

Request for verification
Even the typo for basement: seems commoner than this. Equinox ◑ 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see two cites for this at ; some of the authors of one of the papers are some of the authors of the other.   —msh210  ℠  00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This was re-added without adequate citations
Equinox ◑ 21:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:absement


text: attagliati

title: attagliati


text: attagliata

title: attagliata


text: attaglio

title: attaglio


text:
Talk:Viking

Request for verification
RfV for a sense recently added by an anon., viz.: †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  A fighter; an aggressive and hardhearted person.

 * This has been here for over three months. RfV failed. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Alpha, beta and gamma forms
What do the terms α-forms, β-forms and γ-forms in the alternative forms section mean? — Ungoliant (falai) 06:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They just distinguish different sets of alternative forms, like "page xi" and "page xii" distinguish pages of a book. Search the site for "β-forms" for more examples, including e.g. traveler's diarrhea. Now that I think about it, I suppose one could just strip out "α-form", "β-form" etc and the remaining clarification (in this case, "r-terminal", "w-initial", etc; in the case of traveler's diarrhea, "US", "UK", "mixed") would be sufficient, at least in those cases. - -sche (discuss) 07:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don’t see the need to name different sets of alternative forms. — Ungoliant (falai)

title: Talk:Viking


text:
Talk:Amerigine

Request for verification
See Talk:amerigine. —Ruakh TALK 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 17:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Amerigine


text:
Talk:scatman

Request for verification
RFV'd in 2007, to not avail. I can't find cites. --Jackofclubs 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Used as a title by at least two scat singers: Scatman Crothers and Scatman John. Does not seem attestable otherwise. Equinox ◑ 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:scatman


text:
Talk:philozoist

Request for verification
An antivivisectionist? Equinox ◑ 22:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:philozoist


text: attagli

title: attagli


text: attaglia

title: attaglia


text: attagliamo

title: attagliamo


text: attagliate

title: attagliate


text:
Talk:dark side

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: The definitions need to be reworked in light of some quotations. Two of the senses (one literal) seem to be there just to provide cover for the Star Wars sense. I don't think that "dark side" as in "There is a dark side to his personality." is idiomatic. dark: + side: seems to cover it. Perhaps there is some idiomatic usage of some kind that the OneLook dictionaries have yet to notice, probably because it's still too new. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 03:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:dark side


text: attagliano

title: attagliano


text: attagliavo

title: attagliavo


text: attagliavi

title: attagliavi


text: attagliava

title: attagliava


text: attagliavamo

title: attagliavamo


text: attagliavate

title: attagliavate


text: attagliavano

title: attagliavano


text: attagliai

title: attagliai


text: attagliasti

title: attagliasti


text: attagliò

title: attagliò


text: attagliammo

title: attagliammo


text: attagliaste

title: attagliaste


text: attagliarono

title: attagliarono


text: attaglierò

title: attaglierò


text: attaglierai

title: attaglierai


text: attaglierà

title: attaglierà


text: attaglieremo

title: attaglieremo


text: attaglierete

title: attaglierete


text: attaglieranno

title: attaglieranno


text: attaglierei

title: attaglierei


text: attaglieresti

title: attaglieresti


text: attaglierebbe

title: attaglierebbe


text: attaglieremmo

title: attaglieremmo


text: attagliereste

title: attagliereste


text: attaglierebbero

title: attaglierebbero


text: attaglino

title: attaglino


text: attagliassi

title: attagliassi


text: attagliasse

title: attagliasse


text: attagliassimo

title: attagliassimo


text: attagliassero

title: attagliassero


text: attagliarmi

title: attagliarmi


text: attagliarti

title: attagliarti


text: attagliarci

title: attagliarci


text: attagliarvi

title: attagliarvi


text: attagliandosi

title: attagliandosi


text: attagliandomi

title: attagliandomi


text: attagliandoti

title: attagliandoti


text: attagliandoci

title: attagliandoci


text: attagliandovi

title: attagliandovi


text: attagliamoci

title: attagliamoci


text: attagliatevi

title: attagliatevi


text:
attendismo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) wait-and-see policy or doctrine

title: attendismo


text:
attenuamento

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) attenuation

title: attenuamento


text:
attenuatore

Noun

 * 1) attenuator

title: attenuatore


text:
attero

Etymology
From, derived from +.

Adjective

 * 1) apterous, wingless
 * 2)  apteral without lateral columns

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to wear away, rub away
 * 2) to grind
 * 3) to chafe
 * 4) to weaken or impair; to attrit
 * 1) to weaken or impair; to attrit

title: attero


text:
attesismo

Noun

 * : a wait and see policy

title: attesismo


text:
Talk:afturbatapíka

Request for verification
Usage on blogs suggest that it's plausible (e.g. 'gleðikona verður afturbatapíka! enn gerast undur og stórmerki.' — 'prostitute becomes "convalescent virgin"! miracles and wonders still happen!'), and the only Google Books hit is a dictionary, which could be very useful — but that it's restricted content. — Beobach972 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:afturbatapíka


text:
atticismo

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) Atticism

title: atticismo


text:
atticista

Noun

 * 1) Atticist

title: atticista


text:
attillatura

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) tightness (a tight fit)

title: attillatura


text:
attinia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) sea anemone, actinia

title: attinia


text:
attinometria

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) actinometry

title: attinometria


text: Category:Italian terms prefixed with attino-


text:
attinometrico

Etymology
From or.

Adjective

 * 1)  actinometric

title: attinometrico


text:
attinometro

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) actinometer

title: attinometro


text:
attinomiceti

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) actinomycete

title: attinomiceti


text:
attinoterapia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  actinotherapy

title: attinoterapia


text:
attizzamento

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) poking (of a fire)
 * 2) fomenting (trouble)

title: attizzamento


text:
attorcigliamento

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) twisting, winding
 * 2) entanglement

title: attorcigliamento


text:
attoriale

Adjective

 * 1)  actor; actorial

title: attoriale


text: astmaen

title: astmaen


text:
attorniamento

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) surrounding, encompassing
 * 2) encirclement

title: attorniamento


text:
attraccaggio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  mooring, docking

title: attraccaggio


text:
attributivo

Adjective

 * 1) attributive

title: attributivo


text:
attruppamento

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) assembling (troops)
 * 2) crowd, throng

title: attruppamento


text:
lesbianization

Noun

 * 1) The act, process or result of lesbianizing.

title: lesbianization


text:
lesbianize

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  To make lesbian.

title: lesbianize


text: lesbianizing

title: lesbianizing


text: lesbianizes

title: lesbianizes


text: lesbianized

title: lesbianized


text: voisines

title: voisines


text: Category:Serbo-Croatian terms suffixed with -luk


text: Category:Serbo-Croatian terms suffixed with -лук


text: Category:Italian terms suffixed with -fito


text:
affirmatif

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) affirmative which affirms

Interjection

 * 1) affirmative

title: affirmatif


text: affirmatifs

title: affirmatifs


text: vecindades

title: vecindades


text:
olivaceo

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) olivaceous, olive-green

title: olivaceo


text:
nonsense-mutaatio

Noun

 * 1)  nonsense mutation

title: nonsense-mutaatio


text:
conjunctive normal form

Noun

 * 1)  The form of a Boolean  that the formula has if the formula is a conjunction of disjunctions of literals, such as “(A or B or C) and (D or E or not F)”.

Translations

 * Finnish: konjunktiivinen normaalimuoto
 * German: konjunktive Normalform
 * Polish: koniunkcyjna postać normalna

title: conjunctive normal form


text:
disjunctive normal form

Noun

 * 1)  The form of a boolean  that the formula has if the formula is a disjunction of conjunctions of literals, such as “(A and B and C) or (D and E and not F)”.

Translations

 * Finnish: disjunktiivinen normaalimuoto
 * German: disjunktive Normalform
 * Polish: alternatywna postać normalna

title: disjunctive normal form


text:
olivagno

Adjective

 * 1) olive-green

Noun

 * 1) oleaster, silverberry

title: olivagno


text:
eleagno

Noun

 * 1) oleaster, silverberry

title: eleagno


text: Category:it:Forms of government

title: Category:it:Forms of government


text: gescheurd

title: gescheurd


text:
nanomanipulation

Noun

 * 1) The manipulation of nanoscale objects using nanotechnology.

Translations

 * French: nanomanipulation
 * Italian: nanomanipolazione

Etymology
From.

title: nanomanipulation


text: Category:it:Government

title: Category:it:Government


text: Category:Italian terms suffixed with -stomia


text: geplakt

title: geplakt


text: Category:Uzbek determiners

title: Category:Uzbek determiners


text: Category:Hungarian adverbs suffixed with -an


text:
olivaio

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) room in which the olives are stored after being picked

title: olivaio


text: orkestergraven

title: orkestergraven


text: orkestergrave

title: orkestergrave


text: orkestergravene

title: orkestergravene


text: orkestergravs

title: orkestergravs


text: orkestergravens

title: orkestergravens


text: orkestergraves

title: orkestergraves


text: orkestergravenes

title: orkestergravenes


text: egyhangúbban

title: egyhangúbban


text: legegyhangúbban

title: legegyhangúbban


text:
olivare

Adjective

 * 1) olivary, olive-like

title: olivare


text:
destorner

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to turn away; to turn round

title: destorner


text:
retorner

Etymology
From, from + , from.

Verb

 * 1)  to return go back to
 * 2)  to turn again

title: retorner


text: Category:Old French terms prefixed with re-


text: Category:Italian terms suffixed with -tropico


text:
vervorming

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) transformation
 * 2) deformation

title: vervorming


text: Category:Italian terms suffixed with -megalia


text:
olivato

Etymology 1
From.

Adjective

 * 1) cultivated with olive grove

Etymology 2
From.

Adjective

 * 1) olive green

title: olivato


text: cardiomegalies

title: cardiomegalies


text:
uitgroeisel

Etymology
From.

title: uitgroeisel


text: Category:English terms prefixed with chiro-


text: Category:English terms suffixed with -megaly


text:
farejar

Etymology
From. From.

Verb

 * 1) to sniff
 * 2) to find out
 * 3) to sniff out

title: farejar


text: metrische

title: metrische


text:
oriëntatie

Etymology
From.

title: oriëntatie


text: Category:Old French male given names

title: Category:Old French male given names


text: Category:Old French female given names

title: Category:Old French female given names


text:
georiënteerdheid

Noun

 * 1) orientation

title: georiënteerdheid


text: Category:Italian terms suffixed with -trone


text: Category:English terms prefixed with cyclo-


text: Category:English terms suffixed with -tron


text: mesotrons

title: mesotrons


text:
Talk:چانه

I suppose that Bulgarian (jaw) also derives from چانه, but I have no source for that yet. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:چانه


text: araen

title: araen


text: araer

title: araer


text: araerne

title: araerne


text: araens

title: araens


text: araers

title: araers


text: araernes

title: araernes


text: Category:Saterland Frisian numerals

title: Category:Saterland Frisian numerals


text:
Յովհաննէս

Etymology
From, from.

Proper noun

 * 1) John Biblical figure

title: Յովհաննէս


text: Category:Vai numerals

title: Category:Vai numerals


text: Category:Spanish terms prefixed with in-


text: Category:English terms suffixed with -genin


text: Հովո

title: Հովո


text: Հովիկ

title: Հովիկ


text:
Talk:liberal religion

Request for verification
Is this term as specific as the definition states? The entry was created based on a phrase "theologically liberal religion" added to another entry, which seems to argue that this phrase is sum of parts only. --EncycloPetey 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It certainly seems to mostly be a hypernym for more specific traditions (like Unitarianism or a liberal tradition within a religious denomination} that are demonstrably religious traditions. That it is a tradition itself is doubtful. Would interfaith meetings among members of various liberal religious tendencies and a common reading list among liberal intellectuals affiliated with various denominations mean there was a single tradition that constituted liberal religion?
 * Do we have to depend on that kind of quasi-encyclopedic knowledge to determine whether this is SoP? That seems tantamount to requiring zealous advocacy for such entries because of the time, effort, and/or prior knowledge required. We're going to need many more and more diverse contributors to reasonably include such terms in a balanced way.
 * The only OneLook reference that covers this term is Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:liberal religion


text:
Talk:hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomy

Request for verification
Based only on google and google search results, this appears to be a word made up to be one of the longest English words. That said, if this isn't actually used in the medical community, can we please make a note of that in the entry? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * My search found one ad for a "dictionary", reprinted many times, and many dictionary mentions. The closest things to usage are discussions of medical and scientific terminology which criticize this term. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


text:
Talk:direct digital marketing

Request for verification
Seems to be sum of parts, unless it has a specific business sense that I don't know about, and I'm no businessman that's for sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 * This is probably minimally attestable (4-5 cites). More common in print (5+:1) is digital direct marketing. That term seems more readily comprehensible and more SoP (= "digital" + "direct marketing"). Thus we may be in the position of favoring the less comprehensible term with an entry. This is what I call the "misnomer principle", like Gresham's law ( = bad money drives out good).
 * Perhaps I will add a sense defining it as "digital direct marketing" and try citing it in that briefer, more general sense, more likely to accommodate the limited number of citations than the current wordy entry. DCDuring TALK 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some additional citations using the term have been added to the page.Cb711
 * Please see WT:CFI for a description of what sort of citations suffice. —  msh210  ℠  16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Also, direct digital marketing is not synonymous with digital direct marketing. The difference is more than just preference on the order of the words. Digital direct marketing means executing direct marketing campaigns in a digital way. Direct digital marketing means executing digital marketing campaigns in a direct, addressable way. Direct digital marketing means the marketer can control the entire life of the message from the initial send and response to the next triggered campaign. Direct marketers have very little control over the consumer response, and it is highly unlikely that a direct marketing campaign is able to trigger another timely call-to-action. Cb711

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:direct digital marketing


text:
Talk:zoobrick

Request for verification
"(Australian, slang) penis". Only appears in word lists. Equinox ◑ 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:zoobrick


text:
Talk:respectability

Request for verification
"A respectable person". Equinox ◑ 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:respectability


text:
Talk:green knowledge

Request for verification

 * 1) Knowledge a person shares with the intent for it to be easily recycled/re-used in the future by others.

Is this right? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The book The Making of Green Knowledge seems to use the term in the sense of 'body of knowledge about the environment'. Pingku 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I wonder whether this is a sign of extending the "recycling" aspect of greenness and the word "green" to new realms. Are we missing a sense at green, or should something there be reworded? Does green now mean, among other things, "reusable", "extendable" as might apply to wikis or software objects as well as tangible objects? DCDuring TALK 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * |+software+|+code+green+(recycle+|+reuse)&lr=&ei=IPtdSp7VMp-8zASp4LS6Bw This is what I'm talking about. Is there more? DCDuring TALK 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The opposite.  —  msh210  ℠  17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A lot of mentions of "greenfield" software development (starting from scratch}, too. In any event, not yet, it seems. DCDuring TALK 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:green knowledge


text: amelogenins

title: amelogenins


text:
Talk:get you

Request for verification
Not in COCA, which allows searches for punctuation. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to verify this? Is it in widespread use somewhere? Is it actually " 'get you " as in "forget you". DCDuring TALK 02:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I have not heard it in the sense of "forget you!", but only as "look at you!", "get a load of you!" It means "well, aren’t you just the best!" —Stephen 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree - this is fine. (Try a Google book search for the phrase "Ooh get you" (to weed out all the other combinations of the words). SemperBlotto 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this UK? It does remind me of get a load of:. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, I have one illustrative quote. If that captures it and it is in widespread use in the UK, we could declare victory. Is there use that is significantly different from the quote?
 * More importantly, isn't this just yet an colloquial imperative/hortative/precative? Could I not say "get her". Are all common colloquial imperatives entitled to their entry? DCDuring TALK 12:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, you could say "get her". Remember the song If My Friends Could See Me Now? "Brother, get her! Draped on a bedspread made from three kinds of fur!" Equinox ◑ 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I think this has passed as an RfV. There is the CFI/RfV issue. Should this be a redirect to get or to a specific link point at the exact sense? Or should we bow to the inevitable and include this and all attestable exclamations as interjections? We have a large number of such terms that contributors seem to think merit an entry. Maybe we should take the persistence of these as a warrant for rationally including at least some of them.
 * "Get her" would be expected to have less justification as an interjection as it concerns a third party. What would be the emotion? Envy? It certainly has less of a role in conversational direction or as a kind of linguistic politeness. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed per DCDuring. —Ruakh TALK 18:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:get you


text:
Talk:rando

Request for verification
Equinox ◑ 04:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * English only, I'm guessing? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'll change it to rfv-sense. Equinox ◑ 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, English section removed. —Ruakh TALK 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated Reference
In the Oxford English Dictionary since August 2015. Huggi (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:rando


text:
Talk:in the stands

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: Sole idiomatic sense: Of a play which terminates because the object of play, usually a ball, exits the field of play and enters the grandstand. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I missing an idiomatic sense? I can only see in + the + stands, why not in the kitchen or on the roof? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm interested in whether the term might be used if the ball for example exits a playing field not actually graced with stands. Clearly the definition would need some rewording. If it only means what the definition says, then it is as you say. Let it have its month here. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:in the stands


text: Category:English terms prefixed with amelo-


text:
Talk:duplifix

Request for verification
Equinox ◑ 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:duplifix


text:
Talk:ennealogy

Request for verification
This has been deleted about a million times (look at the history). The citations supplied this time are not very encouraging; one is in quotation marks and the other appears to be a theoretical counting game. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The first second one, though in quotation marks, is a use, not a mention; and it doesn't define the word, so a reader might well want to look it up. The second  first one, however, is pure mention. —Ruakh TALK 01:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Updated 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) to reflect reordering of quotations in entry.

 * I disagree. The first one is a mention as well.  There, the word appears as an example of a word formed from a particular root, which is meta-knowledge of the word's physical structure or etymology.  It is not used in any context other than that of its spelling/origin. --EncycloPetey 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I should have updated my comment after reordering the quotations in the entry. I agree that the now-first quotation is mention-only; but I maintain that the now-second quotation, the one using quotation marks, is a use. —Ruakh TALK 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry moved to Citations:ennealogy. —Ruakh TALK 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-creation of entry
I just re-created ennealogy after digging up 2 additional definitions. Our definitions and uses now span 3 centuries, proving this is no protologism. (I've got another several dozen from books, if any doubt remains.) Since Citations:ennealogy was created by moving from the old entry, I tried to move it back so the new entry would retain the old one's edit history, but CodeCat moved it back in the five minutes (!) it took me to copy in all the new material and do some format editing. (Apparently it didn't like the format, which I was in fact changing back to entry-style. There's something to be said for delaying auto-repair for to allow for reasonable human actions. ☺) Let me know if I should do any Transwiki-like copying of the edit history, or any other remedial actions. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved it back because we like to keep Citations pages around even when the entry already exists. This is useful when there are many more citations than would fit into the entry neatly. Usually, any quotations that are given in the entry are only a small selection of what is found on the Citations page. So it would be preferred if you could recreate the entry from scratch. However, I can help you and restore the version that was previously deleted, if you want? 02:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly concerned that everyone who contributed to the version that became Citations:ennealogy is properly credited by Wikimedia's rules. I'm not frequent enough a Wiktionary editor to know how WT handles these things. For myself, I'm happy with how it is, but if WT would prefer what you suggest, I'll follow up your restoration with another edit if you wish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, apologies for implying you're an automaton, which assumed from your 1-minute response to my entry re-creation. You're incredibly swift! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly feel like an automaton a lot of the time... >.> At Wiktionary what we host is mostly information in a concise and systematic format and there is very little room or regard for creative expression, so attribution is probably not a huge issue. So there is no problem with copying quotations from one page to another. However, the references section you added is not how we normally format quotations. On Wiktionary we distinguish quotations/citations from references; the latter applies to factual information that is taken from another source (as on Wikipedia), the former applies to uses of words themselves (which has no Wikipedia equivalent). There is also a difference between quotations (WT:QUOTE) and citations (WT:CITE). Quotations are citations that are added to the entry to illustrate (to users) with real-life examples how the term is used in a phrase. What counts towards attestation is citations (3 mininum) and citations are collected on the Citations page. Every quotation is a valid citation, but there is no harm in having only a select few quotations in the entry itself, as long as they are helpful in illustrating usage. 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:ennealogy


text: Category:English terms prefixed with sapo-


text:
Talk:cyberskeleton

Request for verification
Equinox ◑ 09:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:cyberskeleton


text: thermogenins

title: thermogenins


text:
Talk:retread

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: Digger slang. By same contributor as various other RFV-failed bits of supposed Digger slang. —Ruakh TALK 16:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It’s possible, I suppose. I know that a tread is current military slang for a lifer with the rank of sergeant or above. I don’t know WW II slang and haven’t heard retread used before. —Stephen 18:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Cited. But it might have wider application than just WW1/WW2 and/or "Diggers". Equinox ◑ 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:retread


text:
Talk:possie

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: Digger slang. By same contributor as various other RFV-failed bits of supposed Digger slang. —Ruakh TALK 16:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Cited. Look okay? Equinox ◑ 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:possie


text:
Talk:bundookery

Request for verification
I question the word bundookery which is listed as a form of bundook, as I Googled zero examples. Goldenrowley 03:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. bundookery has been removed from bottom of bundook. Goldenrowley 04:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:bundookery


text:
Talk:queerious

Request for verification
Rfv-sense on etymology 2: *queer + curious being curious about homosexuality. I found that in a coinage source, not a real dictionary. Goldenrowley 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 * The first sense appears to be wrong, too: everything on Google Books seems to be using it for the "queer" kind of "curious" (i.e. strange, weird) and not for "curious" (inquiring, interested). Equinox ◑ 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there's a dictionary that declares it coming fromthe word "query" and "curious" so I don't know how you think that could be wrong - I did add the first definition based on Google books and this dictionary but I think I'll add a word to qualify it as a query-full type of curiosity. Goldenrowley 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I was looking at actual books. Dictionaries can be wrong. Books are genuine usage. Can you find the three RFV citations for this "full of queries" sense? I can certainly find three for the "weird, bizarre" sense. Equinox ◑ 21:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have hit the nail on the head on what it may really mean to the people using it. i am not sure how to go about it if it differs a bit from the dictionary thoughGoldenrowley 18:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

 * That suggests the dictionary is wrong. We should create our definitions based on actual attestable usage and not what a fallible secondary source says. I'm planning to come back to this one and cite "my" sense, but I don't know when. Equinox ◑ 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, senses removed. —Ruakh TALK 07:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:queerious


text:
Talk:kalopsia

Request for verification
"Believing that what one does not have is better than what one has." Equinox ◑ 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing helpful on b.g.c. All the English citations I found there are for the primary sense in our entry.  I found nothing matching the disputed sense, although I did find a Turkish use of the word!  There were no citations at all for this word in the BYU-OED database. --EncycloPetey 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 14:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:kalopsia


text:
Talk:be taken ill

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: To become hospitalized. I think this just means "to become sick", "to take ill", "to take sick". DCDuring TALK 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 * RFV failed, sense removed. (I agree, BTW.) —Ruakh TALK 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:be taken ill


text:
nonrivalrous

Adjective

 * 1)  Not rivalrous.

Translations

 * French:

title: nonrivalrous


text:
Talk:ägha

Request for verification
Looking for evidence that spellings of agha, aga exist in English with umlaut, diaeresis, trema. OED and Websters Third only list the two spellngs without dots above the first a. — hippietrail 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find a usable citation yet. It just seems to be a transliteration of the Arabic/Persian with the original diacritics in tact. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted, it seems to be okay in Swedish however, it appears on the Swedish Wikisource. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:ägha


text:
Talk:parole

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: "limited sense of freedom". If it is real, what does it mean? --Hekaheka 13:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't understand it, delete or clean up. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Definition deleted, impossible to verify something that nobody can understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:parole


text:
nondemonstrating

Adjective

 * 1) Not taking part in a demonstration (public protest).

title: nondemonstrating


text:
epilepszia

Etymology
From scientific, from , from + , from.

Noun

 * 1)  epilepsy a medical condition in which the sufferer experiences seizures or convulsions and blackouts

title: epilepszia


text: epilepsziák

title: epilepsziák


text:
mučednictví

Noun

 * 1) martyrdom

title: mučednictví


text:
permaban

Noun

 * 1)  A permanent ban on a user.

Verb

 * 1)  To ban (a user) permanently.

Translations

 * Spanish: bloquear permanentemente

title: permaban


text: permabans

title: permabans


text: permabanning

title: permabanning


text:
Talk:twitroll

Request for verification
Quite possibly bollocks, but it seemed better to make an effort than to delete with checking. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sort of attestable, but not with the meaning given here. It seems to be some sort of feature to allow quick posting to Twitter, but I don't think it would meet WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 * There might be two senses: twit+roll (like blogroll) and twit+troll (an Internet troll or troublemaker). Anyway, both protologisms: this should go, like most of the Twitter junk people keep adding. Equinox ◑ 10:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Appendix:Twitter? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't attest the meaning given, so I'm happy to delete this. The other hits seem to be more "mention" than "use", as they give no specific single meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:twitroll


text:
Talk:naat

Request for verification
Is this serious? If so a rephrase seems in order Jcwf 12:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed - assuming you can trust Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blotto Jcwf 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept, cleaned up by SemperBlotto. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:naat


text:
Talk:Statue of Liberty shower

Request for verification
Tea room basically explains it in my place. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Content merged with Statue of Liberty, not cited on its own. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Statue of Liberty shower


text:
Talk:aestus

Request for verification
=heat / fire. Any takers? < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 09:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in English. It can mean that in Latin though (also tide, surge etc). SemperBlotto 09:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up a bit, further cleanup needed. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, it was actually a cleanup issue AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:aestus


text:
Talk:avant la lettre

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: I haven't found it in use in English except in quotes or italics. DCDuring TALK 02:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite the use of italics, according to this thread this is a common idiom in English. Wouldn't that deserve an entry in the Wiktionary?
 * BTW, in the etymology section, avant la lettre is translated into "before the letter" but lettre here has a meaning of "caption" (of an engraving), not a written letter that you would send to someone. Is letter another word for caption or is it a poor translation? — Xavier, 01:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 * If it is as they say, then there should not be any problem finding citations somewhere in Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News or Usenet where it does not appear in quotes of italics in English running text. If it appears only in italics or quotes in English running text then the author is not presenting it as English. I ran out of patience after the first 5 Google English books hits had it in italics. I find it in no Online monolingual dictionaries I have access to. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have failed to find any such citations too. Does it imply the English section has to disappear? I would be quite surprised of such a conclusion considering the number of English books that make use of this term. What if the term is used in different contexts than in French?
 * Back to the etymology, can someone confirm that in English letter is/was also a term used for the caption in an engraving? See the exact definition here. — Xavier, 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We usually give hard-to-search-for terms like this a longer time period to collect citations than the minimum of one month. But the ultimate conclusion under our current rules would be deletion of the English section. If the term is also not idiomatic in French, then it could be deleted altogether, leaving us in the position of not having the term at all, though it would be useful to have it. In a truly open Wiki it would be better to have explicit rules that accommodated this situation. In our more closed, "clubby" wiki, we often seem to rely on undocumented, unofficial "practice" that gives license to certain violations of the official rules, mainly WT:CFI and WT:ELE. There is usually some fig leaf of justification, but often one that would not withstand an intellectually honest challenge. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this helpful explanation. My understanding is: we have no problem finding citations and "avant la lettre" seems a valid English idiom, albeit not widespread (750 answers on Google books -- English books only but some duplicate results). For this reason, I believe it meets the WT:CFI criteria (I didn't find anything about foreign terms). The only problem we have is to find written citations that do not make use of italics or quotes. Be it foreign or not, its usage in English is attested in my opinion.
 * If the English section was deleted, the reader would have to fall back to the French section (that would remain since it is a valid French idiom). But nothing proves that its meaning and use in French are exactly the same as in English (its usage may have drifted or broaden). Moreover, you might have adjective and noun forms in English that we do not have in French (this is a generic comment: if this does not apply to this particular entry, this may apply to others). Finally, the reader is looking for a term found in an English context and fails to find the corresponding entry, but nothing guides them to this French entry. It appeared to me that avant la lettre is also used in Dutch, how can the reader know which entry to consult? Here again, the meaning may be slightly different between French and Dutch.
 * For all these reasons, I think the English section must stay. As for the etymology, since I got no answers, what is the best way to tag the translation as dubious? — Xavier, 20:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once something is in this process, the only thing that saves it is qualifying citations, unless we dispense with our rules altogether or amend them. Because this seems mostly to be used in academic writings, editorial standards have tended to put the expression in quotes or italics in the durably archived sources. We might have better luck on usenet or google news. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Could you please indicate which part of WT:CFI rules out quotations that are in italics? I don't see it, and I wonder if there's some rule there that you and I interpret differently. —Ruakh TALK 14:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to be so picky as to go back to the source and fact-check me,... I must thank you for not letting my memory mistake give false authority to my assertins. I must have conflated a snippet of an RfV discussion, the use-mention distinction, and my understanding of the desirable presentation of foreign-language material in English text to reach a wrong conclusion. The conclusion I was coming to with respect to this entry seemed untenable, so I would be relieved to have been wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding, an English header does not mean that the word is fully considered as an English word, only that it's a word used in English (really used, not only mentioned, of course). Italics often indicate that it's a mention rather than a use, but italics are often used for uses as well. I cannot imagine another criterion than this one ("used in ...") for allocating words to languages. autoroute might be another example: is it considered as a fully English word? Yet, it's present, and it's quite normal. Similarly, highway could warrant a French section (feminine or masculine noun?). Lmaltier 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although Ruakh correctly pointed out above that I had misremembered WT:CFI about this, the bright line that could be drawn based on appearance with or without quotes or italics would be convenient. It would function analogously to the attributive-use test for certain proper noun entries.
 * Without that test, I am left with many questions. What is the correct interpretation of use-mention as it applies to foreign-language text embedded in English text? Certainly a block of text would be excluded. What about a proverb? A proper noun? A word in a non-Roman script? DCDuring TALK 17:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In "The English word for route is road.", road and route are mentions, and this is clear from italics. In "Most French autoroutes are toll highways., or in He lives near Nantes, in France. or in J'ai commandé un Welsh rarebit.", autoroutes, Nantes and Welsh rarebit are used, not only mentioned, despite italics. This is what is meant by mention and use, I think. Lmaltier 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think there's any perfect test for use vs. mention; some sentences are ambiguous or blurry between the two ("they call it happiness" can mean either "happiness is the word they use to refer to it" (mention) or "they consider it to be happiness" (use), with the latter being applicable even if "they" are speaking a different language). However, in general I think it's usually fairly clear whether a term is being used, with a distinct POS, playing a normal term-like role in a sentence, or whether it's simply being mentioned, referred to, implicitly being set off in quote marks and treated as a noun. —Ruakh TALK 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think you're trying to apply the wrong rule. A block of foreign-language text is sure to contain many words that are used rather than mentioned; and it's rare, but I have seen Hebrew terms actually used, in Hebrew script, in running English text. So the question isn't at what point it becomes "use" rather than "mention", but rather, at what point it becomes "English" rather than (in the case of avant la lettre) "French", or at least, at what point it becomes something we need an ==English== section for. And to that question, I really have no answer. Even if English-speakers use avant la lettre differently from French-speakers, does that mean it's an English expression now, or just a French expression with a special sense? And a special  or  pronunciation? —Ruakh TALK 00:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I was trying to borrow "rules" that might apply by analogy.
 * I have looked at the Chicago Manual of Style (14th) ("MoS") on the use of italics for such words. They seem to recommend using them as long as the word is both foreign and unfamiliar. They recommend looking at dictionaries as part of the test, but are rather inconclusive: "More moderately, the decision might be based on a blend of considerations -- familiarity, inclusion in a dictionary, and sympathy with they reader." If a foreign-language term is only used in academic writings, the various style manuals in aggregate (MLA, APA, MoS, et al) might have helped us, but not if they are all as inconclusive as MoS.
 * This seems to force us back toward using citations as evidence of how individual authors and editors view the foreign words in question. If no citations can be found outside of quotes or italics then they seem to be saying that the reader needs to be warned that the words in question are both unfamiliar and foreign. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard the expression before, but a Google search for "avant la lettre" +anachronistic seems to bring up enough usages. I've reduced the number of times "used" is used in our definition - hope this is OK.    D b f  i  r  s   20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, God, that whole italicised-uses-don’t-count rule is a load of crap. Try Google Groups Search — Google groups can’t italicise text. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Very common in English. You can't use any French phrase in English (not if you expect to be understood), but you can certainly use this one; it's a perfectly valid tool in English writing and speaking. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 09:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Striking, since the issue seems to have been resolved. Quotations would still be nice, though. —Ruakh TALK 15:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:avant la lettre


text:
Talk:Tesco's

Request for verification
Needs attributive use citations. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 * An aside: perhaps compare "Marks and Spencers" for "Marks and Spencer". Equinox ◑ 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Clocked out. Any personal name can form such a possessive anyway by adding 's. The resulting form without a noun is commonly used elliptically to refer to an object associated with the named person or group. I don't think it could have had attributive use. Are there any examples where such a formation would be includable besides entries like Ma's and Joe's? DCDuring TALK 01:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tesco's


text:
Talk:Vader

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: " A Sith surname", under WT:CFI. (The other sense of Vader is probably okay.) —  msh210  ℠  22:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 * How is the other sense probably okay? It should be attested to the standard of a specific entity, if not a brand name. —Michael Z. 2009-08-13 23:41 z
 * I suspect it's attested to the standard of a fictional-universe word, and think that that's all that's necessary. —  msh210  ℠  21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 * It's not attested with any quotations at all. I doubt that it could meet the requirement at WT:CFI to be suitable for inclusion in the dictionary.  I'm adding an RFD tag to this sense. —Michael Z. 2009-09-01 10:45 z

 * Move to RFD? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? We're seeking attestation. —  msh210  ℠  21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See also. —Michael Z. 2009-09-01 11:48 z

RFV failed x2, entire entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 13:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vader


text:
Talk:äga

Request for verification
Per ägha, if this isn't any more attestable than that, it shouldn't be here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no Google hits for this in English, but tonnes in Swedish, ergo deleted in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:äga


text:
Talk:anorexigenic

Request for verification
Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Wasn't hard to find on b.g.c. I formatted it and added three cites from 1970–2008. Angr 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, striking Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:anorexigenic


text:
Talk:crux

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: "The hardest point of a climb". --EncycloPetey 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Cited. This is actually extremely common among rock-climbing types. —Ruakh TALK 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I used to have a good friend who was a serious climber, but we live in different parts of the state now.  I was at a loss as to how to search for a suitable quote, since I've never heard that sense used before.  Your work will be especially useful since crux: will be WOTD on the 21st. --EncycloPetey 05:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 * No prob. I was also at a loss as to how to search for it, short of just rock climbing crux. Usually I try to get quotes from a few different searches, but this was too hard. (And if I didn't know a bunch of rock-climbers from college, I wouldn't have recognized the sense, so probably wouldn't have caught what "a climb" meant.) —Ruakh TALK 19:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dutch pronunciation

 * Beside the audio's pronunciation, some dictionaries also suggest a pronunciation with ; confusingly they only indicate the pronunciation of the plural (typically given as ). Do you know whether the singular that is associated with that plural form is pronounced ? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I've heard people say both "kruks" and "kru". Or maybe it's just me who said "kru".
 * Enthusiastic girl says kruks
 * Mark Rutte says kruks (het aantal kinderen is toegenomen!!)
 * Antoinette Hertsenberg says kruks (at 15:16, note: DRM)
 * I could dig up more if needed. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that kru pronounced the same as ? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think so. But it may just be me. Compare with the silent x from deux. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I think if people pronounce it that way, they see the word as Latin, which has Ecclesiastical pronunciation, . An older generation who learned Latin in school may have been taught the Dutch variant of that pronunciation. --Lambiam 18:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At least is still the school pronunciation of Latin in the Netherlands. But yes, I think the ecclesiastical pronunciation used to be common until the 1950s or something. People still pronounce Cicero as  in my part of the woods. I have no idea to what extent crux is affected by that (if it ever was). ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I have heard and used the word many times, but always in the singular, never in the plural. I didn't know there was any other pronunciation possible for the singular besides (the Dutch spelling-pronunciation) kruks. Morgengave (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I indeed meant Dutch u, not oe. I have only heard the Dutch spelling-pronunciation (so rhyming with Dutch buks en flux), never the Latin one. Morgengave (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which I guess means rhyming with .  --Lambiam 07:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand IPA, but is the difference we are talking about between the u in buks, mux or ruk and the oe in boek, so between kruks and kroeks? Because I've never heard kroeks. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what I assumed Morgengave to mean. The advantage of IPA is that it is reasonably unambiguous; sometimes I see a statement of the form that some word is pronounced as some other word while I have no clue how the latter is supposed to sound. You can click on the superscript (key) to see the meaning of the IPA symbols, or simply have a look at the respective IPA renderings in the Pronunciation sections of and . Presumably you have never heard “kroetsjes” for  either.  --Lambiam 16:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the difference that Lambian has asked about. is also worth reading if you want to understand Dutch IPA transcriptions. I haven't ever heard  "kroeks" in Dutch either. (Also  who hasn't been repinged for the question above. I don't know mux by the way.) ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  17:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to understand IPA once.. Made my head hurt. Mux is a technical term. Not sure if it could be cited in durably archived sources, but it's common on technical forums and news sites. Some examples:
 * Dat alleen even op DVB-T2 zetten voor de Zwolle frequentie van 482MHz en voila, ik kan weer de hele mux/stream binnenhalen
 * Naargelang je een bepaald station wil bekijken/beluisteren moet de juiste Mux gekozen worden en moet daaruit het gevraagde signaal gehaald worden.
 * KPN heeft vandaag de frequentie van mux NTS4 in delen van Nederland gewijzigd.
 * Here mux is short for multiplex. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

plural -es
Should the plural -es be recognized in cruces? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:crux


text:
Talk:Rus.

Request for verification
RfV for nominal sense meaning “Abbreviation of Russian.” (i.e., a native of Russia). I can imagine uses like “He is a Rus. national.”, which as adjectival, but not “He is a Rus.” or whatever. Also, how would the plural be formed? Would it be invariable, would it double the last letter (as *undefined:), would the period be retained or removed, &c.? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the nominal sense would always be "Russian language", probably never "a native of Russia/a person of Russian ethnicity". Language names are extremely often abbreviated in paper dictionaries, articles on historical linguistics, etc. Angr 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Noted, though that is use as a proper noun. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

RfV failed. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rus.


text:
пупсик

Noun

 * 1)  doll (baby doll)
 * 2)  sweetie, cutie, cutie pie, pupsik

title: пупсик


text:
attualismo

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) actualism
 * 2) uniformitarianism

title: attualismo


text:
Talk:remaining

RFV discussion: August 2009–November 2009
Rfv-sense noun "action of the verb to remain". I don't think one can find evidence that this is a true noun. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Remaining convinced of this proved impossible. This item's remaining here for a little while should serve as a reminder of how much grammar I still need to learn.
 * withdrawn . DCDuring TALK 02:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually, I'm inclined to agree with your original rfv-sense. This is not really a POS-worthy noun; it's just a regular old gerund, and dictionaries do not ordinarily include separate nominal entries for gerunds.  -- WikiPedant 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * It deserves some kind of noun section, however, going on the Google-Book-Search hits for the plural. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I guess we do not have a separate noun PoS if they don't have a plural or a meaning distinguishable from the verb-derived gerund meaning. Reminiscent of not having adjective PoS for attributive use of noun unless it is gradable or comparable. Does that even need a rfv-sense?
 * I have always disliked these "action of the verb" definitions. Whatever their value in getting a lot of basic entries into Wiktionary, they seem to have outlived their usefulness, even in cases where the -ing form would warrant a noun PoS. DCDuring TALK 20:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * It does have a plural (see Google Books), but generally in a sense that seems to mean "remnant" and might be obsolete. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I share DC's dislike for these "action of the verb" definitions -- both because they are unremarkable garden-variety gerunds and because the potential number of such needless defns is very large. I suspect almost all gerunds are in principle capable of being pluralized (although some, like leavings:, have a syntactic life of their own).  It is a judgment call which gerunds have sufficient usage and sufficiently noteworthy wrinkles of meaning to merit being recorded in entries, but, like DC, I think most of these entries have outlived their usefulness.  -- WikiPedant 23:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I support their inclusion because otherwise we have no way to include the plurals, which are often perfectly valid (and attestable) words. As I mentioned in a previous RFV or RFD discussion, one cannot automatically assume that every -ing can take an -s (my example at the time was defragmentings, which DCD thought he might defend, but I could think of worse ones). I do get a slightly bad taste in my mouth when adding them, though, I admit. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just think of all the phrasal verb gerunds we could define that way, perhaps with a bot! But I am more sure that the definitions so worded have outlived their usefulness that I am that the entries have. I am not sure how much noun-like behavior a gerund needs before it is worth an entry as a noun. Forming a plural, preferably in an English work, I had always thought was sufficient. Merely serving as a subject of a verb or an object of a verb or a preposition doesn't seem sufficient, nor does being modified by a possessive. Being modified by an adjective or a determiner or an article might be somewhat more stringent, but not prohibitive tests adequate for our purposes. But this is just a naive proposal from an amateur. Perhaps the professionals have thoughts on this. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Boy. I wish I could think of a way to express the nausea I feel at uses of "remainings" without being unduly presciptive. It seems almost misleading to have it appear without some kind of tag. It appears once in OED (17th century), not at all in COCA, once as an error in BNC, not in Time corpus. Many of the occurrences seem to be in academic writings by what look to be non-natives and sometimes in quotes or italics. I don't doubt that it is attestable. Many of the uses just look like mistakes. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * /? You could also just explain this in a usage note. It is not prescriptive to say that most native speakers will use an alternative word, if the literature suggests this. Dominic·t 07:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I may need a little inspiration. And also to settle how gerunds are presented. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at uses of "remains" suggests that "remain" is sometimes used to mean "remnant" (itself derived from an Anglo-Norman participle), in which use it seems a true noun. Plural use of this as gerund (ie, instance of the "activity" of remaining) is rare.
 * I also am having trouble finding clear evidence of use as an adjective. For a present participle-like adjective that comes down to graded or comparative use.
 * If the noun is attestable as I read it, do we need some kind of definition as gerund for contrast or a usage note linking to gerund? DCDuring TALK 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not seeing any clearly gerundial use at all -- all cases of "remainings" seem to be equivalent to one or more of "remainder", "remains", or "remnants". So the only way I would see to mention it would be in a usage note mentioning that this word is not used as a gerund -- but that seems like overkill. -- Visviva 10:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it you mean a gerundial sense of the plural. "My steadfastly remaining alert to postings" is a clear example of gerundial use, I think, and shows why my would analyse this as a verb. It is modified by an adverb, not an adjective, and takes the predicate "alert". The ways in which it is noun-like are:
 * that it can function as the subject of a verb or as a complement where one might expect a noun. Some types of clauses and infinitives share this, but are not called nouns.
 * it can be modified by a possessive "my" "DCDuring's". But it cannot be modified by determiners as nouns are.
 * It seems almost misleading to call an ordinary gerund a noun. Consequently, it seems as if we are better off to put a caution in the usage notes for the Noun (if there is one) or for the Verb/participle than to include a sense line for a gerund under Noun. Frankly, it seems more user friendly to include 3 usage examples under every present participle: progressive, adjectival, gerundive, though that violates our standard practice.
 * I would agree with this. What I meant to say, I think, is that I couldn't see any usage that was clearly in the nature of a gerundial noun per CGEL. However, I have now found some interesting examples. -- Visviva 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, remaining isn't a true adjective: *"very remaining". If we can all tentatively agree, then I would like to take advantage of the attention to make this an illustration of how we might present this more fully than the bare participle entries that we have. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To give folks something to agree to or disagree with, I have added usage examples for the use of the participle to make a progressive form of the verb, as a gerund, and as a participial adjective. I hope that helps users understand why we don't need adjective and noun PoSs to accommodate most usage of "-ing" forms like this. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good model. -- Visviva 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * There is an interesting pattern of use found chiefly in archaic and theological writings, with a dash of 19th-century usage among that period's cognoscenti of constipation. It appears to be an uncountable gerundial noun, meeting 3 of the 4 CGEL criteria for nounishness (viz. taking "of", "the", and adjectives).  Have added three cites accordingly. -- Visviva 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks for the cites, Visviva, as well as for the information on the CGEL criteria. —Ruakh TALK 18:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2011–January 2012
Rfv-sense: only adjective sense. I'd have said 'clear widespread use' but I wasn't bold enough to detag the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree that this sense is in clearly widespread use, but it doesn't "feel" like an adjective to me. On the other hand, several dictionaries (including various incarnations of Cambridge, Macmillan, and Encarta) do have it as an adjective; and the attested is apparently  rather than . And I believe that  argued that when a participle precedes and modifies a noun, that's adjective use in and of itself, though I'm really not sure if he's right about that. I think we might as well leave it here for a month to see if anyone has any brilliant cites to call attention to; if not, then move to RFD. —Ruakh TALK 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Passed as clearly in widespread use. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:remaining


text:
Talk:hourslong

Request for verification
I appreciate the citations, but is this a recent spelling of hours long or just a scanno/typo? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking. The word seems like standard English to me, just like monthslong, yearslong, and so on. The words "hours" and "long" have been combined to form an adjective. It might be a typo if the two words were being used in their normal way without a space, like "Such-and0such was two hourslong," but the citations show they aren't being used that way. It would be better if the citations spanned more than a year, but it's clear that this word can be easily attested. Dominic·t 05:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, retracted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:hourslong


text:
attualizzazione

Noun

 * 1) update
 * 2) actualizing

title: attualizzazione


text:
Talk:oograh

Request for verification
Appears to have google hits as a name, but not as an English term, though I admit I was not particularly thorough. - Amgine/talk 04:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Decided to delete; the anon is clearly yanking my chain. - Amgine/talk 04:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:oograh


text:
Talk:gunsel

gunsel
I'd clean it up myself but don't know whether it's accurate. Rod (A. Smith) 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Both sound unlikely. Move to RFV?  --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The first sense has been used by Ellery Queen and Dashiel Hammett; it is in the Oxford Thesaurus. The second sense checks out too, but might a bit harder to find citations of use. Robert Ullmann 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 * User:Ruakh has done some research for this, looks better now --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification
"A small man carrying a large gun"? Is this the same as the hoodlum sense? Equinox ◑ 20:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Never heard of it. Sounds like someone's idea of a joke. I look forward to the sooner of the arrival of the verification or September 29. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 19:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Failed; see Wiktionary:Requests for verification?diff=7107262. —Ruakh TALK 02:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Original source?
This definition cites two different sources which both point their information back to the (presumably) same 1965 article describing Hammett's intentional use of "gunsel" to fool an editor into thinking it meant "gunman". But what is that original article? It'd be nice if we could cite that source. Once added, I'd suggesting keeping the two already existing sources as they show that the original source has been held to be credible over time. 67.183.110.101 10:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Synonyms
The 1940s period dialogue from the film Hammett (1982, the author is the detective) gives this list of synonyms: "catamite", "nance", "fairy", "punk". Varlaam (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August 2007–November 2009
I'd clean it up myself but don't know whether it's accurate. Rod (A. Smith) 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Both sound unlikely. Move to RFV?  --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The first sense has been used by Ellery Queen and Dashiel Hammett; it is in the Oxford Thesaurus. The second sense checks out too, but might a bit harder to find citations of use. Robert Ullmann 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 * User:Ruakh has done some research for this, looks better now --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:gunsel


text:
Talk:bouquinism

Request for verification
bouquin is in French, but bouquinism in English? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just going to delete it - three dodgy Google hits. SemperBlotto 18:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The word bouquiniste for book-seller does exist in French, but I would not be sure concerning bouquinisme, which is much rarer. It's probably a joke, the word is not even correctly written (bouqinism). 86.69.154.232 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence deleted, Mglovesfun (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:bouquinism


text:
Talk:blag

Request for verification
" To brag on one’s blog." Equinox ◑ 19:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 * XKCD 148, 181, 124, 442, and especially 239, oh and....
 * Wait, you were probably asking that seriously, weren't you? - Amgine/talk 04:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I can't stand xkcd. Yes, I wondered whether this meets CFI or not. Equinox ◑ 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * blog-blag-brag An interesting etym for the phrase, follow the link.
 * How to blag your way into homosexuality?: completely strange usage, follows no historical pattern I've ever heard.
 * a blag: a blog brag: Title and example of a classic blag.
 * Brag Blog Entry: an ironic outline of a classic blag.
 * Fender's BLAG: again, a premeditated blag.
 * I should probably have looked for durably archived examples, but this seemed sillier/more descriptive. - Amgine/talk 03:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't have too much luck with finding attestation. Lots of scannos for blog, some possible other meanings, including a UK slang term. DCDuring TALK 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the noun form of the word is worth reviewing too: " A blog featuring copious bragging." It looks like these forms of the word have become more popular since someone last tried to add it here. There is an urban dictionary entry, and several self-proclaimed blags: (sorry for the lack of links; I can't hyperlink without creating an account) These are just a few of the search results I've found. Any objections? --70.39.231.177 14:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BlagHag's blog (which has been moved here )
 * BlaggBlogg
 * Krisjet's Blag
 * Nursultan's Pirate Blag
 * Blig Blag Blog

RFC discussion: July 2011–August 2017
The entry for this UK (?) colloquial term apparently has many senses. Which ones are transitive? Which intransitive? Which both? Can the wording be made to reflect those facts? Usage examples would help. Some of the senses seem generalizable/mergeable. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, there's a lot of overlap. I would merge some of these. I think it's always transitive. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Merged --WF on Holiday (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–April 2023
Humorous misspelling of. The xkcd Webcomic is given as a source... not promising... Equinox ◑ 15:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See also this comic shortly afterwards. Both strips are from 2006, so the fad may have come and gone by now, but old uses are still valid uses. I see plenty of hits on google for "on my blag", which is just one of many possible phrases to search.  It may have appeared as filler text on some websites, since a subset of the results are very similar to each other, but I didnt look very deeply into it. — Soap — 10:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cited. Binarystep (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

RFV Passed, seems very marginal though. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:blag


text:
Talk:Amerimanga

Request for verification
Plausible. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks attestable; I'll do it later if nobody else has. Note I have moved it to the capitalised version, which seems commoner. Equinox ◑ 12:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Cited. Equinox ◑ 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck out. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Amerimanga


text:
Talk:oojie-boojie

Request for verification
A baby noise. Equinox ◑ 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Google gets 31 hits for this' about half of those are not English and this sense isn't even the most common one - oojie-boojie to mean "nonsense, rubbish" seems more common, but even that just seems like a made-up-on-the-spot sort of word. No durable cites of any kind in any language. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:oojie-boojie


text:
attuario

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) actuary

title: attuario


text:
Talk:net-tario

Request for verification
Ding dong, the link in the entry is dead. And I can't find it anywhere else. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The existence of nettario in Italian doesn't help, but I too am stuck on zero cites. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:net-tario


text:
katolík

Noun

 * 1) Catholic member of a Catholic church

title: katolík


text:
katolický

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) Catholic

title: katolický


text:
Talk:giant tortoise

Request for verification
Is this an official name or just a [[giant]] [[tortoise]]. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is an "official" name (like African elephant), so I've tidied the entry a bit (but it needs more).   D b f  i  r  s   20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for edit conflict. Feel free to merge or delete the two senses now there. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving the entry. (I should have said like miniature poodle rather than African elephant).    D b f  i  r  s   21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, struck out. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:giant tortoise


text:
attutimento

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) damping

title: attutimento


text:
Talk:deshopper

Request for verification
Looks like a protologism that didn't catch on. Equinox ◑ 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 69 Google hits for this, only one of them actually uses it in a sentence rather than just a definition. And that's not a durably archived source, so yet again, I'm stuck on zero. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Added 3. They weren't very hard to find (Google Scholar + news archives turned up plenty), but usage does seem to be restricted to British market research and occasional UK news stories. -- Visviva 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:deshopper


text:
Talk:fangoriously

Request for verification
The sense "Done with fangs." - none of the citations really attest it.

Furthermore! All citations seem to be references to the Strong Bad e-mail (complete with the word "gelatinous"); furthermore, one citation seems to note the word as simply one in a nonsensical stream-of-consciousness, and the other citation comes from a dead URL. All in all, a very doubtful word.

(Also a note: the [Homestar Runner Wiki] notes that there is a horror magazine, Fangoria, and the word in the original Strong Bad e-mail might have been coined as a reference to it. )

Korodzik 19:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 * For the reasons given, this definitely needs better citations if we are to keep it; and I doubt that they are to be found. Equinox ◑ 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2/3 citations given are not durably archived. The Yale Herald citation, if in print and retained at a Yale University library, may be considered such. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added another citation from the academic Journal of Childrens Literature. I believe this is published by the Childrens Literature Assembly and Yale University. (That specific article is in turn cited by one in The Lion and the Unicorn, from John Hopkins University.) However the context only indicates the word to be "horrifying". Leki 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is still a rather useless citation, since it only quotes the original Strong Bad Email, so it just mentions the word rather than using it. Korodzik 06:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Korodzik. I removed the RFD tag (it seems you opened both nominations under the same terms) to avoid duplicate discussions and confusion. Once the RFV is over, feel free to add the RFD tag back. Leki 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well has this been cited or not? I'd say no, so fail but I don't feel sure enough to delete it myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:fangoriously


text:
Transwiki talk:Kensington Princesses

Request for verification
I don't see any idiomatic references (I checked Google books). It seems to be just "sum of parts". Goldenrowley 02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted by Goldenrowley. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Transwiki talk:Kensington Princesses


text:
Talk:depanelisation

Request for verification
Not seeing this anywhere. Equinox ◑ 19:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Huh, I don't know what happened there. I got no results in my initial searches, but I can now see two Google Groups matches. So maybe we could just about pass it. Equinox ◑ 19:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Moved to the far commoner depanelization:; this spelling is still not attestable. Equinox ◑ 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:depanelisation


text:
outspell

Verb

 * 1)  To spell better than.
 * He could outspell anybody at school.

title: outspell


text: outspells

title: outspells


text: outspelling

title: outspelling


text: outspelled

title: outspelled


text:
ანგარი

Etymology 1
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) hangar

Etymology 2
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  avaricious, greedy

Etymology
Of the same origin as 🇨🇬. For the sound correspondence compare beside, also from Iranian.

Noun

 * 1) avaricious, greedy

title: ანგარი


text: voidees

title: voidees


text: νίκην

title: νίκην


text: νίκῃ

title: νίκῃ


text: monégasques

title: monégasques


text: Monégasques

title: Monégasques


text: νίκας

title: νίκας


text:
Talk:lizard

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: "lizard skin". I can only find this sense used attributively, as in "lizard shoes", "lizard boots", "lizard belt"; I cannot find it used on its own to mean a lizard skin. --EncycloPetey 03:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * So, then, are you RFV-ing the lack of a sense-label? If so, I think we can dispense with the full-month wait period, and just add the label. :-)   —Ruakh TALK 02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's sounds like a workable solution that I can kick myself for not having thought of. --EncycloPetey 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems okay, so striking out. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:lizard


text:
Transwiki talk:Jersey Slore

Request for verification
Used on the internet and music, but from citable sources? Goldenrowley 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC) RFV failed deleted. Goldenrowley 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Transwiki talk:Jersey Slore


text: νικῶν

title: νικῶν


text:
Talk:Arctic

Request for verification
There are mixed adjectives and nouns in translations, need to separate. --Anatoli 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * 'd, thanks. —Ruakh TALK 02:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arctic


text:
Talk:evadite

Request for verification
Rfv-sense on both English senses. I found it used once in Google books English, but not in this sense, and it was in italics? Perhaps used more in French. Goldenrowley 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never come across it in French (not good in Scrabble for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, senses removed. —Ruakh TALK 23:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:evadite


text:
Talk:Amsterdamize

Request for verification
Um hum. Equinox ◑ 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I found one additional use, in this 1999 issue of Orion Afield. However, both this and the Mirror article are quoting one Ms. Claire Morrissette of Montreal, so this still only counts for one independent use. No evidence that it has been used with this specific meaning by anyone else, despite the existence of a (fairly prominent?) cycling website by this name. There are some one-off uses for other senses, but overall it looks like a fail:. -- Visviva 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Striking. Equinox ◑ 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Amsterdamize


text:
Transwiki talk:Helsmat

Request for verification
This one warrants questioning. Goldenrowley 03:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

'''RFV failed. Deleted.''' Goldenrowley 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

title: Transwiki talk:Helsmat


text:
Talk:stridewallop

Request for verification
Ironically, the reference at the bottom of the page indicates that it's a made-up word. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 * At best, this can go in the "dictionary-only" appendix. SemperBlotto 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I added this entry and the one below ("fornale"), based on the Daily Telegraph article. If that isn't a reliable source, please go ahead and delete the entries. [There are several other "words" in the Daily Telegraph article that are also worth investigating.] Axl 07:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is evidence of the word being mentioned, but we need evidence of it being naturally used (without the need to explain what it means). SemperBlotto 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Okay, thank you. Axl 07:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Does this help? Axl 09:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * It doesn’t, I’m afraid. Whilst that is a useful supporting reference for the accuracy of our definition, it does nothing to verify the term’s existence. Please see WT:CFI, especially the section concerning attestation. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Media invention to sell a book. Equinox ◑ 17:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:stridewallop


text:
Talk:girlsy

Request for verification
As synonym for girly:. Equinox ◑ 01:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 15:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:girlsy


text:
површина

Noun

 * 1) surface

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) surface
 * 2)  area

title: површина


text:
Talk:skrill

Request for verification
Supposed to mean money:. I couldn't find anything in the first few pages of Google book search. SemperBlotto 07:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I did a Google search for "some skrill" and found quite a few apparent uses, though I didn't take the time to work out what subset/nationality of people is using the term. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 07:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - I'll assume good faith. SemperBlotto 07:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:skrill


text:
Talk:compilator

Request for verification
Rfv-sense - computing sense. Surely this is only ever compiler:. SemperBlotto 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Creator appears to have simply copied everything over from compiler, as s/he has also done for a couple of other entries. The sense could be deleted out of hand IMO, but I'll take a look and see if there is any chance of attestation. -- Visviva 10:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Appears 3 times on Google Patents, and once on WIPO PatentScope. Inventors are uniformly from non-English-speaking countries, viz. Japan, France, Norway and Sweden. So it could be cited, but frankly I'm not sure we'd be doing anyone a service. -- Visviva 10:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 * OK - I'll get rid of it. SemperBlotto 10:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:compilator