text:
Talk:bacterias

Tea room discussion
Bacteria is the plural of bacterium but I find an awful lot of hits for bacterias, including 1640 at google books even after I change the filter to English only (some seemed to be Spanish). The best I can interpret is that in this sense Bacteria is a species of Bacteria and more than one species at a time is bacterias. But I don't find anything like this in other dictionaries. Anyone have an insight? Thank you. RJFJR 00:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid the most obvious explanation is likely to be the correct one: [[bacterias]] is the plural of the singular [[bacteria]]. On the first page of a Google News search for "bacteria-is" I found three uses of [[bacteria]] as a singular. There must be hundreds among the thousands of raw hits on the collocation. The following NY Times headline illustrates:
 * 2002, AP, "Poultry Recall Expanded After Bacteria Is Found at Plant", in New York Times, Oct 14, 2002

 * Yes, "bacteria" is all too often used as a singular noun (as is, say, "phenomena"), but this is—to be unkind—an erroneous usage or—to be kinder—nonstandard English. -- WikiPedant 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I guess Merriam Webster and the New York Times don't count, due to their left-pondianism. Perhaps they should start amwikt or uswikt. DCDuring TALK 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Not seeing this in the online MW3... and the Times, like any paper, is bound to suffer the occasional stylistic slip. I daresay they've even published a typo from time to time. -- Visviva 03:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * IMO the usage (such as in the Times headline) to mean "a strain or species of bacteria" is defensible, since "Bacterium Found At Plant" would arguably be ambiguous. (only one, solitary bacterium? must be a darned hygienic plant!)  (Not sure if "bacterias" is really the right plural for this though.)On the other hand, the horribly grating usage to mean "a single bacterium" -- as in "there's a bacteria in the corner of Figure 2" -- which I have heard and which has surely found its way into print, really should be tagged as an illiteracy. -- Visviva 03:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't agree with that line of argument, since it would also defend "Poultry Recall Expanded After Viruses Is Found At Plant" (which avoids the ambiguity of singular virus:). But yes, it's defensible, in that irregular nouns tend to become regular over time, either through the formation of a regular plural, or through a non-plural-looking plural becoming countable-singular or uncountable. —Ruakh TALK 12:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I was trying to salvage some semblance of sanity, to avoid succumbing to the impression that the English language is collapsing around us... But I don't think that can be sustained any longer.  Fare thee well, sivilizzayshun, we hardlee noo yee.  :-) -- Visviva 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the true number is closer to 800, after filtering for "-las," "-y", "-de" etc. I didn't look through all of them, but every one I did look at (that had limited preview) was written by an academic from a non-English-speaking country.  In some cases there appeared to be free variation between "bacteria" and "bacterias"; in other cases it was a natural NNS error for "types of bacteria," as when referring to anaerobic bacteria plus aerobic bacteria as "both of these bacterias."    Should be included, since English is a global language, but needs usage note.  -- Visviva 03:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Two Issues: (1) I don't understand why "Etymology 2" has now been added to bacteria, when it invokes the same Latin root as "Etymology 1." I think that this singular usage should be acknowledged, but as a sense under "Etymology 1" (or in the Usage Note, as it is now). (2) I think the new entry for bacterias should have a tag. Can we settle these questions here, or should I rfv each of these? -- WikiPedant 05:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Consider it a proposal. I request that attention be paid to Google News hits as well: These are edited works. I also suggest that one's personal reaction to a regional difference is something that can work against the stated objectives of Wiktionary. I have an impression that non-standard tags are applied more generously to "Americanisms" than to expressions from other regions. Could that be the effect or the cause of our low share among US users? Is the reaction a sign that there would need to be a separate wikt for American English? I don't know about the needs of the other colonies. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * As an American myself, I am horrified to discover that you seem to be right about this being an Americanism. Data points:
 * However, I think this may be partially an artifact of the fact that very few non-US archives are included in Google's archive search.
 * On the other hand, there are at least occasional non-US native-speaker uses (or rather "useses"), like this one from the Guardian: . However, they don't seem very numerous.
 * The COCA corpus yields 6 hits for "bacterias," as against 0 for the BNC (probably not statistically significant).
 * Bleh. What a travesty.  But what's done is done; this appears to be a valid, intentional use that is largely localized in the US.  Could we perhaps tag it  or some such? -- Visviva 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. —Ruakh TALK 12:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I've sent e-mails to the NY Times asking about the usage. I will let you know what I find. I might to the same for Merriam-Webster. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 * FWIW, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999 edition) has this to say on page 35:
 * "bacteria is plural. The singular is bacterium."
 * ... so the NYT itself would consider these uses nonstandard? Or maybe their MOS isn't actually respected by the proofreaders.  -- Visviva 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree there is just one etymology here. Also I'm fairly sure the current Etymology 1 is incorrect -- bacteria is the regular plural of bacterium (NL) from bakterion (grc), which is the neuter diminutive of bakteria (please forgive the sloppy romanization).  The singular sense is derived from the Latin neuter plural, not directly from the Greek singular feminine.  OTOH, if there are any uses of "bacteria" (or "bakteria"?) to actually mean "a (large) rod," that would merit a separate etymology. -- Visviva 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops!   Looks like "bacteria" (plural "bacteriae") is a valid obsolete synonym for "bacterium."  That would be a separate etymology IMO (from the Greek feminine singular, presumably via NL).  Now, is this completely separate from the modern singular use, or not? -- Visviva 03:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't consider that a wholly separate etymology. Latin doesn't make as big a deal or the -um / -a difference in ending, since they'd be considered just different gender forms of the same word (with the complication that the -a form could also be a plural nominative of the -um form).  A different inflectional ending does not mean there is an entirley separate etymology; there are just two results from the same Ancient Greek rooting via Latin.  If you want to get as technical as your preceding comments suggest, then we should start adding separate etymologies to all plural forms, since the plural forms in English often don't derive from the same root form as the singular.  And nearly each and every conjugated form of every French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, etc. verb can be traced back to a particular inflected form of a Latin verb.  Does that mean that every one of those gets a separate and different etymology?  --EncycloPetey 15:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:bacterias


text:
Talk:ach

Tea room discussion
We have ten definitions for "oh", which one is this?128.252.121.40 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The first four plus No. 6. —Stephen 02:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:ach


text:
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2009-03/ELE Amendment 3

Context labels
So is the implication that we'd write # happy
# High. , because one definition line "consists solely of a term that can be directly substituted for the headword", while the other one also has a context label? If not — and even if so — I think we need some examples. —Ruakh TALK 15:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Good point; I've changed "definition line" to "definition". I've also added a modified version of your example, but only to the explanatory section of the vote.  Here's my thinking: if we change our general approach to policy -- as I hope we will -- so that non-controversial examples can be added and modified by consensus, then the examples won't need to be VOTEd in anyway; if not, then frankly I'd rather have no examples at all than be stuck with examples that will eventually become obsolete but which can only be modified by going through all this rigmarole again. -- Visviva 06:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks. —Ruakh TALK 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


text:
Talk:modus operandi

Tea room discussion
modus operandi: is singular with the plural being modi operandi:. However, there are ~280 bgc and ~750 groups hits for modus operandum: and another 66 bgc and ~100 groups hits for modus operanda:, both treated as a singular, which presumably stem from treating modus operandi: as a plural.

We obviously should have these in Wiktionary, but I'm not sure how we should categorise them or how we should note them on the [modus operandi] entry. Thryduulf 15:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd like to help, but I'm suffering from infection by bacterias. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I would rate those as common errors, and create them as entries.  Unlike the situation in bacteria/bacterium discussion, these alternative forms aren't remotely plausible in Latin. --EncycloPetey 18:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 * They aren't misspellings, however, but incorrect deduction of how singulars and plurals work in Latin. Double plurals and other such irregularities occur from time to time in English. How about a usage note saying to the effect that "careful speakers avoid..."Wakablogger 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * They're tantamount to saying the plural of "Chinese New Year" is "Chineses News Years". They're errors, plain and simple.  It's more than "careful speakers avoid", but "grossly incorrect". --EncycloPetey 05:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * If a large percentage of native English speakers say "Chineses News Years," then its validity should be considered. There are many, many cases like this, such as cherubs, which has become accepted, and agenda, which has become a singular noun in English. In any case, modus operandum is not a spelling error, and including the expression "grossly incorrect" in a usage note seems excessively prescriptivist and inappropriate to Wiktionary. There is a reasonable chance that this form may spread, and the pros and cons of using it should be explained to the user. Wakablogger 09:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * It "may spread" is a prediction of what may happen in the future. We need not concern ourselves with such predictions.  Your cherubs example is not parallel; it is a plural formed according to regular rules for English nouns.  If we were discussing "modus operandis" or "moduses operandi", then your example might be pertinent.  But modus operandi is a Latin phrase borrowed into English, where the erroneuous "singulars" under discussion are not formed according to the regular rules of either language.  As you say "if a large percentage of native English speakers say", then we might consider it, but in this case, the percentage is slight: 76 to 4,710.  That's less than 2%, which is usually considered negligible. --EncycloPetey 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * There are lots of other pertinent examples, but I think what is really key is that Google has 1.9 million hits for "modus operandum" and that this is not a spelling issue. People are clearly using this form and a note should explain the issues, not just dismiss them as being "grossly incorrect". Wakablogger 10:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, why don’t you suggest the rationale underpinning those forms which seem to be nothing more than misspellings to me, EP, &c.? In Latin, no other forms beside and  make sense… (Besides  and, perhaps?) †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * For example, locus -> loci, radius -> radii. This is a set pattern in English for words of Latin derivation that speakers are applying. A misspelling would be nodus operandi. (BTW, &c. looks standard to me. Wasn't that common in the nineteenth century?) Wakablogger 20:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes it was. By now, the most common abbreviation of is . The ampersand used to be used far more often than it is now (such as in place of “and” in running text, far more frequently than it is employed nowadays). †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 * And how exactly does the pattern locus -> loci give rise to "modus operanda"? There is no pattern in Latin or English of -a -> -i, which is what would be required to produce the erroneous form.  Again, your example has no relevance to the issue under consideration. --EncycloPetey 20:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * You are right there is no exact such pattern. But claiming 1.9 million of these to be spelling errors is unreasonable. Clearly, people are basing it on items like locus -> loci--which does indeed fit if the -s is treated as replaceable with the -m and which is a perfectly sensible inference--bacterium -> bacteria, medium -> media. I am open to another explanation, but nobody seems to be offering anything. Wakablogger 01:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * How did you arrive at a figure of 1.9 million? I only got 67.7K . --EncycloPetey 01:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did another search and found I was searching only on a limited range of pages. When I searched on Google's entire database, I get 2.7 million for "modus operandum." Wakablogger 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And you'll find that a significant fraction of those pages do not contain the term you searched for. Google's "exact search" is not as exact as people believe.  It is sloppy with respect to matching the endings of words.  Go back and look at the b.g.c. (i.e. CFI-relevant) percentages; it's less than 2%. --EncycloPetey 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm one of the people who thought the singular form ended in an -m. (I never used it because I always look it up in an dictionary, but that's what my thought was.) My guess is that I and so many others think so for the following reasons: We know that it's Latin and that it has an odd ending. We know that -i is the plural and we have to get it back to the singular form somehow. My guess is that we model the singular after bacterium and memorandum. I don't know what bgc or CFI-relevant means, but when I search for "modus operandum," I see lots of hits in sentences written by intelligent people who are not making spelling errors. On the 22nd page of hits: If so the modus operandum suggests he was drugged or not fully under control. On the 30th page: This change to CGT can severely affect the modus operandum of many smaller high potential companies. On the 38th page: Proposal with CC partners on modus operandum for implementation of access of Accessing Countries' patients to EU facilities (Autumn 2004). The claim that so many people are consistently misspelling this as "modus operandum" when there are only 101 hits for "nodus operandi" just doesn't make sense. Wakablogger 06:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Sure it does. Misspelling the first letter is very rare.  I can find hits for modus operandus, and a half dozen other errors where the ending of the word is wrong.  That doesn't mean they're valid in any way.  We usually look at the percentage, and the percentage is low.  It's an error.  I can find numerous pages where "from" was intended, but the word is spelled "form", but that doesn't make it a valid alternative.  We still would call that an error even if we catalogued half a million examples. --EncycloPetey 07:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Okay, so not the first letter, the last letter. If you look at the last letters, I'm sure you'll find that operandum is much more frequent. I've given examples, a reasonable explanation of why this might be so, yadda yadda yadda. I even explained that I make this error and gave a reasonable explanation of why that might be true. "Form" and "from" is a misspelling issue, not a grammatical one. Modus operandum is a grammatical error not a spelling one. It is in common use and will perhaps become common just as cherubs has overtaken cherubim and formulas has overtaken formulae. Whether it does or not, it is and will continue to be a common form that deserves a explanation, not looking-down-the-nose-at-the-user dismissal. This is my last posting on this discussion. Wakablogger 07:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:modus operandi


text:
fittig

Etymology
From. Literally "cunty".

Adjective

 * 1)  shitty (of behavior or the like)

title: fittig


text:
Talk:compound word

Tea room discussion
The compound word entry includes school bus as a case of compound word. Is that correct? And is school bus a word? (I'd think it is not a word but a multi-word term.) Per the definition from compound in the context of linguistics, school bus is not a compound, as it is not a lexeme.

English compound lists "distance learning" as an example of what it calls open or spaced form of a compound word. It classifies the forms as (a) solid or closed, (b) hyphenated, (c) open or spaced. Strange.

A printed book supporting the definition that includes spaces: Young Writers Guide --Dan Polansky 12:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Demarcation
On definition and demarcation of compounds, I posted at Talk:open compound. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:compound word


text:
Talk:plipper

Tea room discussion
What's the technical term for a plipper? --Borganised 15:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Electronic car key seems widely used. Equinox 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 * That's a pretty boring SOP term for it. I can understand now why they gave it a different (and pretty damn cool) name. --Borganised 16:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:plipper


text:
sòl

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) soil dirt, earth
 * 2) ground, floor, bottom

title: sòl


text:
Talk:shelter dog

Tea room discussion
Shelter dog??? Barak Obama named it as a criterion for chosing a dog as pet.

 * A dog from an animal shelter, fka dog pound, but serving other pets (mostly cats). Also known as the humane society or the ASPCA (US). If we have an animal shelter sense at shelter, arguably we've covered it. Analogous terms probably apply in other English-speaking countries. DCDuring TALK 12:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume that shelter dog was supposed to be an answer to my question, but it isn't (and I don't understand it)... Lmaltier 12:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Someone just asked here because Barack had used the term the day before. No it has nothing to do with the name itself. Robert Ullmann 13:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks like an English ip, if it is, this person was probably confused because they are known as 'rescue dogs' and not 'shelter dogs' in England. Kaixinguo 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I have made rescue dog, please could someone let me know is that used in America? Also, I should add, according to Google, 'shelter dog' does seem to be used sometimes in the UK. Kaixinguo 20:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * In the US I think "rescue dog" also could refer to a dog used in rescues. Perhaps neither term should have a regional-usage tag. What to do about "cadaver dog", "bomb dog", "drug dog", "service dog", "seeing-eye dog"? DCDuring TALK 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I think it could mean 'a dog used in rescues' in the UK as well. Perhaps it's a superfluous entry, but I think it's a difference in usage. Kaixinguo 21:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:shelter dog


text:
Talk:a friend in need is a friend indeed

Tea room discussion
Does this proverb really mean “Someone who comes to you when in need is a true friend, as he trusts you enough to help.”, as our entry claims? —Ruakh TALK 13:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Er, no. To me it means, "A friend who helps you when you are in need is a true friend."  (ie, not a fairweather friend.)  Ƿidsiþ 13:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Ruakh is "a friend in need" (of an opinion), and Ƿidsiþ is "a friend indeed" (as he comes rapidly to assist Ruakh.) In other words, I agree with Ƿidsiþ. -- A LGRIF  talk 16:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The skeptical reading is: A friend who needs your help will act very friendly to set up the forthcoming request for what is needed. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's what I've always thought it meant. So I guess we all agree that the def in the entry is wrong, but not about what the right def is. :-P  And now that I examine the entry's history, I see that the reference likely doesn't support it, since the reference was already there before  changed the def from “Someone who helps you when you are in need, is a real friend.” to “Someone who comes to you when in need is a true friend, as he trusts you enough to help.” So, I'm reverting that change, and adding the def that you and I understand it as, and adding  to each sense. (I wonder if this is US/UK difference? Are we more cynical than Brits? (Is Algrif British?)) —Ruakh TALK 17:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Interesting. Maybe there is more evidence of this cynical interpretation.  However, I do not think that is what it was intended to mean.  The Old English version is much clearer, and older forms in general are less open to other interpretations, eg in Caxton "It is sayd, that at the nede the frende is knowen."  And according to my trusty Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, it picks up from a Latin phrase "Amicu certus in re incerta cernitur", from someone called Quintus Ennius.  Ƿidsiþ 17:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Good to know. That's probably worth clarifying in the entry, either in an etymology section, or in sense labels, or in a usage note. —Ruakh TALK 17:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The first definition is what I understand the proverb to mean. The second is either creative invention or simple misunderstanding of the term in need:. SemperBlotto 17:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity?:
 * 1909, William Shepard Walsh, Handy-book of Literary Curiosities, page 400
 * Prosperity makes friends," says Publius Syrus, "adversity tries them." To the same effect is Ecclesiasticus, " A friend cannot be known in prosperity, and an enemy cannot be hidden in adversity." Therefore all nations have the proverb " A friend in need is a friend indeed," an expression found in Plautus's " Epidicus," — "Nothing is there more friendly to a man than a friend in need.'1 (Act iii., Sc. 3). Yet he seems to be a rarity : In aught that tries the heart, how few withstand the proof! BVRON : Ckildt Harold, Canto ii., St. 66.
 * DCDuring TALK 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * In a volume edited by The great scholar of proverbs, Wolfgang Mieder, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett says that ambiguity is of the essence for this proverb here, pages 113-4. H er is students produced four senses. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * At the risk of nitpicking, the page you link to is actually by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett. (Mieder is one of the editors of the book it's in.) But, that's really helpful, a specific source discussing the ambiguity (instead of our having to infer the ambiguity from mutually contradictory sources). This proverb gives new meaning to the proverb that proverbs hunt in pairs. :-)  —Ruakh TALK</i > 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you're all barking up the wrong tree. My take on the meaning of this phrase is that it is said in a sarcastic way...a bit more like "a friend in need is a friend my foot". In other words "who wants a needy friend? No thanks."

Meaning
The one and only meaning is this: If you need help then you will recognize your real friends! --80.226.1.7 09:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This anonymous remark (apparently based on an old English proverb) about "true friendship" could prove quite enlightening: "A friend in need is a friend in need of a friend indeed." Unknown talk 12:28, 14 Oct. 2014

Polysemy
Excerpt from The Wisdom of Many: Essays on the Proverb (1994, ISBN 0299143643, page 114:
 * Sources of multiple meaning in "A friend in need is a friend indeed (in deed)" include (1) syntactic ambiguity (is your friend in need or are you in need); (2) lexical ambiguity (indeed or in deed); (3) key (Is proverb being stated "straight" or "sarcastically"? does "a friend indeed" mean "a true friend" or "not a true friend"?).

- -sche (discuss) 02:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Very insightful questions, but do we have the answers? --WikiTiki89 03:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–May 2014
RFV-sense "A needy friend is an undesirable friend." - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also RFV-sensed the second sense "Someone who needs your help is likely to be more friendly towards you." which I think is just a misinterpretation of the proverb (i.e. "in need" is interpreted as referring to the friend rather than to the speaker or listener), and I don't think anyone uses the proverb that way. --WikiTiki89 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are definitely people who understand/use "a friend in need" to mean "a friend who is in need" rather than "someone who is a friend to you when you are in need", probably because that's how "in need" functions in many (most?) other cases, e.g. . But "...is likely to be more friendly towards you" seems like a cynical interpretation. I've added (as a new sense) a different definition that I think better matches the neutral/positive tone of the citations I added with it. - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I've removed both of the tagged senses as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


text: Category:English terms suffixed with -phyte


text:
Talk:hysteroid

Tea room discussion
The etymology of hysteroid is a simple hystero- prefix + -oid suffix. Do we have a prefix/suffix template like and, i.e.  which we can use like e.g. ? This template would auto-add the terms to new categories such Category:English words suffixed with “-oid” and Category:English words prefixed with “-hystero”. --Jackofclubs 19:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't believe so, but feel free to create one. —Ruakh TALK 12:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 * doesn't so categorize. I agree it oughta. Unless and until it does, oughtn't categorize as , which would mean (I think) that you can just use  for words like hysteroid.—msh210 ℠ 18:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Template:prefixsuffix now created as redirect to Template:confix (easier to type). Said template should be suitable for cases such as this, as well as for any examples of "true" confixation (simultaneous addition of prefix and suffix) which may crop up.  (I have seen words like "hysteroid" referred to as confixes, but it doesn't seem common; not sure what they are called ordinarily.) Please revise template as needed. -- Visviva 16:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:hysteroid


text:
Talk:put off

Tea room discussion
Isn't there a noun form also? __meco 13:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, but it seems to be hyphenated: -- Visviva 14:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RFV — failed
Rfv-sense: to euthanise an animal. --EncycloPetey 17:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 * confused with put down? DCDuring TALK 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The person who added it linked between the two entries, and so presumably thinks they're synonyms. It doesn't seem to be confusion on that person's part. --EncycloPetey 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This term is commonly used in England, particularly in the North --YK30 18:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Any kind of animal? An example in use? I can find "put a dog off its food", "put the dog off the train, bed, etc.", but not a euthanise sense. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Refers to domestic or farm animal, colloquial term, Found a reference, though it is old:

 * Blakeborough, R, (1911) Glossary of over 4,000 terms and idioms, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, W Rapp and Sons

 * “Put off, put away – to kill, to remove one’s outer garments” --YK30 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I have never heard of this meaning euthanize - in my experience it is always put down: in the UK. SemperBlotto 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 * That would depend on whereabouts you are - it is mainly used in the North East, particularly amongst farming communities. It isn't often heard in urban environments, where "put down" is the common term. --YK30 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I've never heard this in NW England, but can't speak for all parts of the NE.   D b f  i  r  s   09:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I've never heard it in London or the Westcountry, but like Dbfirs I can't speak for rural North East england. Thryduulf 03:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Never heard it in Cumbria. Lived there long enough to pick up most of the local dialect. Not found in any of James Herriot's books either (which is surprising if it really does mean this in the NE UK farming community!) -- A LGRIF  talk 14:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * James Herriot was North Yorkshire, but didn't stretch to the extreme NE. Perhaps the term is just local to Saltburn?  I've heard put off used of outer garments, but that is hardly a special meaning.  Is there any way to search the works of Catherine Cookson - she's the sort of author who might use such an expression.    D b f  i  r  s   15:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. Sorry. Please re-add it if you can find valid citations. —Ruakh TALK 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:put off


text:
Talk:vigorously

Tea room discussion
can someone write a real definition for it please!
 * Seems that Visviva and DCDuring have now done a good job. -- A LGRIF  talk 12:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:vigorously


text: sòls

title: sòls


text:
Talk:multifarity

Tea room discussion
Attestable, not in other OneLook dictionaries. Non-standard? DCDuring TALK 10:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 50 raw gbc hits which mostly look good. It would be a reasonable back formation from multifarious, which has gained common usage. I think it is fine. "Nonstandard" would be POV, given the expanding usage of a new (!!one formal book in gbc is dated 1918!!) word. -- A LGRIF  talk 10:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:multifarity


text:
Talk:organisation

Tea room discussion
Will I get my knuckles rapped if I simplify this waste of space to just "alternative spelling of|organization" ? SemperBlotto 16:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, as a UK-spelling, it also carries a different pronunciation, so that much at least must remain. --EncycloPetey 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I agree. Specifically, I'm not sure the geographic distributions of the spellings always align perfectly with the geographic distributions of the pronunciations; so I think it might be better to cover all the pronunciations at one entry, with appropriate accent labels, than to try to split them by spelling. —Ruakh TALK 19:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Huh? Because you're not sure they always align perfectly, we should mash everything together?  We have no way on a single page to clearly point out that spelling A and pronunciation X belong together while spelling B and pronunciation Y belong together. So, by shoving all the information to one page, we necessarily lose a key piece of information. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Even if you're right, Ruakh, and you usually are, I suspect that each spelling goes more with some pronunciations, which should be listed first. In any event, we seem all agreed that at least the rest of the info — except pronunciation — can be on one page. Right?—msh210 ℠ 19:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your focus on points of agreement. :-)  Yes, I think we do all seem so agreed. —Ruakh TALK 02:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 * OK - I have merged the translations into "organization" and removed all the definitions, making it into an alternative spelling. Perhaps it needs a usage note to explain that although it might once have been a UK/Commonwealth spelling, it isn't used much these days. SemperBlotto 11:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The undefined: spelling is still common in the UK, and undefined: is only a little more than twice as common as undefined:. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * This figure seems to include all languages (French, etc.), not only English. Lmaltier 21:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * So, which languages share the undefined: spellings and which languages share the undefined: spellings? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I stronly disprove the belittling of the official spelling of the word in the most ancient homeland of the English language as alternative spelling and I concur completely with EncycloPetey. I suggest moving the definitions and translations from organi z ation to organisation and leaving in organi z ation the remark alternative or regional spelling. I have numerous English language textbooks with s as the only admissible spelling and they are meant to be used internationally! s is furthermore the more widespread spelling, since the Commonwealth outnumbers by far the USA in inhabitants. Bogorm 20:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 * (1) No one plans to "belittle" the UK spelling. (2) The <-ization> spelling is more ancient than the <-isation> spelling, so you're basically arguing that we should prefer <-isation> because it's currently preferred in the land that was formerly English's homeland; that seems a bit tenuous to me. (3) The Oxford English Dictionary, an extremely well-regarded U.K. dictionary, prefers <-ization> for some reason; make of that what you will. (4) It's true that the Commonwealth has more inhabitants than the U.S., but the U.S. has at least double the number of native English speakers that the Commonwealth has. (I don't mean to suggest that we should always prefer U.S. spellings to U.K. spellings, but the opposite approach seems no better.) (5) Canada, though part of the Commonwealth, prefers <-ization>. I don't know about other Commonwealth nations. —Ruakh TALK 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
That looks strange. Was the Middle French term lost in France, so it was re-created later?
 * English: from Middle French
 * French: formed in French by suffixation

title: Talk:organisation


text:
Talk:gussy

Tea room discussion
Should this be moved to gussy up, or should we have separate entries for each? --EncycloPetey 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Move it. At least among the first 200 results for "gussy" without "up", I see one use in this sense, and even that one is really just a misunderstanding (on the part of the character) of "gussy up" (see the previous page in the book). S.v. gussy we can have .—msh210 ℠ 19:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Done. --EncycloPetey 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * But it is an English word; it seems like we should have some sort of entry for it, even if it's just a stub. How about  or Used in the expression [[gussy up]]. ( Used in the expression gussy up . )? —Ruakh TALK 15:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Words that are only used as particles of a phrase should nonetheless have entries, in case someone looks up the particle. bd2412 T 20:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't gussy currently say in effect the same thing?—msh210 ℠ 04:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

todo
coordinate term of bussy Arlo Barnes (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:gussy


text:
Talk:Inuit

Tea room discussion
If the plural of Inuit is Inuit then what is Inuits? Non standard or misspelling? Something else? RJFJR 02:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonstandard, I would say. Someone who types "Inuits" (probably) isn't just hitting the "s" key by mistake, but actually considers that to be the plural. -- Visviva 06:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Note that it can also refer to languages or dialects: “the Inuits spoken in the western Arctic sound closer to the nearby Inupiak dialects.”

 * The CanOD lists Inuit as “noun (pl. same)”, and lacks Inuits. NOAD says “pl. same or -its”, but also has a long note saying that Inuit people don't live in Alaska, and the use of the word in the USA is “usually in an attempt to be politically correct, as a general synonym for Eskimo”.  Dictionary.com lists both plural forms, with Inuit preferred for people (as opposed to the language). American Heritage and Merriam-Webster list both forms. —Michael Z. 2008-11-15 20:33 z
 * Say, what?! The language, AFAIK, is called Inuktitut:, and Inuit: is a plural noun referring to the people as a whole. Though uncommon in English, a single Inuit person is called an Inuk: and a specific number of Inuit people — let’s say six — are called “six Inuit”. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that appears to be the correct Canadian usage. And it follows that the mass noun Inuit can also be used attributively, so: the Inuit, Inuit peoples, Inuit persons, an Inuit man, an Inuit.
 * The last example in your list is surely a count noun, not an attributive use of a mass noun… †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * But according to the non-Canadian dictionary sources, that's not the only usage. Per every one of NOAD, Dictionary.com, AH, and M–W, the family of languages is also called Inuit, and a member of these peoples is an Inuit. —Michael Z. 2008-11-17 05:21 z
 * Alas! I can well believe that the Canadian (i.e., correct) usage is not the only one. I think we can safely label the “an Inuit” and “many Inuits” uses in reference to people as non-standard. What about the uses referring to the different languages? Would it be more correct to say *undefined:? (Inuktitut: looks plural to me; I know almost nothing about the grammar of Inuktitut, but I’m guessing that nouns with -k: or -q: endings are singular, whereas those with -t: endings are plural. Then again, the etymology section of undefined: seems to say that in Inuktitut, undefined: is an adjective meaning “like the Inuit”, or something like that…) Thoughts? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Plural of Inuk
A new discussion is taking place here. - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Little silly to link to my talk page. Let's just do it here.

 * At 05:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC), Sche wrote:
 * Thanks for adding the Inuktitut ᐃᓄᐃᑦ! :) I don't think I agree with your recent edits to the English entry on the Inuit, though. Did you possibly misunderstand definition 1? "Any of several Aboriginal peoples of coastal Arctic Canada, Alaska, and Greenland" means "Any one [group of people] of the several groups of people living in coastal arctic North America", not "Any one individual person from the several groups of people". "Inuk" is currently defined as referring to "A member...", so I think the sense which is the plural of Inuk is, in fact, the second sense, "the collective members of one of these peoples" (which is thus not improper at all).
 * I didn't misunderstand anything, but you may have. The first sense is the plural of inuk — their native name, used to describe the peoples in Canada and Greenland, simply means "The More-than-One-Human-Being" and is the plural of inuk — and the second (using the word "People" to describe a single inuk) is simply wrong (per the prestige dialects of Inuit in Canada and Greenland) or questionable (it follows English treatment of some other groups, but the growing tendency in pedanty academia is to generally favor correct usage across languages unless some English usage is absolutely established). LlywelynII (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 * To slightly muddy the waters, it's my understanding that at least some Inuit languages have a dual case, so that one inuk and another inuk taken together are neither inuk nor inuit but some other form entirely. (Probably safe to ignore that, of course).

 * More importantly, reading the conversation above, apparently American dictionaries do employ "Inuit" for a single inuk. So (Nonstandard) or (American English)? LlywelynII (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The definition “individual members” is poorly worded, and so unclear as to number. And wouldn't it be clearer to separate the collective proper noun from the plural common noun:

 * Collective noun for the Inuit race.
 * The Inuit are a northern people.
 * Plural form of Inuk'''.
 * Two Inuit walked into a bar.
 * (nonstandard) Inuk. Plural varies.
 * Two Inuit(s) walked into a bar and met another Inuit.

 * The singular inuit can also be analyzed as an adjective or adjectival noun, like the singular “a Chinese.”

 * He is an Inuit man. He is Inuit. The Inuit put on his mukluks. Her Inuit friends.

 * —Michael Z. 2012-04-29 20:48 z

title: Talk:Inuit


text:
Talk:olden

Tea room discussion
Is this adjective only ever used with plural nouns? And is that the reason for the -en ending? SemperBlotto 08:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The OED Online says, "orig[inally] and chiefly in olden days:, undefined:", but it has a number of quotations with other subjects, including singular ones. And, it doesn't have a single explanation for the undefined: ending. It says that it might be a reflex of Old English (dative plural) — against which is a period when the phrase is attested with normal Middle English  — or that the undefined: might be there to conserve the trisyllabic structure by protecting the undefined: from being dropped. Either way, they say that the word was then "perhaps" generalized to other contexts, and that it the end is now "perhaps" understood as having the same -en: as golden:, wooden:, etc. —Ruakh TALK 15:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 * As in “made of old”? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Heh, I guess. Now that "golden" no longer means "made of gold", and "wood" can be used exactly like "wooden", I think the suffix has become kind of vague, imprecise, perhaps metaphorical. So a better gloss might be simply "old", or maybe "oldish". :-P  —Ruakh TALK 00:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, not in all cases; cf., , , &c., wherein the suffix unambiguously retains its original “made of…” meaning. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Unless British usage is different from American usage, I think you might falling prey to the "I know it, so everyone does" fallacy. You know that "silken" means "made of silk" because "-en" means "made of"; but since "silk" also means "made of silk" (as in ), with "silken" being a bit more old-fashioned-sounding, "-en" is basically just an old-fashioned redundant suffix on certain adjectives. Given that, it's easy to take "olden" as one of those adjectives, even though etymologically it's not. —Ruakh TALK 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, yes, but, , and all only mean “made of silk’, leather’, and silver”, respectively. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Funnily enough, my argument was presuming that (when I described -en as redundant), but I've done some b.g.c. searches now, and I have to dispute that. Of the first ten hits at (to bypass all the last-name hits), seven are using it of speech (either speech in general, or a specific person's, most in explicit reference to an old proverb that speech is silvern but silence is golden), one of a tariff, one of "the world", and one to mean "made of silver". Of the next ten, a greater proportion are literal, but still only half and half. It's possible that in attributive use (which my search would miss) it primarily means "made of silver", but it certainly doesn't only mean that. Likewise, the hits at  seem mostly to mean "leathery" or "reminiscent of leather", rather than literally "made of leather", and the hits at  use it to describe hair, people, and non-silk clothes.  seems to mean "smooth as silk"; and one thesaurus called The Synonym Finder gives "silken" alongside "satiny" as a (near-)synonym for "slick". —Ruakh TALK 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Heh. I stand corrected. And, thinking about it,, , and refute me further. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Interesting stuff. To answer SB's question, it is sometimes used with non-plural forms.  "In (the) olden time" was formerly reasonably common.  Ƿidsiþ 17:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tidbit
The trivia tidbit that is missing here is that 'old' in ME was also noun meaning old folks the olden or ancient times — likely a carryover from OE on ealdum dagum.
 * Send æfter þine wiue & æfter þine children, þan ᵹungen & þan olden.

It was also a plural adjectiv. Why does this plural form still stand when ouren (our) and eyen (eyes) fell out? (But oxen stayed.) It may be owing to it was both a plural noun and a plural adjectiv form ... or it just may be that folks like it! --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 22:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a noun in Middle English, it was a nominalized adjective. Just as "the old" isn't really a noun, just an adjective doing noun duty. The difference is clear from grammar: A nominalized adjective inflects like a normal adjective both in Middle and Modern English. Sorry for being a smartarse, but I've always felt strongly about this :) --- Now, when it comes to the survival of irregular forms, there are several factors at play including frequency, semantic field, and phonetics. I think the last may be relevant in the case of "olden". It's probably not accidental that the two words with which "olden" has always been mainly combined, "day" and "time", both start with an alveolar plosive. "Olden days" and "olden times" avoid the awkward gemination in "old days", "old times". Of course, one may ask: If that mattered here, why didn't it matter otherwise? But that's just how it goes. The point is that for a while you had the choice to say "in the old days" or "in the olden days", just as you had the choice to say "in the old houses" or "in the olden houses". Generally the language went with the short forms, but "olden days", "olden times" became fossiled expressions, and their phonetic advantage probably assisted this process. 90.186.72.227 04:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:olden


text:
Talk:immunization

Tea room discussion
We have immunizations but immunization says uncountable. Should it be both countable and uncountable, just countable or just uncountable? RJFJR 03:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a sense. Reasonable?—msh210 ℠ 04:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The definition added is certainly reasonable:
 * "The process by which an individual is exposed to a material that is designed to prime his or her immune system against that material."
 * But, as I read it, the emboldened words may make the definition read as countable. I would like this to be discussed a bit so that I can do a better job in this area, which continues to give me trouble. As I see it each use of "a" risks making the definition seem countable. I think the following is clearly uncountable:
 * "The process by which individuals are exposed to materials that prime the immune system against infectious agents."
 * Is it necessary to do this "a"-nectomy to make a definition truly uncountable? DCDuring TALK 10:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, to some extent countability is independent of meaning — consider shrub/shrubbery, sign/signage, letter/mail, chair/furniture, knife/cutlery, and so on — so the only surefire to indicate that a sense is countable or uncountable is to tag it so. (I do think we should try for gloss definitions that retain certain properties of the headword, such as countability — I think it makes it easier for readers to assimilate the information, especially since many readers won't know the term "countable" — but I don't think it's necessary.) —Ruakh TALK 14:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, but you cannot correctly define shrubbery as "a" shrub or "a" bush or "a" plant, and so on for each of the pairs. For words that may have both countable and uncountable senses it seems to me important to make the uncountable sense clearly uncountable. I don't object to a lack of precision for those cases where a sense is labelled "uncountable and countable". I still find that we have many cases where something is labeled uncountable (at the sense level) when it is often used uncountably with that meaning. Often people do have good intuitions that a word has one (or more) uncountable sense, but the definition given does not reflect that. Sometimes the effort to define something uncountably reveals that the word is more often used countably beyond the world of textbooks. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I agree. I don't have a good solution to offer. —Ruakh TALK 23:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * While I agree that a-nectomy is a good idea, I also agree that it's not necessary, and "The process by which individuals are exposed to materials that prime the immune system against infectious agents" doesn't specify that the material introduced is the one being primed against (although it may be obvious).—msh210 ℠ 06:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * As I understand it, not all (any?) immunisations use the exact same material as the target. That may be the intent in some cases, but often the target mutates. In other cases the vaccination agent is known to be merely a cost-effective approximation to the target. From wp: "Artificial active immunization is where the microbe, or parts of it, are injected into the person before they are able to take it in naturally. If whole microbes are used, they are pre-treated. Depending on the type of disease, this technique also works with dead microbes, parts of the microbe, or treated toxins from the microbe." Note the variety of derived materials that are used. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone, somewhere, will find a way to make an English sentence which counts any uncountable noun.

Why don't we rename these properties mass noun and count noun, implying that that is their prevailing usage? The current usage (“uncountable”) seems absolute and practically prescriptive. —Michael Z. 2008-11-16 18:48 z

 * I'm afraid that to most non-native speakers such renaming would still imply the usage, not the prevailing usage. --Duncan MacCall 21:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm torn on this issue. "Mass noun" and "count noun" seem to be a bit more common among linguists today, but they're cumbersome for use in context labels, because "mass" is unintelligible, "mass noun" isn't the right part of speech, and "as a mass noun" is a bit unwieldy. Your argument doesn't work for me personally — I don't perceive "uncountable" as absolute, though logically I do see why you would perceive it that way (unqualified "un…able" is usually absolute) — but if there are other readers who also perceive it the way you do, then that would sway me. —Ruakh TALK 23:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Did you mean "other" to be besides just MZajac and Duncan Macall? I thought I'd made my opinion on the absoluteness of "not comparable" clear perhaps too often previously. The idea of pushing the "uncountable" tag out of the inflection line to the sense line is a good one that doesn't force more change than people can accept. If we had a way of making clear what an "uncountable" gloss should look like, I'd have thought we could avoid the worst confusions. DCDuring TALK 00:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I mean "other" to be besides just Mzajac. (Does Duncan MacCall view "mass noun" as less absolute than "uncountable"? I can't tell.) —Ruakh TALK 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that was exactly my point: if I take "uncounable" to be absolute (unless eg exceptions for particular senses are mentioned) than just changing that tag to "mass noun" doesn't make it any less absolute in my eyes. --Duncan MacCall 07:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm in favour of normally placing an uncountable tag on the sense line. As DCDuring (and others) have pointed out, most uncountable nouns can be cited in a countable sense, or have a second gloss which is countable. So to put uncountable in the inflection line is equivalent to stating that "this word is never under any circumstances countable". As for "mass noun". Understand it, but don't like it, particularly in a dictionary. Why? Because of the word "mass" It seems OK to use to distinguish between e.g. "chicken (mass (unquantified amount of) noun sense)" and "a chicken (bird sense)". But how can e.g. "music" be considered as a "mass"? -- A LGRIF  talk 09:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * One of my dictionaries includes senses of mass as “a large quantity or amount of something”. In this sense mass quite naturally quantifies both tangibles like sand and intangibles like music, time, poetry, smarts, good will, quiet.

 * I understand that uncountable is just a label with a conventional sense. But the word is a flat-out statement of impossibility, and just comes across as inaccurate. And not just when you consider that individual senses may be countable: most terms or senses which are clearly mass nouns (in the “uncountable” category) can be and are counted.

 * I also don't think recommending using it only on sense lines is a satisfactory solution:
 * It will keep showing up in many inflection lines, especially since the template en-noun explicitly displays it
 * It is not sensible to apply a label to multiple senses, when it blanket applies to the term

 * —Michael Z. 2008-11-18 17:03 z

 * My point, (and I believe DCD champions this cause) is that it should not be in the inflection line at all. Only in the sense line. And I think you probably agree also, as "blanket" application is almost always incorrect. But really, this discussion should be on BP. (I seem to remember it has been already there more than once). -- A LGRIF  talk 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Even so, “uncountable” is often applied to a sense which, though usually uncounted, is still countable. —Michael Z. 2008-11-19 18:52 z

 * I think "mass" in the sense of "mass noun" has little to do with "a large quantity or amount". You can talk about "a mass of people", and conversely, I agree with Algrif that "a mass of music" is awkward at best. "Mass noun" is a fixed expression, independent of its etymology, just as "uncountable" is. I'm not sure why you're so happy to twist the meaning of "mass" to explain "mass noun" away, yet so unwilling to acknowledge that "uncountable" could possibly mean something besides "absolutely never countable". —Ruakh TALK 20:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * When I first encountered mass noun it seemed intuitive that it referred to something that was amassed, or accumulated as a single mass rather than in discrete units (there's no suggestion to use the phrase a mass of music).

 * But every time I read un- countable, I equate it with “not countable”, even though I may prefer a full-fat milk, experience passionate loves, or dislike the East-Coast damp.  The plain meaning of the word directly contradicts a fact of the term it describes. —Michael Z. 2008-11-19 18:52 z

 * You're definitely entitled to your impressions and intuitions, but I don't share all of them. For me the sentence “One cannot count the noun milk:” sounds like absolute nonsense — not true, not false, just meaningless — so I feel no urge to interpret “The noun milk: is uncountable” as meaning it. Further, the suffix -able: doesn't always pertain to ability or possibility; it often pertains to suitability or fitness. —Ruakh TALK 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * BTW, I agree that "uncountable" means "not countable"; I just don't interpret "countable" the same way you do. —Ruakh TALK 20:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:immunization


text:
Talk:cowboys and Indians

Tea room discussion
Both capitalized, or only the Indians? SemperBlotto 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The only combination I didn't see in a scan of b.g.c. was "Cowboys and indians". The most common seemed to be "cowboys and Indians". DCDuring TALK 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How is the game played?
Entry gives no detail at all. Equinox ◑ 08:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I always remember it as a mixture of chase and and hide/seek. Maybe mock battles thrown in. --Dmol (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:cowboys and Indians


text:
Talk:ref

Tea room discussion
ref has three definitions, two presented as abbreviations and one as a noun - but the noun is defined as "short form of referee. Is there any reason why that would not be just a third abbreviation? bd2412 T 02:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * maybe it's because ref is also a word in its own right, in that you can actually say 'ref' in spoken English. In contrast to, say, Chap (as in Chapter).--BodegasAmbite 10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The other shortenings (for "reference" and "refectory") are more rarely spoken than "ref" for "referree". In my old-fashioned, wasteful U.S. way I would write the first two with a period but not the third. But in discussing preparing documents, I personally have said "refs", meaning references. The modern European approach to punctuation-less orthography for abbreviations eliminates such petty distinctions. Since we have so little usage in the US anyway and may be trending away from a US-oriented approach, I don't feel qualified to address this beyond providing the facts. DCDuring TALK 11:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:ref


text:
Talk:f.

Tea room discussion
Is this English or should it be translingual? It is used in German as well, at least. Same with ff. H. (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd suggest adding a separate German heading, since they are respective abbreviations of following and folgende (cf. folgen). I can't find anything linked from WT:ELE to confirm that this is the right way to do it, though. —Michael Z. 2008-11-22 19:15 z

 * FYI it's certainly not used in Czech, not AFAIK in other Slavic languages. --Duncan MacCall 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok, then this simply means German is missing, I’ll add it to Wiktionary:Requested entries:German. H. (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:f.


text:
Talk:pp.

Tea room discussion
Needs usage notes on when and how used. Also, I think some senses are missing, compare with German version. I would propose that even for entries like this, pronunciation information is given, be it saying it is not pronounced. H. (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is pronounced, just not the same way it is spelled. If I read the sentence "Copy pp. 32-35." I will say "Copy pages thirty-two to thirty-five."  Saying that pp. is "not pronounced" would be incorrect.  The pronunciation simply depends upon the meaning.  We might want to use a standard template for the pronunciation section of abbreviations that explains this point simply. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Usage
pp. precedes when citing a page range, e.g., pp. 32-35.

When giving a book's page count, does it precede or follow? pp. 210, or 210 pp.?

Varlaam (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge / redirect?
Merge with or redirect to/from "p.p."? —DIV (120.18.65.198 00:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC))

title: Talk:pp.


text:
Talk:womanfully

Tea room discussion
The word exists (though rare). I have included one example from a Trollope novel in a quote in manfully. But a good definition eludes me. Help required, please. :-) -- A LGRIF  talk 15:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * womanful exists too, so perhaps make an article for that (based on definition for manful); then womanfully is "in a womanful fashion". Equinox 16:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Thx. I've had a crack at both. -- A LGRIF  talk 13:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:womanfully


text:
Talk:like unto

Tea room discussion
I am almost convinced that this expression means "similar to", I encountered it twice in one of Carlyle's works - In the Heavens, in the Earth, in the Waters, under the Earth, is none like unto thee. and Truly, the first condition is indispensable, That Wisdom be there: but the second is like unto it, is properly one with it. Is it worth creating a new entry for it or it would be proposed for deletion if so? Is the meaning verily similar to - I was unable to find it explained in any dictionary whichsoever and unto means either to or until? Bogorm 10:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, like = similar and unto = to. It's an archaic but still relatively prominent construction (due to the KJV et al.), and since it is rather opaque to the modern user perhaps it should have an entry.  -- Visviva 11:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Accomplished. Do you prefer the tag archaic or dated? Bogorm 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Me, archaic, FWIW.—msh210 ℠  18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Me 2. I would say it was probably a self-conscious archaism even in Carlyle's day. -- Visviva 02:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:like unto


text:
Talk:go nuts

Tea room discussion
Hello all, what does it mean when someone tells me "go nuts" ? Example here. It is probably different from the meaning "he goes nuts". I could find none of those meanings on the nuts article. Thanks ! Nicolas1981 11:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 * It means go ahead. It's the same slang meaning of nuts (crazy), as though you're being given permission to do anything you want. Equinox 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I often get the impression that the speaker can't see why the person seeking permission would want to do the action, but permits it because there is little harm. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your helpful answers :-) Nicolas1981 05:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

mad crazy or mad angry
Become mad in what sense? Angry or crazy? The Language Learner (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:go nuts


text:
Talk:nihilarian

Tea room discussion
The same people I was talking to above reckon that nihilist: is the only one that is correct in the UK. Thryduulf 13:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Bishop Berkeley is the apparent coiner. I have made an entry at Nihilarian. His use of the word is often cited in commentaries. I think that might make it a well-know work. As to the entry, it doesn't seem accurate. I find mostly mentions. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Going on the only citation præsent in our entry for, it is incorrectly defined — it is quite clearly a use of the word as a plural (and thus, common) noun; the citation supports an entry for defined as “Plural form of Nihilarian.” whose lemma should be defined as “An adhærent of Nihilarianism; a nihilist.” or somesuch. As for the UK/US issue: FWIW, I’m an UKian and have never heard this word before; for me, the only valid word is . †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 * There is basically only one user of term, the famous Bishop, apparently in works not intended for print. He used it solely to make fun of some mathematicians who dealt with trivialities, in his opinion. I really can't find terribly much usage to base any other definition. Those second-tier dictionaries that have tried to define it, define it as here. DCDuring TALK 20:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we then mark it as ? 93.97.214.183 21:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:nihilarian


text:
Talk:culb

Tea room discussion
This has been up on the wanted words list for several days now. I've Googled it all to heck, and all I find are surnames and "club" misspelled. I'm inclined to think this isn't a word at all, but just a misspelling of club. If it was unsigned, I must have made an error. The entry was mine. -- Pinkfud 16:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the sheer number of Google returns, I think this qualifies as a common misspelling. --EncycloPetey 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we differentiate between typos and misspellings? This kind of transposition mistake can only be a typo. — hippietrail 18:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the sheer number of Google returns which are typos for "club" (353,000 hits), this merits an entry. It is an extremely common slip-of-the-keys, and is likely to confuse people for whom English is not their first language. --EncycloPetey 16:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I put this on the project-wanted articles queue as an import from a Wikipedia article, where it is defined as some sort of type of glass. Over here, it is now defined as a misspelling of club. I don't think we allow misspelling entries for slip-of-the-keys sort of things, what should be done about this? Teh Rote 03:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Cullet, perhaps? I found no reference to glass in Google searches for "culb". -- Pinkfud 11:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 * From List of English words without rhymes:
 * "bulb, assumed to rhyme with culb, an obsolete word attested from 1683 for a glass distillation vessel"
 * I haven't been able to find anything to verify that though. Thryduulf 21:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in the OED. Couple of cites, both rare, both from the same author.  Very obsolete.  Ƿidsiþ 21:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Unless there are more cites out there than are given in the OED, this doesn't meet CFI; it should be moved to Citations:culb. -- Visviva 05:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * If this word is in the OED, it should be considered a word and kept in the dictionary.

RFV discussion: March–June 2016
Per the talk page, this has only been used by one author (centuries ago). - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:culb


text:
Talk:sausage

Tea room discussion
Shouldn't "hotdog" appear under "related terms"? It's basically a kind of sausage, isn't it? Rklawton 14:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a kind os sausage - but it is not related to the word sausage: so mustn't be listed as related. SemperBlotto 14:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen some entries with hyponym and hypernym sections, so that would work — unless those sections are deprecated? Equinox 16:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Nope, hypernym and hyponym sections are fine ... but I fear the "Hyponyms" section for sausage could be extremely long. -- Visviva 03:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:sausage


text:
Talk:strip down

Tea room discussion
What do you think about this (from Indonesian National Revolution ) :

 * in english : the Dutch parliament ratified a stripped down version of the treaty
 * in french : le parlement néerlandais ratifia une version dépouillée du traité

thks Serpicozaure (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:strip down


text:
Talk:at least

Tea room discussion
More definitions needed I think, which arent with numbers. at least if I don't add them already. --Jackofclubs 13:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The two definitions given seem sufficient ... what other uses are you thinking of? -- Visviva 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

But the best reason I was given (at least that I could understand),
What meaning is used in a sentence such as But the best reason I was given (at least that I could understand) ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

at the very least
How should the entry of, for example, at the very least show its discontinuous relation to the idiom at least? Maybe at the very least ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:at least


text:
Talk:Pickanese

Tea room discussion
T o W hom(soever) I t M ay C oncern ,

I was just reading Growing Up Asian in Australia by Alice Pung, Alice Pung (ed) - 2008. In it I came across the unfamiliar word, Pickanese printed twice. I assumed based on the commensurate pronunciation with Pekinese, a common* variant of Pekingese, that it was another spelling I had not come across before.

On searching for verification, it was neither on W iki P edia nor W ik T ionary but a quick google gave me 757 pages using the word. The top ten seemed to refer to Pekingeses as I expected. I made a redirect on WP for confused readers.

Before writing a WT page, I did a [http://books.google.com/books?q=Pickanese&btnG=Search+Books g oogle. b ooks. c om ] to check its prevalence in print. The only item that came up was exactly the same book.

Given that the book is new and faithfully records colloquialisms, I would understand the situation if the websites from the googling were purely Australian, but instead AU, CA, & US sites are found in the top ten alone, so I find it hard to attribute such to the one 2008 print source as it is only 2008 now. Besides the book refers to an event in the 1980's or before, so I doubt it is purely a nonce word, rather than a semi-common misspelling even if it feels like a neologism.

Either way, I feel a little funny trying to trawl the googling for two additional, suitable references to match the gbc. Is it worth it? Will users delete the page automatically based on such a low gbc count?

 * N ota B ene, Pekinese is not currently on WT but it is right at the beginning of the WP page, Pekingese, which makes sense as both terms probably came from the Portuguese pequinês based on Pequim + pt:-ês (Peking + -ese / la:-ensis).

Sincerely, :)--Thecurran 14:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Excepting the book you mention, I only find the term as a not-so-common misspelling of Pekinese (a recognised variant of Pekingese) on Google Groups (and on the Web where one can find numerous non-words and errors). DCDuring TALK 16:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pickanese


text: Category:Tea room archives/2008/11

title: Category:Tea room archives/2008/11