text:
Talk:devil take the hindmost

This phrase reminds me of the German one den Letzten beißen die Hunde which it resembles structurally. But the latter's meaning differs significantly - namely, the last one suffers the biggest damage. Does any native German speaker find it suitable for translation here? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not the meaning I learned
This is something my father (RIP) used to say when he was angry. I was about to quote him in a letter just now and decided I would look it up. I was surprised to see the theme of selfishness running through the interpretations. That's not how I understood it at all. It was instead a fighting stance, akin to 'come hell or highwater', which he also used to say, but not as much. The difference is that the latter was, as the words themselves indicate, a vow against whatever Fate or Nature might bring. The former are fighting words, a defense of principle against other humans, without regard to the consequences. This idea that it meant every man for himself and the poor, or the slow, get the worst would have been anathema to Dad, and diametrically opposed to how he in fact spent his life.

So I guess I want to say that this is an alternate, perhaps minority, interpretation. It may even be of more recent creation. And that's ok. Language is not static, no matter what Justice Scalia said. Natcolley (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

take
Is this an imperative sentence? --Backinstadiums (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:devil take the hindmost


text:
peisible

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) peaceful

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

title: peisible


text: Category:Old French terms suffixed with -ible


text: statischt

title: statischt


text: statischer

title: statischer


text:
onveranderlijk

Adjective

 * 1) invariable, immutable
 * 2) constant, unchanging

title: onveranderlijk


text: onveranderlijker

title: onveranderlijker


text: onveranderlijkst

title: onveranderlijkst


text: veranderlijkst

title: veranderlijkst


text: veranderlijker

title: veranderlijker


text:
korento

Etymology
From (compare dialectal, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬).

Noun

 * 1) dragonfly, mayfly
 * 2) cowlstaff

title: korento


text:
Talk:master's degree

Wow. Very poor definition. Will work on that now... Tooironic 11:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:master's degree


text: master's degrees

title: master's degrees


text:
respectief

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) respective

Usage notes

 * respectievelijk is more commonly used than respectief's adjective form in addition to its adverbial usage

title: respectief


text: Category:Finnish terms suffixed with -oida


text: dijken

title: dijken


text: dijkje

title: dijkje


text: dijkjes

title: dijkjes


text: Category:Finnish terms prefixed with ergo-


text: Category:Finnish terms suffixed with -metri


text:
foeilelijk

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) shamefully ugly, extremely ugly

title: foeilelijk


text: foeilelijker

title: foeilelijker


text: foeilelijkst

title: foeilelijkst


text: peñas

title: peñas


text:
checkout chick

Etymology
From +.

Noun

 * 1)  A supermarket cashier.
 * 2) * 2005, Anna Krien, Trouble on the Night Shift, Robert Dessaix (editor), The Best Australian Essays 2005, |%22checkout+chicks%22+-intitle:%22chick%22+-inauthor:%22%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UqgiT8CgDYSQiQeo25H9BA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22checkout%20chick%22|%22checkout%20chicks%22%20-intitle%3A%22chick%22%20-inauthor%3A%22%22&f=false page 305,
 * Checkout chicks are hassled into letting their family pass through the register without paying.
 * Checkout chicks are hassled into letting their family pass through the register without paying.

Usage notes
Usually refers to a female cashier, but may also be used of a male.

title: checkout chick


text:
doloir

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to suffer
 * 2) to inflict pain or suffering
 * 1) to inflict pain or suffering
 * 1) to inflict pain or suffering

title: doloir


text: checkout chicks

title: checkout chicks


text:
foei

Interjection

 * 1) bah!, fie!

title: foei


text:
Talk:checkout chick

I've tried my best, despite my suckiness at English entry formatting. Feel free to modify as needed. Tooironic 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:checkout chick


text:
brasilenyne

Noun

 * 1)  A heterocyclic derivative of an alkyne, isolated from digestive gland of the sea hare, that shows antifeedant activity

title: brasilenyne


text:
Presley

Etymology
The English surname is usually a variant of, from +. Equivalent to.

The place-name in Scotland may be from, equivalent to 🇨🇬 + 🇨🇬.

Translations

 * Arabic: بْرِيسْلِي, بْرِيسْلِي
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 普雷斯利
 * Japanese: プレスリー
 * Korean: ^프레슬리
 * Russian:

title: Presley


text:
verfoeien

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to feel hatred and disgust for; to abhor

title: verfoeien


text:
cowlstaff

Etymology
, from, diminutive of , +. .

Noun

 * 1) A staff used to carry a cowl or other burden, especially held by two people on their shoulders.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Finnish:
 * Ingrian: korenta
 * Spanish:

title: cowlstaff


text: wezens

title: wezens


text: wezentje

title: wezentje


text: adcumulo

title: adcumulo


text: huishoudens

title: huishoudens


text: blechier

title: blechier


text:
saltatie

Etymology
From.

title: saltatie


text: saltaties

title: saltaties


text:
rubriek

Etymology
From, from , from , the substance used to make red letters, from , from.

Noun

 * 1)  a title, header or written character, in particular one written in red
 * 2)  red pigment
 * 1)  red pigment

title: rubriek


text: rubriekje

title: rubriekje


text: rubrieken

title: rubrieken


text: esforcer

title: esforcer


text: saltations

title: saltations


text: cowlstaffs

title: cowlstaffs


text:
rubriceren

Verb

 * 1) to divide into sections; to bring under headings; to classify into different subjects

title: rubriceren


text:
besmuikt

Etymology
From, from. The prefix was added as phonetic contamination from the past participle of. Compare also the related verbs and, all ultimately from.

Adjective

 * 1) secret, secretive

title: besmuikt


text: besmuikter

title: besmuikter


text: accusso

title: accusso


text:
ensisuoja

Noun

 * 1) shelter for homeless alcoholics

title: ensisuoja


text: Category:Finnish terms prefixed with ensi-


text:
dwaalgeest

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) heretic, apostate, one with heterodox views

title: dwaalgeest


text: Category:Finnish terms prefixed with eto-


text: dwaalgeestje

title: dwaalgeestje


text: dwaalgeesten

title: dwaalgeesten


text:
continuable

Adjective

 * 1) Able to be continued.

Translations

 * German:

title: continuable


text:
taitotieto

Noun

 * 1) know-how

title: taitotieto


text: Category:Finnish terms prefixed with nyky-


text:
respit

Noun

 * 1)  respite

Etymology
From, from the verb.

Noun

 * 1)  rest (physical rest)

Synonyms

 * (in certain cases)

title: respit


text: respiting

title: respiting


text: respited

title: respited


text:
irié

Etymology
, from

Adjective

 * 1) enraged; furious; livid

title: irié


text: semi-supination

title: semi-supination


text:
祭司

Noun

 * 1)  priest

Noun

 * 1) priest

title: 祭司


text:
教士

Noun

 * 1)  clergyperson

title: 教士


text:
prostatotomy

Noun

 * 1)  An operation to remove the prostate.

title: prostatotomy


text: prostatotomies

title: prostatotomies


text:
-ned

Etymology
From.

title: -ned


text:
-nöd

Etymology
From.

title: -nöd


text:
-anod

Etymology
From.

title: -anod


text:
incapacitative

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to being incapacitated.
 * 2) * 1989, Justice Blackmun in Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361
 * [I]t states that punishment should serve retributive, educational, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

title: incapacitative


text:
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-03/Including particular individuals

Including particular individuals

 * Voting on: Performing any of the following three actions concerning the inclusion of particular individuals, with an independent subvote for each of the actions.
 * Action 1: Renaming the section "Names of specific entities" to "Names of particular individuals" in WT:CFI
 * Action 2: Adding a new paragraph to the end of the section "Names of specific entities" or "Names of particular individuals" in CFI:
 * For the inclusion of a sense-line dedicated to a particular human individual under a space-free name or surname of the individual, it suffices that an inclusion-worthy adjective derived from the space-free name or surname can refer to the individual, his times, his work, or his thought, as is the case with Aristotle and Aristotelian, Pericles and Periclean, Newton and Newtonian, and Gogol and Gogolian.
 * Action 3: Adding a new paragraph to the end of the section "Names of specific entities" or "Names of particular individuals" in CFI:
 * For the inclusion of a sense-line dedicated to a particular individual—including people and places—under a space-free name, it suffices that the individual is invoked figuratively under that name.
 * The new inclusion rules state new sufficient conditions for inclusion, so they enlarge or keep the same the scope of included particular individuals, without having the power to exclude any individual included by another rule. This proposal says nothing about the inclusion-worthiness of all place names and all particular places under these place names, leaving this question open.
 * By giving his vote for support, the voter only supports the voting-on part while possibly disagreeing with the justification and the notes.
 * For reference, the current "Names of specific entities" section is a subsection of the "Names" section, and reads, in whole:
 * A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning. For example: New York is included because “New York” is used attributively in phrases like “New York delicatessen”, to describe a particular sort of delicatessen. A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included. Lower Hampton, Sears Tower, and George Walker Bush thus should not be included. Similarly, whilst Jefferson (an attested family name word with an etymology that Wiktionary can discuss) and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not.
 * Justification
 * It seems worthwhile--an unarticulated justification that gives up breaking down the justification into further components.
 * Some dictionaries include these classes of individuals, such as Merriam-and-Webster online including under "London" several cities and Jack London; Century 1911 has an appendix called Cyclopedia that includes numerous individual people and individual places, even individual events, with pronunciation.
 * The inclusion of these may seem a bit encyclopedic, but the lines or sentences so included are not largely encyclopedic, serving merely to identify the given individual and state some of the most notable features of the individual, without going into a detailed extensive biographical information as found in an encyclopedia; such a specifying line is typically no longer than a definition of a common noun such as "liquid". Let us recall that even definitions of concepts or classes such as "gold" contain some extra-definition elements such as the typical color rather than merely stating the atomic number of "gold".
 * The new inclusion rules are rather moderate in their further opening the gates of the Wiktionary city; they are much more moderate than an almost-passed 2007 vote to include several broad classes of place names. Nevertheless, the new inclusion rules do not in any way prevent a future addition of an allowance for a huge set of place names.
 * Notes
 * The intent of the nominator is to have as many of the three proposed actions accepted as possible.
 * The rule in the Action 2 is an analogue of the preexisting rule of attributive use, albeit for humans, for whom the reason why the name if often not used attributively is that there is an adjective for the purpose of attributive use, so it is "Aristotelian physics" rather than "Aristotle physics".
 * The rule in the Action 2 is constrained to human individuals, to prevent opening gates for obscure villages, in the hope that it makes the rule acceptable to a broader set of voters.
 * The rule in the Action 3 uses the term "figuratively" rather than "metaphorically", which makes it broader by including not only the figure of metaphor but also the figure of metonym and other figures.
 * The rules do not replace the preexisting rule about the inclusion of attributively used particular individuals; they add to the rule.
 * The proposed rules use the term "particular individual" rather than "specific entity", in constrast to a name and a class.
 * If you as a voter disagree with a particular formulation or choice of words, and you think the formulation can be improved, please consider proposing a specific correction to the wording of the formulation that would be acceptable for you.
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 24:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Vote created: Dan Polansky 13:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-03/Including particular individuals
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour: Vote on the inclusion of particular_individuals, March 2010

Support action 1 - renaming the section on specific entities

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Dan Polansky 08:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) as nominator. An explanation is missing: "entity" ambiguously refers to both classes and individuals, unlike "individual". While "individual" is often used to mean "human individual", there is also the broader meaning of "individual", by which "the cat over there" refers to an individual, as does "that car". --Dan Polansky 08:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Stephen 12:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Anatoli 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose action 1 - renaming the section on specific entities

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose all three. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, it should not include any encyclopedic content. Inclusion of these would not accomplish anything that a dictionary is supposed to accomplish. --Yair rand 00:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary should IMHO include topical categories, and images. These are not a strictly dictionary content. General language dictionaries usually do not have images, and when they do, they include images only in a fraction of entries, for printing space constraints. However, images are useful for answering such questions as "what is cat" or "what does 'cat'" mean, an analogue of which are the questions "what is Socrates" and "what does 'Confucius' mean", to which the answer "'Confucius' is a given name" is not much more adequate than "'cat' is a noun". --Dan Polansky 07:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also support having topic categories, as they are useful for sorting words (being words, not the concepts themselves), and also images, as they are often better at explaining the meaning of a word than a definition. Giving "definitions" of specific entities bearing specific names in the name's entry however, is completely encyclopedic, having nothing whatsoever to do with the word itself. It is, effectively, turning Wiktionary into a "mini-Wikipedia", giving information on a concept rather than the properties of a word. The word/name "Confucius" has nothing to do with anyone who happens to bear the name. If people want to know about a concept, an entity, a person, then they should go to Wikipedia, which was built for explaining concepts, rather than Wiktionary, which was built for explaining words. --Yair rand 08:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "they are useful for sorting words (being words, not the concepts themselves)": Topical categories sort the concepts or meanings, not the syntactic forms of words. Category:Trees does not sort words by the grammatical or syntactic properties, nor does the Category:Chemistry.
 * Re 'Giving "definitions" of specific entities bearing specific names in the name's entry however, is completely encyclopedic, having nothing whatsoever to do with the word itself.' That is a bit of an overstatement, isn't it? Do you really think that "A long African river flowing through Khartoum and Cairo in Africa into the Mediterranean Sea" has nothing whatsoever to do with the word "Nile" itself? If this is not what the word "Nile" means, then the word "Nile" means nothing wahtsoever, if you ask me. --Dan Polansky 08:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I happen to think that place name definitions should have nothing more to them then "A place name", perhaps a little more if translations differ by place, such as in New York, but overall similar to surname definitions. So, in answer to your question, yes, I do think it has nothing to do with it. Either way, the question about Nile is not the same as the question being posed by this vote, because Nile is only the name of one place, AFAIK. --Yair rand 08:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, "Nile" is not directly discussed here, but Nile highlights your overall position on the senses of proper nouns more than "Confucius" does. You want every single individual excluded, including the river of Nile under "Nile" and the U.K. city of London under "London". You do not ask any delicate question about the delineation; you support the simplest delineation possible: "no individuals" or "no specific entities". General language dictionaries often do not take this extreme position. --Dan Polansky
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. — msh210 ℠ 16:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  This wording is unclear or misleading. Why would a reader look at this and not interpret individual in the usual way? —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 20:50 z
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Conrad.Irwin 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I do not interpret "individual" except as a human. Conrad.Irwin 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a noun sense as in “the sardines school, but the barracuda swims as an individual,” but the proposed wording doesn't read this way. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 00:59 z
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose EncycloPetey 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Daniel. 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  I think "individual" is more confusing. --Bequw → τ 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose —Ruakh TALK 18:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose —Ruakh TALK 18:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Abstain action 1 - renaming the section on specific entities

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain No strong feelings – this is a minor wording change, unlike the more substantive other sections. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain No strong feelings – this is a minor wording change, unlike the more substantive other sections. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support action 2 - inclusion based on adjectives

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Dan Polansky 08:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) as nominator.
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Stephen 12:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Anatoli 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support It's basically the same as the attributive use criterion. As others have said before me, proper nouns just aren't used attributively in some languages. In Finnish we would create an adjective: Helsinki - helsinkiläinen.--Makaokalani 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose action 2 - inclusion based on adjectives

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Yair rand 00:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  Words are defined in the dictionary, while people are described in an encyclopedia. Where people's proper names serve as etymons, they are mentioned in the etymology and may link to the encyclopedia. Also, “space-free name” has no lexicographical significance. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 20:57 z
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose EncycloPetey 01:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC) There is a principle here that I agree with, but the wording proposed would allow for any situation where an individual is referred to by surname, which would mean that every player on a professional sports team in the US would probably qualify, as newspapers routinely refer to players by surname only.  The proposal is too broad. --EncycloPetey 01:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of what you mean? This option requires the existence of an adjective for inclusion. Are there surnames of players that give rise to adjectives? --Dan Polansky 08:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me highlight the bracketing, which I hoped was clear but maybe it was not: "...that an inclusion-worthy adjective derived from the space-free ( name or surname ) can refer to the individual, ..."; it is solely the adjective that can refer to the individual, an adjective that is derived from name or from surname. Unfortunately, natural language does not support brackets in this way. Maybe these should have been two rules, to make it clearer. --Dan Polansky 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] I'm not entirely sure what the ramifications are of this proposal if passed, but I think I don't like many of them. — msh210 ℠ 16:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Daniel. 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I prefer to use the Etymology section to explain who is the person. --Daniel. 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just that Czech "Platón" for "Plato" may not get included at all so there will be no etymology section, because "Platón" is not a given name. In Czechia there is a regulation on the assignment of given names AFAIK. There is the adjective "platonický", but there is no such a thing as attributive use other than through adjectives. --Dan Polansky 15:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose “Newtonian” is fine, and can refer to Sir Issac in the etymology section – it neither requires nor justifies a “Newton” entry. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  per others. --Bequw → τ 15:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose —Ruakh TALK 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Abstain action 2 - inclusion based on adjectives

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Conrad.Irwin 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I would like to include people if they have citable charactaristics, I don't think an etymologically related adjective is the same.
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Conrad.Irwin 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I would like to include people if they have citable charactaristics, I don't think an etymologically related adjective is the same.

Support action 3 - inclusion based on figurative use

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Dan Polansky 08:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) as nominator.
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Stephen 12:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Anatoli 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support This would justify biblical characters: A Daniel come to judgment. Major biblical characters should be, and have always been, defined, but I've never found out which part of the CFI refers to them.--Makaokalani 16:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. You don't need to be an Einstein to know that sometimes a person is a Benedict Arnold, while another person is a Mother Theresa. bd2412 T 17:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose action 3 - inclusion based on figurative use

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Yair rand 00:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  As above. Words that come from the figurative use of proper names are already includable (e.g. babel, Casanova, utopia, Waterloo). —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 21:02 z
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose EncycloPetey 01:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I can'r support the proposed wording, since its meaning (as worded above) is opaque.  What does "invoked figuratively" mean? --EncycloPetey 01:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would "invoked metaphorically" be cleared? That would exclude metonymical invocations. Or is the problem also with the term "invoke"? Would "... if the individual is referred to metaphorically invoked figuratively under that name" be better? What phrasing would you propose, if any? --Dan Polansky 11:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] I'm not entirely sure what the ramifications are of this proposal if passed, but I think I don't like many of them. — msh210 ℠ 16:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose “Casanova” is fine as noun meaning “philanderer”, and can refer to Giovanni Giacomo in the etymology section – it neither requires nor justifies “Casanova” having a sense or section devoted to Giovanni Giacomo. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  per Nils von Barth. --Bequw → τ 15:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose  per Nils von Barth. --Bequw → τ 15:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Abstain action 3 - inclusion based on figurative use

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Conrad.Irwin 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I cannot honestly say I understand the consequences of this. (It might help if our definition of figuratively could be read without a PHD in linguistics).
 * Our definition of "figuratively" reads "in figurative manner", and our "figurative" reads "Metaphorical or tropical, as opposed to literal;...", which I would plainly specify as "non-literal", which includes metaphorical and metonymic. Had I known there were going to be a problem with the meaning of "figurative", I would have used "non-literal". "I arrived to New York at 22:06" is literal, while "The White House released its official report today" is non-literal reference to the building, as buildings cannot release reports. --Dan Polansky 15:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain. This criterion seems like it might be going in the right direction, but I think it's too vague to be very useful. Is the intent that there be three citations of figurative use? If so, then do all three citations have to be using it the same way? Should the definition indicate what the figurative use is getting at? If so, then should we have separate sense-lines for distinct figurative uses? —Ruakh TALK 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Poll: include some individuals
At least some individuals such as the river of Nile should have a dedicated sense-line in the entry under their name.
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Dan Polansky 17:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Stephen 12:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support EncycloPetey 01:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Anatoli 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Well I'm very confused as to what this poll is about and what it's for. For the record, I support having place names. Whether they should be somehow linked to some place they represent through a wp link, a WikiMiniAtlas button, a short description of attributes/location, some combination of these, or not at all, I don't know, but I do support having the names in some form or other. --Yair rand 05:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is about including individuals, and not just names. It is asking if you want to potentially include a sense line for every real and fictional person named Smith (cf. List_of_people_with_surname_Smith). —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 05:20 z
 * It is? The top says "At least some individuals such as the river of Nile should have a dedicated sense-line in the entry under their name." "Nile" is a place name, a unit of language, a word, and should be included, but lists of people named Smith (or even anyone named Smith) should not be included. DP, could you perhaps clarify what the poll is about? --Yair rand 05:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yair rand, you should strike your support under this option, as you do not want to get the river of Nile included under "Nile", merely an entry "Nile" with a sense "geographical name", if I understood correctly. And that means that the individual of the river of Nile should not have a dedicated sense-line in the entry under the name "Nile", while the name "Nile" should be included. --Dan Polansky
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Makaokalani 16:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support All words should be included. But with a definition as an individual only when it's a specific meaning of the word (e.g. Confucius, yes, because the individual is a distinct meaning of the word), Churchill, no, because the individual is not a specific meaning of the word, the word just happens to be his surname). Pairs (France) and Paris (Texas) are also different, specific, meanings of the word Paris. Lmaltier 21:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If Paris, France and Paris, Texas are two “senses” of the term Paris, how is it that Winston Churchill and Odette Churchill are not? People and places are specific referents, not “senses” of a word. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 22:19 z
 * Generally speaking, no specific linguistic data about a surname can be associated to each of the individuals sharing this surname (but there might be different surnames, with different etymologies but the same spelling), except in same particular cases, such as derived adjectives. Actually, surnames are not really proper nouns. On the other hand, placenames are proper nouns: each of the towns sharing this name may have its specific etymology and/or pronunciation and/or demonyms, etc. Lmaltier 22:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So specifically speaking, what is the basis for the statement that the two Parises constitute “different, specific, meanings?” I don't see where the logic comes from, but if we follow it then we will need to add about 20 to 30 “senses” for this name (see Paris (disambiguation)), all of which can be covered by a single phrase in the etymology “and other places named after the French capital”. —Michael Z. 2010-03-11 17:33 z
 * Exactly, and this is not a problem. Wiktionary pages often look like Wikipedia disambiguation pages, and this is normal. Several senses are required for Paris because of differences of pronunciation, demonyms, etymology...: all this may be different because they are not the same sense, these different proper names are related only etymologically. On the other hand, several people named Churchill because they are parents share the same surname, with the same pronunciation, etc. because the relation is not only etymological, it's really the same word. Lmaltier 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either a city Paris or a person Churchill may inherit their name from another city or person, and we may pronounce the inherited name the same way or differently as the eponym's (in fact many toponyms, surnames, and indeed common nouns, are pronounced variously in the same language). No distinction.
 * So if you were to answer my question, which of those “differences of pronunciation, demonyms, etymology” would you say apply to the case of Paris (France) and Paris (Texas)? —Michael Z. 2010-03-11 21:33 z
 * Is pronunciation the same? Probably, according to Paris, but I'm not sure it applies to all cities with this name. Is the same word used for inhabitants? I don't know (this is missing in the page). But there is a difference in etymology, of course: the name of Paris (Texas) has been suggested by Paris (France). In some cases, even when both etymology and pronunciation are common, there are many different words for inhabitants: see fr:Beaulieu for a striking example. Lmaltier 22:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * to be clearer: Paris (Texas) and Paris (France) have different senses, this is obvious: people from Texas don't feel they live in France... On the other hand, everybody named Churchill know they belong to the same family, Churchill is not the name of an individual, but of the whole family sharing this surname. But Confucius is the name of an individual, not of a family. Lmaltier 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That information is already in the entry. You'd add another 20 “senses” because they share the etymology “after the French city,” or to spare the feelings of the residents? This is burying the entry with material from Wikipedia, while adding zero lexicographical information. It's a dictionary, not a gazetteer. —Michael Z. 2010-03-11 22:57 z
 * Not a question of feeling. I was only explaining that senses were different. And I'm 100% against being a gazeeter, too. Lmaltier 06:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither Odette nor Winston objected to being called Churchill, defined only as a surname, nor are those French or Texans bothered if you say they're from Paris, defined as a place name—we're not saying Texans are from France, we're saying the name of their Paris is Paris. The referents are different, but the senses of the term are the same: “surname (derived from church and hill),” “(place name (after Paris, France).” If there are individual details of etymology, then they would be mentioned in the etymology anyway. If there is a solitary difference in pronunciation, it can belong in a usage note. But there is not much lexicographical difference between a surname and a place name. A dictionary's entries and definitions represent terms and meanings, not individual things, people, and places. One entry & definition can link to a Wikipedia disambiguation page listing many referents, while a Wikipedia article about a thing links to a Wiktionary entry which may list many synonyms. —Michael Z. 2010-03-12 20:36 z
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] See my comments regarding this poll on |the talkpage (search the page for Morse theory). — msh210 ℠ 18:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support. I don't agree with the example given — I don't think  should have any entry at all — but I feel that some entries should have sense lines for "individuals". For example, it seems ridiculous to define  as a place name. —Ruakh TALK 03:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not ask whether "the river of Nile" should be an entry; of course it should not. I ask whether the river of Nile should have a dedicated sense line in the entry "Nile". Your note on "Mercury" clarifies what you mean, and thus it seems that you indeed agree. --Dan Polansky 07:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you ask only about "the entry under their name", so I do disagree with at least part: if we include an "individual" at a certain entry, it should not be because the individual warrants inclusion and that happens to be a name for it. Rather, it should be because the name warrants inclusion, and the only way to define it is by reference to the individual. (For example, the question of whether to include USA is independent of the question of whether to include United States of America, and the question of whether to include Persian Gulf is independent of the question of whether to include Arabian Gulf; but your poll seems to treat these questions as equivalent.) —Ruakh TALK 20:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Ruakh. This is what I tried to explain. Lmaltier 20:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see in the formulation what you are saying. My point was merely that "a geographic name" is an inadequate sense line of a geographic name, and that there is nothing wrong about referring to individual geographic entities on sense lines. But I have probably chosen a formulation that is not perfectly understandable to native English speakers. Can you please come up with a formulation of the question that would be clear to you, and with which you would agree? --Dan Polansky 09:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "At least some entries should have sense-lines dedicated to specific entities. As a possible example, maybe [[Nile]] should have a sense-line dedicated to the Nile." That is, I would present it as something an entry should have, rather than as something an individual should have. (If I wanted to be even more pedantic, I'd take it a bit further and write, "Wiktionary should have at least one sense-line, at some entry, dedicated to some specific entity. As a possible example, maybe it should have a sense-line at [[Nile]] dedicated to the Nile."; but then I start to feel like a logic puzzle rather than a person.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 14:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We should welcome all self-discovery. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2010-03-19 15:54 z

Poll: exclude all individuals
There should be no sense-lines for particular individuals; in particular, the river of Nile should be excluded from the "Nile" entry.

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  Definitions define words. Although a definition might mention a thing, it never represents it. Once you start thinking that it does, you lose track of what the dictionary is. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 02:43 z

Decision

 * Vote fails. --Yair rand 05:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In particular: --Dan Polansky 07:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Renaming the section on specific entities: fails at 3-8-1.
 * 2. Inclusion based on adjectives: fails at 4-8-1.
 * 3. Inclusion based on figurative use: fails at 5-6-2.

Discussion
This vote is horrendous, it took me a very very long time to wade through the introduction, and I still don't have a clear idea what it is supposed to do. There is a very good reason why "votes should not be called for on this page", mistakes like this highlight it brilliantly. Yes, I agree CFI is perhaps more of a mess than this vote, but much discussion is needed, not political attempts to force the problem to fit a particular set of solutions. Conrad.Irwin 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. — msh210 ℠ 16:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would the vote be improved by removing the parts "Justification" and "Notes"? Is the phrasing of the rules in the green boxes horrendous? How could the phrasing be improved to become more clear? --Dan Polansky 16:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but they are a symptom of the underlying issues. If you discuss things first, then the justification and the notes are already understood by those who are interested. Conrad.Irwin 23:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This non-specific feedback is really unhelpful. I realize that you wanted to have more time for discussion before the vote. But other than that, you have not told me what in particular you dislike about the vote as it is currently written. I can imagine that dropping the justification and the notes would make the vote so much shorter to read, and that now it is rather long, but is this the thing that you dislike? The vote was announced one week before it started, so there was some time for discussion. No one has made any specific proposal for the change of the wording of the vote during that time. --Dan Polansky 10:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two specific things then: The choices of topics seem arbitrary, though they are related, it's unconventional to list them all on one vote page. No attempt was made beforehand to find out what the actual issues are, it just comes from the thoughts and assumptions of one person (though that's not totally bad, I just find the reasoning and proposal a bit foreign). Conrad.Irwin 09:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Dan, I appreciate what you’re doing here, and think in some ways names of specific persons (individuals) can be incorporated, but including names of individual persons/locations generally is a huge can of worms. Including proper nouns (names in general: “Michael”) OTOH, seems fine to me, as it’s a word, not an individual.
 * Names of specific persons and locations is useful information to have somewhere, but is largely unrelated to other functions of Wiktionary and has different requirements, which is why it has consistently been opposed by many people. Consider for example – is it helpful for Wiktionary to have entries for all of these, or include them under “Smith”?
 * If you (or anyone) wishes to include names of specific individuals in Wiktionary, I’d suggest proposing a separate namespace, as in “Name:”, just as has been done for Wikisaurus and for protolanguages (Proto-Indo-European is in the Appendix: namespace).
 * Alternatively, this really might be better at a separate, small project: “Wikinames”, say – just as Wiktionary was spun off of Wikipedia to better handle dictionary definitions without conflicting with Wikipedia purposes, a separate project consisting of names (or commonly known) names of individuals or places may be useful (assuming it can’t be fit into ’pedia or ’tionary).
 * I think what is uncontroversial, and already common practice, is including names that are used metaphorically (Casanova) or as adjectives (Newtonian), but only mentioning the source name in the etymology, not including a separate entry for it. Thus, I think “Newtonian” is fine, but “Newton” is more fraught.
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We are never going to agree on how to treat Proper Nouns in Wiktionary. Never. The only thing we can do is to appoint me a dictator of Wiktionary and do whatever I say. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? On fr.wikt, there has been this kind of discussion a long (very long) time ago. Now, it's uncontroversial, we accept all proper nouns when they can be considered as words, and we provide linguistic data about these words, just as we do with all other words. Lmaltier 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * How do you define “considered as words?” —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 01:59 z
 * I mean: word in its linguistic sense (e.g. pomme de terre is a word). This is about the same as CFI, but including set phrases. Proper nouns are not considered as an exception. Lmaltier 07:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Does fr. treat sum-of-partness as for common nouns? E.g., would Winston or Carolina be an includable term, while Winston Churchill and South Carolina not? —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 19:49 z
 * For full names such as Winston Churchill, yes, we exclude them. But we accept placenames such as New York or South Carolina, as they are the names of places with a precise sense (e.g. North Carolina is not the North part of Carolina but a state with precise borders. They are not sum-of-parts. We would refuse North Belgium. Lmaltier 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Maybe I didn't choose the best example, but the dictionary's definition of a term or name isn't a surveyed boundary or a legal definition. The former may be undefined or disputed, the latter can change drastically over time. (The name South Carolina predates the state and the union, and it was even used before the establishment of a separate Province of South Carolina in 1663 (would Wiktionnaire include that proper name too?). “The territory of the southern Carolina colony”, although maybe not appropriate for a non-historical dictionary, is a better definition of the name South Carolina.) If you don't accept that, then I'm sure we can find names of water bodies or mountain ranges whose geographic bounds are far less precisely defined.

 * Which is a wordy way to say that legal boundaries do not explain South Carolina as being less sum-of-parts than Winston Churchill. In fact Winston Churchill (1874–1965) is a more precisely defined entity than many or most place names.

 * I'm just looking for a lexical justification to include individual places in the dictionary, but not individual people. I don't think it exists. —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 23:04 z

 * I just wanted to explain that North Carolina is not SOP. Don't you understand that full names are composed of two (or 3) words (first name + surname), and that this is a general rule, while there is no such rule for placenames (most placenames can be considered as individual words, even when there is a space inside)? But this does not make “The territory of the southern Carolina colony” a word. Lmaltier 06:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * That's one definition of the name South Carolina.

 * I do understand that many, but not all, personal names have two main parts, and geographic names follow some other patterns. Nevertheless, Carolina, Winston and Churchill are proper nouns which constitute some proper names, including Province of South Carolina, South Carolina Colony and Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill. Just like South Carolina and Winston Churchill, these are names of a place and a person. I haven't seen anyone explain logically, in lexical or lexicographical terms, why we should create entries for the names of S.C. but not for the names of W.C. —Michael Z. 2010-03-19 16:08 z

 * Assume that you've got two bicycles, you might call them the blue bicycle and the red bicycle. It's exactly the same: among all Brontës, you call your daughters Emily and Charlotte, but this does not make Charlotte Brontë a single word, no more than blue bicycle, that's a standard scheme. On the other hand, a placename is invented each time it's needed and, sometimes, e.g. in New York, there is a space in this name, but this space does not change anything to its status as a word. Lmaltier 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Seems wrong. The red bike is a common noun phrase used as a proper noun (in a specific context). I could even capitalize it like a proper name to make it more significant: the Red Bike.

 * (Please don't think that personal names are only formed with family surnames: there are variations and completely different schemes; see Personal name. Also don't mistakenly think that every Smith or every Churchill is a member of a genetic or any other set of person identified by their surname.)

 * But Patrick Brontë (the sisters' dad) and New York are each a proper name signifying a particular entity. There may be more than one P.B. and there may be completely unrelated Brontës, and Patrick did not inherit this surname from any ancestors.  There is also more than one New York (disambiguation), and plenty of York (disambiguation)s, and the Big Apple inherits its toponym indirectly from the town of York in England. The anthroponyms Patrick and Brontë, and toponym York (and qualifying new) already existed when these entities were named (renamed, in both cases). Lots of people and places also have newly-coined names.

 * All bikes are bikes. But neither all Brontës nor all Yorks necessarily share anything in common other than their name (although some Brontës and some Yorks do). I do not see a qualitative difference between the whole set of people's names and the set of places' names. —Michael Z. 2010-03-19 20:25 z

 * You cannot disagree about the following point: full names are composed of several words, not placenames (except etymologically in some cases, but this does not make a difference in their nature). Lmaltier 20:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I do not get it (I am not just trying to be difficult). Cher, Nefertiti, Charlemagne, w:O, Gollum, and Adam are one-word personal full names. In certain contexts, so are Stalin, Churchill, Obama, and Jesus. If New York is one “word,” then why aren't Mr. T, Jay-Z, Elizabeth II or The Edge.

 * North Atlantic Ocean, North America, North American Cordillera, United States of America, New York City, New York State, River Thames, Bay of Biscay, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mount Everest, and Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya are multi-word place names – some of these are sum-of-parts, some are properly named by a portion of the full name.

 * I just had a look at Wiktionnaire's handling of fr:Paris (how do I short-link that?). Paris (3) has a single definition line: “Nom de nombreux autres villes et villages du monde,” with an appended list of places. —Michael Z. 2010-03-19 22:33 z

 * What I called full names are names of the form first name + surname. Your reply is about other kinds of names... The way Paris is addressed is better than nothing, but not he best way if you think to names of innahitants, pronunications, etc. This will be improved some day. Lmaltier 06:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Well that's the point. There are all kinds of personal names, and various place names. Each person or place is a unique “individual.” For purposes of the dictionary, there is no special lexical quality unique to every place which should require us to write a definition for its every referent. The difference is encyclopedic notability.

 * And I see that fr. Wiktionary has found it perfectly adequate to write a single definition for over 40 Parises.

 * What specifically, are the problems you refer to regarding the Paris listing. Are the residents of Paris, Michigan rioting because Wiktionnaire says they live in France? Are there 40 french words for Parisians? Are there 40 pronunciations other than \pah-REE\? (Neither is this a special problem of place names: for example, anglophone Loewens and Smythes pronounce their own names variously, and we can handle this in our usual way.) I keep seeing people touting the important solution of listing a “definition” for every place, but none of them are pointing out any real problems requiring this. I remain unconvinced. —Michael Z. 2010-03-20 16:22 z
 * Each person or place is a unique “individual.”, yes. But we deal with words, not with individuals. Individuals may be mentioned in definitions when they are the meaning of the word (or one of the few meanings).
 * "fr. Wiktionary has found it perfectly adequate...": no. There were more than 20 definition lines, and a user has recently (February 2010) provided a more complete list but, unfortunately, he has also merged all of them in one definition (except the French Paris, this is inconsistent).
 * I assume that inhabitants from some of these cities called Paris are never called Parisians in English. Just have a look at fr:Beaulieu (I've already mentioned this page) to see an example where mentioning each sense is useful (8 different names for inhabitants, depending on the place, despite the fact that these places share the name name, with the same etymology).
 * I'll stop arguing, others might convince you better than me. Lmaltier 18:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see that Paris had separate definition lines in a recent edit, but was simplified a month ago. The current version is much clearer to me; and it doesn't risk losing other senses in a sea of senses for place names. The eponymous Paris is special by its etymological status, but I would probably just mention it in the etymology and/or definition rather than defining it separately from its namesakes. fr:Beaulieu demonstrates how we may need to subdivide derivatives, but this is not helped by adding a sense line for each referrent (nor would showing varying pronunciations be, I think). And of course, any Parises named after the Greek hero would belong under the other etymology. —Michael Z. 2010-03-21 23:02 z


text:
centocchio comune

Noun

 * 1) common chickweed

title: centocchio comune


text: acerbare

title: acerbare


text:
Talk:intervinieren

intervinieren or intervenieren?

title: Talk:intervinieren


text:
protrudibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) protrusile, protrusible

title: protrudibile


text:
estriver

Etymology
From,.

Verb

 * 1) to compete
 * 2) to argue; to dispute
 * 3)  to get into an argument

title: estriver


text:
putrefattibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) subject to putrefaction; putrescible

title: putrefattibile


text:
raddolcibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) that can be softened

title: raddolcibile


text:
acontizo

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to shoot a dart
 * 2)  to spout or gush forth

Conjugation

 * No perfect or supine forms.

title: acontizo


text: acontizare

title: acontizare


text:
rarefattibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) that can be rarefied; rarefiable

title: rarefattibile


text:
étriver

Etymology
, from, from.

Verb

 * 1)  to tie together two ropes with a third

title: étriver


text:
recettibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) receptive

title: recettibile


text:
recidibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) cuttable

title: recidibile


text:
reggibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) bearable, sustainable

title: reggibile


text:
reprimibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) repressible

title: reprimibile


text:
rescindibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) rescindable

title: rescindibile


text:
rescindibilità

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) property of being rescindable

title: rescindibilità


text:
riammissibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) capable of being readmitted

title: riammissibile


text: Komárek

title: Komárek


text:
riassorbibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) that can be reabsorbed; reabsorbable

title: riassorbibile


text:
ribadibile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) confirmable

title: ribadibile


text:
ricopribile

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) that can be covered; coverable

title: ricopribile


text:
Wiktionary talk:Greek adjective inflection-table templates

Some issues

 * moved here from Template_talk:el-adj — Saltmarsh απάντηση 15:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a relatively new editor here, so having my opinion asked for is very much appreciated. I believe you have covered all the adjective declension forms possible, and this certainly is a considerable improvement. Including the comparatives is also very useful for a language learner. Still, there are some practical issues that should be taken into consideration: The above is a rule that governs adjectives. Since the template concerns adjectives as such, there's no need of the accent shift in my opinion.
 * 1) Proper (αγγλικός) and absolute (μοναδικός) adjectives are not normally considered gradable.
 * 2) What is left in Modern Greek of the present participles ending in -ων / -ών, listed here as adjectives, are shown to form their genitive singular in -[ο/ό]ντος. Although not wrong in SMG, pure demoticists would insist to a -[ο/ό]ντα ending.
 * 3) Taking άσπρος and λευκός as an example, the former only forms periphrastic comparatives (πιο άσπρος, ο πιο άσπρος, πολύ άσπρος), while the latter forms both periphrastic and synthetic (πιο λευκός - λευκότερος, ο πιο λευκός - ο λευκότερος, πολύ λευκός - λευκότατος). Do the templates differentiate between the two?
 * 4) Adjectives ending in -ής, -ιά, -ί denoting colours (πορτοκαλής, σταχτής, μενεξεδής) also tend to be used indeclinably: η μενεξεδί κορδέλα, ένας πορτοκαλί κύκλος, χρώματος θαλασσί.
 * 5) Taking a look at the ενδιαφέρων template, I noticed that the accent shift pattern is applied in the genitive plural. However, this only occurs in the case of substantive adjectives / participles or adjectives / participles that have passed in the language as nouns. If the adjective / participle is attributive, post-positive or predicative, an accent shift does not occur in any of the cases:
 * Προβλήθηκε μια σειρά ενδιαφέρουσων ταινιών. Συζητήθηκε μια σειρά ενδιαφέροντων θεμάτων. Καλύπτει ένα ευρύ φάσμα ενδιαφερόντων.
 * Ο διευθυντής τηλεφώνησε στους άρρωστους μαθητές / ευχήθηκε γρήγορη ανάρρωση στους αρρώστους.

Still, an excellent job :) Jaxlarus 15:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


text:
actuo

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to actuate, activate, implement
 * 2) * 1750, Veremund Gufl, Philosophica Scholastica Universa, Volume II, Pars III Metaphysicæ, Tractatus II, Articulus VII, page 843
 * "la"

- utpote quæ eam egrediendo jam actuavit, ne amplius eſſet in potentia

title: actuo


text:
coverable

Adjective

 * 1) Able to be covered.

title: coverable


text:
jonnu

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) day

title: jonnu


text:
Yood

Proper noun

 * 1) Judas Thaddeus Biblical figure
 * 1) Judas Thaddeus Biblical figure

title: Yood


text:
duminica

Etymology
Definite form of.

Adverb

 * 1) on Sundays

title: duminica


text:
Yuaase

Proper noun

 * 1)  Judas Iscariot
 * 1)  Judas Iscariot

title: Yuaase


text: Inry

title: Inry


text:
peñasco

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) large rock, boulder

title: peñasco


text: peñascos

title: peñascos


text:
jencu

Etymology
From, , from , from. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) calf young cow or bull; bullock or heifer
 * 2) veal meat
 * 3)  large and strong boy
 * 1)  large and strong boy
 * 1)  large and strong boy

title: jencu


text:
IOTA

Etymology
Acronym of.

Noun

 * 1)  A bank account that earns interest and pays it to a third party, generally a charity; the principal is typically being held in escrow by the accountholder.

title: IOTA


text: IOTAs

title: IOTAs


text:
uncoverable

Adjective

 * 1) Able to be uncovered.

Etymology 2
en

Adjective

 * 1) Unable to be covered.

title: uncoverable


text:
puttusu

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) hole

title: puttusu


text:
vautrer

Etymology
, from, from the verb.

Verb

 * 1)  to wallow to roll one's body, or a part of it, in the mud or something of similar texture
 * 2)  to sprawl; to wallow
 * 3)  to wallow
 * 4)  to tumble heavily on the ground
 * 5)  to fail

title: vautrer


text:
enroué

Adjective

 * 1) hoarse, husky

Adjective

 * 1)  husky

title: enroué


text: enrouée

title: enrouée


text: enroués

title: enroués


text: enrouées

title: enrouées


text:
juene

Etymology
, from.

Adjective

 * 1) young (youthful; not old)

Noun

 * 1) young person

title: juene


text:
jeunet

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) very young

title: jeunet


text: jeunets

title: jeunets


text: jeunette

title: jeunette


text: jeunettes

title: jeunettes


text:
peureusement

Etymology
From.

Adverb

 * 1) fearfully

title: peureusement


text: brancards

title: brancards


text:
Guillaspick

Etymology
(compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬).

Proper noun

 * , Anglicized as

title: Guillaspick


text:
linuxien

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) related to Linux
 * Ce site est dédié à Linux et à l'univers linuxien. (linuxiens.net)

Noun

 * 1) Linux user
 * Découvrez les meilleures blagues dédiées aux geeks, aux linuxiens, aux informaticiens, etc.

title: linuxien


text: linuxienne

title: linuxienne


text: adbrevio

title: adbrevio


text: adcelero

title: adcelero


text: Thesaurus:fabric

title: Thesaurus:fabric


text:
souleur

Noun

 * 1)  pang of anxiety; fright, start

title: souleur


text: souleurs

title: souleurs


text: adclamo

title: adclamo


text:
climatory

Adjective

 * 1) Having to do with climate.

title: climatory


text:
Talk:broadcloth

Is the noun uncountable? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:broadcloth


text:
άσπρη

Noun

 * 1)  heroin, scag

title: άσπρη


text:
kleroterion

Etymology
, from +.

Noun

 * 1)  A device used in sortition, consisting of a stone slab incised with rows of slots and with an attached tube, and operating on tokens representing citizens.

title: kleroterion


text: plyyshikangas

title: plyyshikangas


text:
ciacca

Noun

 * 1) crack, split, fissure
 * 2) rift

title: ciacca


text: cleroterium

title: cleroterium


text: cleroterion

title: cleroterion


text: kleroteria

title: kleroteria


text: cleroteria

title: cleroteria


text:
rossu

Etymology
From, from , from. Cognates include 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬.

Adjective

 * 1) red

Noun

 * 1) red color
 * 2) redhead, ginger

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) fat

title: rossu


text:
tip the scale

Verb

 * 1)  To change the fortunes, either positively or negatively.
 * 2)  To weigh (have a certain weight).
 * 1)  To weigh (have a certain weight).

title: tip the scale


text:
rassu

Etymology
Variant of, perhaps inspired by and/or.

Noun

 * 1) poor thing

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) fat, grease

Adjective

 * 1) (of food) fatty, greasy

title: rassu


text:
siu

Etymology 1
, from, from.

Pronoun

 * 1) she

Etymology 2
.

Etymology
From.

Numeral

 * 1)  seven

Etymology
From and.

Pronoun

 * 1) she

Etymology
Originally the dative of.

Adverb

 * 1) here
 * "sga"
 * "sga"
 * "sga"

- Is hé ru·fiastar cumachtae inna díglae do·mbi{u}r-siu húa londas, intí du·écigi{gi} is ar trócairi ⁊ censi du·bir-siu forunni siu innahí fo·daimem ré techt innúnn.

Etymology
From and.

Pronoun

 * 1) she

Pronoun

 * 1) they

Alternative forms

 * syū

Etymology
From, from , from earlier , from.

Numeral

 * 1)  seven

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) fat, sebum

Verb

 * 1)  to slice

title: siu


text:
essaier

Etymology
From, from , from.

Verb

 * 1) to try; to make an effort

title: essaier


text:
sor toz

Etymology
First attested a. 1180 from  +, masculine oblique plural of.

Adverb

 * 1) most of all; above all

title: sor toz


text:
nzunnari

Etymology
Denominal verb derived from, from , from. Compare Italian.

title: nzunnari


text: axiomatizabilities

title: axiomatizabilities


text:
User talk:Eharrison1998

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or make a hyperlink. The Wiktionary tutorial is a more wordy, multi-page document that helps you through those same formatting issues, and also touches on a couple of other issues relevant to editing.
 * The document What Wiktionary is not may be of interest. In particular, if you've edited Wikipedia in the past, you should note that Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia and does not have Wikipedia-style page titles.
 * There is a technical guide to how to start a new page. But you'll also want to look at our guidelines for how to format an entry (what goes where) and our criteria for inclusion (what can be included), which are our two main policy documents. (You can get a feel for how to format an entry by looking at existing entries.)
 * The sandbox is a safe place for testing markup.
 * The FAQ has, of course, some frequently (and some infrequently) asked questions, and their answers.

I hope you enjoy editing here! By the way, you can sign your comments on talk (discussion) pages using four tildes, like this:, which automatically produces your name (or IP number if you're not signed in) and the current date and time. If you have any questions, then see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my talk page. — msh210 ℠ 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eharrison1998


text: battery cages

title: battery cages


text:
User:Dcmacnut/Kanji

ja:平仮名
ぁ あ ぃ い ぅ う ぇ え ぉ お か が き ぎ く ぐ け げ こ ご さ ざ し じ す ず せ ぜ そ ぞ た だ ち ぢ っ つ づ て で と ど な に ぬ ね の は ば ぱ ひ び ぴ ふ ぶ ぷ へ べ ぺ ほ ぼ ぽ ま み む め も ゃ や ゅ ゆ ょ よ ら り る れ ろ ゎ わ ゐ ゑ を ん ゔ きゃ きゅ きょ ぎゃ ぎゅ ぎょ しゃ しゅ しょ じゃ じゅ じょ ちゃ ちゅ ちょ ぢゃ ぢゅ ぢょ にゃ にゅ にょ ひゃ ひゅ ひょ びゃ びゅ びょ ぴゃ ぴゅ ぴょ みゃ みゅ みょ りゃ りゅ りょ ゕ ゖ ゗ ゘ ゙ ゚ ゛ ゜ ゝ ゞ ゟ

ja:片仮名
ァ ア ィ イ ゥ ウ ェ エ ォ オ カ ガ キ ギ ク グ ケ ゲ コ ゴ サ ザ シ ジ ス ズ セ ゼ ソ ゾ タ ダ チ ヂ ッ ツ ヅ テ デ ト ド ナ ニ ヌ ネ ノ ハ バ パ ヒ ビ ピ フ ブ プ ヘ ベ ペ ホ ボ ポ マ ミ ム メ モ ャ ヤ ュ ユ ョ ヨ ラ リ ル レ ロ ヮ ワ ヰ ヱ ヲ ン ヴ ヵ ヶ ヷ ヸ ヹ ヺ ・ ー ヽ ヾ ヿ

人名用漢字の一覧
この一覧と人名用漢字許容字体表の一覧の表示には文字化け等を防止するため画像を使用している箇所がある. 画像を使用していない一覧については人名用漢字の一覧を参照されたい.

This table lists the of Jinmeiyo kanji (kanji approved for names). Some characters require the use of images to display properly. For a list without images, please see the Japanese Wiktionary.

文字コード上のどの漢字とマッピングされているかと、正式な文字の字形は、法務省 戸籍統一文字情報で確認できる.

For characters that use HTML markup, please refer to the Ministry of Justices's Family Register unified character information page.

一覧
この項目には、JIS X 0213:2004で規定されている文字が含まれています. JIS X 0213:2004に対応したフォントが使用できる環境でご覧くださることをおすすめします. This document uses characters in the JIS x 0213:2004 code set. It's recommended that you use an appropraite font to view them.

 * 一（常用漢字以外の文字とその異体字）

丑 丞 串 乃 之 乎 也 云 亘-亙 些 亦 亥 亨 亮 仔 伊 伎 伍 伽 佃 佑 伶 侃 侑 俄 & 俣 俐 侶 倭 俺 & 倦 倖 偲 僅 傭 儲 允 兎 兜 其 冥 冴 冶 凄 凌 凜-凛 凧 凪 凰 凱 函 刹 劉 劫 勁 勃 勾 匂 勿 匡 廿 卜 卯 卿 厨 厩 叉 叡 叢 叶 只 吾 & 吻 呂 哉 哨 啄 唄 哩 喬 喧 喰 喋 嘩 嘉 嘗 噌 噂 圃 圭 坐 尭-堯 坦 埼 埴 堆 堰 堺 堵 塙 塞 & 壕 壬 夷 奄 奈 奎 套 妖 娃 姪 姥 娩 媛 嬉 孟 宏 宋 宛 宕 宥 寅 寓 寵 尖 尤 屑 岡 峨 峻 崖 崚 嵐 嵯 嵩 嶺 巌-巖 已 巳 巴 巷 巽 巾 帖 幌 幡 庄 庇 庚 庵 廟 廻 弘 弛 弥-彌 彗 彦 彪 彬 徠 忽 怜 恢 恰 恕 悌 惟 惚 悉 惇 惹 惺 惣 慧 憧 憐 戊 或 戚 戟 戴 托 按 拶 拭 挨 拳 捉 挺 挽 掬 捲 捷 捺 捻 捧 掠 揃 & 摺 撒 撰 撞 播 撫 擢 孜 敦 斑 斐 斡 斧 斯 於 旦 旭 旺 昂 昊 昏 昌 昧 昴 晏 晃-晄 晒 晋 晟 晦 晨 智 暉 暢 曖 曙 曝 曳 曽-曾 朋 朔 杏 杖 杜 李 杭 杵 枕 杷 枇 柑 柴 柵 柿 柘 柊 栃 柏 柾 柚 桧-檜 栞 桔 桂 桁 栖 桐 栗 梧 梗 梓 梢 梛 梯 桶 梶 椛 梨 梁 椅 棲 椎 椋 椀 楯 楚 楕 椿 楠 楓 椰 楢 楊 榎 樺 榊 榛 槙-槇 槍 槌 樫 槻 樟 樋 橘 樽 橙 檎 檀 櫂 櫛 櫓 欣 欽 歎 此 殆 毅 毘 毬 汀 汝 汐 汎 汲 沙 汰 沌 沓 沫 洸 洲 洵 洛 浩 浬 淵 淳 渚-渚|渚 淀 淋 渥 湘 湊 湛 湧 溢 滉 溜 漱 漕 漣 澪 濡 瀕 灘 灸 灼 烏 & 焚 煌 煎 煤 煉 熙 熊 燕 燎 燦 燭 燿 爪 爽 爾 牒 牙 牟 牡 牽 犀 狼 猪-豬 獅 玖 玩 珂 珈 珊 珀 玲 琢-琢|琢 琉 瑛 琥 琶 琵 琳 瑚 瑞 瑶 瑳 瑠 璃 瓜 瓢 瓦 甥 甫 畏 畠 畢 畿 疋 疏 & 皐 皓 眉 眸 睦 瞳 瞥 瞭 矩 砦 砥 砧 硯 碓 碗 碩 碧 磐 磯 祇 祢-禰 祐-祐|祐 祷-& 禄-祿禎-禎|禎 禽 禾 秦 秤 稀 稔 稟 稜 稽 穣-穰 穹 穿 窄 窟 窪 窺 竣 竪 竺 竿 笈 笹 笙 笠 筈 筑 箕 箔 箸 篇 篠 & 簾 籾 粥 粟 糊 紘 紗 紐 絃 紬 絆 絢 綺 綜 綴 緋 綾 綸 縞 徽 & & 纂 纏 羚 羨 翔 翠 耀 而 耶 耽 聡 肇 肋 肘 肴 胤 胡 脇 脩 腔 腎 膏 膳 臆 臥 臼 舜 舷 舵 艶 芥 芹 芯 芭 芙 芦 苑 茄 苔 苺 茅 茉 茨 茸 茜 莞 荻 莫 莉 菅 菫 菖 萄 菩 萌-萠 & 菱 葦 葛 葵 萱 葺 萩 董 葡 蓋 蓑 蒔 蒐 蒼 蒲 蒙 蓉 蓮 蔭 & 蔦 蓬 蔓 蕎 蕨 蕉 蕃 蕪 蔽 薙 蕾 蕗 藁 薩 藤 藍 蘇 蘭 虎 虹 蜂 蜜 蝦 蝶 螺 & 蟹 & 衿 袖 袈 袴 裡 裾 裟 裳 襖 訊 訣 註 詣 詢 詮 詫 誼 諏 諄 誰 諒 謂 諺 諦 謎 讃 豹 貌 貰 貼 賑 赳 跨 蹄 蹟 蹴 輔 輯 輿 轟 辰 辻 迂 迄 辿 迪 迦 這 逞 逗 逢 遥-遙 遁 遡 遜 遼 邑 那 祁 郁 鄭 酉 酎 醇 醐 醒 醍 & 采 釉 釘 釜 釧 鋒 鋸 錦 錐 錆 錫 鍋 鍵 鍬 鎧 鎌 閃 閏 閤 闇 阜 阪 阿 陀 隈 隙 隼 雀 雁 雛 雫 霞 靖 鞄 鞍 鞘 鞠 鞭 韓 頁 頃 須 頌 頓 頗 & & 颯 餅 饗 馨 馴 馳 駕 駒 駿 驍 魁 魯 鮎 鯉 鯛 鰯 鱒 鱗 鳩 鳶 鳳 鴨 鴻 鵜 鵬 鶴 & 鷲 鷺 鷹 鹿 麒 麓 麟 麿 黎 黛 鼎 亀

注 「-」は、相互の漢字が同一の字種であることを示している.

Note: Characters connected with a hyphen (-) are the variants of the same charcter.

Variants with rendering problems
渚-渚|渚 琢-琢|琢 祐-祐|祐 禎-禎|禎

;二（常用漢字の異体字）
亞（亜） 惡（悪） 爲（為） 逸|逸（逸） 榮（栄） 衞（衛） 謁|謁（謁） 圓（円） &（縁） 薗（園） 應（応） 櫻（桜） 奧（奥） &（横）&（温） 價（価） 禍|禍（禍）悔|悔（悔） 海|海（海） 壞（壊） 懷（懐） 樂（楽） &（渇） 卷（巻） 陷（陥） &（寛） 漢|漢（漢） 氣（気） 祈|祈（祈） 器|器（器） 僞（偽） 戲（戯） &（虚） 峽（峡） 狹（狭） 響|響（響） 曉（暁） 勤|勤（勤） 謹|謹（謹） 駈（駆） 勳（勲） &（薫） 惠（恵） &（掲） 鷄（鶏） 藝（芸） &（撃） 縣（県） 儉（倹） 劍（剣） 險（険） 圈（圏） 檢（検） 顯（顕） 驗（験） 嚴（厳） 廣（広） 恆（恒） &（黄） 國（国） &（黒） 穀|穀（穀） 碎（砕） 雜（雑） 祉|祉（祉） 視|視（視） 兒（児） 濕（湿） 實（実） 社|社（社） 者|者（者） 煮|煮（煮） 壽（寿） 收（収） 臭|臭（臭） 從（従） 澁（渋） 獸（獣） 縱（縦） 祝|祝（祝） 暑|暑（暑） 署|署（署） &（緒） 諸|諸（諸） 敍（叙） 將（将） 祥|祥（祥） &（渉） 燒（焼） 奬（奨） 條（条） &（状） 乘（乗） 淨（浄） 剩（剰） 疊（畳） 孃（嬢） 讓（譲） 釀（醸） 神|神（神） 眞（真） 寢（寝） 愼（慎） 盡（尽） 粹（粋） 醉（酔） 穗（穂） &（瀬） 齊（斉） 靜（静） 攝（摂） 節|節（節） 專（専） 戰（戦） 纖（繊） 禪（禅） 祖|祖（祖） 壯（壮） 爭（争） 莊（荘） 搜（捜） &（巣） 裝（装） 僧|僧（僧） 層|層（層） 騷（騒） &（増） 憎|憎（憎） 藏（蔵） 贈|贈（贈） 臟（臓） &（即） 帶（帯） 滯（滞） 瀧（滝） 單（単） 嘆|嘆（嘆） 團（団） 彈（弾） 晝（昼） 鑄（鋳） 著|著（著） 廳（庁） &（徴） 聽（聴） 懲|懲（懲） 鎭（鎮） 轉（転） 傳（伝） 都|都（都） 嶋（島） 燈（灯） 盜（盗） 稻（稲） 德（徳） 突|突（突） 難|難（難） 拜（拝） 盃（杯） 賣（売） 梅|梅（梅） 髮（髪） 拔（抜） 繁|繁（繁） &（晩） 卑|卑（卑） 祕（秘） 碑|碑（碑） 賓|賓（賓） 敏|敏（敏） 冨（富） 侮|侮（侮） 福|福（福） 拂（払） 佛（仏） 勉|勉（勉） &（歩） 峯（峰） 墨|墨（墨） 飜（翻） &（毎） 萬（万） 默（黙） 埜（野） 藥（薬） 與（与） 搖（揺） 樣（様） 謠（謡） 來（来） &（頼） 覽（覧） 欄|欄（欄） 龍（竜） 虜|虜（虜） 凉（涼） &（緑） &（涙） 壘（塁） 類|類（類） 禮（礼） &（暦） &（歴） 練|練（練） &（錬） &（郎） 朗|朗（朗） 廊|廊（廊） &（録）

注 括弧内の漢字は、常用漢字表での字体を示している.

Note: Characters within parantheses indicate that they are part of the official Joyo Kanji list.

Joyo Variants with rendering problems
逸|逸（逸） 謁|謁（謁） 禍|禍（禍）悔|悔（悔） 海|海（海） 祈|祈（祈） 器|器（器） 響|響（響） 勤|勤（勤） 謹|謹（謹） 穀|穀（穀） 祉|祉（祉） 視|視（視） 社|社（社） 者|者（者） 煮|煮（煮） 節|節（節） 臭|臭（臭） 祝|祝（祝） 暑|暑（暑） 署|署（署） 祖|祖（祖） 僧|僧（僧） 層|層（層） 憎|憎（憎） 贈|贈（贈） 嘆|嘆（嘆） 著|著（著） 懲|懲（懲） 突|突（突） 難|難（難） 梅|梅（梅） 繁|繁（繁） 卑|卑（卑） 碑|碑（碑） 賓|賓（賓） 敏|敏（敏） 侮|侮（侮） 勉|勉（勉） 練|練（練）

表外漢字字体表の漢字一覧
表外漢字字体表の印刷標準字体1022字と簡易慣用字体22字の一覧である.

括弧外の1022字は印刷標準字体であり、括弧内の22字は簡易慣用字体である.

※なお、ここでは環境によって表示が異なる文字があるが、あくまでも一覧であるため画像使用などは避けている.

この項目には、JIS X 0213:2004で規定されている文字が含まれています. JIS X 0213:2004に対応したフォントが使用できる環境でご覧くださることをおすすめします.

一覧
啞 （唖） 蛙 鴉 埃 挨 曖 靄 軋 斡 按 庵 鞍 闇 已 夷 畏 韋 帷 萎 椅 葦 彙 飴 謂 閾 溢 鰯 尹 咽 殷 淫 隕 蔭 于 迂 盂 烏 鬱 云 暈 穢 曳 洩 裔 穎 （頴） 嬰 翳 腋 曰 奄 宛 怨 俺 冤 袁 婉 焉 堰 淵 焰 筵 厭 鳶 燕 閻 嚥 嗚 凰 嘔 鴨 甕 襖 謳 鶯 鷗 （鴎） 鸚 臆 俤 瓜 呵 苛 珂 迦 訛 訶 跏 嘩 瑕 榎 窩 蝦 蝸 鍋 顆 牙 瓦 臥 俄 峨 訝 蛾 衙 駕 芥 乖 廻 徊 恢 晦 堺 潰 鞋 諧 檜 蟹 咳 崖 蓋 漑 骸 鎧 喀 廓 摑 攪 （撹） 愕 萼 諤 顎 鰐 樫 絣 筈 葛 闊 鰹 萱 奸 串 旱 函 咸 姦 宦 柑 竿 悍 桓 涵 菅 嵌 鉗 澗 翰 諫 瞰 韓 檻 灌 玩 雁 翫 頷 癌 贋 几 卉 其 祁 耆 埼 悸 揆 毀 箕 畿 窺 諱 徽 櫃 妓 祇 魏 蟻 掬 麴 （麹） 吃 屹 拮 謔 仇 臼 汲 灸 咎 邱 柩 笈 躬 厩 嗅 舅 炬 渠 裾 噓 墟 鋸 遽 欅 匈 怯 俠 脇 莢 竟 卿 僑 嬌 蕎 鋏 頰 橿 疆 饗 棘 髷 巾 僅 禽 饉 狗 惧 軀 懼 俱 喰 寓 窟 粂 偈 荊 珪 畦 脛 頃 痙 詣 禊 閨 稽 頸 髻 蹊 鮭 繫 睨 戟 隙 抉 頁 訣 蕨 姸 倦 虔 捲 牽 喧 硯 腱 鍵 瞼 鹼 （鹸） 呟 眩 舷 諺 乎 姑 狐 股 涸 菰 袴 壺 跨 糊 醐 齬 亢 勾 叩 尻 吼 肛 岡 庚 杭 肴 咬 垢 巷 恍 恰 狡 桁 胱 崗 梗 喉 腔 蛤 幌 煌 鉤 敲 睾 膏 閤 膠 篝 縞 薨 糠 藁 鮫 壙 曠 劫 毫 傲 壕 濠 嚙 （噛） 轟 剋 哭 鵠 乞 忽 惚 昏 痕 渾 褌 叉 些 嗟 蓑 磋 坐 挫 晒 柴 砦 犀 賽 鰓 榊 柵 炸 窄 簀 刹 拶 紮 撒 薩 珊 餐 纂 霰 攢 讃 斬 懺 仔 弛 此 址 祀 屍 屎 柿 茨 恣 砥 祠 翅 舐 疵 趾 斯 覗 嗜 滓 獅 幟 摯 嘴 熾 髭 贄 而 峙 痔 餌 竺 雫

𠮟
悉 蛭 嫉 膝 櫛 柘 洒 娑 這 奢 闍 杓 灼 綽 錫 雀 惹 娶 腫 諏 鬚 呪 竪 綬 聚 濡 襦 帚 酋 袖 羞 葺 蒐 箒 皺 輯 鍬 繡 （繍） 蹴 讐 鷲 廿 揉 絨 粥 戌 閏 楯 馴 杵 薯 藷 汝 抒 鋤 妾 哨 秤 娼 逍 廂 椒 湘 竦 鈔 睫 蛸 鉦 摺 蔣 （蒋） 裳 誦 漿 蕭 踵 鞘 篠 聳 鍾 醬 （醤） 囁 杖 茸 嘗 擾 攘 饒 拭 埴 蜀 蝕 燭 褥 沁 芯 呻 宸 疹 蜃 滲 賑 鍼 壬 訊 腎 靱 塵 儘 笥 祟 膵 誰 錐 雖 隋 隧 芻 趨 鮨 丼 凄 栖 棲 甥 貰 蜻 醒 錆 臍 瀞 鯖 脆 贅 脊 戚 晰 蹟 泄 屑 浙 啜 楔 截 尖 苫 穿 閃 陝 釧 揃 煎 羨 腺 詮 煽 箋 撰 箭 賤 蟬 癬 喘 膳 狙 疽 疏 甦 楚 鼠 遡 蘇 齟 爪 宋 炒 叟 蚤 曾 （曽） 湊 葱 搔 （掻） 槍 漕 箏 噌 瘡 瘦 （痩） 踪 艘 薔 甑 叢 藪 躁 囃 竈 鰺 仄 捉 塞 粟 杣 遜 噂 樽 鱒 侘 咤 詫 陀 拿 荼 唾 舵 楕 驒 苔 殆 堆 碓 腿 頽 戴 醍 托 鐸 凧 襷 燵 坦 疸 耽 啖 蛋 毯 湛 痰 綻 憚 歎 簞 譚 灘 雉 馳 蜘 緻 筑 膣 肘 冑 紐 酎 厨 蛛 註 誅 疇 躊 佇 楮 箸 儲 瀦 躇 吊 帖 喋 貼 牒 趙 銚 嘲 諜 寵 捗 枕 槌 鎚 辻 剃 挺 釘 掟 梯 逞 啼 碇 鼎 綴 鄭 薙 諦 蹄 鵜 荻 擢 溺 姪 轍 辿 唸 塡 篆 顚 囀 纏 佃 淀 澱 臀 兎 妬 兜 堵 屠 賭 宕 沓 套 疼 桶 淘 萄 逗 棹 樋 蕩 鄧 橙 濤 檮 櫂 禱 （祷） 撞 禿 瀆 栃 咄 沌 遁 頓 吞 貪 邇 匂 韮 涅 禰 捏 捻 撚 膿 囊 杷 爬 琶 頗 播 芭 罵 蟇 胚 徘 牌 稗 狽 煤 帛 柏 剝 粕 箔 莫 駁 瀑 曝 畠 捌 撥 潑 醱 筏 跋 噺 氾 汎 阪 叛 袢 絆 斑 槃 幡 攀 挽 磐 蕃 屁 庇 砒 脾 痺 鄙 誹 臂 枇 毘 梶 媚 琵 薇 靡 疋 畢 逼 謬 豹 憑 瓢 屛 （屏） 廟 牝 瀕 憫 鬢 斧 阜 訃 俯 釜 腑 孵 鮒 巫 葡 撫 蕪 諷 祓 吻 扮 焚 糞 幷 （并） 聘 蔽 餅 斃 袂 僻 璧 襞 蔑 瞥 扁 篇 騙 娩 鞭 哺 圃 蒲 戊 牡 姥 菩 呆 彷 庖 苞 疱 捧 逢 蜂 蓬 鞄 鋒 牟 芒 茫 虻 榜 膀 貌 鉾 謗 吠 卜 勃 梵 昧 邁 枡 （桝） 俣 沫 迄 曼 蔓 瞞 饅 鬘 鰻 蜜 鵡 冥 瞑 謎 麵 （麺） 蒙 朦 勿 籾 悶 揶 爺 鑓 喩 揄 愈 楡 尤 釉 楢 猷 飫 輿 孕 妖 拗 涌 痒 傭 熔 瘍 蠅 沃 螺 萊 蕾 洛 埒 拉 辣 瀾 爛 鸞 狸 裡 罹 籬 戮 慄 掠 笠 溜 榴 劉 瘤 侶 梁 聊 菱 寥 蓼 淋 燐 鱗 屢 蛉 蠣 櫟 礫 轢 煉 漣 憐 簾 鰊 攣 賂 魯 濾 （沪） 廬 櫓 蘆 （芦） 鷺 弄 牢 狼 榔 瘻 﨟 臘 朧 蠟 （蝋） 籠 聾 肋 勒 漉 麓 窪 歪 猥 隈 或 罠 椀 碗 彎 （弯）

簡易慣用字体22字

唖（啞） 頴（穎） 鴎（鷗） 撹（攪） 麹（麴） 鹸（鹼） 噛（嚙） 繍（繡） 蒋（蔣） 醤（醬） 曽（曾） 掻（搔） 痩（瘦） 祷（禱） 屏（屛） 并（幷） 桝（枡） 麺（麵） 沪（濾） 芦（蘆） 蝋（蠟） 弯（彎）

title: User:Dcmacnut/Kanji


text:
ciareddu

Etymology
Borrowed from (modern ).

Noun

 * 1) kid young goat

title: ciareddu


text:
acefalokisto

Noun

 * 1)  acephalocyst

title: acefalokisto


text: acefalokisti

title: acefalokisti


text: prietos

title: prietos


text: ciauru

title: ciauru


text:
ciaurari

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to smell
 * 2) to perfume, to scent

title: ciaurari


text:
better an egg today than a hen tomorrow

Etymology
, from Gargantua and Pantagruel by.

Proverb

 * 1) It is better to have a sure thing now than a possibility of more later.

title: better an egg today than a hen tomorrow


text:
User talk:77.122.96.212

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or make a hyperlink. The Wiktionary tutorial is a more wordy, multi-page document that helps you through those same formatting issues, and also touches on a couple of other issues relevant to editing.
 * The document What Wiktionary is not may be of interest. In particular, if you've edited Wikipedia in the past, you should note that Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia and does not have Wikipedia-style page titles.
 * There is a technical guide to how to start a new page. But you'll also want to look at our guidelines for how to format an entry (what goes where) and our criteria for inclusion (what can be included), which are our two main policy documents. (You can get a feel for how to format an entry by looking at existing entries.)
 * The sandbox is a safe place for testing markup.
 * The FAQ has, of course, some frequently (and some infrequently) asked questions, and their answers.

I hope you enjoy editing here! By the way, you can sign your comments on talk (discussion) pages using four tildes, like this:, which automatically produces your name (or IP number if you're not signed in) and the current date and time. If you have any questions, then see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my talk page. — msh210 ℠ 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:77.122.96.212


text:
fetu

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) fetus

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  offspring

Etymology
From. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) stink

title: fetu


text:
User talk:79.91.227.246

The entry you created at each duck has a spade in case of dirty mouse seems to have been a protologism and has been deleted. If you are sure that it is a real word, please provide evidence of its being used in durably archived media (mainly print works and Usenet groups) as required by our inclusion criteria. (For a term to be included, it must be used by at least three different authors over more than a year, and the authors must be actually using the word, not just explaining its meaning or stating that it exists.) If you can find any such quotations, please add them to Citations:each duck has a spade in case of dirty mouse. If you again add this entry without citations, it will likely get you blocked from editing further. — msh210 ℠ 19:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:79.91.227.246


text:
kiskoissa

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to tease each other

title: kiskoissa


text: kiskoitta

title: kiskoitta


text: kiskoina

title: kiskoina


text:
Category talk:Ancient Greek adjectives

weird stuff
Why is μαυρός inside "α" section? --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of this I think? I don't know why it's like that. I think  on the template would fix it but that may cause worse problems. -- 124.171.169.189 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Ancient Greek adjectives


text:
herbalismi

Etymology
(see 🇨🇬). Contains the suffix.

Noun

 * 1) herbalism

title: herbalismi


text:
kretonki

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) cretonne fabric

title: kretonki


text: kretongin

title: kretongin


text: kretonkia

title: kretonkia


text: kretongissa

title: kretongissa


text: kretongilla

title: kretongilla


text: kretongitta

title: kretongitta


text: kretongiksi

title: kretongiksi


text: kretonkeja

title: kretonkeja


text: kretongeista

title: kretongeista


text: kretongeille

title: kretongeille


text: kretonkeihin

title: kretonkeihin


text: kretongein

title: kretongein


text: kretonkeineen

title: kretonkeineen


text: trumpetoj

title: trumpetoj


text: trumpeton

title: trumpeton


text: trumpetojn

title: trumpetojn


text:
Zelophehad

Etymology
From

Proper noun

 * And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
 * And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
 * And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.

title: Zelophehad


text:
valore facciale

Noun

 * 1)  face value
 * 2) denomination (of a postage stamp etc.)
 * 1) denomination (of a postage stamp etc.)

title: valore facciale


text:
צלפחד

Etymology
From.

title: צלפחד


text:
linguella

Noun

 * 1) stamp hinge

title: linguella


text:
fanal

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1)  A lighthouse
 * 2)  The beacon inside a lighthouse

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) lantern, streetlight
 * 2)  balloon plant

Etymology
Ultimately from.

Noun

 * 1) lantern
 * 2)  beacon, lamp (of a lighthouse);  lighthouse
 * 3)  headlight
 * 1)  headlight
 * 1)  headlight

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) lantern

Etymology
Ultimately from.

Noun

 * 1)  beacon
 * 2) bell glass
 * 3) headlight

title: fanal


text: fanaux

title: fanaux


text: Category:it:Elephants

title: Category:it:Elephants


text: User:FlightTime/Sandbox

title: User:FlightTime/Sandbox


text: the jury is still out

title: the jury is still out


text:
-nod

Etymology
From.

title: -nod


title: User:Dcmacnut/kanjiref2


text:
-ened

Etymology
From.

title: -ened


text:
rohannod

Verb

 * Rohannod kell? - Do you have to run?
 * Rohannod kell? - Do you have to run?

title: rohannod


text:
Fruchtwasser

Noun

 * 1) amniotic fluid

title: Fruchtwasser


text: Fruchtwassers

title: Fruchtwassers


text:
linguellato

Adjective

 * 1) hinged (of a postage stamp fixed with a stamp hinge)

title: linguellato